Stand still!

The earth is NOT rotating. And the Sun is going around the Earth. That's the claim of this extraordinary video. SCIENTISTS ARE LYING TO YOU.



If you don't have time to watch it, here's a precis of the content: 'The Earth isn’t rotating because if it was, we’d all be motion sick from moving at 1,000 miles an hour, which is very fast'. Repeat that about 50 times, intersperse some Christian rock music and some videos and you're good to go.

If you have half an hour to spare you could watch the video and be convinced. Or plait your own intestines. It'll be time just as well spent.

Yes, okay, it's probably a Poe. But it had some effort put into it and it generated a staggering 176 pages of comments on YouTube. I haven't read through them all but the always splendid Rebecca Watson (Skepchick) reports that at some point during the debate, the video's maker fernieboy100 is challenged by a a 12-year old astronomy enthusiast named Kaitlyn who asks ... 'What about Jupiter? Jupiter might have a small rocky core but it’s made of mostly hydrogen and helium, and we can see it rotating even though it’s pretty much all gas.'

fernieboy100 took several months to consider this new information and run more RC helicopter-based calculations before finally announcing:

'I, fernieboy100, am now an atheist who renounces my lord and savior Jesus Christ and his Holy word the Bible.'

Why is there never any middle ground with some people?

A Brazilian for Jesus

WARNING: SOME SEXUAL CONTENT

Some time ago, I wrote a fairly protracted essay on why I was an atheist and how it saddened me that some people of faith saw that as a threat. You can read it here if you wish. It crystalised how I felt at the time and attracted lots of comments including a couple from Dave Gorman and Stephen Fry. I will reiterate here what I said then; I am a sceptic and cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods. However, I see no evidence for their existence and so my current standpoint is atheist. For me, belief is not enough.

However, I have no problem with other people believing. Why would I? Their strength of conviction is no less strong than my belief in a deity's non-existence. The only time that I come out fighting is when children are told lies so that they cannot make their own decisions about what to believe or when people are hurt, supposedly in the name of some god or other. I'm sorry, but every single religion, faith and philosophy has, at its heart, a version of the Golden Rule of Reciprocity, namely that we should all treat others as we'd like to be treated ourselves (you can see the various different versions here). It seems to me that if god(s) exist then he/she/they is/are actually pretty wonderful beings - it's the twisted interpreations of their teachings by humans that cause all the problems. After all, every religion, faith and philosophy also states that killing is bad and that a higher power is the only true judge.

One of the most extraordinary uses of this handy 'interpretation' lark is a site I found recently that uses the Bible to 'give permission' for various sex acts. Now, I'm aware that it may be a spoof site but, as is the case with so many sites of this kind, there are no clues to help me make that decision. It was registered through a company called Domains By Proxy from Scottsdale, Arizona, USA so the owner wished to remain anonymous. A more obvious spoof site would tend to go over the top with a Biblical 'okay' for things like bestiality, incest or paedophilia, for example. Nor does it have a central agenda such as 'proving' that God is okay with homosexuality. So, I don't know how real it is; all I do know is that I've seen stranger sites that turned out to be absolutely genuine. So, I won't assume either way. I'll just report what the site says. If you are of a gentle disposition or are embarrassed by sexual content, I suggest you go and look at a site with baby hedgehogs being cute for a bit.

Sex In Christ is, as I say, a website dedicated to finding mitigation in the Bible for various sexual acts. Among the headings on the site are: Oral Sex and God's Will, Viagra and God's Will, Threesomes Within a Christian Marriage, Masturbation - God's Great Gift to Us, A Proposal for a Christian Pornography, Bondage in Christ - BDSM in a Christian Marriage, Bare before God - Shaving and the Bible, A Philosophical Argument for Masturbation, Anal Sex according to the Word of God and the altogether disturbing Fisting and God's Will. Here's an example of the kind of content you'll find (voyeurs note: there are no photos or diagrams).

On the subject of anal sex:

'Anal sex is confusing to many Christians because of the attention paid to the Bible’s condemnation of homosexual acts. However, it’s important to realize that these often quoted scriptures refer only to sexual acts between two men. Nowhere does the Bible forbid anal sex between a male and female. In fact, many Biblical passages allude to the act of anal sex between men and women. Lamentations 2:10 describes how 'The virgins of Jerusalem have bowed their heads to the ground,' indicating how a virginal maidens should position themselves to receive anal sex. Another suggestive scripture tells of a woman’s pride in her 'valley' (referring to her buttocks and the cleft between them) and entices her lover to ejaculate against her backside: 'How boastful you are about the valleys! O backsliding daughter who trusts in her treasures, {saying,} ' Who will come against me?'' (Jeremiah 49:4) And in the Song of Songs, the lover urges his mate to allow him to enter her from behind: 'Draw me after you, let us make haste.' (Song of Solomon, 1:4)'

On the subject of intimate topiary:

'Many women already wax or trim their bikini line, but question whether they can or should remove more pubic hair than that. Fortunately, we can look to the Bible for guidance: 'For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn.' (1 Corinthians 11:6). The point of bikini waxing is to remove hair that is not concealed by a swimsuit or panties, and this is appropriate for public or semi-public situations like swimming pools and fitting rooms. But if you anticipate revealing more of your intimate parts - that is, if someone (like your husband) is going to see you uncovered (i.e., without underwear) -- your genital area should be shaved or at least trimmed closely.'

And on the tricky subject of masturbation - 'God's great gift':

'The Scripture tells us that our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, and that everything that we do should glorify the Lord. While masturbation is not a sin, we must be careful to masturbate in a way that is respectful to our bodies, and respectful to God. Masturbation is a gift that we should not abuse. This means we should not masturbate to excess, or to the point where we injure ourselves. If you are masturbating until you are exhausted, or until your genitals are raw or bleeding, this is excessive, harmful, and not what God intended. If you masturbate compulsively to the point that it interferes with your work or your relationships with friends, family, and God, this is a problem. If you masturbate while indulging in impure thoughts (fantasizing about your neighbor’s wife, for example), this is also a misuse of God’s gift. Of course, this is not to say that masturbation in itself is wrong – simply that we must use masturbation in a way that is healthy and responsible.'

But what about the story of Onan and the origins of onanism? Yup, he (you can tell it's 'he' by the rampant sexism alone) has an answer for that too:

'Many people are under the impression that the Bible specifically forbids masturbation. In reality, the Bible does not even mention masturbation. The story of Onan (Genesis 38:7-10) is always cited as an example of how God will punish masturbators; this is where we get the term 'Onanism,' which refers to masturbation. However, the story of Onan has absolutely nothing to do with masturbating. After his brother died, Onan was commanded by God to impregnate his brother’s wife. Onan had sex with her, but defied God by pulling out before he ejaculated so she wouldn’t get pregnant. His seed spilled on the ground – due to coitus interruptus, not masturbation – but this detail became equated with masturbation by those who apparently had their own agenda.'

Their own agenda! The irony is so heavy it's crushing.

As I said, I don't know if this is a spoof or not. What I do know is that some people will use it as 'proof' that they can indulge in various sexual practices and God won't mind. It's also causing genuine debate on some Christian forums. Amid the fire and brimstone and demands that 'This evil site must be shut down!' you'll find comments like:

'When the Church was teaching me I was going to hell because I was gay while growing up in the late 70's/early 80's I knew these teachings didn't fit into the words of a loving God found in the Gospels. I read the Gospel of John and was startled to see the relationship between Jesus and John went beyond anything else Christ had with another human being. It was quite clear they were in love. I mean, come on, one of the most heart wrenching moments in history is when John leans back against the 'bosom'of Christ and asks who will be the one who betrays Christ and thus kills Him. It must have been so devistating (sic) for John especially since John must have had 'could it be me'playing in the back of his mind. It is one of the most intimate moments of any literature and for the Vatican to try to tell us being homosexual is wrong and evil, and hence Christ is evil according to their teachings, then you know institutional religion is the one which is nothing but evil. Love, IMO, is never wrong.'

'That is just hilarious! I am right now forwarding this to a few of my very Christian friends, want to see how they will react to it. I will just let them and some of my other friends know... hey, if you are dating a Christian women... print this out and show it to her :-)'

'It just goes to show how far people will go to twist the word of GOD, to fit their own agenda ,but the thing is by doing it they will only cause it to backfire on them.{GALATIONS 6:7} Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.'

'Who is to say the writers of the site do not utterly and wholeheartedly believe what they wrote, if you say they are wrong and they say they are right it just becomes a circular argument. If you think they are wrong, prove them wrong, don't just say they are wrong because you say so. Christians seem to believe they can bash anyone that doesn't agree with them (sic), but if someone gives it back they cry foul. If anything sites like that should strengthen your belief, no need to get into a hyperbolic argument where never the twain shall meet. If this site offends you, don't look at it, [and] if it makes you question your belief then the basis of your belief is not so solid.'

'I've had the 'hair on the back of the neck' kinds of conversations with religious people who quote the Bible, and you start to realize that their mind has taken a walk off the map. Once you remove from yourself the hindrance of reading the Bible in an honest manner, with the same rules of English that you would use to read a newspaper, then ALL SORTS of 'Biblical' possibilities are available.'

'I have studied this website thoroughly and feel confident that the authors behind it are Christian, know God and know what their (sic) talking about. Scriptually they have twisted nothing but come to their conclusion through thorough reading, and personally as a Christian I am very impressed with there site. It's great for Christians who have been wrongly painted, pointed at, laughed at, stereo typically thought of by many as boring and frigid as quite the opposite. It also gives people the opportunity to learn something about Christianity and reminds us all that the bible is as relevent today as it was back then.'

'Cool, I just bookmarked it.'

For me, as an ethical atheist humanist, such considerations don't matter. I don't need a website to cherry-pick quotes from a holy book to vindicate me. I make my choices based upon my personal ethics and respect for myself and the other person involved (if I get that lucky). I don't need to be told what I may or may not do by some book that was, let's face it, written by committee. As I wrote in my 2010 essay, one reason I find belief in god(s) so troublesome is that the guidance he/she/they gave us - in the form of holy books - is so wishy washy. If a supreme being could make something as extraordinarily complex as a dragonfly's wing or a human brain, why couldn't they have passed on instructions in a non-ambiguous form?

Sadly, it's left to us all-too fallible humans to figure out how he/she/they actually want us to live our lives.

But with every human 'given' free will, that was never going to work was it?

Creating nothing but fudge

As you'll know if you read this blogpost a while back, or this or, indeed, this or this, I have little truck with Creationists. I have no isssue with faith. I have no problem with religion. I have friends who are religious. And I consider myself a warm, caring, ethical, but atheist human being. As far as I am concerned, we're all free to believe what we want to believe. Or not believe, as the case may be. However, when people deliberately falsify the facts to suit their version of events and then use that to persuade free-thinking and easily-misguided children to share their viewpoint, I do take umbrage.

A couple of days ago I came across a website called Creation Liberty that purports to present evidence that the story of creation, as recorded in the Bible, is the absolute truth word-for-word. However, the whole website consists of nothing more than attacks on evolutionary theory and accepted science. Meanwhile, there is almost no attempt to provide any concrete evidence for the Creationist version of events. The 'proof' it provides is largely inaccurate and woefully misleading. Let me show you some examples:

One page, all about dinosaurs, starts:

'How did the dinosaurs become extinct? This question is not designed to help students to think, but rather is designed to tell them what to think. This question assumes that dinosaurs went extinct. For example, there are panthers still living wild in Florida. Many people have lived their entire lives in Florida, and have never seen a panther. Because they have not seen one, does that mean panthers do not exist in Florida? No, it simply means they are hard to find. No one could prove the extinction of anything unless they were at all places at all times at the same time. So the real question here is not, 'How did the dinosaurs go extinct,' but rather, 'Did they go extinct?'

This is a hugely lazy argument. What the author, Christopher J E Johnson, utterly fails to point out is that, while many people have never seen a panther, some people have. There are eyewitness accounts. There is physical evidence in the form of corpses, bones and panther poo. And there are photographs - lots of photographs. Johnson uses a few grainy pics and dodgy accounts of creatures such as 'The Lockness (sic) Monster' as his evidence that dinosaurs still exist. He doesn't comment on the fact that photos of Nessie have completely dried up since the advent of decent quality digital cameras, Google Earth and mobile phones. Nor does he address the fact that not all the dinosaurs did become extinct. There is compelling evidence that some species evolved into birds. As for 'No one could prove the extinction of anything unless they were at all places at all times at the same time', that statement applies to everything, surely? You can't definitively say that there are no fairies or goblins unless you were in all places at all times. But you can make the reasoned assumption that, as there is absolutely no evidence of their existence, they most likely don't.

He then goes on to explain that: 'All throughout history, dinosaurs have been known as 'dragons.' Many evolutionists make complaint that dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible, but that is simply not true. Dragons are mentioned in the Bible 34 times.'  Is this true? Do 'many evolutions' complain about this? Have we called dinosaurs dragons 'all throughout history'? As I recall, they were only named and described for the first time in the 1840s. I wouldn't call under 200 years 'all throughout history'. And while it's quite feasible that ancient dinosaur skeletons might once have been seen as the bones of mythical dragons, it's a tenuous argument at best to suggest that the dragons mentioned in the Bible are therefore sightings of dinosaurs. For a start, many dinosaurs were small and not exactly fearsome. These are surely the most likely candidates for prolonged survival rather than the huge charismatic specialist dinosaurs? Rats will outlive lions, trust me. No dinosaur had wings - as most mythical dragons invariably do. There were once pterosaurs, of course, but they probably didn't breathe fire (if that were even possible) and they weren't dinosaurs. They were as closely related to dinosaurs as a blue whale is to a platypus. Oh, and the website's 'evidence' that dinosaurs and dragons are one and the same includes scans of older text books, the largest of which uses the description of the species dinotherium as an example.

This is a dinotherium. It's a mammal.

This is the kind of shoddy, badly-researched material that is purporting to be a more accurate account of the story of life on this planet than evolutionary theory.

I must stress again that I'm not on the attack here. I'm really not. I would never launch a website decrying faith in God and pulling the Bible to pieces. I am happy to read and discuss Creationist literature and the content of their websites. I do so often. I'm a curious and enquiring guy. What I'm looking for, as a reasoned and critical thinker, is evidence that supports their claims. I'm looking for any argument that is stronger than the evidence provided by the fossil record and the very clear evidence all around us that plants and animals can and do change form over time. What most Creationism material - including the website under discussion - usually provides me with is unsupported assertions or, most commonly I'm afraid, ill-researched attacks on evolutionary theory. I've lost count of the times I've read that there are 'no missing links between modern species and so-called extinct species'. Yes there are! Lots! Look at the dizzying variety of trilobite fossils! There are so many that you can actually see, as clear as the nose on your face, the slow and steady development of the eye over time. Then there are larger missing links like the recently discovered tiktaalik (see below). If the Creationist lobby would be as open to new information as most of us Evolutionists are, they'd read more widely and see that missing links exist all over the place.



Let's return to the website and just look at a couple more pieces of 'evidence'. Johnson provides images of an Egyptian pot which he claims clearly shows long-necked dinosaurs. Ten minutes of research will show that this is a fairly common stylistic representation of giraffes. Just looking at the shapes of the heads, legs and tails is enough. And, let's be honest, the Egyptians would be quite au fait with giraffes as Egypt is on the African continent. A supposed stegosaurus turns up on a 12th century Cambodian temple. But had the author cared to do even a simple Google search of that same temple, he'd have found all kinds of other animal images including monkeys and peacocks that also lie inside decorative lotus leaf borders that kind-of look like the plates on a stegosaurus's back. Presenting a few highly-seective images as 'evidence' is invalid and doesn't take into account Mankind's wonderful propensity for creativity in art. It's like selecting a few images by Picasso, Tretchikoff and even Peyo and making the conclusion that blue-skinned humans once existed. I could also mention the many thousands of images of God and Jesus, most of which are wildly different to each other, and none of which were painted by anyone who'd actually met either of them. Art is not proof of form or even existence.

I could go on and on but that would support the idea that this is an attack on Mr Johnson who is very probably a lovely human being. I want this to be read as a friendly challenge to the author to exhibit some proper evidence to support his claims, rather than the fuzzy logic and mishmash of inaccuracies he has provided. And also to not base his entire argument on attacking evolutionary theory, all of which can be supported with evidence.

I will, however, make a few final observations on Johnson's assertion that the story of Noah's ark is true. He states that:

'(1) The boat was 2/3rds the size of the Titanic. (300x50x30 egyptian cubits = 1.54 million cubic feet) Also taking into consideration that there were no lavish ballroom, dining halls, 1st-class accomodations (sic), engine rooms, etc. huge numbers of animals could be stored in a boat that size.'

(2) The Bible does not say Noah had to get two of every species. The evolutionists use the word species, and then illogically apply their modern definition back in time to the Bible, and call the Bible wrong. The Bible says bring two of every 'kind' so the question is how many kinds of animals did Noah take on the ark? God told Noah to take two of each kind, and seven of some kinds (Genesis 7:2-3), and we can also determine that this did not include insects or fish. (Genesis 7:22) Where exactly is the line between each kind? Scientists have not yet determined the kind barriers for many creatures, but some have estimated there are around 8,000-10,000 basic kinds of animals on the planet, which is much more reasonable for Noah and his family to accomplish.'

Let's take these two points together to begin with. The website states that 'scientists have not yet determined the kind barriers (sic) for many creatures'. Actually, yes they have. We've had a very sophisticated form of taxonomic classification and scientific nomenclature for over 200 years (see  here). Saying that there may be as few as 8000 -10,000 'basic kinds of animals' without qualifying where that figure comes from or how those classes are decided is meaningless. But even if we accept it, could a boat - even one 2/3rds the size of the Titanic - fit them all in? Yes, he does suggest that baby animals were taken on board to save space (although the Bible fails to mention this) and, handily, that they were all vegetarians prior to the flood. But even if that were true, how would you sort out the vast range of environments from polar to equatorial that some 'kinds' need in order to survive (Presumably, Noah and his unnamed wife travelled all over the globe to collect them too)? What about the vast quantities of food they'd all need? What about the poo and the pee? And, while the fish and the insects may have been excluded for some reason, what about the whales? What about the sea urchins and turtles and prawns and scallops and squid? Meanwhile, all of the sea fish would have died due to the oceans being made fresh by enough rain to cover the Earth to the tops of the highest mountains; salt water fish cannot survive in fresh and vice versa. So where did all the cod come from? There are no answers to be found here. 

But the biggest fudging of the facts is the argument that God didn't mean species but 'kind'. Where is that line drawn? Does that mean two tigers, two lions, panthers, ocelots, cheetahs, lynxes, pumas, wildcats, jaguars, caracals, bobcats, margays, leopards, servals and domestic cats? And, I guess, because we can't prove that they're extinct, all of the prehistoric cats like the sabre-toothed smilodon too? Or does it mean two generic cats that were the progenitors of all of the different species of cat that exist now? How would this happen? Not by genetics, natural selection and evolution surely? If Creationist theory allows such variation on a theme within a family of animals such as felidae (cats), then why not within the order of Carnivora? Or the phylum Chordata? Is it really so hard to imagine that, over tens of millions of years, whales and bears could have evolved from a common ancestor? Creationists spend all their time focusing on the outward appearances of animals and handily overlook the fact that animals as diffferent as bears and whales have more physical similarities than differences. Whales once walked on four legs; they have the atrophied remnants of a pelvis and leg bones embedded in their flesh. They're not just there by random chance. They serve no purpose. That's hardly intelligent design is it?

The point to make here is that if you're going to present a valid argument to an accepted theory, do so with facts, figures and physical evidence, not cherry-picked images, innacurate reporting (Sir Peter Scott was never a member of parliament - he stood as a Conservative candidate in 1945 and lost - Nor did he or his wife ever see Nessie or claim to have done so), and lazy assumptions. The theory of evolution is what all theories are - the most likely answer to a question based upon the evidence currently available. Like any theory, it can change and adapt if new evidence comes to light. It can also be proven to be downright wrong. But you need convincing arguments to do that. If there ever comes a day when the Creationist movement finds the evidence to support their argument, I will gladly accept it and so will every right-thinking scientist on the planet. Evolution is not a religion as Johnson so absurdly claims. It is a belief based upon facts. Creationism is a belief based solely upon faith.

To put it another way, I'd rather have proof  - rather than blind faith - that there's a parachute in my back pack before jumping from the plane. I'd also argue that making others jump blindly because you say that they must is wrong on every level. You must give them the option to look for themselves oif they want to.

So, by all means teach children that there are two versions of events, the scientific view and the Biblical view. Throw in some other theories too such as panspermia or alien intervention. It's good to explore different possibilities; it creates enquiring minds and intelligent discussion. But let the children decide what they want to believe. Let them examine the evidence and make a choice. If they choose to believe that every word in the Bible is true, that's their right. But don't force them to that view with lies and misleading nonsense. My children were brought up with all the facts to hand and with no bias from me. One believes that there is a god or higher being, the other two don't. I respect their beliefs. I have religious friends - one is a vicar - who can quite happily square evolution with belief in God. They don't have to be polarised opposites or mutually exclusive. They can co-exist. Many scientists have faith. And, anyway, the Reverend Dave has the ultimate trump card as I can never prove that God didn't invented the elegant, sophisticated and beautiful (his words) process of natural selection.

Evolutionary theory isn't evil. It has no agenda. It's not a religion. It's open to new ideas. It's not out to prove the non-existence of God. Creationism, by comparison, is blinkered and often aggressively defensive. It's a viewpoint that allows for no flexibility of thinking. If you don't agree with the precise description in the Bible, you're wrong. End of argument. Sites like Creation Liberty do not expand intelligent discourse and do nothing for the Creationist movement except to expose some of them as ill-informed and ignorant (in the true sense of the word).

According to the Bible itself, faith is 'being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see' (Hebrews 11:1). Faith should be enough for you Mr Johnson; believe what you want to believe. But use your energies for good deeds and kindness. Help to create the next generation of good, ethical men and women. Help to create the next generation of scientists and philanthropists who will cure diseases, ease suffering and expand our knowledge of this amazing universe. Don't put all of your passion into raging against a theory you don't subscribe to, clearly don't understand and, from the evidence of your own website, refuse to even consider as a possibility.