Billy's occasional blog

Russell's Teapot

2010-12-25T15:43:00.000-08:00

Bertrand Russell Makes a nice case that a Deity can not be good and uses his "teapot" analogy to demonstrate the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

I find it interesting that he uses the "add on" that it is too small to see - which is OK in this example as he is arguing that an inability to disprove something is not evidence that something exists. This however is the type of protective strategy that is often employed by religious apologists when their argument is destroyed. They keep adding things on to protect their conclusion when in fact, they should be arguing for their belief.
An example would be the morality argument - you know the one: there is good in the world, therefore god is good (if you allow for him to exist for the sake of argument). You point out gas chambers, genocide and cancer and claim that god is either evil or does not care about human welfare. They now claim god has a purpose, often involving phrases like "free will", so evil is allowed. This of course has no evidence to back it up. It's just an idea created to protect a pre-conceived conclusion. Instead of deriving something of the nature of god (again assuming he exists for the purpose of argument) it becomes a "justification" to protect their viewpoint. A viewpoint that does not stand up to scrutiny. You may then counter that "free will" (if we have it) has nothing to do with things like children being born deformed. A common response to this is that the whole universe is polluted by "sin". Again, this "protects" the belief that god is good, but provides no supporting evidence that "sin" (something I don't believe exists) has polluted everything. So, the believer just heaps more and more unsupported claims on top of each other to protect that which they already "know" to be true because that is what one interpretation of their "holy book" says must be so. The whole thing becomes a convoluted mess, The best that can be hoped for is a consistent theology - just like you can also have consistent fairy tales too.

(I had only intended to post the video and appear to have gone on a bit of theology bashing :-) )

I am aware there are other variations of these arguments. So, before anyone shouts"strawman", please explain your arguments and state why they are more grounded in reality and and evidentially supported than these common Christian arguments that you will find all over the Internet.

Joseph Ratzinger is an Enemy of Humanity

2010-09-19T04:37:00.000-07:00

The Pope's recent comment about secularism and Nazism have really angered me - and many others, including Christians. I think the anger that this has caused is evidence enough that secularists don't identify with Hitler. The catholic church on the other hand:

A list of Hitler's religious quotes can be found here. Let's not forget that he was a member of the catholic church; he never left and more importantly, he was never excommunicated. Not surprising as Ratzinger thinks Holocaust denial is OK and presumably Pius XII thought genocide was OK too as he frequently restrained himself from speaking out over fears for the church's power base.

Over to Dawkins. No doubt the faithful will ignore the deep moral outrage here and not engage with the fact that condoms save lives etc....

Tim Minchin sums up how I feel right now.

Summing Up and Moving On?

2010-06-30T12:56:00.000-07:00

I've grown somewhat weary of the whole god thing and come to the conclusion that the only thing that will make me believe in the Christian god is if he actually appears. I've reached the point where I consider the arguments for his existence rather pathetic and not worth wasting too much time on any more. This is after all supposedly a being that wants to be in relationship with us. A being who is supposedly his own father and son, who sent himself on a nonsensical suicide mission to make this relationship possible. This is a god who supposedly weeps for the "lost" and the best "evidence" for his existence is a book that is full of inconsistencies, laughable inaccuracies, failed prophecies, non prophecies and contradictions. Then there is the "fine tuning" argument, based on incomplete knowledge of the universe. Surely, the best we can ask there is "why are the constants what they are?" Anything else is just an opinion and not open to investigation. So, I see it as a lack of evidence for a designer, not evidence for or against.

The "moral argument" is no better. It can at best provide a consistent idea (but often doesn't when talking to theists) it gives no reason to believe in a supernatural law giver. It is always good to challenge believers on the morality of homosexuality here. They will claim (falsely) that I recognise "god's laws" because I may agree that murder and rape are wrong for example (although, where they get such notions from reading the bible is beyond me). The problem comes when I point out that I don't believe homosexuality is evil - if I recognise god's laws, why do I not have a problem with gays? At this point they usually have to resort to assuming that on this particular issue, my heart is hardened - after all, it can't possibly be the case that they have no case for their belief in absolute moral values - can it?

I have written much against creationism. That is just so wrong that any mention of a god who suddenly "poofed" animals into existence and caused a global flood is not even worth considering as a possibility. Life is too short to spend dismantling the lies every time a creotard pops up spouting the festering shite and lies about evolution from some retarded crackpot fundie site of brain damaged madness.

Anyway, I've gone into much more detail elsewhere about everything, there is nothing more to be said other than thank you to everyone who has read my posts and contributed to discussions and general banter here.

I will continue to be fascinated with nature and evolution unhindered with the burden of dealing with fundigelicals. I may even be prompted to write from time to time on important discoveries. I'll probably even start posting more hillwalking and climbing photos. This is my current project:

Words can't begin to convey how bloody hard it is (it's first ascent took 100 days!).

me fannying about on "pressure".

Cool picture of Steve on Chowbok (Sea boulder at Dumbarton Rock)

Comment moderation is on because I keep getting a lot of Chinese spam at the moment.

PS, I'll still be popping by the usual blogs and injecting a healthy dose of reality on a few Christian blogs - sorry to dissapoint :-)

The South Cluanie Ridge

2010-03-21T05:28:00.000-07:00

My friend Paul made this totally awesome slide show video of the South Cluanie Ridge. It was a trip I had organised, but injury prevented me from going - enjoy

Avalanches on Mars

2010-03-16T08:32:00.000-07:00

This amazing photo shows a rock and ice avalanche on the surface of Mars. It is part of an image that captures 4 such events. The cliff is about 700 m high and the reflective white material is Carbon Dioxide frost.

More information and other great photos can be found here

Open Questions

2010-02-20T04:00:00.000-08:00

The more I think about it, the less the term supernatural makes any sense. So, can anyone give me a definition of it that does not require natural premises? Also, what makes it outside nature?

Nurse! Todd Bentley Has Escaped Again

2010-02-20T03:54:00.000-08:00

Does anyone know this person's carer?

Sometimes the correct response is to just point and laugh (Thanks to SG for the link)

The Tired Old Christian Rapist Wife Beater Question Exposed

2010-02-14T04:58:00.000-08:00

As you may have noticed, I’ve gotten somewhat bored of the stupidity of Christians. I've been spending much of my spare time climbing and reading about science (paricularly evolutionary and Geology). However, the weird ideas of a guy called Steve C over at Lee’s place have prompted me to write this. His position is a typical one. We feel moral obligations, therefore, these come from god, therefore god exists (his god to be specific – not Hindu or Greek gods, but his god). He dropped the classic when did you stop beating your wife question:

“Great. Just for the record, you don’t think there are any moral OUGHTS?
You don’t think we OUGHT not rape or torture people just for fun?
When is rape o.k. Billy? Tell me.
Just want to be sure.” Great. Just for the record, you don’t think there are any moral OUGHTS?
You don’t think we OUGHT not rape or torture people just for fun?
When is rape o.k. Billy? Tell me.
Just want to be sure.”

A bizarre question because all I said was

“That is an un argued for statement - evidence please.
Why do Christians capitalise OUGHT? What is OUGHT?”

In response to his empty statement that evolution can not generate “OUGHT”. Needless to say, he couldn’t defend his position – only make some more empty claims.

To give some background, like many Christians, he believes that there are unbendable moral laws that are external to us and independent of us. These are dependent on the nature of god (this raises the Euthyphro dilemma though) and that we somehow tune in to this.

Christians often use this question in debates to emotionally influence people. If someone claims that rape is not wrong in the absolute terms above, then the Christian tries to claim the moral high ground – look at the evil atheist, we all know rape is wrong, but he says its not.

If someone agrees that rape is wrong, the Christian then tries to claim victory – after all, there must be a law (of course, even if there was a law, that does not mean god provides it)

Of course, when one says rape is not “wrong”, all that is being stated is that we don’t believe it is wrong in the sense that there is a god who says it is wrong. It can be wrong culturally and biologically. Natural selection could be against rape and our sense of morality is a biological mechanism that prevents us acting in “immoral ways”. This would provide the appearance of a law, where in fact there is none (in the theistic sense). We can then say that rape is wrong in a biological sense that is enforced through a moral compass – the rudiments of which are found in other animals. This can be explained by reciprocal altruism and is reflected in teachings such as treat others like your self (which, incidentally, Confucius came up with over 500 years before “Jesus” did).

Christians don’t seem to like it though when you change things slightly to “is it ever right to kill babies or gays?” – two things god commands in the bible (Joshua, 6:16-17, Leviticus 20:13). This demonstrates that these so called immutable laws that the Christian claims we tap in to are in fact culturally relative and not absolute at all.

One final point, when a Christian appeals to such laws, ask him to show that it is not him imposing these laws on his “god” – that should be good for a laugh.

Oh, and for some strange reason Steve (who doesn't understand the term biological fitness) seems to think we should be able to see someones thoughts if there is no soul - I shit you not!

Awesome: Dan Osman Soloing Lover's Leap

2010-01-18T16:01:00.000-08:00

What Every Creationist Has to Deny

2010-01-17T13:24:00.000-08:00

A while ago, I was composing a list about what you would have to deny to believe in creationism. It became very long and dry, so I never posted it. This video however is much more pleasant to follow:

They also have to deny gravity:

Tasmanian Devils And The Evolution Of a New Species Of Parasitic Tumour

2010-01-04T12:48:00.000-08:00

Creationists love to misrepresent evolution and have an inordinate fondness for strawmen. These include:

1. Evolutionary change requires in increase in “genomic information”
2. Evolution only occurs within “kinds”
3. Speciation does not occur (incompatible with 2).

Number 1 would imply that genome size correlates with complexity. It does not. The largest known genome belongs to the single celled Amoeba dubia at about 600 billion base pairs. This is 200 times larger than our own genome. Even the lungfish Protopterus aethiopicus has a genome 50 times larger than ours. See here for phyletic comparisons .

This strawman also ignores the reality that some genes such as Abd-a can inhibit the development of complex structures such as abdominal appendages in invertebrates. Furthermore, subtle changes in regulatory sequences can affect morphological development that is controlled by genes already present. An example would be the expression of Bmp2 in the developing forelimb of bats .

One final problem for creationists is that natural or experimental deletions of parts (or the whole) of Alx-4 (loss of “information”) increases digit number in mammalian limbs – ie, less “information”, greater “complexity”.

Number 2 is just absurd as the spatio-temporal distribution of any number of transitional fossils shows. The creationist concept of “kind” is also confused.

Number 3. It happens! Deal with it creationists!

Now to the point, Jerry Coyne has posted this fascinating summary of work on tumours of Tasmanian Devils. It is significant because the tumours seem to have originated in an individual Tasmanian Devil and are now transferred from individual to individual by bite. Thus, making it a new species of parasite that is derived from the host species. It has obvious implications for all three points above. It is well worth a read.

Happy New Year

2010-01-03T09:49:00.000-08:00

The Cobbler (aka Ben Arthur) from Ben Lomond on Friday

Happy New year

The Evidential Problem of Evil

2009-11-23T09:24:00.000-08:00

One of the most frustrating things about reading many theistic arguments is their need to take things in isolation and hold it up as evidence that their god has properties “X”,”Y” or “Z”. Apart from the fact they are ignoring all that evidence that contradicts their claim, they make the mistake of assuming such qualities can only come from a deity.

The loving god that many Christians believe in is one particular example that leaves me wondering why the Christians cant see the problem. They usually quote things like rainbows, flowers, medicine and your favourite food as evidence that god is a loving one. I then feel compelled to point out flood, carnivorous plants, disease and poisonous organisms. Much in the same way that Darwin wrote: “I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.”

At the end of the day, for something to survive, something else has to suffer – be it a parasite eating the living flesh of its host, or me eating a cheeseburger. The bottom line is that something must die for me to live. It is this fact that Christians overlook in their arguments.

Stephen Law exemplified this brilliantly in a recent post about the fine-tuning argument where he made a comparison with a concentration camp. He wrote:” Alister’s [McGrath] position, it seems to me, is like that of someone who wanders into a concentration camp, notes the stoves designed to provide meals and warmth and the mattresses designed for sleeping on, and concludes that not only was this camp designed by an intelligence with some interest in sustaining human life, it actually “points towards” a wonderfully loving and benevolent designer.”

We would never assume that a place where there is so much evil as there is in a concentration camp was evidence of a designer who had the captives best interest at heart. Why then do Christians feel that a planet where people can and do build concentration camps is evidence that there is a loving god?

At best, all that can be claimed is that the universe points to a god who is indifferent about human suffering. Christians then get in all sorts of knots trying to explain away this “evil”. Arguments then make assumptions about god’s nature and motives. These can not be backed up by observable facts – which was what the Christian was trying to do when he showed you a fluffy basket of puppies – ignoring the fact that there is a sack of kittens at the bottom of a canal somewhere.

Suffering is best explained by competitive survival between individuals and species.

Letter To the Metro: Exposing Creationist Lies

2009-10-05T07:25:00.000-07:00

There has been a flurry of creationist nonsense in the metro recently. The depressing thing is that it’s the same thoroughly refuted nonsense that keeps coming up. This time they have claimed that no transitional fossils exist and that speciation does not occur. As a result I got this letter published.

“Let me expose some creationist lies. 1. No transitional forms exist. This is rubbish! Transitions have been found for all major vertebrate groups. For example, for the evolution of whales, we have Sionyx, Pakicetus, Indohyus, Kutchicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodocentus, Miacetus, Protocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon, Squalodon and Ceitotherium to name a few. They have also been found in the right places in rocks of the right age and show a gradual progression to more whale like animals. Furthermore, DNA evidence confirms their relationship to the proposed ancestral group.

2. Speciation does not occur. This is another lie and it has actually been observed. Try the Madeira island house mouse for example.

Creationists have no evidence of their own and rely on promoting the above lies and then denying the facts. Strangely, they think their ignorance of biology is evidence of their position.”

One has to wonder how these people have bypassed all the evidence at school and seem to quote lies and ignorance from fundamentalist sites. Is it a failure of our education system? They are very easy to shoot down though, but that won’t make a difference to them. I expect replies of “it’s still a mouse” (even though it is a new species) and the fossils are not complete (something I dealt with here) or the good old where are the transitional forms for the transitional forms? chestnut.

Concurrently, there is some joker claiming that Darwinism gave Hitler his justification – groan!

Flu For Jesus

2009-05-05T14:04:00.000-07:00

Young Earth Creationism Is a Pain

2009-04-28T13:09:00.000-07:00

I'm suffering from the cold just now and a simple refutation of the YEC position popped into my mind. If the Christian god supposedly created us in a perfect world with no pain or suffering, where Dinosaurs supposedly ate tofu , then why do we experience pain? Without going into the details, our bodies have complex pathways to perceive pain and produce painkillers (like endorphins). So, why can we feel pain and possess mechanisms to modulate it?

Closely associated with this is tissue damage. Why do we have complex repair mechanisms and the blood clotting cascade? Interestingly, Michael Behe claims that the blood clotting cascade is irreducibly complex and could not have evolved. Creationists want it both ways it seems. This idea is of course nonsense and is refuted here.

Here's an amusing if not painful song.

Zombie Jesus

2009-04-12T06:48:00.000-07:00

I've been pretty busy recently, but here's a little something to keep things ticking over. Let's hope that one day we discover a cure.

Metro: Follow Up Letter

2009-04-02T03:14:00.000-07:00

I thought I would follow up yesterday's letter and challenge the ideas of "normality" and "natural". I got this letter published today:

"To those still using the fallacious normality argument, I suggest that you google "lesbian Bonobos". Homosexuals can help raise the children of siblings - something also seen in nature. I presume you think infertile couples are bad people too? What about people wearing glasses or with congenital birth defects? Surely that's not normal. They must be bad people. There is also an Asian couple in my street. Everyone else is white. Therefore, they are not normal for the street. Should I gather an angry mob and hound them out of the street?"

I wonder if it will have any effect.

EDIT: Looks like bloggers formatting has gone all screwy again!

More Letters In Metro

2009-04-01T08:30:00.000-07:00

There have been a few religious bigots popping up in the letters page of the metro after this article appeared about trying to "cure" homosexuals. It's the usual it's unnatural or "it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" bollocks. I've commented on the "not natural argument" before. Anyway, I got this letter in today.

"Monday Man, am I to assume that the only reason you are a homophobe is because you actually believe a discredited bronze age fairy tale? One about a man and a woman who got punished for eating a fruit, even though they did not know what right and wrong was until after they ate it? As for the "arguments" about normality, that's the argument from democracy fallacy. It's a bit like saying gang rape is acceptable because 9 out of 10 participants report a positive experience of it."

Forward Planning Chimps

2009-03-10T14:16:00.000-07:00

I came across this interesting article. It shows that chimps can plan forward and that they have the ability to foresee particular mental states. This also implies that they are self aware. This is one of the last areas that the religious have clung on to in a vain attempt to claim that humans are somehow special and outwith the rest of nature.

Book Club Chapter 3: Immortal Genes.

2009-03-02T15:32:00.000-08:00

In this chapter, Carroll introduces a group of organisms called the Archaea and makes a good point about how the study of these obscure dwellers of hot springs has lead to a revolution in molecular biology and biotechnology, spawning a multi billion pound industry.

Part of the chapter deals with the basics of the genetic code (see here for more) and makes the point that some genes are shared between all major groups of organisms. These genes (about 500) are called immortal genes. Within the proteins encoded by
these genes, there are some “immortal” letters. These are basically amino specific amino acid residues that don’t vary and indicates a selective pressure to maintain these amino acids. He introduced a historical belief that by today’s standards seems obviously absurd – that it was once thought that mutation would rewrite the gene sequence over time. There reason that does not happen is because the functions of proteins are dictated by the chemical and physical properties of the amino acids that make them up. Some amino acids for example are essential for accepting or donating electrons or forming covalent bonds with other molecules. Similarly, some amino acids like proline are essential for sharp turns in the protein structure. So, the fact that some amino acids must not vary is not surprising. Because there is more than one way for DNA to encode a specific amino acid (see here), there is more mutational freedom in the DNA sequence than the protein sequence, and this can give a better idea of the relatedness of organisms.

Carroll ends the chapter by presenting evidence that the conventional view of life branching from a single common ancestor may not be true. He proposes that the Eukaryota (the group we belong to) probably arose from a fusion of the geneomes of a bacterial and an Archaean ancestor. He cites other examples of genome mixing such as horizontal gene transfer (a way to introduce new genetic information into organisms) and the endosymbiotic relationship between eukaryotic cells chloroplasts and mitochondria. Whether the bacteria Archaea have independent origins is still debatable though.

Book Club: Chapter 2: The Everyday Math of Evolution

2009-02-22T11:32:00.000-08:00

In this chapter, Carroll introduces the role of probability into evolutionary theory, although, he accidentally displays how probability is often misused. It may be true that the chance of being eaten by a shark is 1 in 300 million – if 300 million people actually exposed themselves to shark attack each year. In reality, it is only those who enter shark populated water that are actually at risk – therefore, the real risk to those putting themselves in harm’s way is actually higher. This may seem to be a minor point, but it serves as a reminder of the misuse of probabilities by creationists. They often build straw man arguments to claim that evolution is mathematically impossible – usually involving inane positions that pretend 300 amino acids randomly coming together to form a functional protein.

Carroll does however convincingly demonstrate using models and real studies that evolution can produce new traits in a population in a relatively short time. He cites the change in the peppered moth population from light coloured to dark coloured in response to environmental pollution darkening the trees. This has probably happened on at least 4 separate occasions, as there are 4 known different mutations that cause the dark phenotype. He also gives a more recent example of pigeon populations developing a white rump. This gives them an advantage when it comes to avoiding attack by falcons; perhaps by momentarily confusing the falcon as the pigeon rolls to avoid the attack.

The rate of change in the population is proportional to the selection coefficient, and his example of mouse populations becoming all black in less than 2000 years is discussed here. He makes the point that not all individuals survive and that this is determined by the advantage/disadvantage a particular gene confers on its owner. There is also some discussion about whether natural selection acts on small or large differences between organisms. He comes down on the side of small changes. However, I would argue that it acts on both, as small changes in genes can actually cause a big difference in a characteristic. An example would be the genes controlling the sizes of tomato plants.

He introduces the idea of plasticity in species at the start of the chapter (and its role in Darwin forming his ideas of evolution) and ends with listing some of the possible types of mutation that occur – insertions, deletions, inversions, duplications, cut and paste, single nucleotide substitutions etc and will discuss some of these later in relation to evolving new functions. He also attacks the notion that all mutations are harmful. Some are actually beneficial (see above and here) and some a neutral and have no effect on function. This latter type of mutation can be used to study the effect of selective pressures on the rates of gene changes – by providing a reference point to the effect of random cumulative mutation.

Spiders On Drugs

2009-02-20T13:18:00.000-08:00

The fact that drugs can affect personality and cognitive processes is good evidence against the idea that the mind is something other than physical. Anyway, here is an amusing video

I'll get the next chapter of the book club up by Sunday - the dog ate my computer.

Icy Ben Vane

2009-02-15T06:49:00.000-08:00

A friend took a couple of short videos on Ben Vane yesterday. They are linked here and here. As winter conditions go, these are quite mild. See here for a more serious version of winter conditions.

Book Club - Chapter 1

2009-02-11T16:48:00.000-08:00

In the preface and the first chapter, Carroll spells out his intentions for the book. He makes the point that DNA evidence is used in courts to convict criminals. This technology works because of subtle differences in the sequences of DNA amongst different individuals. These same differences when read as sequences can reveal relatedness amongst individuals too. The further back in time we go, the less we share with parents, grand parents and great grandparents. This time line goes all the way back to the hypothetical Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) of all species. The result is that the more related that we are to a species, the more similarity we have in our DNA sequences.

Carroll points out the main points of Darwinian evolution; that are descent with modification and the selection of the best adapted for the environment. This occurs through random mutations and selection of these mutations over large periods of time. Organisms are shaped by their environments – both physical and biological. They can therefore be seen as solutions to problems. To illustrate this principle of physiological ecology, the author uses the examples of ice fish. Their ancestors had to deal with the problem of a cooling ocean. To adapt to this, they evolved some antifreeze proteins (discussed in more detail in this post). These came about through the random mutation of part of the trypsinogen gene. This provides evidence for the capacity of organisms to create new genes from old ones (discussed here and here). That is descent with modification and is an essential feature of evolution that religious fundies often misrepresent. They claim that complex structures like eyes are supposed to have evolved in a generation or two. This however is not how evolution works. It works through many small cumulative (undirected) steps that use genes that are already there. A proper model for eye evolution can be found here. Around the same time, their genes for tubulin became modified in such a way that allowed them to tolerate lower temperatures. This allows their cells to retain their normal architecture and function at lower temperatures than would otherwise be tolerable.
One problem, which is not fully discussed is that the presence of antifreeze proteins increases the viscosity of the blood. This would strain the cardiovascular system. However, cold water carries more dissolved oxygen than warm water. This meant that the fish could get large quantities of oxygen from solution. This allowed the fish to decrease the number of circulating red blood cells (which carry oxygen) allowing them to decrease the viscosity of their blood. A reduced demand for red blood cells meant that there was no need for haemoglobin – the oxygen carrying component of red cells. This lead to the loss of these genes (see here). Other adaptations include a loss of scales and an increase in capillary number in the skin – this allowed the skin to take up oxygen as well as the gills. Finally, some species also lost their genes for the oxygen storing myoglobin. This is an other principle of evolution – you lose what you don’t need through random mutation (see here). The non-functional remnants of these genes can still be found in these fish. This tells a nice story of how genomes can change in response to environmental conditions

Carroll then goes on to outline his plans for the book, and finishes with a ca bit on why evolution matters. He concentrates on food production, but I felt he could have spent a bit of time on the evolution of antibiotic resistance, the role of animal models in medicine and the fact that it is important in its own right regarding the origins of species.

Happy Darwin day.

Maiacetus Inuus: A New Transitional fossil Of The Whale Lineage

2009-02-08T15:23:00.000-08:00

Whale evolution is something that I have blogged on before. This paper describes the discovery of yet another transitional fossil between artiodactyls and whales. The new species is called Maiacetus inuus, which means mother whale of inuus ( Inuus being the Roman god of fertility). It is so called, because one specimen was pregnant (the foetus is the blue shaded object below). What is interesting is that it is in a head down position; modern whales give birth tail first. This suggests that birth still took place on land. Not surprisingly, it is found in the right part of the world to be an intermediate form (Pakistan) and its morphology dates to the correct era too; 47.5 million years old. This makes it older than the more whale like Basilosaurids, and younger than the more primitive Ambulocetus, Indohyus and Pakicetids.

Eat This Cheese, It Is My Central Nervous System

2009-02-05T16:22:00.000-08:00

More hilarious religion bashing fromEddie Izzard:

Windae Licking Bawbag Of The Month Award

2009-02-03T14:48:00.000-08:00

I found myself watching the one show tonight because it featured Robert Winston talking about religion. The award goes to Adrian Chiles for his comment on the atheist bus campaign, which advertises on buses that "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life". Chiles claimed that this was a carte blanche to behave in an amoral way. This says more about his mindset than anything. Atheists are no less moral than christians - in fact, atheists are often under represented in prisons. For example, these stats show that atheists form about 8-16% (and growing) of the American population, but only form 0.209% of the prison population. Does this goof ball really think that without god, we will go a rapin' and a pillagin', and a committing genocide - you know like the stuff god condones in the OT. Maybe we will enslave others - hmmm, cant do that either, that's endorsed by the bible too. Oh well, that leaves racism ...... damn! the bible endorses that too. Just what can I do that is immoral that the bible doesn't endorse?

I would argue that you can't be truly moral with god, as the need to think through the consequences of your actions are deferred to some other authority ( a human one, but the god bots think it is their chosen sub - sub species of the Abrahamic deity) .

I like Darwin's definition of a moral being: "A moral being is one who is capable of reflecting on his past actions and their motives - of approving of some and disapproving of others. "

If you can bear it, there is a thread to the episode that takes comments here.

Adrian, society will not fall apart because people don't believe in god - twat!

PS, I liked this comment (no 48) :

"Science will fly you to the moon, faith will fly you into a building!"

Homer On God

2009-02-03T12:20:00.000-08:00

A simple argument against Pascal's wager from a fictional character a cartoon:

"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder."

Homer Simpson.

Pesky Pistol Shrimps

2009-02-01T14:39:00.000-08:00

I have a pistol shrimp in my reef aquarium. They are supposed to be safe with other inhabitants, but I found one of the cleaner shrimp dead and a couple of sexy shrimp have gone missing (I presume they are so called because they "dance" while they walk). I did a bit of research and apparently not all species are safe and found the video below of one stunning a cleaner shrimp. This is quite fascinating - when the little bastards are not eating their tank mates.

They have a specialised claw that sends out a violent jet of water and a sound wave that whacks its prey. This video goes into the mechanics of the sound production.

This hunting/defense adaptation is also a problem for deluded Young Earth Creationists who believe god made all animals vegetarian. How did they get this adaptation without evolution? No doubt they will pull some bollocks out their collective chuffs like god intended them to eat coconuts and the snap breaks the shell.

A final interesting thing about these shrimp is that they often enter a symbiotic relationship with certain species of goby. The goby provides the lookout and bits of food and the shrimp provides a protective burrow and firepower. This an example of being co-operative yet selfish. It is such a creationist lie that natural selection means kill everything.

Anyway, I wonder who would win in a square go between a pistol shrimp and a mantis shrimp (which can deliver a blow equivalent to being hit by a .22 bullet). Following Bruce Lee's advice of using your longest weapon, I would bet on the pistol shrimp. All we need now is Harry hill to proclaim Fiiiiight!

Mr Charles Darwin Had The Balls To Ask

2009-02-01T14:12:00.001-08:00

Since it is the month of Darwin's 200th birthday and for no reason other than the fact Darwin gets a mention:

Book Club

2009-01-31T03:19:00.000-08:00

It seems a close run thing, but I will go with "The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution" by Sean B Carroll. I will plan to review the first chapter on the 12th of February (Darwin day). If anyone does not get a copy, please still feel free to contribute. I have also blogged on some of the topics in the book if some back ground reading is required. I will try and do a post roughly once a week on different chapters.

Dennet's Breaking the spell was also a popular choice. Perhaps that can be the next one. If someone else wants to host it too, then that would be OK by me.

Christians Tell Attenborough To Burn In Hell.

2009-01-30T12:33:00.000-08:00

Christian fundamentalist nut bags have been telling David Attenborough to burn in hell. Christianity truly brings out the best in some people. Anyway, here is Sir David recounting one of his most memorable moments when a bunch of Mountain Gorillas playfully mobbed him. Strangely I couldn't find the full footage and embedding is disabled.

Now, Here is a typical Christian fundamentalist doing what they do best.

The Evolution Of The Bacterial Flagellum

2009-01-27T16:05:00.000-08:00

Creationists often wheel out the bacterial flagellum (a molecular "outboard motor" ) as an example of a structure that could not have evolved. The reasoning being that it is irreducibly complex - take out a component and it is totally useless. Therefore it must have been designed – by their god of course. This of course is an argument from ignorance and limited imagination. Irreducible complexity does not imply a supernatural designer either; sea arches for example are irreducibly complex and produced by entirely natural forces.

This video provides an excellent account of the evolution of the bacterial flagellum and how the intermediate stages are useful in their own right.

Intelligent design has nothing to offer – despite their constant bleating to “teach the controversy”. There is no controversy as this short article highlights.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"

(Theodosius Dobzhansky )

The Evolution Of Lady Bumps

2009-01-25T13:50:00.000-08:00

You know how it is, you search for something and something unrelated (remember, I said unrelated :-) ) pops up that grabs your attention.

This video gives an account of the evolution of the mammary gland from simpler secretory tissue that has an immunoprotective role.

I'll post what I was originally searching for in a day or two.

Book Club Idea

2009-01-23T14:38:00.000-08:00

I've been thinking of trying a book club thing for a while. It would depend on people indicating that they are interested though. Since regular posters have expertise in a wide variety of subjects, I think this would be a good opportunity to get into depth about subjects that are not our area of expertise. Perhaps folk could indicate if they are interested and recommend some books. The offer is open to lurkers and Christians too - differing points of view would be good.

I would suggest either The selfish gene, The making of the fittest, Darwinism and its discontents, The problems of philosophy or Godless morality.

We could also take turns hosting one in an area we are familiar with.

Let me know what you think and we can try and arrange something.

Convergent Evolution Refutes The "Argument" For A Common Designer

2009-01-20T16:13:00.000-08:00

The “argument” from design is basically nothing more than saying god did it. We often see strawman arguments comparing things like bicycles, that we know are designed, but don’t acquire mutations that are passed on to their offspring where they are selected with examples of organisms, which do accumulate and transmit selectable mutations. No matter what you say to a creationist, he will just say “ah well, that’s just the way god made it”. They can never predict how it would be. One piece of evidence for evolution is the existence of homologous structures in groups of organisms. These are structures built on a similar “blue print”. The classic example is the vertebrate limb, where the different bones can be identified in various structures from flippers to wings. Creationists of course claim that this is the work of a common designer and not the result of common decent. A problem in consistency then arises when you point out analogous structures (those that perform the same function, but are structurally different; the classic examples being the wings of birds and insects. Surely then the creationist should argue that this is then evidence of more than one designer – the problem of course is that they only believe in one god and pull an answer out of their assess like “god made it that way for a reason”, which really isn’t an answer at all. Using their straw man analogy further, the person (more accurately people) who designed your computer did not design the seat you are sitting on. Why then should we assume fish have the same designer as earthworms or palm trees? The creationist response of course is that their god did anyway – no evidence, just an assertion.

Although the planet “allows” life, it is not exactly life friendly. Life has many problems to solve – too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, too much oxygen, not enough oxygen etc…. Sometimes we see different species “solve” the same problems in similar ways. Would we then not predict that a designer should engineer in the same solution?

Previously I posted on the loss of haemoglobin genes in ice fish as an example of evolution over a long period of time. These fish have another interesting adaptation; they produce antifreeze molecules. There are two unrelated group at either pole that produce nearly identical antifreeze glycoproteins (AFGPs). These are the northern Arctic cods (superorder Paracanthopterygii) and the Antarctic Nototheneiods (superorder Acanthopterygii). These proteins, which bind to and prevent the growth of ice crystals, are based on repeats of the amino acid sequence (threonine – alanine (occasionally proline)- alanine)n. The sugar galactosyl-N-acetylgalactosamine is covalently linked to each threonine in the repeat sequence. There are several forms of the molecules that vary in the number of repeats of these three amino acids, but they are all encoded by the same gene: there are sites in the protein that are later processed to produce AFGPs of different lengths. So, here we have two unrelated groups with almost exactly the same protein serving the same role – creationists must be cumming in their pants at this point.

However, if we look at the structure of the genes, there are significant differences. To recap, (eukaryotic) genes are composed of exons (that appear in mature RNA sequences) and introns (which do not encode for proteins and are chopped out of mature protein encoding RNA (which links protein encoding instructions from DNA to proteins). The gene from the Arctic species Boreogadus saida contains 3 exons (E1-E3 of Bs3-1 Figure1), whereas the gene from the Antarctic species Dissostichus mawsoni contains only 2 (Dm3L).

Another interesting feature is the sequence of an area called the signal peptide (this directs the newly synthesised proteins to particular areas in a cell). These are totally different – as can be seen from their single letter amino acid sequences.

Fig 1

One final difference is the actual gene sequences themselves. There is more than one way to code for most amino acids, and the sequence threonine – alanine – alanine can be encoded by the sequences (codons) ACA, ACT, ACC or ACG for threonine and CGA, GCT, GCC or GCG for alanine. What we find is that the codon usage is different in the two different genes. B. saida uses the codons ACA/ACT (45%/42% for Threonine)-GCA/GCG (51%/30% for the first Alanine and GCA/GCG (53%/37% for the second Alanine). D. mawsoni uses ACA (85% for Threonine)-GCG/GCT (39%/55% for the first Alanine) and GCA (95% for the second Alanine). Basically, the sequences are different suggesting a different origin. This similarity in protein sequence is an example of convergent evolution.

The original publication can be found here

One final problem for creationists is that a prediction of evolution is that genes arise from ancestral genes, so we should not be surprised to find a candidate and a putative mechanism for the evolution of these proteins. Guess what creationists, for D. mawsoni, the ancestral gene is trypsinogen. Part of this gene and the control regions seem to be duplicated. Not only that, a 9 nucleotide sequence encoding the threonine – alanine – alanine repeats appears to have been further duplicated (mechanism). This is detailed here.

Oh yeah, and all this is corroborated by paleontological and geological studies concerning the appearence of these fish and the timing of the opening up of the polar oceans.

And the creationist response? That’s right, “my goddidit!” No predictive model to test required – just a bronze age book of superstition.

Extraordinary Claims And An Extrordinary Lack Of Evidence

2009-01-15T16:07:00.000-08:00

Is this good evidence that the emperor Augustus was the son of Apollo and that he was born to a woman (a virgin)?

"When Atia had come in the middle of the night to the solemn service of Apollo, she had her litter set down in the temple and fell asleep, while the rest of the matrons also slept. On a sudden a serpent glided up to her and shortly went away. When she awoke, she purified herself, as if after the embraces of her husband, and at once there appeared on her body a mark in colors like a serpent, and she could never get rid of it; so that presently she ceased ever to go to the public baths. In the tenth month after that Augustus was born and was therefore regarded as the son of Apollo." [Suetonius, Life of the Deified Augustus, Chapter 94]

Is this evidence that Jesus was the son of Yahweh and born of a woman (a virgin)?

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 1:18).

Let’s compare and contrast

1. Neither author witnessed the event (minus point).

2. We know quite a bit about Suetonius and that he wrote of historical figures (plus point). However, we know nothing about the author of Matthew. It is not even known that he is the apostle of the same name (minus point).

3. Neither author is about to cross examine – neither are their sources (minus points). We generally don’t believe "alien abductees" that we can cross examine.

4. Matthew had an agenda – convincing the jews of Jesus’ divinity. Suetonius may have had to keep the emperor happy (minus points).

5. Matthew takes bible verses out of context and shoehorns Jesus into them to give the appearance of fulfilled prophecy. (minus point).

6. Suetonius introduces the man-god concept before Matthew (plus point for Suetonius, minus point for Matthew)

Neither account actually provides evidence of an extraordinary (miraculous) event. Neither of them were there, and virgin births in humans are not recorded events – never mind those recorded as children of a god. There are over 6 billion people alive on the planet today and no confirmed virgin god- births. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that one person alive today was born to a virgin of a god. That is such an unusual event, that surely it would need more evidence than the biased personal testimonies of unknown sources who were not there at the conception? Suetonius at least would appear to be the more reliable source, so why do people not believe the Augustus myth? I would suggest that they apply reasonable levels of scepticism when considering a myth not endemic to their culture or upbringing, but are less critical of things they have been culturally exposed to. Faith blinds critical thought.

What would/should good evidence for a miracle look like?

The "Real" Story Of The Crucifixion

2009-01-08T16:25:00.000-08:00

Following on from the previous post, I can give you the true story of the crucifixion:

The Failure Of Messianic Prophecy 5: The Betrayal By Judas

2009-01-08T13:22:00.000-08:00

Some Christians claim that the bible predicts that the messiah will be betrayed by a friend. Their justification for this is found in Psalm 41:9: “Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me” (other translations call him his best friend, who was trusted completely). According to the gospel writers, this friend was Judas Iscariot (eg. Matt. 10:4, Mk. 14:43-46). Even less objective Christians will claim the verse also refers to the sharing of food at the last supper, when Jesus tells the disciples that Judas will betray him (Matt. 26:20-25). By simply reading this “prophecy”, it is apparent that the person speaking is not Jesus; and verse 4 kills off any chance that the person speaking is God/Jesus: “I said, Lord, be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee.” If Jesus had sinned against God, then he would not be the entity Christians claim he his – after all, the sinless nature of Jesus is the most important concept in Christianity. This is therefore a pretty poor attempt to make it appear that the bible predicts the coming of Jesus. By fabricating a story with snippets of scripture in it, it would be easy to make a “simple” audience with no direct access to the original scriptures believe that it was all foretold. I used to think the same way. I would assume that this was all foretold. It just never crossed my mind that the life of Jesus could be made up from irrelevant OT passages, with the purpose of giving him the supernatural credentials that should accompany the son of God.
As we have come to expect, there are further problems linking this to Jesus. These include the fact that this verse makes Judas out to be the best friend of Jesus is reason enough to doubt it is a prophecy about Judas. After all, John paints a pretty poor picture of Judas: “Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.” (12:3-8). Not caring for the poor! What happened to the Jesus of Matt. 25:41-46? Are we really expected to believe a thief and a “Devil” (Jn 6:70-71) was the best friend of the messiah? In fact, Jesus could not have trusted Judas as the prophecy states. This is evident from the fact that he knew what Judas was going to do (Jn. 13: 26-28). Poor Judas!

God lets the Devil make him do it and then eternally punishes him for it (Jn. 13:2, Matt. 26:24) – nice!

The Return Of Mr Mad

2009-01-05T11:53:00.000-08:00

Sam has returned to Bruce’s blog. The funny thing is that he seems to be uniting every one. Here is his latest response. I have tagged it “Humor”, but I do actually hope he gets well soon:

“I'm not distracted by billy's distate for my opinion - I would be worried if he had anything but contempt for me. Jesus didn't concern himself with peoples disaproval for him - nor was he frightened to point out what he saw as self indulgence or hypocrisy. He could call a spade a spade. In the gospels it says he did not come to bring peace but a sword. Did you read that bit Jonathon or were you too busy congratulating your self on your own thoughts ?Im not enamoured by your view of the faith Rob. You seem so apologetic I question whether you have any real faith at all. Your approach is as decadent as billys.I have little time for either of you. Billys blog is wholly negative and you rob are so defensive it's embarassing to read.Apparently I am Judgemental - If that is your idea of me I can live with that. I am not insisting that billy is any more worthy of contempt than any of the rest of us. I am insisting his ideas - like robs - lead nowhere but up his own backside. Billy why dont you go and start an atheist soup kitchen : "soup for soups sake". Then I might have some interest in what you say about ethics. Yes I have helped build hospitals in africa. And before you ask me - yes I collect food for a local soup kitchen. I attempt to follow jesus' teaching as plainly and as simply as I can. If you think that makes me self righteous I would suggest you are caught in the echo of your own thoughts.I see nothing in Billys writings which speak of practically caring for anyone apart from himself - and rob answer me this do you enjoy reading theology while people starve and suffer? What part of "love the poor" did you find hard to understand ? Do you need me to hold your little book for you while you have a nice think ?Pandering to the crowd is not part of my commitment to christ. You are shadows of men - arguing about a light which you have never shared.”

Poor chap, he has issues

How To Do Nothing To Defeat The Lord's Resistance Army

2009-01-04T04:44:00.000-08:00

I came across this: It is an attempt to get rid of the Christianity based Lord's Resistance Army through fasting.

Despite the obvious absurdity, it contradicts the christian excuse of free will theodicy - truely bizarre! Bet that's got them worried - NOT!

Small Minded Self Righteous Christianity

2009-01-04T04:21:00.000-08:00

I recieved this tolerant reply from a Christian on a thread on Bruce’s blog where I left a comment asking Bruce why on earth anyone would need Christianity to be a good person. Note the self important and ignorant nature of this nasty small minded Christians response. His ignorance is so pathetic, its not funny (I wonder how many atheists he has met?). I don’t really need to say any more. Jesus has obviously made him a very tolerant and non judgemental person – you wouldn’t know from the post that I have never meat this wonderful advert of Christian love – yet he thinks he knows all about me and atheists in general.

"Non christians might make ok people but they rarely make good people. I dont think non christians go to hell but I would be suprised if they made it any higher than purgatory. What many atheists lack is a self transforming ethic - they are not obliged to anything bigger than their own opinions and so they rarely develop outside of their own self absorption. To make a stereotype - Athiests are big little people instead of little big people. The problem with your kind billy is there is nothing to really stretch you. You are like weeds as opposed to sunflowers - sure you get nice weeds and you get failed sunflowers but really billy you need to get some discipline - and settle your perspective on actively helping others - instead of just getting excited by the sound of your own voice and distracted by the echo of your own unresolved inner dillemas.What have you really done with your life billy. Talk yourself in circles climb a few hills and pay your own rent . Boring. In a middle distance race atheists are strictly members of the pack - but you rarely make winners. You get distracted by too many things...Like replying to this comment..."

Jesus Loves You. His Dad Thinks You Are A Shit

2009-01-01T12:03:00.000-08:00

Not Bad For The Last Day Of The Year

2008-12-31T11:27:00.000-08:00

Beinn Dubchraig (left), Ben Lomond (distance) Ben Oss (centre) and Ben Lui (right) from Ben Dorain

Ben More (centre left) Stob Binnien (centre right) and Cruach Ardrain (right) from Ben Dorain

The blackmount and Ben Nevis (centre right) from Beinn Dorain

Happy New year everyone

Forgiveness Is Futile

2008-12-30T15:52:00.000-08:00

I’ve been thinking about writing this for a while – although I reached my decision on the matter a long time ago. Every now and then, a Christian friend suggests that I should forgive a manipulative serial user of people - someone who had been forgiven several times, yet repeatedly commited the same offences. So the question is “is it always good to forgive?” Obviously when someone makes a mistake and that relationship is one that was healthy and valued, then forgiveness is a good thing. The bible however would tell us that we should always forgive:

“Forgive people when they do wrong things to you. If you forgive them, your Father in heaven will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive them, your Father will not forgive you.” Matthew 6:12 (note the emphasis on deeds and not grace).

Even if someone constantly “sins” against you?

“Then Peter came to Jesus. ‘Lord, if my brother keeps on hurting me, how many times should I forgive him?’ he asked. ‘Should I forgive him seven times?’ ‘No, not just seven times, but forgive him seventy times seven times’, Jesus said.” (Matt 18:21-22).

Is this wise? Should I place myself in a situation where I am likely to be “abused” again? Surely forgiveness is about total restoration of a relationship. It would therefore be stupid to re-establish a full relationship with someone who constantly uses you. I do not think the bible is a particularly good guide on the matter. If I followed it’s teachings, I would have to re-enter into a toxic relationship – no thanks!

Does this attitude shock Christians? To Christians, this would make me immoral, however, to me it just highlights the stupidity of following a rigid system of morality that is not backed up by any real evidence.

What Would You Ask God?

2008-12-29T12:34:00.000-08:00

I saw a poster today advertising the alpha course. It had the question “If god existed,what would you ask him?”

Let’s ignore the fact that these guys think he exists – as I would then be able to ask and still get no answer for the moment, and assume he will answer.

My question would be why does he not provide unequivocal evidence that he exists?

This is the point where Christians come up with all sort of excuses, but the question is what would I ask god – I expect god to answer. A close second question would be why he lets others speak for him – others who can’t agree on what god would say. Pretty stupid set up that if you ask me. Imagine you don’t know me, and you had to ask someone else (whom I have never conversed with) what I think about something. Then you ask someone else (whom I have never conversed with) and you get a different answer. You would doubt if I existed or if they really knew me and my opinions. Christians are fast to blame each other and themselves for this problem – yet they still want to ask me what I would ask god – Like who’s actually going to answer then?

What questions would you ask (theists are welcome to submit questions too).

More Oversensitive Religious Nut Bags

2008-12-26T05:32:00.000-08:00

I have been following this story that Epeeist highlighted. It tells of Catholics being offended by the hokey cokey. Apparently it was made up by some puritans to mock the Latin mass. This came as a surprise to me and no doubt many others. Having attended "non denominational" schools (essentially a west coast euphemism for protestant) I can honestly say I have never come across this before. It seems like some naughty catholics are just trying to cause trouble. It is a blatant case of double standards. It appears they want people singing it to taunt catholics to be imprisoned. One can only wonder about the timing - guess what will be sung at the Rangers vs Celtic game tomorrow now. However, I hope sensible folk on both sides sing it in a big "fuck you" to the idiots.

I wonder wht they are quiet on the matter of some Celtic fans singing pro-IRA songs? Must be something to do with religion making people think they have a god given right to act like arse holes

In the mean time, here is one of the best goals ever scored against Celtic by Davie Cooper.

Manky Xmas

2008-12-24T14:07:00.000-08:00

Here's a game and a song for Xmas

Hope Santa gives me a Princess Diana scalectrix for Xmas

EDIT: For some reason, the link to the game doesn't work. Try this http://www.chunkideas.com/snowball/

Sock And Awe

2008-12-18T05:06:00.000-08:00

Have fun throwing shoes at the man who started a war because his invisible friend told him to. Why couldn't god just have had a word with Saddam?

http://play.sockandawe.com/

My Genome Project

2008-12-16T16:19:00.000-08:00

Given the fact that many creationists accept evolution within rather vaguely defined kinds of animals but deny that man is the product of evolution, I’ve decided to go through our genomes and compare it with chimps (and other species). Firstly, I’ll define the genome. This is essentially the complete genetic sequence of an organism. Prokaryotes (eg bacteria) contain one copy of this sequence, and Eukaryotes (like ourselves) generally contain two copies of this information (some organisms are polyploid and contain many copies). In sexually reproducing organisms, there are often two separate sex chromosomes, so when a genome sequence is referred to in these organisms, it means all the different somatic (non sex) chromosomes plus a copy of each of the sex chromosomes (eg X and Y in humans).

In case anyone does not know, our genome has 96% identity with that of the chimp. That sounds a small difference for two easily distinguishable species. However, our genome is 3,200,000,000 base pairs (letters) long. However, that is equivalent to 128 million differences.

My plan is to go through the chromosomes from the first (largest) to the smallest (Y) and highlight the tell tale signs of evolution – signs shared with chimps – or derived from a common ancestor. Chromosomes often contain tell tale pieces of “junk” DNA (perhaps up to 50% of the genome is non functional junk acquired during our evolutionary past) or even fusions that show the ancestry of the organism. This will take some time, but I hope to learn a lot from it myself.

Metro Again: Common Descent And The Fusion of Chromosome 2

2008-12-12T09:35:00.000-08:00

There was someone called "Salty Seagull" in the metro letters page on Thursday morning about claims we are genetically 99% chimp. He wanted to know what that meant though, so I sent in this brief response in which they published:

"Salty Seagull. You have more genetic similarities in common with your father than you do to your grandfather and more in common with your grandfather than your great grandfather and so on. You have less in common with cousins and people not directly descended from your immediate family tree. Going far enough back, you have shared similarities with chimps through common descent to which you are more distantly related. To pre-empt any creationist nonsense, Google the "fusion of chromosome 2". This chromosome resulted from the fusion of two ancestral ones."

I have been thinking lately that probably the best way to attack creationism if to get them talking about "kinds". Many of them accept evolution within "kinds" - for example they may accept the possibility that foxes and wolves are the products of evolution within "kinds" - as evidenced by genetic similarity. Then, when they are rambling on about that, hit them with the "hominid kind" problem and then focus on why they refuse to believe that hominids are the product of "in kind evolution". It should at least be amusing as they suddenly refuse to accept that evolution in hominids did not happen - even though they may accept it in Canids (dogs).

I think this is an important area to tackle, as creationism often accepts some form of evolution. The less insane ones accept mutation and natural selection takes place for things like bacteria with antibiotic resistance. Many even accept that the mutations required to build new genes take place: duplication (and mutation) , gene conversion, exon shuffling, frame shift mutations, horizontal gene transfer etc, but go into denial when it comes to accepting them as mechanisms that have underlain the evolution of humans from our common ancestor with chimps.

I particularly like the evidence of Chromosome 2 in this respect. I have written about this before here. Ken Miller also has a good (short) video here.

Petition Against Sharia Law

2008-12-11T13:43:00.000-08:00

I received this email today concerning Sharia law.

"This campaign is calling on the UK government to recognise that Sharia laws are arbitrary and discriminatory and demands an end to religious tribunals on the basis that they work against equality and human rights. I attended the launch at the House of Lords yesterday and I was dismayed by the accounts of women in Muslim communities in the UK being deceived about their legal rights and status and being pressured into accepting the rulings of Muslim Arbitration Councils.Here is a link to the new website, with a petition and resources. "

If anyone wants to advertise this petition on their blogs, that would be cool.

UPDATE: Another petition can be found here.

The Palace Of Righteous Justice

2008-12-08T15:43:00.000-08:00

Not as funny as the book of Genesis, but well worth a titter

What Use Is The Bible?

2008-12-04T15:14:00.000-08:00

I would be interested in the views of any passing Christians, but what use is the bible? The bible has split so many churches on matters of interpretation and doctrine (there are over 38 000 Christian denominations). This suggests a deeply flawed nature. Different denominations cant even agree on which books should be in the bible. A common excuse is that they all tell you how to be saved – well, apparently they don’t. Is salvation through deeds or grace? Is it predetermined or do you have a choice in the matter? These are not trivial questions if salvation is indeed a valid concept – get it wrong and it is hell for you (assuming you had a choice to begin with).

This raises the point of how a Christian should live their life, and the bible is no help there either. Let’s take the issue that is ripping the Anglican Church apart – homosexuality. Is it OK or isn’t it? I don’t want to go into the details, but let’s just accept that there is a difference of opinion. Each side wheels out supposedly esteemed theologians to back up their view. Things like translation issues, historical context and who the relevant verses were meant for and perhaps even an interpretation of “new covenant” theology are thrown in. Despite all this, nothing is resolved – so what use is the bible? People commit suicide over this issue. How has the bible helped them live their lives? How has it saved them? What peace has it brought them? If theologians can’t agree, what hope is there for an illiterate follower who only speaks on language? I get annoyed when I hear snooty comments from Christians claiming that a verse for or against homosexuality (or any issue) is quoted without proper understanding of what the intended meaning is. They are in effect saying that the illiterate believer needs to spend 20 years studying theology – what use is that to him and his immediate needs – and he will just come up against theologians with a different view – How does the bible solve anything? The other alternative is that you become a sheep and let someone else tell you what to believe – but theologians disagree.

Christians quote things like it teaches decent values – so what? I don’t use the bible to tell me how to help old ladies across the road or how to help someone in need – or how loud I should play my music. Other societies don’t need it either. Atheists are also under represented in prison populations and the bible didn’t stop the crusades, the holocaust or the war in Iraq - in fact, it even facillitated them. So, what use is it?

Biblicists (but there are exceptions – quelle suprise!) are also constrained by the fact that they have to assume there is consistency in it too – not exactly compatible with free thought.

Interspecific Brood Care

2008-12-02T15:26:00.000-08:00

I’ve been thinking about a few posts on cichlid evolution at the moment, but don’t have too much time. These fish make Darwin’s finches look like absolute beginners in evolutionary terms. Lake Malawi alone has at least 500 species and many geographical variations – all thought to have evolved from a single (maybe 2) common ancestor(s) in a few million years. For anyone with some spare time, this site provides some photos of them. A small section on trophic (feeding) adaptations can be found here.

Anyway, as a short post, I would like to introduce some Central American cichlids. Parachromis dovii is a rather large and nasty predator. One problem it faces is the predation of its fry by other fish. Next up is Theraps (aka Hypsophorys, aka Copora) nicaraguense. This is a medium sized fish, but is easily bullied and can be out competed for breeding sites by the aggressive Archocentrus nigrofasciatus. A 12 cm male is a very big fish for this species and I have had 6-8cm fish attack me and draw blood when looking after their fry. There is another smaller species, Neetroplus nematopus, which by all accounts is even more aggressive. So, T. nicaraguense has a problem, these little fish get all the good breeding sites. The solution is rather unexpected. See if you can guess: P. dovii is a major predator of N. nematopus and A. nigrofasciatus………

Give up?

T. Nicaraguense helps bring up the fry of P. dovii and is therefore tolerated by them. Their own fry also benefit from the numbers of P. dovii fry in the area – a predator is more likely to grab one of them as they are more numerous. Som studies estimate that P. dovii would face extinction in some areas if it was not for this interspecific co-operation. There are some costs though, as P. dovii will also eat some juvenile T. nicaraguense too. Thre have also been some recorded incidents of T. nicaraguense “cheating” on the deal too. However, that is evolution for you – cheating can be of benefit to the cheats until their numbers rise and make it disadvantageous – if P. dovii numbers drop, so do T. nicaraguense numbers. Natural selection will then start to select against the cheats and a new equilibrium will be reached – this may then allow another cycle of cheating……

There are obviously some implications for the evolution of moral behaviour here – by helping others, you are actually being selfish and helping yourself. This is something the religious just don’t get – they think being selfish means that you kill and eat every thing – not cooperate.

Favorite Photo Of The Year

2008-11-28T13:16:00.000-08:00

Robert Craig has put up his favourite photo of the year here. That got me thinking about mine, and here it is:

It was taken by Dave in January and shows me on Ben Ledi. Some more photos of the day can be seen here on Dave's blog.

My favorite photo that I took was of a group we passed who were being instructed in winter techniques in Coir na Tullaich on Buachaille etive mor (below)

The one that Craig chose was a close runner up.

Euthyphro, Logic And The Impotence Of Moral Theology

2008-11-25T13:54:00.000-08:00

Mark left an excellent comment on the previous thread. He said:

“for morality to be absolute, it must not be able to have been different; in other words, god’s nature from which the absolute morality flows, must necessarily be the way it is. But, if god is necessarily the way he is, then there must be laws that make this the case, and these laws must therefore precede or be higher than god. Thus god becomes essentially a middleman and is not necessary. If, on the other hand, god's nature is not necessarily the way it is, then morality is relative to his non-necessary nature, and thus not absolute.”

This is essentially the Euthyphro dilemma. The problem is that either god is not necessary for morality, or nothing is good until god commands it. Therefore, morality is relative to the tastes of god and there is no reason then why evil acts could not be considered moral if god so choosed.

To try and get around the dilemma, theists often claim that it is not a dilemma and that morality is fixed by the very nature of god. This is however nonsense. If god’s nature is fixed, he is still a god of moral relatives. He just so happens to have a particular set of moral values. He could still be evil. There is no absolute law.

Another problem is that if he can not change his mind, then he is either beholding to a law greater than himself, or he is not omnipotent. The omnipotence of god is of course logically absurd. He could not make a square circle for example. This also means that god is not necessary for the laws of logic either, as he himself must abide by a higher law.

Other things god could not do include making a being greater than himself (already defined as the greatest possible being – what ever greatness means) or make a weight so heavy that he would not be able to lift it.

Theology is just one big inconsistency after another. How can something so problematical have any value? Moral law is one of the “evidences” Christians cite for god, but it is not a tenable position – even if we assume god exists to start with. Christianity needs absolute moral laws or the concept of sin is meaningless. If the concept of sin is meaningless, then the idea of god killing himself to appease himself as punishment for our sins is just absurd – but then, there are lots of reasons to think that is absurd.

Sloppy Christian Moral Thinking

2008-11-18T12:39:00.000-08:00

Since the appearance of the “child abuse post”, I’ve been involved in a few discussions about morality with several particularly dim fundamentalists. That might sound harsh, but their arguments are a who’s who of logical fallacies. Their position demands that moral absolutes exist. For the benefit of the theist, who clearly don’t know, these are unbreakable moral standards that derive from the nature of your god. They seem to mistake the concept of moral universalism with absolutes. In other words, they think if I agree with them on something, that means that it is an unbendable moral law that exists because of their god (Muslims of course claim that it is their god) All it means is that we agree on something. Does it follow that because Hitler and St Jerome shared certain beliefs about the Jews that the Holocaust was moral?

Several have also said that atheists are wilfully rebelling against god and know it is wrong to do so. That’s news to us. I can’t rebel against a god I don’t believe in. Furthermore, if I don’t know him, how can I be held accountable for it? This then leads on to another common fallacy. Christians often claim that God has provided evidence in nature, and quote this:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Roman’s 1:18-20).

This however is nothing more than a statement. It is used as evidence of its own claim. The user just assumes it is the word of god. However, that is the point of contention – I don’t believe he exists – partly because the theist has not managed to demonstrate it is the word of their god. It is therefore not an argument!

Here is another problem. Nature supposedly testifies to god. Let’s look at some things that are found in nature.

Homosexuality – up to 10% of rams are gay

Paedophilia – Bonobos shag juveniles of non reproductive age

Cannibalism – Nurse sharks eat each other – in the uterus!

Incest – When males are scarce, Button beetles lay unfertilised eggs that hatch into males. The mummy beetle then has sex with her baby boy! (Oh, and then she eats him).

Paedophagy: The cichlid Caprichromis orthognathus rams the heads of other cichlids that are brooding young in their buccal (mouth) cavities and eat the babies

Slavery – some species of ants enslave the workers of others

Then there is all the nastiness of disease. So, nature tells us that the Christian’s god is a homosexual paedophile that eats his own children after having sex with them? Now, if Christians said – “yes, that’s my god!”, then the verse would be more believable. Of course the Christian claim is that nature is that way because of sin. It is corrupt (see this lovely D.Robertson article linked in the last post on that). But, wait a mo, “Paul” just said that this imperfection is evidence of the supposedly perfect- How can that be? How can that mean that nature shows us the “perfect” nature of their god? Another sloppy and inconsistent call for theology perchance?

So, Christians, where is your evidence of moral absolutes? Where is your evidence that the bible is the word of god – and don’t quote 2 Tim 3:16 at me – that’s just circular reasoning. You have to validate the bible.

Compsognathus Longipes's Last Supper

2008-11-16T15:47:00.000-08:00

OK, one final dinosaur post for the weekend. In the poo post, the implication of carnivory for “ original sin” was touched upon. I never tire of laughing at this article written by everyone’s’ favourite bearded cleric, where he thinks tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and death are the result of eating an apple. I particularly love the paragraph that starts off saying that atheists are becoming more frustrated as our aguments are shown to be limited - he then goes off on a truley ignorant rant of biblical proportions - and he claims to accept evolution, which makes his ignorance all the more incredible. It is a common belief that I don’t think many Christians think about seriously enough. Anyway, here is another example of carnivorous behaviour before the arrival of man. It is a drawing of the rib cage of Compsognathus longipes. Inside, a small skeleton of Bavariasurus (in darker shading) can clearly be seen. It appears to be swallowed whole.

Young earth creationists have to deny this comes before man and claim it ate it’s meal after man and woman sinned. However, let’s ignore the serrated teeth that are so good for hunting for a moment and ask why Elephants or squirrels don’t bring down lions and eat them. Could it be because they are not adapted to be hunters? Theists who accept evolution are confronted with the only credible alternative: god caused large scale industrial suffering to bring his “flawed” masterpiece into being.

Finally, to both sides: a challenge – show some evidence that 1) man existed with dinosaurs and explain the consilient nature of fossil dating techniques, or 2) a role for god in directing evolution that meets the standards of a scientific theory.

T. Rex, Warrior Or Wimp?

2008-11-14T15:54:00.000-08:00

I linked to part of this program on the feeding behaviour of Tyrannosaurus rex in the previous post, but it is worth a view in its entierty.

Incidentally, David Houston was one of my Zoology lecturers

Jumbo Dinosaur Jobbies

2008-11-14T14:26:00.000-08:00

Having a degree in Parasitology tends to familiarise you with the value of Jobbies; as one of my tutors said, “shit is tour bread and butter as a parasitologist”. This is because many parasites produce cysts or lay eggs that pass out the body in the faeces. These infect the next host and this spreads the disease. The eggs are often characteristic to a particular species or genus. So, you can work out infection rates and parasite loads of particular species in individual hosts. One quarter of the world population is infected by just one parasite – Ascarais lumbricoides. One of my class mates became infected with this and the first she knew of it was when she saw 20 one foot long worms thrashing in the toilet bowl. If you want to feel uncomfortable (or lucky) check out this picture out of someone who has just been "wormed"
Another thing that shit can tell you about diet. I remember one gross practical class where we had to sift through someone’s fudge. It was supposedly collected in the Dominican republic, but contained saw dust- turns out, it had been supplemented with veterinary material. What I remember most though is the huge chunk of onion in it. The person obviously ate onions, but didn’t chew properly or process their food that much either (probably the prof). Apparently, the prof had just discovered that not processing food properly can contribute to severe malnutrition in areas where intestinal parasites are prevalent. He found lots of unprocessed and therefore indigestible corn in the crap.

So, shit can tell you a lot about living animals. Now, to the main point of the post – dino poo. Fossil jobbies are called coprolites. We know for example that pines were on the menu of some dinosaurs, and they were clearly capable of grinding it down – as would be inferred from the structure of the teeth batteries of some herbivores. What is particularly interesting though is the Jumbo Jobbie shown below. It is a possible Tyrannosaurus turd, and measures about 17 inches long.

This majestic Bondi cigar even contains bone fragments belonging to a sub adult herbivore. The large quantity of bone in the meal suggests that the dinosaur was not careful about butchering its meal. We know that Tyrannosaurs were capable of biting through bone, as fossils showing pre-mortem Tyrannosaur bites have been found. These include Hadrosaurs with “healed” wounds that were excised by T. rex bites (about 4 minutes in), and even a T. rex with another T. rex’s tooth embedded in its rib- with an abscess formed around it. Those wanting a laugh (or to annoy themselves) should listen to creationist nincompoop Ken Ham’s short talk on the matter here. I don’t know which is the bigger pile of shite, but at least he knows the consequences of a meat eating dinosaur for his creationist myth that all animals ate fruit and veg before two mythical human beings ate a mythical fruit, and that supposedly caused death, volcanoes, earthquakes and the Mc Chicken Sandwich. That’s why he has to deny evolution. I touch on the absurdity of this claim here (incidentally, that is a Carcharodontosaurus skull at the top of the page).

The other thing that I want to mention is that parasite eggs have been found in fossil shit too (below from left to right Entamoeboides cyst, and two Ascarid eggs). I find this fascinating, and it tells us something about the health of these animals, as well as their ecological interactions with parasites. This is not the first time evidence has popped up for dinosaur parasite interaction, but is certainly the best – and all before man “polluted” creation – yet more evidence that the creationists need to go to farcical lengths to deny.

Finally, we know that some dung beetles even used dino poo – shit’s not that shit after all.

Cure For HIV?

2008-11-13T13:47:00.000-08:00

This article hints at a possible cure for HIV. It is interesting to note that the patient was originally being treated for leukaemia. One way of doing this is to kill the patient’s bone marrow. Often, the cells responsible for leukaemia arise in the bone marrow, so targeting that can resolve the cancer. The aberrant cells are often sensitive to the same treatments that kill the bone marrow. The problem is that all our blood cells (red and white) ultimately arise in the bone marrow from stem cells, so, the patient will die if they are not given a transplant of healthy cells. The interesting thing about this story is that the HIV positive patient was given a transplant of bone marrow from a donor with a mutation in the chemokine receptor CCR5. HIV needs two proteins to get into and infect cells. One is CD4 which is found (but not exclusivley) on “helper” T lymphocytes - this is one of the reasons the virus causes immuno-deficiency. The other protein is CCR5. This means that the virus has a hard time infecting the donors’ lymphocytes. As a result of this, the recipient has no detectable HIV a full 20 months after treatment. Caution should be taken however, as certain cells in the brain also express CD4, and are known to act as a viral reservoir – otherwise a normal bone marrow transplant – or even “cleaning up” the patients own bone marrow would be a possible cure .

This is one reason why stem cell research is important. The possibility exists that the patients own stem cells could be modified to not express mutant CCR5 – or even no CCR5. Technologies already exist to put genes into other animals. We can even insert mutants or knock out the gene entirely. We can even choose what tissues to modify, and when to modify them. Basically, if the religious don’t like that, they can go buy a dildo. I’ll stick with trying to save people.

Belated Remembrance

2008-11-12T13:39:00.000-08:00

I followed the link to one of the christian blogs that linked to the child abuse blog. One of the commenters there was under the delusion that atheists consider children meat machines. This is a thoroughly disgusting point of view. As part of remembrance day, I listen to "The green fields of France". The lyrics are really sad and hammer home the personal tragedy of those who suffered and died, leaving a void in the lives of others. To say that as an atheist that I see people as meat really is messed up thinking. Do these people really need faith to feel sorrow and pity at the thoughts of the hopes and lives of people being ended? To me as an atheist, I believe these people are gone for ever - a one off event that is easily and tragically snuffed out. This makes life more valuable and people more precious - not something to be tossed away- or even ended in the name of some false god.

Another powerful image is that of the final scenes of "Blackadder goes forth". That is deeply sad, as you were laughing along with the characters, then they go to the trench. There is a brief moment of hope when the guns go silent and the tragic line "hooray, we have survived the great war of 1914-1917" is proclaimed. Sweeping to the poppy field after the group goes over the top is a real tear jerker - you just know they died!

Separated At Birth?

2008-11-12T06:33:00.000-08:00

Shame Brian doesn't dwell in the Blogosphere. I'll just have to email it to him :-)

Woe to You O Land And Sea (You Know The Rest :-) )

2008-11-11T15:18:00.000-08:00

After the depressing nature of the child abuse post, it time for some art. SG and Mark W have been mentioning album art on the "A meeting With God Thread". I thought I would post my favorite single cover. I don't know why, but it just caught my imagination as a teenager. I have always been fascinated by religious art depicting hell - it is a window into the minds of people and the way they use religion to control others.

It is of course the "The Number Of The Beast" cover.

Run to The hills Kicks ass too!

For Those Too Blind To See The Harm Religion Does

2008-11-10T05:20:00.000-08:00

I don't make a habit of commenting on the bad things done in the name of religion - like flying planes into buildings, killing abortion doctors, throwing acid in the faces of women who want equality etc.... However, Jonathan brought this to our attention - a woman actively destroying her child's self esteem. I found it sickening. There are quite a few people - atheist and believer alike who are deeply concerned for the child (and the mother) on the thread.

Stephen Law highlights christians murdering children believed to be witches here.

Anticant has pointed out yet more homophobia here, with the catholics screening for homosexual tendencies.

These are examples of people being removed from moral decision making, by letting their religious delusions take away any accountability for their actions. If oly they could think about such things critically. This is the danger of religion - it takes accounability and rationality out of moral decisions. All very depressing stuff.

A Meeting With God

2008-11-09T13:13:00.000-08:00

I will be in the presence of the one true god tomorrow night. Enjoy His word

Monks Gone Wild

2008-11-09T10:41:00.000-08:00

This is an interesting video. It shows a bunch of monks adhering to religious tradition by slapping each other about over a dispute concerning the imaginary friend that they both lay claim to! Jesus would no doubt be disappointed; he wanted them to use swords (Matt 10:34).

Christian FundieMENTALISTS Are The Missing Link

2008-11-08T04:58:00.000-08:00

'Nuff Said!

Shrimp On A Treadmill

2008-11-04T14:51:00.000-08:00

This video shows a shrimp on a treadmill. The study was aimed at comparing the difference between healthy and sick shrimps in travelling to get food. Not surprisingly healthy ones were faster and ran for longer than sick ones. What is surprising however, is the fact that the healthy ones can run up to 66 feet a minute and keep it up for 3 hours. Beat that Paula Radcliffe - and it doesn't have to stop to piss in public either.

Another Laughable Bible Verse

2008-11-02T12:55:00.000-08:00

I was visiting Susie's blog and there was a comment on this thread from a believer who said that "God never gives us more than we can bare." This comment gets its "inspiration" from this verse "God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength but with your testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it" (1 Corinthians 10:13).

I always feel like just telling believers to shut up when I hear this. There are plenty of examples of people killing themselves because they cant reconcile things like their sexuality with their beliefs.

I have now decided to challenge them with Ex christians, pointing out those who struggled to keep their faith. These people have in the eyes of the believer, committed the ultimate act of suicide by losing their faith. I wonder how the believers will respond? No doubt some will say they were not true believers in the first place. It's the only way many can gloss over the problem - even though they don't know anything about why anyone gives up belief in their invisible "god"- in light of evidence against the bible.

This post was brought to you by the letter A and the number 666.

Anal Epiphany

2008-10-31T09:05:00.001-07:00

After this brilliant comment from Philip:"People will see their god point at them from pieces of toast, its of no surprise that they try so desperately to see their god in everything", Jesus has made an appearance on this dog's bottom. Animal welfare groups have expressed concerns that the poor dog's bottom will be rubbed red raw by leprous pilgrims desperately seeking a cure.

Moronic Thought For Today

2008-10-31T04:12:00.000-07:00

Not surprisingly, it comes from a Christian. My local radio station has a thought for the day slot in the morning that allows religious wingnuts to talk utter pap.

Today was some inane fool from GRF Christian radio. He was talking about a funeral of a friend of a friend that he attended. The flowers were some distance from the grave because of some works, and the guys 8 year old son was concerned that the flowers would not be put on his father's grave. So, after everyone had left, and the grave had been filled in, the undertaker took the little boy to the grave and let him arrange the flowers on his dad's grave. The moron's conclusion was that if the undertaker cared enough for the little boy, then how much more does god care about him?

Get a grip! This is a total non sequitur and presupposes that god exists. The moron somehow concludes that this god that he believes is all powerful and loving, has allowed this child to grow up fatherless. Think about the consequences, emotionally, psychologically and financially.

This is nothing short of mindless moronic stupidity that I find insulting and patronising. Dont we have special hospitals to put these people in until they get better and stop hearing voices in their feet?

Thouroughly Vile

2008-10-30T13:55:00.000-07:00

Would you let your children play with this guy?

"15But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:
16Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field.
17Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store.
18Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.
19Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out.
20The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.
21The LORD shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it.
22The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish.
23And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron.
24The LORD shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed.
25The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.
26And thy carcase shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray them away.
27The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed.
28The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart:
29And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways: and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save thee.
30Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her: thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt not dwell therein: thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not gather the grapes thereof.
31Thine ox shall be slain before thine eyes, and thou shalt not eat thereof: thine ass shall be violently taken away from before thy face, and shall not be restored to thee: thy sheep shall be given unto thine enemies, and thou shalt have none to rescue them.
32Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail with longing for them all the day long; and there shall be no might in thine hand.
33The fruit of thy land, and all thy labours, shall a nation which thou knowest not eat up; and thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed alway:
34So that thou shalt be mad for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.
35The LORD shall smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore botch that cannot be healed, from the sole of thy foot unto the top of thy head.
36The LORD shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.
37And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the LORD shall lead thee.
38Thou shalt carry much seed out into the field, and shalt gather but little in; for the locust shall consume it.
39Thou shalt plant vineyards, and dress them, but shalt neither drink of the wine, nor gather the grapes; for the worms shall eat them.
40Thou shalt have olive trees throughout all thy coasts, but thou shalt not anoint thyself with the oil; for thine olive shall cast his fruit.
41Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy them; for they shall go into captivity.
42All thy trees and fruit of thy land shall the locust consume.
43The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low.
44He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.
45Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee:
46And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever.
47Because thou servedst not the LORD thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things;
48Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee.
49The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;
50A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor shew favour to the young:
51And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be destroyed: which also shall not leave thee either corn, wine, or oil, or the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have destroyed thee.
52And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
53And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:
54So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave:
55So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates.
56The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,
57And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.
58If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD;
59Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.
60Moreover he will bring upon thee all the diseases of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of; and they shall cleave unto thee.
61Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the LORD bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.
62And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou wouldest not obey the voice of the LORD thy God.
63And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.
64And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone.
65And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the LORD shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind:
66And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life:
67In the morning thou shalt say, Would God it were even! and at even thou shalt say, Would God it were morning! for the fear of thine heart wherewith thou shalt fear, and for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.
68And the LORD shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you." (Deuteronomy 28)

More Creationist Deception

2008-10-28T16:05:00.000-07:00

I accidentally stumbled across this pathetic site. There is so much wrong with it, is unreal. On this page, I found the following statement being used as evidence that evolution makes no sense.

“80% of the proteins in the humanand chimpanzee genomes are different.

This comparison is very significant because proteins are ultimately responsible for an organism’s anatomical, physiological, and behavioral characteristics. Therefore, a high degree of genetic similarity doesn’t necessarily mean that humans and chimpanzees are closely related organisms. (reference: Galina Glazko, Vamsi Veeramachaneni, Masatoshi Nei and Wojciech Makalowski, "Eighty Percent of Proteins are Different between Humans and Chimpanzees," Gene volume 346 14 February 2005, Pages 215-219 )”

This is in the context of the genomes of humans and chimps being 98.4% identical. The author is therefore playing on this large difference between the genetic and the protein similarity in his claim. I have learned enough about creationists to be suspicious of their source material – even valid scientific studies are misrepresented – as we will see here.

The first thing you notice is that this guy appears unaware that relatedness is a function of genes, not proteins. It is the genes (that encode the proteins) that we inherit. Anyway, I checked the original paper that appears in a peer reviewed scientific journal, and not surprisingly, there is a major creationist misrepresentation of the work going on here.

As a refresher, proteins are made up of covalently linked amino acids ordered in specific sequences. Each amino acid is coded for by 3 nucleotides in the relevant gene. The sequence of 3 nucleotide units (the codon) determines the amino acid sequence of the protein. This paper considers a protein with just one amino acid difference between humans and chimps as different. To put this in perspective in terms of relatedness, a one nucleotide difference in a sequence can cause a difference of one amino acid between proteins. The average protein is 300 amino acids. That means that 300 X3 (=900) nucleotides code for that sequence. Therefore, a 0.3333% change in amino acid sequence only needs a 0.1111% change in gene sequence. For a two amino acid difference, we need a 0.2222% difference in gene sequence and so on, with a 1% change capable of producing a 3% change in amino acid sequence.*
This means that very small changes in DNA sequence are required to make proportionately larger changes in protein sequence.

This creationist’s claim is essentially meaningless.

*These calculations do not take into account intronic sequences which have no bearing on amino acid sequence.

The Value And Curse Of Philosophy

2008-10-26T16:15:00.000-07:00

A couple of us got together from richarddawkins.net last week and the value of philosophy was discussed. One of the group was skeptical (as I once was). We discussed that one of its values was to think about how consistent your thinking is and how how sound the premises are that you base that thinking on. A position is more likely to be valid if both the premises can be argued for and the argument is internally consistent. This creates a real problem for those who claim supernatural phenomena explain certain aspects of the universe and human nature. How do you make claims about the untestable. At best, a theological argument can be consistent, but its premises can not be reasonably argued for. An example of a consistent argument would be only god eats pencils, therefore anything that eats pencils is god. I went to school with a girl who ate pencils. Therefore, she is god. However, how sound are the premises such an argument is based on? How do actual claims about god differ?

Here is another consistent argument. Watch it and think about the following.

How do we know it is not the truth?

What tools do we have to investigate this?

Is it reasonable to reject this possibility?

It could be true, like a deistic world view could be true, but what evidence is their to back it up

And yes, it was the blondes that drew my attention to the video - wahey, down boy! :-)

Epidexipteryx Hui; A New Transitional Fossil

2008-10-25T13:36:00.000-07:00

It looks like another of those pesky supposedly non existent transitional fossils that Satan buried to fool people has turned up in Inner Mongolia. The new fossil, an ancestor of birds, is described in the current issue of Nature is called Epidexipteryx hui. It is around 152-168 million years old, making it possibly older than Archaeopteryx (155 -150 million years old). Like Archaeopteryx, it is a maniraptorian dinosaur, but somewhat more primitive. However, it lacks flight feathers, but has two long pairs of long tail feathers (although simpler than modern feathers). This adds further weight to the idea that feathers evolved for purposes other than flight – perhaps display and or insulation (other parts of the body are covered in barbed hair like filaments). The feathers would then become a selectable pre-adaptation that enabled the evolution of modern avian flight.

E. hui

Another Letter In Metro

2008-10-24T09:37:00.000-07:00

Following this incident concerning the withdrawl of a game that Muslims found offensive, there was a letter in the Metro on Wednesday telling people that they should respect Islam. Surprisingly, they published my reply (below)

"Ben, I missed which part of Islam that you wanted us to respect. Was it the bits where some (but definitely not all) Muslims believe that they have God given justification to oppress women and fly planes into buildings, believing they will be rewarded with more women to oppress? Or was it the stuff where it is God's will that you should kill non believers, gays and women who are not virgins? Or how about demands for beheading those who insult Islam? Also, which of the above are you claiming is entierly rational?
Would such people allow us the respect that you think we should give them? Are decent Muslims scared to take a stance against such behaviour too?"

I was wanting to put in a comment about not taking moral instruction from the followers of a paedophile but reckoned that might be seen as a bit too strong.

There was an interesting comment today that the Muslims totally overlooked the violence the game shows towards women. It is just another example of the fact that people expect their stupid beliefs to be shown absolute respect because it is religion.

Bloodless Icefish Makes Creationism Look (Even More) Anaemic

2008-10-19T13:59:00.000-07:00

Time for some more creationist bashing. I am preparing a post on the evolution of antifreeze proteins in Notothenoid fish. However, there is also something else interesting about this group.

Let’s see people draw their own conclusions.

Fact 1: All vertebrates have genes for haemoglobin (see fact 3).

Fact 2: 16 species of Notothenoids do not express haemoglobin. (the only known vertebrates without haemoglobin)

Fact 3: 16 species of Notothenoids do not have any functional haemoglobin genes.

Fact 4: 15 of these species have no beta haemoglobin gene and retain a shortened form of the alpha gene.

Fact 5: The remaining species (Neopagetops isionah) has two non functional pseudogenes for beta haemoglobin. One contains only part of the 3rd exon and is very similar to the same fragment of the closely related and haemoglobin bearing Dragonfish. The other pseudogene is closely related to that of other Notothenoids.

Your conclusion ladies and gentlemen: Evolution or creation?

A more technical account can be found here.

Fundies, it may be worth bearing this in mind:

Hebrews 6:18 “God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged."

But, then again, maybe not….

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 “The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”
Ooops!

Maybe that means that you can’t trust any of the bible. The evidence above exists despite what your book says about it.

Let's Put God In Court.

2008-10-19T11:57:00.000-07:00

I came across this amusing story, found here.

A judge has thrown out a case against God - as the Almighty doesn't have an official address and legal papers can't be served.

Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers filed the lawsuit last year seeking a permanent injunction against God who he said made terrorist threats against him and his Omaha constituents.

Additionally, he said God inspired fear and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorisation of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants".

The US politician said his case was over the fact that everyone should have access to the courts regardless of whether they have money or not.

However, Douglas County District Court Judge Marlon Polk ruled that under state law a plaintiff must have access to the defendant for a lawsuit to move forward - and this would be rather tricky under the circumstances.

Judge Polk said: "Given that this court finds that there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant this action will be dismissed with prejudice."

But Senator Chambers, a law school graduate, thinks he's found a hole in the judge's ruling.

He said: "The court itself acknowledges the existence of God. A consequence of that acknowledgement is a recognition of God's omniscience."

Since God knows everything, God has notice of this lawsuit."

Senator Chambers, who has served a record 38 years in the Nebraska Legislature, has 30 days to decide whether to appeal.

Dear God

2008-10-19T05:53:00.000-07:00

This is not a prayer as some people like to think. Midge Ure says here that "I mean some people see that it's slightly cynical, but still hopeful at the same time. Other people see it as an out and out religious song, which it's not. It's not a prayer, you know. It's a plea, really. It's me questioning what I was taught about religion when I was a kid,that you pray every night and you go to church or chapel or synagogue, whatever. You do it and say everything will be all right. You think that religion is a thing that is there to help you and to see you through life, and then you wake up one morning and find the entire Irish situation, the civil war that's based on religion. You know, most wars are based on religion. Religions fight each other because they are trying to out-do each other. Everyone's got it right, but they can't all have it right because they are all so radically different. You know, one religion can't be any better than the other religion. I'm just disappointed that we were taught these things as kids, but you haven't really got a choice about it, no one chooses the religion they are born in".

So, here is a guy cynical about religion, who has done a little bit for charity too. What was that about needing religion for moral values?

What Is Life?

2008-10-16T09:58:00.000-07:00

The question of what is life came up over coffee this morning. It is actually not that easy to put a finger on. Some things we have no hesitation in calling alive – like ourselves. With others it is less obvious.
In my first ever biology class at school, I was taught that there were seven characteristics of life, which if memory serves me right include the fact that life has to feed (acquire building blocks), move, grow, respire (produce energy) be organised into cells, be sensitive to the environment and be adaptable. I would also add that it has to locally reverse entropy too.

So, we all do these things, but are they universal? Viruses for example don’t grow or move. They don’t even respire in the sense that they make their own ATP. They get that from their host cells. They are not cellular in nature and are only adaptable in the sense that mutations can occur – they can’t adapt in the sense that a Venus flytrap can turn on antifreeze proteins when they are chilled. So, are viruses alive? They do reverse entropy and appear sensitive to the environment in that some can use cues inside the host cell to reproduce – Herpes for example lies latent for long periods of time.

So, are viruses alive?

Many invertebrate embryos are not initially cellular either – they are syncitial (no cellular divisions between nuclei). Slime Moulds also spend much of their lives in a syncitial state too.

What about salt crystals? It can grow by reversing entropy. Split them in two and given the right conditions, they can grow into two new crystals. It is sensitive to the environment; it “knows” when to grow and when to dissolve. Its component parts have all the information needed to produce an identical crystal, and is organised into unit cells, so is it alive?

Discuss!

Picture Round

2008-10-12T09:13:00.000-07:00

This is more one for the climbers. Following on from Dave's mountain and bothy tests, I thought I would see if anyone can identify these.

1 Where is this? (I only think I know, so confirmation will be nice).

2 Name the peak and the climber.

3 Name the peak this is taken from (I'm sure someone I know wasn't there).

4 Name the bothy.

5 Would you tell this guy he looks like Martin O'Neill?

6 What drugs is he on?

7 Name the islands and where it was taken from

8 Name the bothy and who supposedly lived in a cave on the hill on the left? (Other than Charles Edward Papist)

9 Cold is God's way of telling us to burn more Catholics, so who is up the chimney? Also, name the bothy.

10 Name the Bothy. Dave and Craig can't answer this one. The other Dave can. Everyone can name the physical feature in the background. What physical feature is the glen also famous for?

11 What hill was this taken from?

12 Name the two faults. The second is below the knob on the right. (Dave may not answer)

13 From last weekend - who couldn't make it? :-)

I Have A Cunning Plan.....

2008-10-12T06:04:00.000-07:00

It is so cunning, you could put a tail on it and call it a fox. A soldier accused of stealing ammunition has made a baldrickesque defence. He claimed that he was superstitious and kept a bullet with his name on it in a tin. That way he would own the bullet with his name on it. It is a scene straight out of Blackadder goes forth.

Captain Blackadder: “Baldrick, what are you doing out there?”

Private Baldrick: “I'm carving something on a bullet, sir.”

Captain Blackadder: “What are you craving?”

Private Baldrick: “I'm carving "Baldrick", sir.”

Captain Blackadder: “Why?”

Private Baldrick: “It's part of a cunning plan, sir.”

Captain Blackadder: “Of course it is.”

Private Baldrick: “You know how they say that somewhere there's a bullet with your name on it?”

Captain Blackadder: “Yes?”

Private Baldrick: “Well I thought that if I owned the bullet with my name on it, I'll never get hit by it. Cause I'll never shoot myself...”

Captain Blackadder: “Oh, shame!"

Private Baldrick: “And the chances of there being *two* bullets with my name on it are very small indeed.”

Captain Blackadder: “Yes, it's not the only thing that is "very small indeed". Your brain for example- is brain's so minute, Baldrick, that if a hungry cannibal cracked your head open, there wouldn't be enough to cover a small water biscuit.”

The grenades and other boxes of ammunition in his possession required a bit more explaining though.

In another story, John Smeaton’s family have asked Scotland to pray for him after a severe asthma attack.

Both these stories demonstrate why people adopt superstitious beliefs when they are not in control of the situation. This is why people pray in vain for healing, rain and whatever else they are in need of when they cant get it themselves.

EDIT: good news is Smeaton seems to be getting better. That'll be the intensive care and not the ooga booga then.

Failure Of Messianic Prophecy 4: Daniel 9

2008-10-07T15:47:00.000-07:00

After the silliness of the last post, it’s back to normal. Daniel 9 is often claimed by fundies to predict the date of Jesus’ birth. However, Before we start, it is interesting to note that Daniel is trying to understand a prophecy made by Jeremiah that Jerusalem must lie desolate for seventy years (Dan. 9:2). The prophecy is Jer. 25:11-12:

“This entire land shall become a desolate wasteland. Israel and her neighboring lands shall serve the king of Babylon for seventy years. Then, when seventy years of captivity are over, I will punish the king of Babylon and his people for their sins, says the Lord. I will make the country of the Babylonians an everlasting wasteland.”

This is actually a failed prophecy, and both Jeremiah and Daniel were wrong about the length of the exile. The Babylonians took Jerusalem in 587/586 BCE and Cyrus the Great (not the mysterious Darius the Mede of Dan. 9:1) conquered Babylon in 538 BCE. Cyrus proclaimed that the Jews could return home in the first year of his reign (Ezr. 1:1-4). This is at most 49 years, and even if we are generous and take the start of the prophecy as 597 BCE, when the Babylonians first laid siege to Jerusalem, that still only totals 59 years. During that time, neither Israel nor Jerusalem lay desolate, and Babylon was not destroyed by Cyrus. In fact, Alexander the Great (356-321 BCE) may have considered using the city as his capital. In other words, the prophets of the bible were just plain wrong!

This unfulfilled prophecy may have been what prompted the writer of Daniel to extend it in another time of national crisis, probably around 167 BCE, and not in the last days of the Babylonian empire, when “Daniel” claimed to live.

Here is the “prophecy”:

“Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place.So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate” (Dan.9:24-27).

Christians assume that the word “weeks” used in this text means week of years (7years/week). Therefore, the periods of 70, 62, 7 and 1 weeks represent periods of 490, 434 ,49 and 7 years respectively. There is good reason to believe that the word used here actually means groups of multiple weeks and not years, but let us carry on with the Christian interpretation for now. Assuming this to be true, the clock starts ticking from the time the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was made. According to Ezra (Ezr. 1:14), this happened in the first year of the reign of Cyrus the Great in Babylon. That was 538 BCE. Therefore, 538-69 “weeks” (483 years) until the messiah comes = 55 BCE. Too early for Jesus, and the prophecy fails. Christians therefore re-reinterpreted the prophecy and claimed that the actual starting date was the time that the original decree of Cyrus was sought and found on the orders of Darius II (Ezr. 6:1-9). This happened in the second year of Darius’ reign (520 BCE). So, again we subtract the 69 “weeks” from 520, and the messiah is now due in 37BCE, still too early! Yet again, the Christians had to reinterpret these verses, and came up with the so called sabbatical cycle, where every seventh year, is a sabbatical year (Ex. 23:10-11, Lev. 25:3-7 and 18-22). According to the book of Maccabees, 162-163 BCE was a sabbatical year. It was then decided that 445 BCE should be the starting point of this prophecy. There really is no good rationale for employing this date. The only justification for this is a letter of safe conduct given to Nehemiah by Artaxerxes (Neh. 2:1-6). This is NOT a decree to rebuild Jerusalem, and has more than a hint of snatching at straws about it. Anyway, 445 BCE fell within the sabbatical cycle of 449-442 BCE. If this is the first “week”, then the sixty ninth is 28-35 CE, a plausible range – derived by implausible means - for the crucifixion, but not the birth of Jesus.Furthermore, some translations of this passage refer to an anointed one as opposed to the messiah (eg the RSV). The difference is significant, an anointed one is chosen for a particular task by god, whereas the Messiah (in Christian terms) was Jesus. Jews of course have their own expectations.

One final reason why I do not believe that this refers to Jesus is found right at the beginning of this passage. The readers are told to “make an end to sin and bring in ever lasting righteousness.” This means that the people are to do it themselves. The whole idea of Jesus coming was to restore believers to God in spite of their sin.

This is yet another desperate attempt to try and make Jesus appear to have supernatural credentials. And like the rest, it fails miserably to convince.

Glaswegian Tribute To Crocodile Dundee

2008-10-06T15:18:00.000-07:00

That's no' a chib,

THIS is a chib ya fanny!

It's amazing how a little rain can make you lose your usual tolerant attitude towards communal living.

Blatant Religious Cherry Picking

2008-10-01T15:20:00.000-07:00

I pass several disused churches on the way to work, but one still clings on to life. It is one of those places that put up asinine posters every now and then. Outside it just now is a sign that has a picture of some strawberries and the caption “Harvest – a taste of God’s goodness”. My first though is of the Ethiopian famine. Where was god there? It makes a mockery of “Jesus” teaching people to pray “give us this day our daily bread”. Why do Christians always credit god with the good things (actually, I’m not overly fond of strawberries)? Why not credit him with brussel sprouts, Satan and necrotising fasciitis. How about this for a caption: “Flesh eating bug eating your face? That’s because god is a cunt!” Somehow, I think the religious cherry pickers will take offense at this one – “that’s not my god…” What? Not the god of the bible who starves people into cannibalism? ("And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend." - Jeremiah 19:9).

However, why should god be responible for one and not the other? It is an inconsistency of logic.

Note: I use the strong language to hammer home the point, not to intentionally offend people. If you are offended, I suggest you get some ear plugs for the next time you step outside and consider why one point of view is considered good and the other is not.

Wasp Stings Young Earth Creationism In The Bum

2008-09-28T04:11:00.000-07:00

Over at the Mac Gafraidh blog, I questioned Chelsea on whether she took the following verses literally:

“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.” (Genesis 1:29-30).

Like all biblical literalists, she said that she does believe this. These verses basically says that all animals were created to be vegetarian - an absurd position to hold. We need only think about carnivores and their killing adaptations like the canines of big cats that that are so good a piercing flesh – and just happen to be at the right spacing to dislocate the cervical (neck) vertebrae of their main prey species. Then there are species of fish specifically adapted to eat scales and fins (eg Perissodus sp and Exodon paradoxus). One species, the Sabre tooth blenny (Aspidontus taeniatus) even mimics that Cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus). Cleaner wrasse pick parasites, which are themselves highly specialised non vegetarians (see my article on Trypanosomes for an complex example of adaptation to living inside and off of another species). Fish approach cleaner wrasse to be serviced and the wrasse signals back. This signifies the intentions of both parties and wrasse are even allowed into the mouths of large predators, where they are unharmed. Sabre tooth blennies on the other hand do a similar display but instead of cleaning the other fish, they take a chunk out of it. This is a problem for YECs.

However, I want to use an example that Darwin used (more against the idea that god was a loving creator). He cites the Ichneumonoidea – a group of parasitoid wasps that lay their eggs in the living bodies of their insect hosts (usually caterpillars).

Darwin writes:

“I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.”

There are several special adaptations that are needed:

A suitable host must be located.

The host must become infected – hence the long ovipositor. Some species (eg Ephialtes manifestator) can locate their host through wood and drill to them . Other species also paralyse their hosts, so the toxin is yet another adaptation. Many species also parasitize dangerous spiders so avoiding becoming dinner is another adaptation.

The larvae must evade the hosts’ immune system.

The larvae must keep the host alive and fresh for as long as possible to ensure fresh meat.

In the example below, involving the Blue butterfly as a host, we see several adaptations. These include locating the host and distinguishing it from ant larvae (bear in mind that the ants can’t even do that) and avoiding being attacked by the ants. This latter applies to both infected pupae and adult wasps.

So, the fundamentalist is left with a problem. How did these specific adaptations arise if animals were intended to be vegetarian? They either have to claim god made them that way (lacking any evidence) or claim that some evolution occurred – although that would have to be incredibly fast for a vegetarian wasp to become a wood drilling, ant avoiding spider paralysing, immune system evading parasite.

Of course, the problems for YECs don’t stop there. They believe in the flood. There were only of two of every non clean kind on the ark. That means no ant colony to feed the blue butterfly larvae for the Ichneumon to eradicate. Mind you, the ants would have been killed by lancet flukes (Dicrocoelium lanceolatum). That’s if Anty the ant eater didn’t get them first.

100th Post

2008-09-21T13:27:00.000-07:00

100 posts already, that was quick! Thanks to the Feedjit map, I can also see which posts are being read. Surprisingly, the "Jimmy Carr Quote" is quite popular. Maybe I should tag everything with "Jimmy Carr". I'm also surprised that the "Evolution of Antibody Recombination" post has been reasonably popular too.

Anyway, to celebrate, I thought I would do a little dance. Enjoy.

Jewish Messianic Expectations

2008-09-21T13:08:00.000-07:00

On a thread of the MacGafraidh blog, Chelsea has been claiming that Jesus fulfilled certain messianic prophecies. I have already dealt with a problems of a few here and this post will not concern itself with these, However, I thought I would list some of the requirements the Jews have of the messiah. As you will notice, Jesus does not qualify.

Jewish expectations of the messiah include:

1. The restoration of the line of David (Daniel 7:13-14).

2. He will rebuild the temple of their god in Jerusalem (Is. 2:2, Ezek. 37:26-28).

3. He will bring about family harmony with the help of Elijah (Mal. 4:5-6).

4. He will gather the Jews from all over the world and bring them back to Israel (Ezek. 36:24).

5. He will bring about eternal world peace (Is. 2:2-4, Mic. 4:1-4, Ezek. 39:9 and 12).

6. He will bring about an end to death (Is. 25:8).

7. The dead will be resurrected (Is. 26:19, Is. 43:5-6, Dan. 12.2, Ezek. 37:12-13).

8. He will bring an end to hunger (Ezek. 36:29-30)

9. He will convert the world to Judaism (Jer. 31:31-34, Is. 11:9, Zech. 8:23, Zech. 14:9 and 16).

Clearly, they are just as prone to letting their imagination run away with then, and none of the above has ever happened. For some of these reasons though, Jews claim that the messiah has not yet come. Christians always have to stretch the bounds of reason to claim that Jesus qualifies as the messiah. Often, reality runs away from them and they claim that all this will all be sorted out after the second coming of Jesus. Bearing this in mind, it is worth noting that there are absolutely no verses in the Old Testament that even hint at a second coming. This is a concept totally alien to Judaism, and only appears in writings after Jesus died. Secondly, it should be noted that the bible states that when Jesus returns, it will be to end the world and bring judgment (Matt. 25:31-46), so how can things that did not happen the first time be fixed the second time around?

I agree with the Jews, there has been no messiah visiting us.

Aaaaarrrrrrr!

2008-09-19T13:21:00.000-07:00

Arrrr, since it be international speak like a pirate day while the sun be over the yard arm, I's be a posting this me hearties ARRR. Parlez in them thaaarrr comments must be in pirate speak, or I'll be a keel haulin' offenders says I - Arrrrrrrr.

If God Commanded It, Would You Kill Your Child?

2008-09-16T15:45:00.000-07:00

Lee brought up an interesting question. Would a believer kill their child if god told them to do it? This is a good question and I would be interested in how believers tackle it. From what I can see, there is an obvious dodge that could be employed to avoid the question. That is that god would not ask them to do such a thing. This is problematic because it certainly is in god’s nature to ask such a thing. We need only think about god asking Abraham to sacrifice his son (Genesis 22). God has even allowed the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter to him (Judges 11:29-40). Then there are the New Testament verses on god testing and refining your faith (eg 1 Peter 1:6-7 ). Not only that, the Christian would actually be claiming to know how god goes about his mysterious ways – ways beyond human comprehension (Isaiah 55:8-9). It appears that god does not take too kindly to this sort of claim as Job’s friends found out (Job 42:7-8).

Now, if the Christian claims that he would, then we could rightly think they are a dangerous moral degenerate. This would then beg another question though; how does the Christian know that it is god talking to them? Here then is another challenge to those who decide that god did not tell them to kill their child. How would you decide? What evidence would it take for you to believe that god asked you to kill your child? I would bet it would be some pretty extra ordinary evidence. Now, how much higher is this bar than the one you use day to day in your faith life, and why are you not consistent with respect to where you set the bar? Let’s face it, you would be happy to believe gad wanted you to ask out your partner – and if they agree, you see it as confirmation. So, why have different standards for a different situation? This shows how worthless faith really is and how little you really value it.

Godless Inspiration

2008-09-15T14:45:00.000-07:00

One of the things about many Christians is that they need their faith as a psychological crutch. They think they can not deal with problems without it. I suppose though, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy if you believe that stuff. This is one of the positive things about atheism. It forces you to take charge and get things done yourself (I wrote a post loosely based on this before) . I was therefore thinking of a good message that you don't need the psychological crutch of god to live through hard times. Mark suggested this one. I think it is hard to beat. Lance Armstrong is an atheist and once said "If there was a god, I'd still have both nuts."

Christians take note. People have the resources to cope without god. Give yourselves some credit for your own achievements.

Blog News

2008-09-15T12:03:00.000-07:00

I have added two new links that I recommend. They are both by Charity. The first is called Humanity's great new era and the second is called True Bible Knowledge.

Steven has also changed his blog name to Surely you're joking. I keep telling him not to call me surely though.

Enter The Atheist Dragon, Exit Johnny Creationist

2008-09-14T14:43:00.000-07:00

Creationists don't just specialise in being ignorant about science. No siree, they can multitask and be ignorant of several things at once. He we see one time US presidential hopeful Huckabee and Chuck Norris spouting rubbish about their country being founded on christian principles. This is inexcusable stupidity. It is a matter of fact that the country was not founded on Christian principles. Many of the founding fathers were also agnostics, sceptics, atheists and deists. If Huckabee cant get something simple about the history of the country he wants to run correct, what hope is there that this creationist retard has an informed opinion of science - and evolution in particular. He should take note of this :

"the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." (Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States, ed. Hunter Miller, Vol. 2, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1931, p. 365).

Anyway, I don't think something as inconvenient as facts will change their minds. There is only one way, in the words of Harry Hill "FIIIIIIGHT"*

*No creationists were hurt in the making of this post.

Mark Twain Quote

2008-09-13T09:38:00.000-07:00

"According to Kelvin’s figures it took 99,968,000 years to prepare the world for man, impatient as the Creator doubtless was to see him and admire him. But a large enterprise like this has to be conducted warily, painstakingly, logically. It was foreseen that man would have to have the oyster. Therefore the first preparation was made for the oyster.
Very well, you cannot make an oyster out of whole cloth, you must make the oyster’s ancestor first. This is not done in a day. You must make a vast variety of invertebrates, to start with — belemnites, trilobites, jebusites, amalekites, and that sort of fry, and put them to soak in a primary sea, and wait and see what will happen. Some will be a disappointments - the belemnites, the ammonites and such; they will be failures, they will die out and become extinct, in the course of the 19,000,000 years covered by the experiment, but all is not lost, .. and at last the first grand stage in the preparation of the world for man stands completed, the Oyster is done.
An oyster has hardly any more reasoning power than a scientist has; and so it is reason ably certain that this one jumped to the conclusion that the nineteen-million years was a preparation for him…"

Holy Moses?

2008-09-11T13:30:00.000-07:00

Moses is one of the most well known of the Old Testament prophets. It is supposedly through him that many of the vile laws of Yahweh are given. So, through Moses we supposedly get a glimpse of the standards of God.

Moses apparently enjoyed a special relationship with God despite the fact he was a murderer (Ex 2:12). That didn’t seem to bother God as he ordered Moses to kill the Midianites (Num. 31). Their “crime” was to lead the Israelites into idolatry. Strange that as I thought we view accountable for our own “sins” and saying a big boy made me do it was not an excuse. Anyway, the Israelites dutifully slaughter the men (presumably they must all have tempted the Jews – or God is a nasty). Now, the Israelites spared the women and children, but that only served to piss Moses off and he ordered the murder of all the boys and the women who were not virgins. The Israelites were however told they could keep all the virgins – I wonder what for! Apparently a share was to be given to God – I think that’s a euphemism for human sacrifice – It wouldn’t be the only time God had accepted one. (Ex. 22:29-30, Lev. 27:28-29, Judges 11:31-35).

Personally, I don't believe Moses existed, there are too many problems with the Pentateuch, but that does not distract from the fact that this character teaches us about the character of the god of the bible - a character that is inconsistent with the "loving" god of the new testament - you know the one that will kill everyone in the apocalypse of Revelation and send those whom he has decided not to reveal himself to to hell.

Not The End Of The World Then

2008-09-10T06:58:00.000-07:00

In case anyone missed it, The Large Hadron Collider is up and running and produced its first image (below). All Hail science! Unfortunately Switzerland has not been sucked into a black hole .........yet!

Pretty Picture

2008-09-07T07:29:00.000-07:00

This shows the ventral nerve cord(green) and muscles (red) of a freshwater leech. The blue "circles" around the chord are the nuclei of nerve cells associated with the chord (one node per body segment). Branches of the chord can be seen going into the body segments. More nice photos can be seen here.