If you ever wanted to see justice come to missionaries, this story it is. The 5 Male and 5 female Christians from Ohio, USA who entered Haiti and stole 33 children have been denied bail. The group of 5 couples attempted to take the Haitian children across the border into the Dominican Republic with the idea of setting up an orphanage. The ill equipped group failed their duty of care with all 33 children suffering dehydration and hunger when they were stopped by border authorities. Some of the children also were injured and required urgent medical attention.

But perhaps even more scary is the fact the Christians seeming had forgotten (or perhaps they simply didn't care) to actually check the children they took really where orphans, with most of them actually still having living parents. A Haiti court has denied the group bail, ordering them to be remanded in custody; charged with kidnapping minors and criminal association.

In situations like this you just have to smile at the fact justice has actually prevailed. But you can't help but feel bad about all the millions who didn't have justice go their way. One would think by now Christian missionaries would be outlawed, I mean consider this; In the USA it was Christian Missionaries who stole native Indian children and denied them their culture. In Canada Christian missionaries did the same to the Inuit people and here in Australia they stole aboriginal children and trained them as servants. Now look at all the pain, suffering and money this has cost those countries? Yet we allow Christian missionaries to go forth from those very same countries and cause ever more havoc around the world.

At what point do our governments see the harm this is doing, at what point do they see that by allowing this practise to continue it costs governments more in tax payer funded charity. At some point surely our governments will see sense and benefit from ruling it illegal to go over seas as a missionary. Personally I think anyone who does such should be stripped of their citizenship and their actions dealt with in international court as crimes against humanity. Just remember, the worst acts in history were ALL perpetrated with the "best of intentions".

At any rate, I want to see more of these poor, third world countries standing up to missionaries, charging and imprisoning them for crimes like those of the 10 Christians in Haiti. If all third world nations did this, then perhaps just that would be a big enough deterrent to stop missionaries entering those countries in the first place.

If you haven't already, I suggest you read the original post titled "Can it get anymore ridiculous" in order to understand the content of this post. As I said in that post, I did have a constructive post in mind but Sarah started hassling me about going to the shops so I lost my train of thought. This post attempts to pick up where I lost my train of thought in the original post.

I am all for healthy debate and alternate points of view, but only when the discussion and view is based on rational thought and evidence. When someone starts misleading the facts, and throwing all rational thought &/or ignoring all evidence which contradicts their argument, it ceases to be a healthy debate and turns more into the absurd. Ellery Schempp's article on Gravity is an example of such ludicrous positions of thought. Take one of the leading statements from the article

"First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.”"

It would actually be near impossible to physically measure the gravity of every atom in existence or every star given the shear infinitesimal number of them. It's also important to point out that science takes into account the fact that not all objects have a gravitational field, or at least not one that counts for anything. You can demonstrate this if you for example pick up two pieces of metal, plastic, wood, etc and hold them near each other. Now let one go, notice how it falls to the ground? This is because the level of attraction between to two objects isn't high enough.

This however does not serve as any form of proof that gravity doesn't exist. Gravity is a measurable force of attraction, which can be clearly demonstrated if Ellery would simply jump out of a plane. Now if as Ellery likes to believe, we're all under "gods" control, then Ellery wouldn't plummet to his death. However, has we all know this simply isn't the case, and Ellery would, thankfully die, taking his nutty ideas along with him.

While the existence in some cases is assumed, there is much logic behind this. For example, the gravitational force of many stars has been measured, thus it is a logical assumption that gravity would in all likelihood exist for other stars. If it were proven that gravity didn't exist in some situations then the theory would be adapted to embed the new evidence. This unfortunately isn't something creationists seem capable of doing.

Never the less Ellery gets even more silly when he states

"Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory."

Poor Ellery must have skipped class when his teacher explained the nature of gravity and planetary orbit. The moon of course revolves around the earth because it is closer and thus it's gravitational force is stronger. Think of it like this, if you take 3 magnets of increasing size. If you place the smallest magnet next to the middle sized magnet they'll attract. If you take the largest magnet and place it some distance away you'll have a small attraction between the large and middle sized magnets but the smallest magnet will continue to attract to the middle sized one.

The moon is caught by the earths gravitational field, and while the sun does affect on it (giving it a wobble) the strongest force is the closest one. I should also probably point out that the mass of the moon has an effect on the effects of gravity on it as well. You'd think that would be the end of the nonsense from Ellery and he'd start with some logical arguments, sadly this isn't the case. He now starts trying to use the tides to attempt to disprove gravity.

"The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity."

Oh Ellery, I'm surprised you're able to count to two. I have to wonder if little Ellery ever passed high school, it certainly doesn't seem likely. It's true that most coastal areas experience two daily high and low tides. This is because when the water experiences the sub-lunar point (essentially it's "under" the moon) the gravitational force of the moon takes effect causing the water to rise. The high tide on the other side of the world is explained by a slight flex in the earth. That is to say, the water on the other side of the earth is effected by the moons gravitational attraction the less, while on the other hand, the earth itself is pulled closer to the moon. This gives the effect of the water "rising". Low tide occurs at the points in-between.

What is even more ludicrous though is that Ellery thinks that god explains tides better than gravity. At this point I must state that I actually have several Christian friends whom equally find Ellery's explanations a joke. They instead (and perhaps more logical for their motives) that god created gravity, and gravity influences tides. If there wasn't a mountain of evidence disproving god, that would actually be a believable theory, for from Ellery who makes no effort to explain how he thinks god influences tidal change.

Ellery then goes on to make a bunch more foolish comments which show how little about gravitational theory and the nature of the universe he actually understands, before bringing Thermodynamics into his argument.

"Furthermore, gravity theory suggests that the planets have been moving in orderly orbits for millions and millions of years, which wholly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since everything in the Universe tends to disorder according to the 2nd Law, orderly orbits are impossible."

Now as the name suggests thermodynamics is to do with the movement of heat. That is to say, heat as opposed to gravity. And transversely to what Ellery thinks the Second law states it actually makes no mention of disorder or orbits. Instead the law says that any system (and we're talking about a system involving heat) not in equilibrium will increase over time approaching a maximum value which causes equilibrium. Another way to think of it is when you boil a pot of water, the temperature of the water increases until it reaches 100 degrees celsius then remains constant. Hopefully now you can understand now how VERY little this has to do with gravity.

Instead I think this was more an attempt by Ellery; thinking you wouldn't actually bother to research what the law actually states; to make his argument sound more plausible by bringing it laws and scientific sounding words. Or perhaps poor Ellery was so far off his understanding of science that he actually thought the two things are related. Remember, gravity is a force of attraction, thermodynamics is a set of laws to define the movement of heat.

From there it becomes so laughable as to not even bother reading. But if you insist on doing so I've provided a link below about gravitational theory which should explain the flaws in the rest of his argument. Now as I've already pointed out not all Christians think this way, but the morons who do, prove to be a source of great laughter. But then, all morons are such a source, and I must say I am truly thankful for them (morons) as they brighten every day of my life through their provided laughter. I still however fear for the sakes of these people, it seems unethical to leave them in such stupidity.

Links;

Original Post
Ellery Schempps article
Wikipedia on Tides
Wikipedia on Gravity

I'm coming across an increasing number of Christian websites where by they try and disprove scientific theory without actually understanding the science they're trying to disprove. After the uncontrollable laughter stops however, I am filled with worry and concern; for if there are growing number of people publishing these sorts of mis-truths then one can only worry for the future of humanity. And while this doesn't show that there is a growing number of people thinking this way, it does show those misinformed individuals who do think this way are becoming much more vocal.

Now, I'm sure there are plenty of evolutionists who make mistakes about scripture to, but I don't seem to come across these...ever. I also don't go looking for Christian propaganda websites, I simply come across them in my daily activities, be it while researching for other post topics or even just by way of StumbleUpon. I do get that these sites have been added to StumbleUpon for their clear idiocy, but the authors of these papers believe 100% in there content which is the worrying part.

I can't help but wonder how these people becoming more vocal will impact on society, for it is often the most vocal of ideas which gains the most momentum. I also fear that there are a large number of individuals in existence whom don't understand these concepts of science very well, whom may then come across these articles and see some sort of misguided logic in them, thus growing the circle of disinformation. What is clearly ridiculous to me, may seem reasonable to someone with less grasp of the true concepts. This however doesn't imply there is any actual logic or argument to these sites; more over it implies how little faith I have in the brain power of some of those in our global community.

I am curious however what exactly the Christians who right these articles hope to achieve by writing such things. I mean anyone, regardless of their mental power, can open up a science text book and confirm that the preposterous rantings of the Christian fellowship have no merit. So what do they hope to achieve? Less credibility? Or are they perhaps just trying to cheer up our days through laughter?

The latest one I've come across by Ellery Schempp about gravity couldn't be more absurd and certainly demonstrates a complete lack of understanding (and perhaps a failing on the part of the schools to properly cement the fundamentals of these concepts in his brain) of the science he wishes to discuss. Whilst reading it there were times I wondered if it was written by a modern person or someone from the 15th century and just put into digital format. I assure you though, it was written recently.

Ok so that's my rant over, I feel strangely cleansed. I actually had a more constructive post in mind on this topic but Sarah broke my train of thought somewhere around the 2nd paragraph. I do worry for the future of society, and hope these sorts of ideas don't find a stronger root. A position of ignorance and close mindedness is always a dangerous thing, regardless of where it comes from or what it's motives are. So I only ask that you please not let stupid ideas get a foot hold, research their evidence before you make up your mind. It's the only logical, rational thing to do.

Links;

Ellery Schempp's theory of gravity
Proof Christians are stupid (The author was actually serious, make sure you read all the replies too)

I recently stumbled across a website for a Christian organisation calling themselves "The Institute for Creation Research" (ICR) with their main goal apparently being to harmonise Science with the Bible. One would think then any serious attempt at such would be done by a team of fully qualified science majors specialising in a selection of fields such as variants of Biology, Geology and the sciences involved in genetics amongst others.

Logically speaking, one has to be able to understand the science before they attempt to harmonise with it, or indeed as the organisation seem to often do, refute it and so the aforementioned team would be necessary for serious conclusion. However; as is often the case with Christian websites refuting science; no such team exists at the "Institute of Creation Research" with their misunderstanding of DNA sequencing and even the roles of different chromosomes easily demonstrated in their front page article "Are Humans as Close to Chickens as They Are to Chimps" (the miscaps are theirs not mine).

The Article refers to the results of the comparison of Human Y Chromosomes with the Y Chromosomes in Chimps which were published in the biological journal "Nature". The original article in Nature speaks about how little knowledge of the Y Chromosomes evolution across species as full sequencing has only ever, until recently, been performed on Humans. The article then goes on to speak about how divergent the Y Chromosomes in Humans and Chimps are.

Showing their total and complete ignorance to genetics, the "Institute of Creation Research" then picked up the article in Nature and decided to run it's results as proof humans and chimps are unrelated and share no common ancestor. In fact the results actually prove nothing like that. In outright incomprehension they continued on to attempt to use this data to disprove the fact that Humans and Chimps hold 98% of their genome in common.

"Most of their findings do not fit well with the often-repeated erroneous statement that humans and chimps are 98 percent similar, nor with the more general hypothesis that they share a common ancestor. One sequence class within the chimpanzee Y chromosome had less than 10 percent similarity with the same class in the human Y chromosome, and vice versa. Another large class shared only half the similarities of the other species, and vice versa. And one whole class on the human Y chromosome “has no counterpart in the chimpanzee MSY [male-specific Y chromosome].”"

They couldn't have gotten it more wrong. Beyond the use of their continual phrase "vice versa" being redundant (It's like saying X and Y are different and so is Y and X different), they've also demonstrated thorough naivety towards how genetics works, how the 98% genome comparison between humans and chimps was achieved and the role the Y Chromosome plays.

So on the off chance someone from the ICR stumbles across this blog, and to better educate people before they read such crude pseudo-scientific articles I'll explain the situation a little better. The Y chromosome exists ONLY in males, meaning that females exist entirely without it, but funnily enough are still part of the same species. Meaning the Y chromosome is more about gender difference then it is about species difference. While they haven't yet been compared, I'm quite certain you'll see equivalent differences in the Y chromosomes of birds. It doesn't mean they don't hold a common ancestor, nor that they aren't all birds.

Furthermore, if you compare the human Y chromosome with that of another human, you'll find a large amount of differences just as you will with any other part of DNA sequencing. This is because of genetic variation, and so it isn't overly surprising to find differences between humans and chimps. What the scientists involved WHERE surprised at was there were more differences than they predicted. But as previously stated little is known about the evolution of the Y chromosome, it's an area for which this comparison is only the beginning of research.

But simply misjudging the number of differences is no more proof that humans and chimps are unrelated, than the countless misjudgements and mistakes made during the evolution of IVF proves it won't produce babies. Clearly IVF does produce babies, and clearly misjudgements in differences doesn't disprove theories nor do they disprove the FACT that humans and chimps share 98% of their genes in common.

To illustrate how completely out of context the ICR have taken comments made in the original Nature article check out these 2 sequential paragraphs taken from the "Institute of Creation Research" article

"The Nature paper expressed the mismatch between this data and standard evolutionary interpretations in a more muted tone: “Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.”1 Autosomes are the chromosomes other than the X and Y.

So, the human Y chromosome looks just as different from a chimp’s as the other human chromosomes do from a chicken’s. And to explain where all these differences between humans and chimps came from, believers in big-picture evolution are forced to invent stories of rapid wholesale rearrangements, and rapid generation of both new gene-containing and regulatory DNA."

The Nature article quote clearly is referring more towards the timeline difference, rather than actual similarities between humans and chickens. It's a quote that is clearly directed toward the surprise in difference between Y chromosomes and how long those changes were previously thought to have taken. But undoubtedly it's a quote that will go on to haunt science for years to come as creationists misunderstand the quote continually.

Ultimately anyone who can not conclusively see the similarities both in physical looks and behaviour modelling between humans and chimps is delusional. Evolution is a theory backed by insurmountable evidence, and while there may be surprises found during it's continued research, those surprises won't be such as to disprove the theory of evolution, which itself is still evolving as new research is preformed. If anything, all this new data about differences in human and chimp Y chromosomes proves is some timeline theories are off. To conclude anything more than that however is laughable.

Links;

ICR Article
Original Nature Article

What is wrong with vegetarians? They're like the bible bashes of the food world. It's like they feel, quite irrationally, they've found the answer to all their problems; and so they in turn feel (I suspect to cater for their own insecurities) that they have to force everyone else they come in contact with to be the same way.

And in much the same way as my soul isn't going to be saved by some moron who took a 2000 year old story book a little to literally, nor will my health be helped by turning into a bipedal cow. Indeed I find the "logic" behind a lot of vegetarians to be just as irrational as our Christian door knockers. Christians believing against all the evidence that Humanity is somehow special and separate from all other animals to me seems linked to the rather illogical belief of vegetarians that we shouldn't eat meat because killing animals is wrong?

Well I'm sorry to burst every bodies bubble but there is nothing special about humanity. Humanity isn't smarter, cooler nor endowed with special bits that other animals aren't. Humans are simply chimps, nothing more, nothing less. The sooner you get that, the better off the whole planet will be.

Now with that in mind, please take this into consideration. EVERY organism on the planet owes it's life to anothers death. Yes, even as a vegetarian you are feeding from death. Not only does the decay of an animal feed the soil and thus help plants to grow, but plants themselves are living, breathing organisms.

Plants breath Carbon Di-Oxide and exhale Oxygen only during the day. Upon night fall the process is reversed with plants breathing oxygen and exhale Carbon Di-Oxide. In addition plants move daily! Sure they can't uproot and go for a walk, but their extremities do ever so slowly move all day, every day. And the big one, plants have a nervous system. Now while there is no centralised brain, this does NOT rule out the chance plants could feel pain. There is certainly some evidence (such as reflex response; where by a plants pores close in what would be thought of as painful situations) that supports the idea plants could feel pain.

Just because you can't hear that carrot screaming as you gnaw on it doesn't mean it feels any less pain than the cow did. Indeed given the plant is often alive when it's eaten means if anything, it would be feeling far more pain. I don't know about you but I sure as heck wouldn't like to be alive when someone ate me. Face it, you aren't special. And face it, extinguishing life in order for you to live is what life is all about. It's just how it's meant to be. Deal with it

Now I'm sure there will be some vegetarians whom will point to health benefits. But fact of the matter is there are actually no proven health benefits to a vegetarian lifestyle. While there are some studies that show a longer life expectancy from vegetarianism; others clearly show a decreased one. Certainly as a vegetarian you are extremely likely to be deficient in many essential vitamins and minerals. If you're thinking multi-vitamin tablets then I should warn you that the good ones are made from killing animals and harvesting the minerals from the waste product. The synthetic made ones, well they usually just give you really expensive pee as your body can do little with them.

And while of course there are vegetable proteins available, your body has to work much harder in order to use them compared to animal proteins. Protein of course is what our body uses to regenerate cells and to create new ones. Proteins make up our RNA and DNA structures, as well as form enzymes for the processing and absorption of food. That is to say, they're incredibly importable to your diet. Not only does your body use animal proteins easier but it simply can't perform some of it's functions at 100% without them. In addition, did you know that there are some medical conditions that ONLY affect vegetarians?

Now none of this would bother me anywhere near as much if vegetarians kept their eating habits to themselves, and more over didn't feel the need to comment on mine nor anyone elses. I mean sure I think you're a bit of a brainless twit for being a vego; but I'm not about to shove my beliefs down your throat. I could, in the same way vegetarian protesters dump blood on people eating meat; dump soil or more over sap on them. But honestly other than a really funny video I wouldn't have much of a lot to show for it. Fact of the matter is what I eat is my business and not the business of anyone else.

Fact of the matter is there is no reason to turn into a vegetarian, be it morale, health related or otherwise. Fact of the matter is that as you can see from the teeth of every human, you're built to eat both plants AND meat. Fact of the matter is that the reason you started to feel better when you went on your health binge has more to do with the daily exercise and active lifestyle you now lead than how you've changed your diet. And the same being greatly responsible for all that weight you lost. Look sure, if you still want to be a vegetarian regardless of the facts that's fine, your choice. But please, give me and everyone else who isn't a vego the same respect we afford to you and spot ramming YOUR CHOICES down OUR THROAT! Make sense?

And in the same spirit, please do us all a favour and stop making stupid TV shows that attempt to make people feel bad and skew the facts in an attempt to push them into a vegetarian lifestyle. Because look, fact of the matter is, being healthy and being vegetarian have very very little to do with each other. Instead how about we make shows which encourage people to use common sense when eating and establish moderation. Because at the end of the day, moderation, linked with an active lifestyle is the true key to a healthy and happy life.

As I'm sure you're aware by now, I'm by no means a Christian nor do I in any way believe in creationism. I did however come up with an argument that creationists could use if they for example didn't want to continue to look like the irrational idiots they currently do. Evolution might be a theory but it is certainly the most likely way of things happening. There is plenty of evidence, and none for creationism (I don't count the bible as evidence of anything).

Without creationism the Christian faith has some pretty gigantic holes in it. I mean if "god" didn't create it all then that undermines everything Christians believe. So my thought was, if creationists wanted to remain relevant have they ever thought of looking at it from another angel. We get the ideas of creationism from the bible, which at best is a pretty contencious reference. Even if you did take the thing as truth, you'd surely have to conceed that there is a lot of it which is metophorical.

So perhaps when the bible states that "god" made the trees and animals and blah blah blah, perhaps it was a metaphor. Perhaps, did you ever think, "god" could have created the single celled organisms which then turned into the trees and animals and what have you. An argument like that would perhaps still be plausible (I'm not sure if it would still be plausible in the writings of the bible), and would allow evolution; a well accepted theory, with plenty of evidence to back it up, run in parallel with creationism. I mean looking at it that way evolution would be evidence in the existence of god.

Not that of course it has me convinced, but I'm sure an argument like that would convince plenty of others. At the very least it would end this argument between creationists and evolutionists.

I found this video on Youtube and thought it was very good at highlighting a few good points in the creationist/evolution debate. Clearly it pushs towards evolution, but you didn't really think it might push toward creationism did you? lol.