Magic!

Space shuttle Atlantis in silhouette, or in transit, against the sun.

Beautiful

Biblical Nonsense

A Review of the Bible For Doubting Christians
Dr Jason Long

I ordered this book, along with 50 Reasons People Give For Believeing in A God because they are on the list for the book club on Adrian Hayter's Atheist Blogger site.

Biblical Nonsense arrived first so it got read.

On the plus side it was an easy read, for me that was also its downfall. I felt that often Dr long is talking down to his reader. There wasn't much that I didn't know already, but I found his chapters on Prophesy Slavery and Women most interesting.

The book is subtitled - "A Review of the Bible For Doubting Christians" but I doubt very much if doubting Christians would enjoy it. In the chapters on the flood, logical fallacies and science he uses disparaging language to describe the mindsets of believers and apologists. Perhaps such language is justified, but I'm not convinced it will help to persuade.

I felt another weakness of his argument for the scientific weaknesses of the Bible is to criticise the science of events that are obviously miraculous. For example, he states that it neither logical nor scientific that God created light before he created the sun and the stars. Sure it's illogical, but he's God, by the Christian definition he is entirely capable of anything. he can have plants groing before the sun's creation, sure, why not? he's God.

I felt the book did a very good job of illustrating that the Bible cannot be divinely inspired because of the errors and contradicitions contained. And importantly for me were the errors of edition. A book authored under the direct guideance of Holy God had a crap proof reader.

Dr Long explains that the book grew out of a series of essays and unfortunately, in this respect it is a lot like the Bible it criticises: A collection of disparate works that don't hold together well. With more time and effort, Dr Long could have re-worked some of the chapters to homogonise the writing style across the whole book. A stricter editor would have insisted on it. I've never written a book, and I acknowledge it must be pain in the arse to rework and re-write material.

I spent my church time in a Baptist Church and was led to believe that the NIV translation was super accurate and tip top. I was amazed to discover via this book of some of the liberties the NIV has taken in its translation.

I'd recommend the book, not as an in-depth study, it doesn't claim to be that, but as a great primer into the failings, errors, fallacies, and lies contained in The Holy Bible. It is certainly a stimumus to further study.
The end of the book gave a list of further reading of on-line sources which I am going to find very useful.

World's 'oldest Christian church' discovered in Jordan

From The Telegraph
If this story pans out it'll be fascinating. Imagine - conclusive proof of the historicity of Jesus.

Archaeologists claim to have found the world's oldest church dating from shortly after Christ's crucifixion.
According to a report in the Jordan Times newspaper, a very early underground church was found beneath the ancient Saint Georgeous Church, which itself dates back to 230 AD, in Rihab, northern Jordan near the Syrian border.
"We have uncovered what we believe to be the first church in the world, dating from 33 AD to 70 AD," Abdul Qader al-Husan, head of Jordan's Rihab Centre for Archaeological Studies, said.
We have evidence to believe this church sheltered the early Christians – the 70 disciples of Jesus Christ."
A mosaic found in the church describes these Christians as "the 70 beloved by God and Divine". Mr Husan said they believed to have fled persecution in Jerusalem and founded churches in northern Jordan.
He cited historical sources which suggest they both lived and practised religious rituals in the underground church and only left it after Christianity was embraced by Roman rulers in the fourth century AD.

Oh dear. My skepticism kicks in. Phrases like "claim to have found" and "evidence to believe" and "sources which suggest" set my bullshit alarms off.

Researchers recovered pottery dating back to between the 3rd and 7th centuries, which they say suggests these first Christians and their followers lived in the area until late Roman rule.

Unless I've misread the article, this would suggest that the users of the church from "33 AD to 70 AD" always cleaned up after themselves and were a remarkably tidy lot, until those careless plate-smashers from the 3rd century took over.

Either that, or Jesus' disciples were eating of plates that weren't yet made.

We have no historical or archeological evidence for the existance of Jesus but for gospels and churches that date from a couple of hundred years after he was supposed to be around. Now, some archeologists reckon that because a mosaic mentions "70 disciples" that dates it to "33 AD to 70 AD"?

The claim was treated with some disdain in online chatrooms focusing on biblical knowledge with most contributors suggesting the claim was made up to boost Rihab's tourist status.

No! Who could imagine such a thing? That would be like suggesting that James Cameron making a documentary about finding the tomb of Jesus based on some names that sound a bit like some of his contemporaries was made just for self-promotion and publicity. That could never happen.

Believe me, I would like for this to be true, I love history, and a church dating within the first century would be a real find.

But I call bullshit.

Prince Charles makes a correct decision

From CNN news.

LONDON, England (AP) -- A royal spokesman says Britain's Prince Charles has had a small non-cancerous growth removed from his face.
A spokesman at Charles' official residence, Clarence House, said Friday that the operation was a minor and routine procedure. Charles had the growth removed from the side of his nose late Thursday afternoon.
He had covered up the scar with small white bandage on the bridge of his nose during a tree-planting ceremony Friday at his country home in Highgrove.

Evidently it was because the growth was non-cancerous that Charles stooped to nasty old "western" medicine.
because if it had been cancerous I'm sure he would have stuck by his principles (geddit?) and used Gerson Therapy, which eschews chemotherapy in favour of 13 fruit juices a day, coffee enemas and weekly injections of vitamins. (The Guardian)
Mind you, even though it wasn't cancerous, I'm surprised he submitted himself to invasive surgery given his enthusiasm for alternate therapies. Surely he would have entrusted the removal of facial growths to acupuncture, or homeopathy?
I'm not anti-royal, or even particularly anti-Charles. I'm anti people who are in positions of influence being hypocritical and promoting all manner of woo and ant- scientific bullshit, and then taking refuge in tried and tested scientific treatment when the crunch comes.

Genesis busted by a spruce

Scientists have found a cluster of spruces in the mountains in western Sweden which, at an age of 8,000 years, may be the world's oldest living trees.

Reuters

"These were the first woods that grew after the Ice Age," said Lars Hedlund, responsible for environmental surveys in the county of Dalarna and collaborator in climate studies there.

"That means that when you speak of climate change today, you can in these (trees) see pretty much every single climate change that has occurred."

So, some trees that are 2000 years older than the age of the Earth (If you are a young earth creationist). I'm sure this won't be a problem for them because they'll claim that God created these trees "pre-aged" in the same way he made the stars with their light already reaching us.
But, hang on, what about the flood? A global flood of such catastrophic proportions that it was responsible for the Grand Canyon would have destroyed these trees.

These hardy little bushes are living proof that the Bible can not be taken as literal truth.

The walking snake

So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life"

This curse is only a hardship if the snake had the ability to walk. If the snake was already crawling then it's hardly a curse.

But look! What's this? A fossil of a 2 legged snake. Only one leg was visible on the fossil, but an amazing scanning instrument that can "see" into the rock, confirmed the presence of the second leg.



Would it seem that the bible has been proved correct by fossil evidense? It would, if we could account for the discrepency between Eupodophis descouensi living in the Late Cretaceous - 92 million years ago, and Wile. E. Snake from Genesis making his appearance some 6 thousand years ago.

We won't mention the fact that snakes don't eat dust.

The Seduction of Science

Following on from yesterday's post on the Pope's comments on Science and morality. He said: "In an age when scientific developments attract and seduce with the possibilities they offer, it's more important than ever to educate our contemporaries' consciences so that science does not become the criteria for goodness."
I've been thinking about this all day and more things have occured to me.
First, while I don't think "seductive" is the right word for it, I definitely think science is cool. Whenever I read news reports on the latest technologies I always go "wow! cool!" For example: The latest stuff on artificial limbs, like this, this and this. How about the story this week about the girl whose body changed blood group after a liver transplant?
And that's just medicine technology. Googled in 2 minutes. It is very, VERY cool. But seductive? No. I just can't get horny over science, the lab coats and goggles just don't do it for me! (Yes I know that's not what the Pope meant)
It's not the science that does the seducing. Science doesn't give a monkey's butt. Science is amoral. I don't think scientists leap about rubbing their hands in glee at each brakthrough, celebrating yet another pull on societies moral compass.
It's marketing that does the seducing. the technology that has driven the miniturisation of circuits and the whole mp3 thing, touch sensitive screens and stuff is not seductive, but the iPhone is.

From Filibuster Cartoons
He also said "no science can say who man is, where he comes from or where he is going" And that has been bugging me too, because science does say those things. Abiogenesis, The Big Bang, Evolution. All theories that propose sensible solutions for who, why and where and how.
If the Pope is bitching because science doesn't address moral or spiritual issues then he has a serious misunderstanding of what sciense is and what it does.
If he is worried about the misapplication of scientific discoveries: Nuclear weapons, chemical contraception, Zylon-B etc well, that's a different debate.

Science not the criteria for goodness

He really does have some balls doesn't he? Joseph Ratzinger aka Pope Benedict.
He said in a speech today "In an age when scientific developments attract and seduce with the possibilities they offer, it's more important than ever to educate our contemporaries' consciences so that science does not become the criteria for goodness."
Science is "seductive". Seductive means something that lures you towards sin.
"Educate our contemporaries consciences". This from the leader of the cathoolic church.
"Science does not become the criteria for goodness." And he is offering what, as the criteria for goodness?
He also said "no science can say who man is, where he comes from or where he is going". Great. So, because science doesn't have the answers to the meaning of life, therefore the church does?
"Man is not the fruit of chance or a bundle of convergences, determinisms or physical and chemical reactions" He should team up with Ray Comfort. He uses bigger words than Ray does but it's the same misunderstanding of human origin and the same misrepresentations of scinetific theories.
This is a m an who is apposed to stem cell research, abortion, and thinks that magic words will be more magic if they are said in Latin.

Woo Hoo! The Saviour of the sharks is born

Shark virgin birth celebrated in Hungary

As it was foretold in ancient times, a saviour will be born to a virgin and she will be named "Jaws"

The white-tipped reef shark, named Ibolya by staff, has been on her own at the Nyiregyhaza Centre since she was born seven years ago.
The pup is being protected by its mother
"When I saw the baby shark lying on the bottom of the tank I thought it was a joke," said Attila Varga, the centre’s director.
"I was amazed when I realised it was a real shark. The mother is very protective of her pup, but as soon as we can, marine biologists want to get a DNA sample from both."
Parthenogenesis, where an egg starts to divide without being fertilised, occurs in a number of lower animals such as bees and ants but, it was thought, not in higher animals including cartilaginous fish such as a shark.
But the new arrival, while boosting visitor numbers, has caused problems for the marina because its shark tank is not big enough for two - and the managers do not want to give up the baby.
What? No room at the inn?
"We are planning to build her a bigger tank, find her a male and then hopefully next time round she can have a baby properly," said Mr Varga.
Marine expert Chris Brown from Weymouth Sea Life Centre said the birth suggested that parthenogenesis was more common than previously thought.
"Of course it will have implications for shark conservation as the species has come under threat through over fishing," he said.
But he also sounded a note of caution. "Although parthenogenesis may help females who cannot find mates, it does reduce genetic diversity and leaves a weaker animal which has a lower chance of survival," he said.


Not only that matey, but females can only give birth, via parhtenogenesis to females. So it's hardly going to be a viable solution to depopulation.


And sadly, for christers who are going "Yes! Bible verified by science once again" Jesus was male, so parthenogenesis is ruled out.

Beach, Soup, Clay, Seed or Divine?

Life on Earth 'began on a radioactive beach' according to Zachary Adam, an astrobiologist at the University of Washington in Seattle.

The sifting and collection of radioactive material by powerful tides could have generated the complex molecules that led to the evolution of carbon-based life forms - including plants, animals and humans.
In work highlighted in this week's New Scientist magazine, Mr Adam suggests the more powerful tides generated by the moon's closer orbit billions of years ago compared to today could have sorted radioactive material from other sediment.
According to his computer models, deposits could collect at a beach's high tide mark in sufficient quantity to trigger the self-sustaining fission reactions - as occur in natural seams of uranium.
Mr Adam demonstrated in laboratory experiments that such a deposit could produce the chemical energy to generate some of the molecules in water which produce amino acids and sugars - key building blocks of life - when irradiated.
A deposit of a radioactive material called monazite would also release soluble phosphate, another important ingredient for life, into the gaps between sand grains - making it accessible to react in water.
Mr Adam told the New Scientist: "Amino acids, sugars and [soluble] phosphate can all be produced simultaneously in a radioactive beach environment."

Another theory of abiogenesis to confuse the fundies who can't separate the theory of evolution (how we arrived at the species whe have today) and abiogenesis (how life started).
The Telegraph article had an interesting paragraph -

a new theory for the origins of life - to be added to the existing long and varied list of hypotheses.
One is its emergence from a "primordial soup" of simple organic chemicals accumulated on the surface of bodies of water within the hydrogen-rich early atmosphere - formulated in the 1920's by English geneticist J. B. S. Haldane and Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin.
Others include early life forming in inorganic clay, the initial energy coming not from chemical reactions but from sunlight or lightening and the arrival of microscopic seeds of terrestrial life on chunks of meteorites or comets, and the intervention of a divine, intelligent designer.

(my bold)
One of the points in favour of the beach/soup/clay theories over the comet seed/god theories is that they can at least be supported by experiment, whereas you'll never find god in a petri dish.