A few notes on Gaza

Some alternative links to bring some balance to mainstream media coverage of the conflict.

US Media Absolves Hamas

Defending Israel’s Operations

Notes on Israel’s use of phosphorus

Anti Israel Bias

Policeman’s perspective of aggressive Pro Palestinian protests in London

More to come…

Evolution of the Blood Clotting Cascade

What happened next? . . . A series of ordinary gene duplications, many millions of years ago, copied some of these serine proteases. One of these duplicate genes was then mistargeted to the bloodstream, where its protein product would have remained inactive until exposed to an activating tissue protease—which would happen only when a blood vessel was broken. From that point on, each and every refinement of this mechanism would be favored by natural selection. Where does the many-layered complexity of the system come from? Again, the answer is gene duplication. Once an extra copy of one of the clotting protease genes becomes available, natural selection will favor slight changes that might make it more likely to activate the existing protease. An extra level of control is thereby added, increasing the sensitivity of the cascade.
(Miller 1999, 156-157)

The War in Gaza

Just a few resources to collect together regarding the war on Hamas in Gaza. The media is, as expected, condemning Israel for its actions against Hamas but I’m yet to see or hear any kind of interview with Hamas leaders.

I couldn’t find any reports discussing why Israel attacked Gaza in the first place. I eventually came across this at HonestReporting.com

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Israel_at_War_A_Primer.asp

TRF

How many holes…

…does Richard Dawkins have in his foot? The poor man has only gone and done it again, mouthing off to a science magazine over the latest debacle with that creationist scumbag Professor Reiss.

New Scientist letter perfectly reveals Dr Dawkins mis-use of science as philosophy.

Gotta love the man.
TRF

Expecting your Reissignation

Other blogs have been reporting this news, Professor Reiss of the Royal Society has stepped down from his position as head of education over comments he made expressing that he thought creationism should be considered in the science classroom. Of course Dr Dawkins was at the forefront of his call for resignation but he claims he wasn’t. And the best part of it all is that Reiss is an evolutionist. It couldn’t be sweeter.

There has never been a more exciting time to be pro ID. The more scientists they muscle out at the merest sniff of creationist sympathies, the more they’re providing fodder for the history books to compare the early millennium’s science vs. religion debate to the 1950s Red Scare. Oh how sweet it will be in 100 years when GCSE students learn about witch hunts through history, from Salem in 1692 to HUAC in the 1950s to the Creation Witch Hunts of the early millennium. I wish I was around to see it but I’ll be dead by then. Maybe this blog will survive and show that some people recognised mass hysteria for what it really was. The similarity is striking.

Full story here.

TRF

Thoughts for the Day

What began as a reply on another blog has evolved (did I use that word?) into a cacophony of thoughts.

I enjoy the absolutist declaration that truth is relative.

Or the empirically untestable assertion that empirical testing is the most reliable source of knowledge.

Or belief in a recent global flood is less credible than asserting that life appeared from a rock

I’m also taken by the notion that reason and logic work because reason and logic prove it.

Or maybe that the random collision of particles can give us the correct account of other random particle collisions

I muse on the proposition that an objective scientist would be willing to be proved wrong about the fact of evolution.

I enjoy reading about how unfalsifiable Intelligent Design theory is not scientific, proven by Dr Kenneth Miller’s falsification of Irreducible Complexity.

I puzzle over the paradoxical debates between Agnostic Pro IDers and Theistic anti IDers

I am edified by the thousands of accounts I have read of personal experiences with omnibenevolent, omniscient, transcendent, creator tooth fairies which lend credence to the notion that they are similar to a belief in God.

And the Flying Spaghetti Monster whose materialist based origins perfectly parody the transcendent qualities of the Judeo Christian God

I enjoy Dawkins’ empirical evidence that religion is a mind virus and am particularly interested in his painstakingly detailed research on the distinction between the atheist and Christian meme.

I’m struck by the loss of data in the genome which provides the proof of how we gained it.

Or how the variation of coloured moths powerfully testifies of common descent.

I am in awe of the thousands of practical scientific advances made as a result of the discovery of common ancestry

I encourage the progress of theoretical physics’ more plausible discovery that we live in 11 dimensions over the doctrine of heaven

I am enamoured by the humility of scientists who honestly declare their ignorance as they move ever closer to a theory of everything.

I delight at the magnificent size of the universe too big for a god down to the tiniest organism too small and simple for a creator

I laugh at the poor design in nature testifying that I understand how God should have created.

I enjoy the intelligently designed computer programmes demonstrating that eye evolution requires no intelligent designer.

I watch as Daniel requires a Maccabean date because it contains predictive prophecy.

I despair as I watch anti religious fundamentalism respond to the perception of religious bigotry with equal dogma and vitriolic abuse.

TRF

Jerry Springer Opera didn’t portray Jesus.

Whilst perusing through the internet today I came across an old article from a website called MediaWatchWatch which contains an interview with the infamous Stephen Green of Christian Voice. Being a parody site the intention is clearly to make Green look stupid and so asks some pointed questions to lead him into answers the interviewer knows will look ridiculous to the choir they’re preaching to. The most staggering question regards Jerry Springer: The Opera and Green’s prominent role in the protests over the decision to bring the blasphemous production to theatres in this country. If you haven’t been behind the controversy then you should look it up. Here’s what the website asks Mr Green

MWW: Ofcom has stated that the characters portrayed in Jerry Springer: The Opera were not conveyed as accurate representation of religious figures, but were “characterisations of the shows participants”. Furthermore, they were the product of a fictional Springer’s hallucinations. Isn’t therefore your complaint that Jesus is portrayed blasphemously simply false, if Jesus is not actually portrayed at all?

Now without knowing the full details of Ofcom’s reports it strikes me that if anyone watch JSTO and didn’t think that they were portraying Jesus on stage then they may need to pay a visit to the local nut house to check to see if they’re screwed right. Let’s see here. We have a character called Jesus who is the virgin son of God to Mary and has an adversary called Satan. How could Stephen Green ever get the impression that the producers of Jerry Springer The Opera were satirising Christian beliefs? In an amazing act of cognitive dissonance Ofcom have apparently denied that the show was ever portraying Jesus because the Jesus portrayed in JSTO bore no resemblance to the actual Jesus.

Proof that if you bend the truth far enough then it will eventually snap.

TRF

More on Hagee

It’s curious when a well known evangelist begins to preach something that the church hasn’t had an inclin of for it’s 2000 year existence. Interestingly, John Hagee is a dispensationalist preacher and is a prime example of concern that is expressed towards this movement since it is more politically based on the re-establishment of the state of Israel than based on anything written in the Bible. As a supporter of Israel and a dispensationalist I am baffled by some of the statements in Hagee’s recent book In Defense of Israel. So here I’ll attempt to respond to a few statements I found in this review from the book which fall apart when one has a basic knowledge of Jesus’ mission. Hagee makes no bones about his belief that Jesus was not the Messiah. His statements are quoted with my response underneath.

If God intended for Jesus to be the Messiah of Israel, why didn’t he authorize Jesus to use supernatural signs to prove he was God’s Messiah, just as Moses had done? (p. 137)

He did. In fact, Jesus performed the three Messianic signs foretold in the Talmud which wasn’t regarded by him as an authoritative work. He healed the leper, healed a man blind from birth and cast out a dumb demon. Since these acts had never been performed in Palestine the Talmudic tradition held that due to their rarity and impossibility, these would be signs performed by the Messiah.

Jesus refused to produce a sign … because it was not the Father’s will, nor his, to be Messiah. (p 138)

Jesus refused to produce a sign because he was already producing all of the signs the Pharisees needed. He was against them putting him to the test.

If Jesus wanted to be Messiah, why did he repeatedly tell his disciples and followers to “tell no one” about his supernatural accomplishments? (p. 139)

Because as the scripture says “his time had not yet come”. It wasn’t until a specific moment that he was to present himself as Messiah to be worshipped, namely the day he rode in Jerusalem on a donkey.

They wanted him to be their Messiah, but he flatly refused. (p. 141)

No he didn’t he actively encouraged people to follow him and to trust in him until that moment that he presented himself.

He refused to be their Messiah, choosing instead to be the Savior of the world (p. 143)

The bizarreness of that sentence boggles my mind.

Jesus rejected to the last detail the role of Messiah in word or deed. (p. 145)

I wonder if he were to demonstrate this from the gospels. The best evidence one could offer for this is a hatchet job of a few verses in which Jesus told people to keep quiet. I hate to be someone who drags out an old canard but you need to read a verse in it’s intended context otherwise it can say whatever you want it to.

TRF

Hagee: Jesus is not the Messiah

Just thought I’d drop this post in to see what others think of John Hagee’s slightly zealous support of Israel. In his new book he claims that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah. I’m just wondering what Bible he is reading.

Click here for the video
TRF

Greydon Square

Greydon Square is an atheist rapper who has been associated with the Rational Response Squad. He has released a number of songs now and even raps in one of them how he couldn’t sell any records when he was doing standard rapping so he turned to rapping about atheism.

So, ladies and gentlemen, are you tired of reading all the usual atheist sound bites in written form? Had enough of debating with people who have nothing to say except the same old tired out platitudes? Well, don’t despair, now your favourite atheist canards have forever been immortalised by atheism’s very own home boy, Greydon Square. Tune in to hear such classics as

When you understand why y’all don’t believe in Thor, you’ll understand why I don’t believe in your god y’all

Pray to yo invisible sky daddy

Get a biology text book and study yo a** man

Yo yo Christians can only use logical fallacies

Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan and Daniel Dennet are the bomb y’all

I just go one God further home boy

Hey yo, how could yo God be jealous if he’s the only one?

How can we be God’s children when Jesus was his only Son? Wooord!

Watch this video and just see how many platitudes he manages to stuff into it’s 7 minutes. The funniest moment is at 6 minutes when the camera turns round and there are 4 people listening to him. My head is still spinning at how bizarre it all is. This is what the internet has reduced our society to.

TRF