Red State or Blue State

In the vein of similar ‘tongue planted in cheek’ satire as was previously posted on Nick’s blog, here is a definitive list of how to differentiate whether if you are living in a Red State or a Blue State:

Blue States:	Home of good schools
Red States:	Homeskooled good
Blue States:	Want a big tent for their Party.
Red States:	Wears a big tent to her party.
Blue States:	Favor electric cars
Red States:	Favor electric chairs
Blue States:	Concerned about ballooning deficits’ effect on capital markets turning gains into thin air
Red States:	Concerned about whether it’s demons that make balloons float in thin air
Blue States:	Dream of making enough money to kite and swim with Czechs in Biarritz
Red States:	Dream of kiting enough checks to swim in Schlitz
Blue States:	Favor institutionalized health care for the poor
Red States:	Favor institutionalizing the poor
Blue States:	After the 9/11 attacks, put coffins in the ground
Red States:	After the 9/11 attacks, put magnetic flags on the car
Blue States:	Forget that God did not give Adam a Steve
Red States:	Forget that not only did God give Abraham three wives, He gave Solomon 300 concubines
Red States:	Enormous Hummers that serve as the engines for Arab oil
Blue States:	Provide the “tax” part of “tax and spend”
Red States:	Provide the “spend on a new 8-lane highway to link a Wal-Mart to the Olive Garden” part of “tax and spend”
Blue States:	Believe we’re all brothers and sisters under the skin.
Red States:	Don’t mind if we’re brothers and sisters under the sheets.
Blue States:	Fighting to clean up skid row
Red States:	Fighting to clean up skid marks
Blue States:	9/11 survivors mourned at night as the television coverage showed those killed
Red States:	Mourned television coverage of 9/11 that killed that night’s “Survivor” show
Blue States:	Concerned about global warming
Red States:	Don’t like to travel and are too fat to fit in an airline seat anyway, so glad to hear that the tropics are coming to Texas. Yee-haw!
Blue States:	Follow Jesus, but doesn’t believe in Him
Red States:	Believe in Jesus, but doesn’t follow Him
Blue States:	Want to repeal the Patriot Act
Red States:	Want to repeal the Emancipation Proclamation
Blue States:	Looking for a method to weaken China every day
Red States:	Sold everyday china for a weekend of meth
Blue States:	Favor drafting annoying laws on assault rifles
Red States:	Assault annoying in-laws with rifles after being drafted
Blue States:	Want the right for everyone to worship as they choose
Red States:	Want the right to choose everyone’s worship
Blue States:	Champion women wrestling with the right to choose
Red States:	Choose women’s wrestling championships
Blue States:	Want a rational energy policy
Red States:	Want policy of energetic irrationalism
Blue States:	Used benefits to assist victims on account of attacks
Red States:	Used attacks to benefit Toby Keith’s bank account
Blue States:	Watched friends in New York die in foxy attacks on America
Red States:	Attack New York on Fox for not being friends of America
Blue States:	Believe God loves us and gave everyone free will to be different
Red States:	Believe God willed us to freely hate everyone different
Blue States:	Believe absence makes the heart grow fonder
Red States:	Believe abstinence saves the tart from plunder
Blue States:	Believe in Mr. Darwin’s theory of “Evolution”
Red States:	Believe in Mr. Jesus’ “Talking Snake” theory
Blue States:	Slave to pay inheritance taxes
Red States:	Inherited slaves
Blue States:	Buy art
Red States:	Collect Beanie Babies

Interesting News Articles

I was cruising the web, when I thought I would post some more interesting news articles that touch upon some of the issues that have been discussed on this blog. Nothing like getting a new perspective on matters, eh? (No, I’m not Canadian, but I am Norwegian on both sides of my family, and grew up in a little town that was about a hundred clicks south of the Canadian border in the Upper Midwest.)

First is an article from the St. Paul Pioneer Press that elucidates the illusion of a battle raging between Science and Faith. Some people who are regular readers of this blog know that I hold fundamentalists in disdain. That being said, I think I must emphasise that it is only fundies that I hold in disdain. The rest of Christendom seems to get the fact that science does not challenge God, but magnifies Him, whether if it is Evolution, Mathematics, Physics, or Anthropology.

June’s article on Gas Prices is a great starting point for researching the huge difficulties in economics, politics, and sociology when it comes to understanding the dependence the world has developed on the petrochemical industry. It is an indisputable fact that some companies have been negligent in their responsibility to safe-guard the pollution that inevitably develops from refining oil, as well as the negative impacts our exhaust has on the environment and weather patterns. However, the best remedy to this, as I stated in her comments section, is to support those companies that are doing something about it! The Stirling Heat Engine, while and old technology, is promising for the future in new and inventive ways to pave our way to energy independence. There is an interesting article in Discover Magazine about the new industry that is growing out of the frustration a lot of people are experiencing in regards to high energy prices. They had another one on a company combining Stirling Engines and Solar power to become the biggest producer of alternative energy in the nation, but for some reason I can’t find the article right now. I will post it when I remember the title of the article.

The latest rage in the literature is discussing Genomics and its application to cure disease. However, Proteomics is the way to go! Just look at this list of people to watch out for in the biological sciences from Discover. Also, look at this introduction to the field, courtesy of Wired.

In anticipation of Nick’s article on Creationism and Evolution, I thought a little history about the Intelligent Design movement would be in order. Also, another great overview ofCreationism’s Legal Woes from a different perspective.

In Linux news, check out the new Gnome 2.16 Desktop Environment! While I use KDE, Gnome is the DE that most people that are fairly new to Linux see, as it seems that Ubuntu is the most widespread of all Linux OSes out there. Also, it seems that Gnome is the force behind the new XGL and Compiz 3D Desktop Interface, an interface that puts Windows Vista to shame. It does more than Vista, on hardware that even XP would have problems running on! Click on the Desktop Interface link to drool!

Speaking of Microsoft, it seems that their Live Search is now out of Beta Testing. While I normally do not like MS or their products (I used to work for them before I went into the Army), I will grant you that fair competition is a great thing. Maybe Google will find a way out of the morass that their Google Ad Sense program has become. Personally, I used the Live Search a few months ago, and was not impressed.

That should be enough until tonight. As usual, comments are a blogger’s best friends, so type away!

9-11 Commentary; Or, Why the Country Despises Bush

This is one of the best commentaries on the state of affairs in the United States that I have seen to date! Keith Olbermann exemplifies all the reasons why people in the country, either Right or Left, Republican or Democrat, Libertarian or Green, despises this administration. To quote from the transcript:

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it… was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.
Those who did not belong to his party — tabled that.
Those who doubted the mechanics of his election — ignored that.
Those who wondered of his qualifications — forgot that.’

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government, by its critics.
It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation’s wounds, but to take political advantage.
Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.
The President — and those around him — did that.
They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, “bi-partisanship” meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President’s words yesterday, “validate the strategy of the terrorists.”
They promised protection, and then showed that to them “protection” meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken… a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated Al-Qaeda as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had ’something to do’ with 9/11, is “lying by implication.”

The impolite phrase, is “impeachable offense.”

Edit- If you disagree with this assessment, then I encourage you to post why you do not in the comments section. Perhaps Olbermann, and myself, are mistaken. As is everything else that I post in this blog, I will only adhere to it until convincing data and reason surface to falsify my previously held position. Also, links to more information are always welcome!

Errancy and the Bible

In the previous discussion on this blog about certain matters scriptural (can you tell I’ve been brushing up some of my Romantic languages?) my main contention has been the rebutting of certain doctrines and myths concerning the Protestant Bible based on the Doctrine of Inerrancy. Some people may not know what this doctrine entails, so let’s look at the definition:

Biblical Inerrancy: Biblical Inerrancy is the view that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is in every detail infallible and without error.

Most of time time, especially in the Pentecostal sects, this is taken to mean that the Bible should be taken in its most literal context. The reasoning for this is that God is perfect, and as such, all His actions are perfect as well. When communicating with a fallen race (humanity), God needed to impart His wisdom in the most literal way possible for humanity to come to a more perfect realization of His Presence. While this is a very rough paraphrasing of the ideology, I just do not have the inclination to go into the whole doctrine in this article.

When reading the Bible with this type of an interpretation in mind, one will come across passages that seemingly contradict each other. In order for Scriptural Inerrantists to harmonize these passages, various modes of interpretation are implemented. The foremost of these would be eisegesis. Some people who are involved with critical, methodological interpretation of the Scripture may cringe at this, citing that the main method of interpretation would be exegesis, but as has been seen by the plethora of differing sects, denominations, and personal inclinations of the interpreters, a broad basis of consensus may be established to the fact that what is generally considered to be exegesis in methodology is nothing more but eisegesis. Another important tool to most Biblical researches is the process of Hermenuetics. While there are some very important aspects involved with the application of hermeneutics, especially in those areas that were broadened by Heidegger and current philosophers in semiotics, when it comes to critical interpretation of the Scriptures, most hermeneutical methodologies are left out because of the subjective nature of interpolation of personal philosophy and opinion into the texts at hand.

Now, given these tools for the harmonization of certain passages that may contradict each other, should we see a resolution of the apparent contradictions? Maybe in certain morality scenes, but the issue remains especially contentious in regards to facts, history, geography, and other areas of interest that the Bible seemingly gets wrong. For instance, in the classification of foods into either an unclean category or a clean one, the Bible states:

Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Now, when interpreting Scripture in accordance to the inerrancy doctrine, one must keep in mind that the doctrine states nothing about the translated copies, so to the original language we go! There, we find that the Hebrew word used for cud is ‘Gerah’, which in its most literal sense means ‘Bring up the cud’. Anyone who has dealt with rabbits should know that they have a disgusting habit of eating their own dung. I’m sure there is a perfectly plausible scientific reason for this, but it remains disgusting. Nonetheless, if this particular passage were an indictiment against rabbits based on their eating habits, then shouldn’t the phrase have used the Hebrew word for ‘dung’? There does exist in Hebrew a word for dung, which was not used in this passage. Here, we see that all methods of interpretation for this passage fails to harmonize the Bible with known facts. The passage is plainly errant, which is a strike against the inerrancy doctrine.

However, in matters Scriptural, the doctrine goes even further! The premise is that God is perfect, and by definition and corollary, does everything perfectly. Another premise is that God is good, being the exemplified incarnation of the Platonic Ideal of Goodness. Hence, the original translations should be infallible when it comes to facts, figures, history, science, morality, and everything else the Scriptures touch on. It is here, at this juncture, that we turn from the more mundane aspects of Scripture and instead concentrate upon the morality inherent within the passages, thus bringing us full circle to the Slavery debate.

The arguments is this: God is perfect, and the perfect encapsulation of what is termed Good. As such, He cannot do anything imperfectly. Since He is both Good and Perfect, then when He lays down the laws of morality, He does so in the perfect conceptualization of said morality. Therefore, His moral code should not contain anything that is immoral, nor support immoral actions. Granted, there are a lot of fallacies within this argument, but this is not mine own argument that I’m defending, as this is the line of defense that many Pentecostal ministers and preachers use in their apologetics of the Bible. In this line of reasoning, combined with the doctrine of inerrancy, all that is written in the Bible is the Revealed Word of God, and as such should condemn those institutions that advocate immoral actions and modes of thought.

At this point, we get back to the original argument: Where is the condemnation of Slavery? Nowhere in the Scriptures do we see a blanket dismissal of the Institution of Slavery. In the stead of the expected condemnation of this practice, we see Scripture after Scripture that lays down guidelines for the treatment of slaves, to their procurement, to how slaves should react to their masters. Clearly, the Bible is errant in it’s morality in the upholding and justification for slavery.

For instance, in Exodus 21:20-21, we see that it is entirely permissible to severely beat a slave, as long as the slave does not die within a day or two. If we are to believe as the fundamentalists believe, and take this passage literally, then we would be remiss in our duties to examine fully the nature of the situation and to bring moral judgement upon it. Today, if this were done, there would be a loud and thunderous outcry against the practice! However, this was just one of the passages in regard to slavery that is in need of serious harmonization. The proper approach is to put the passage in its proper context both in history, culture, and surrounding texts. From this, one can come up with a myriad of ‘interpretations’ to come up with an explanation of why the passage should not be read they way it was written, but these are the worst sort of hermeneutics. In fact, all justifications for harmonization of these Scriptures lies firmly within the mode of interpretation of eisegesis- reading into the passage that which you expect to find.

While the Law laid down the guidelines for the slave trade (indeed, the act of purchasing a human being makes you part of the slave trade), there are those who will insist that the New Testament abrogated this doctrine, and that all slaves should be free. Except for these passages:

Ephesians 6:5-7 5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men,

I Timothy 6:1 1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered.

Colossians 3:22 22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Titus 2:9 9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18-22 18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

19 For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God.

20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.

21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

Clearly, it can be seen that from beginning to end of the Bible, the Bible supported slavery. While there are many regulations on the institution, there does not exist one verse commending slavery as the vile, immoral institution that it is!

Of course, in this debate, there has been much contention over Galatians 3:28. However, when the whole chapter is read one finds that this is not an indictment of the institution of slavery, but rather an admonition that the Gospel is for all, based on Faith, irrespective of racial, sexual, or cultural disposition.

To wit, we return to my main point, which is that the institution of Slavery was not abolished because of Christianity, but in spite of it. Exegesis, eisegesis, and hermeneutics all fail to harmonize these passages with morality, and shows that the Doctrine of Inerrancy is false.

However, June, I believe, has asserted a false correlation. Mainly, the point was that slavery was abolished in the West, and the West was Christian, so therefore Christianity was responsible for the abolishment of the practice. This viewpoint neglects the major social and scientific, not to mention philosophical, revolutions that were part of the Enlightenment, which had much more to do with the improvement of our lives than Fundamentalist Christianity.

Atheism and Morality

Some comments were made on this blog that caused me great concern, as it seemed that while the author was not deliberately trying to deceive others, that was still the case in the ignorance of the quotation of certain matters as fact rather than just speculation. I believe that this is caused by the Church’s arrogance, and some cases ignorance, about philosophies and praxii other than their own, as well as certain pastors attempts to demonize anything that stood in counterpoint to their own theologies. Of course, when it comes to religion, very few people will go out of their way to read up on opposing viewpoints contrary to their own, and even fewer people take the time necessary to learn the rules of logic and reasoning that underpin their own understanding of whatever Scripture is held in Holy regard. When this is done to the Christian community, a great hew and cry is raised to point out the ignorance of the viewpoint, diatribe, or argument that was utilized against them, which I believe that they rightly do so. No argument should be based in ignorance, or a willful distortion of other’s worldview that you yourself may not hold. Such is the death of wisdom; true wisdom comes in the form of knowing how little you know, and striving to add to your knowledge with the tools that you have available.

In the Christian community, especially within the Charismatic, Pentecostal, and Fundamentalist sects that I’m more than familiar with, there is rampant disdain that is lavished on atheism in general, and atheists in particular. I believe that the majority of this comes from the confusion of separate issues; for instance, the first issue that is usually raised is the fact that most Christians believe that morality only comes from God. The second topic that gets confused is that atheism, by some Christian’s definition, is necessarily equated to Communism, two completely different philosophies; one dealing with issues pertaining to the supernatural, the other dealing with a form of government. The last point of confusion that I would like to deal with is the question of meaning in a person’s life. Most Christians, through ignorance of philosophy and other’s viewpoints, often point out that the outlook of atheism is bleak, desolate, and spiritually bankrupt, as it leads to a mechanistic view of the universe, with an absence of meaning. Of course, my contention is that all of these myths about atheism are exactly that- myths.

What is atheism? In the simplest sense, atheism is the lack of belief in God, gods, and the supernatural. Most atheists have a lack of belief in the supernatural because the supernatural is not proven, cannot be tested for, and in almost all cases, cannot even be properly defined. According to this stance, if you asked ten different people what a “spirit” was, you would get ten different answers, none of which agrees with the others outside of the nebulous, ethereal nature of the “spirit”. Of course, most atheists have only the lack of belief in the supernatural; others, however, hold an active disbelief. This arises from the contradictions in fact and in reasoning of the theist position on almost all arguments relating to the existence of some transcendent being in (out of) the universe. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is what a lot of Christians confuse with atheism, mainly that agnosticism is the belief that a god could exist, but the uncertainty of if it does, or which one is the true God. However, in regards to atheism, the lack of a belief, or the active disbelief, of gods and the supernatural is the sum totality of the philosophy.

What of morality? The common misconception about morality is that if one does not adhere to a belief in the Divine, then one cannot be a moral or ethical person. The fallacy in this can be immediately seen, as there have always been, and always will be, persons who abuse their religion in order to justify the expedience of definite immoral and unethical behavior. For example, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and even the Third Reich based their hideous and repugnant immorality upon the ideas of Christianity. In the current day, we as a society are still dealing with extremists such as the Aryan Nation, Westboro Baptist Church, and Fundamentalist Muslims who all believe in God, but perform immoral act after immoral act. Clearly, it can be seen that adherence to morality is not a correlation to theism. Just as Christians are errant in blaming mainstream atheism for the conception and execution of Communism and other assorted ills, so too is the atheist in blaming mainstream Christianity for the examples that were cited. Obviously, there is something else in the formation of morality and ethics.

What would this other thing be? To take a look at an example, what of the Christian who only follows a moral code because of her fear of condemnation in a lake of eternal fire? Would this person be more moral than an atheist who follows a moral code just because it is the right thing to do? You see, most atheists, because of their belief that this is the only life that we have to live, take life as a precious thing, and seek to make it as comfortable and enjoyable for all concerned as possible. Hence, their concern for following an ethical code of conduct, as this is the only way that ensures that all are accorded the right to live their lives as they see fit without abrogation of others’ rights to do the same. A good starting point would be Zindler’s essay on atheism and ethics. Also, when we look into the ancient world, we see philosophers and natural scientists that did not have access to the Bible, believed in capricious gods that had questionable morals, but were still able to make magnificent (for their time) treatises on Ethics and Morality. Plato and Aristotle both wrote articles on the ethics of human behavior that are still studied in High Schools and Universities today. In fact, it was Plato who first identified that gods, goodness, and The Good were separate entities, according to his Platonic Idealism, and then formulated his philosophy’s source for the operation of human ethics and morality. We can see that atheism does not equate to immorality. Neither does theism. Morality is defined, regulated, and ruled by other ideas and concepts.

Of course, with the advent of Communism, most Christians latched onto the phrase “Godless Atheist” when describing the Soviet Union. Then it was a “known” fact that all Communisms were atheist in origin. However, even a cursory glance at history show that this is not the case. The most successful communist regime in the world today, and by far the oldest, is the Catholic Church. Most Christians are uncomfortable with that fact, because they have been conditioned to only think of Communism in terms of a caricature of atheism. However, the underpinning of atheism is freedom of thought. Any structure that opposes an individual’s right to think for themselves is antithetical to the most important element to many Atheists. Given this, it is easy to see that Christianity lends itself far more easily to Fascism than Atheism does to Communism.

The last point to consider is the meaning of life, and should such a meaning necessarily be contingent upon the belief in a transcendent deity? Of course, most theists will state that of course it is contingent, as only God can give meaning to an individual’s life. When examined, though, we see that this viewpoint is reached because of a subscription to an ideal of a Straw Man in regards to atheism- namely, that atheism has no meaning to offer, and equates all “truths” as being relative to each other, which lowers the meanings of everything to the lowest common denominator of nothing more than a mechanistic universe. This Straw Man is false, and has been shown to be false again and again, yet still the Fundamentalists like to offer this viewpoint as the truth in regards to those who hold opposing viewpoints to their own. Any cursory inspection (again, that fundamental requisite to intelligently discuss such topics, which most Fundamentalists neglect) of philosophy will show that a meaning for life is not hinged upon the belief in God. In fact, by definition of a meaning for life in the Union of the individual with God after life inherently denigrates all life. By stating that the purpose of life to lie within the unknown (the afterlife and death) one neglects the purpose for this life that is lived.

“If a person cannot find meaning and purpose in their lives without imaging the existence of a state of being after they are dead, they fundamentally devalue and denigrate life itself. Such devaluation, in the long run, only serves to further the cause of violence — especially religious violence — because it encourages people not to value life, whether it is their own life or the lives of other human beings. When life has no value except when it is over, then in the end life simply has no value period.”

For an overview of this philosophical view, go here and here.

Hopefully this will allay some of the myths and stereotypes some fundamentalists hold in regard to Atheism.

Great Deluge Models

A conversation with Nick prompted me to bring up the Great Flood Myth in the Bible. It seems like he is one of the people that takes this particular story in its literal sense, which, to me, does not make sense. In regards to that, let me preface this article with a brief description of the Scientific Method.

In order to advance the knowledge of a particular field, a scientist will make observations about the phenomenon that she perceives. (The sun rises and sets every day.) Then, the scientist creates a hypothesis to explain the perceived phenomenon. (The sun circles the earth.) Then, when the scientist is done with the creation and description of the hypothesis, she will then perform experiments to see whether if the hypothesis is correct, and has the ability to predict future actions. (In this case, the hypothesis should predict that other planets also circle the earth.) Then the research is submitted for critical peer review. (Galileo Galilei’s observations, and Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion falsify the Geocentric model.) If the hypothesis proves to be correct, and it is useful for predicting future actions, then it will generally become a theory or a scientific law, as long as no new evidence comes along to falsify it. If it is proven incorrect, then the hypothesis needs to be modified to fit all extant data, or become invalidated.

Of course, this is a rough approximation, but more information regarding the Scientific Method can be found here.

Now, Creationists propose a hypothesis that a Great Flood happened in the recent past. Fundamentalists believe this to be the case because of their belief in the literal truth of the passages in the Bible which relates the Flood Myth. With this belief in mind, combined with the Scientific Method, we can see whether if such a flood has happened in the past. First, the hypothesis: The Earth was covered in water, where even the highest mountain had a span of twenty feet of water covering them. Note that they completely ignore observations about the natural world in the forming of this hypothesis. They start with a theory, and then try to work backwards from there. Okay, be that as it may, we can form some predictions based on the hypothesis already. Some, but not all, predictions would be:

1. The amount of water in use to cover the entirety of the earth. The best approximation that I have read would necessitate over 2.5 times the volume of water already in the ocean to make this model true. To date, no data supports this.
2. The model should reflect why the polar ice caps are still there. If the earth were flooded, then the polar ice caps should have broken up. In six thousand years, we should only see a number of ice layers in the polar ice cores that have been taken that reflects the time since the flood. To date, no data supports this.
3. Mountain erosion. We should see in different mountain ranges similar erosion activity at the same time to reflect flooding conditions. Again, no data supports the Great Flood Myth.
4. Unusual amounts of terrestial detritus within the ocean floor core samples that have been taken. If there was a great flood, then terrestial silt and animal by-products (skeletons and such) should be found in great quantities within the core samples. To date, this also has not been the case.
5. The presence of Mitochondrial DNA. In the process of tracking back the most recent ancestor for mitochondrial DNA, we should expect to arrive at a number of about 6,000 years or so. Instead, we have evidence that Mitochondrial Eve was alive no more recently than 150,000 years ago! Again, the evidence that we have to date does not correlate with the Flood Model.
6. Geological Sorting. The fossil record that we have today should correspond to models of hydrological sorting processes if such a flood had happened. Instead, all corroborated evidence and data in the Scientific Community shows that such a process has not happened in the past.
7. Dispersion of human settlements. The Flood Model has not, and cannot, account for all of the evidence pointing to gradual human dispersion throughout the globe.
8. Extant Writings. If the Flood happened, then we should not see any written documents from the time that the flood was purported to happen. Instead, we have slabs and slabs of rocks from the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Chinese, and so forth, that were written and dated at the same time as when the flood happened!

These are just some of the problems with the Hypothesis of the Great Deluge. The model, in effect, has not made any predictions that have been valuated, and because Creationists worked backwards, they had no observable phenomenon to quantify before the formation of the Hypothesis.

In effect, the Flood Myth has been falsified over and over again. To present, there is no evidence that such a global flood has taken place.

Recent Science Articles

I’m still on a four day weekend right now. As such, I have plenty of time to write and post, but I’m intending to utilize my time to be lazy this weekend. Hence, the scarcity of posts on this blog recently. However, in the wake of the two on-going discussions within the comments section of certain posts, I thought I would take a lighter touch for this afternoon, and posts the heavy articles later on tonight. So, for your reading enjoyment, I’m presenting some interesting news of the day articles for your reading pleasure this afternoon!

First off, in tangential relation to the evolution arguments that are present on this blog, take a look at this article that gives a synopsis of Intelligent Design. For once, I think a fair and balanced approach has been taken to this contentious topic, although the Creationists in the Hovind model will still be unhappy with the outcome.

Ever wonder about the Ark? Has it been found? Where is it? LiveScience.com also has an article that goes over the past hoaxes, frauds, and interesting sitings of Noah’s Ark.

Still in the Microsoft versus Open Source Software debate? It seems that this conversation is becoming moot, as more and more businesses are embracing Free/Open Source Software.

For those developers who work with C++, here are some more verification tools for you! Yeah!

Anyone who may be engaged in the Evolution/Creation debate, take a look at the Top Ten Myths About Evolution. Most people on the Creationist side who begin these debates lack a serious grounding in evolutionary theory, what it’s about, what it’s facts are, and the theory model that predicts future changes.

The Chimp strikes back with the obvious! President George W. Bush this past weekend stressed the importance of not relying on foreign oil. Duh!

ABC will, on September 11th of this year, present a new “docudrama” on the events leading up to, and including, the terror attacks on the World Trade Center. However, this television event is biased, distorts reality, and is basically a gift to the extreme right. With all the controversy surrounding this project, I’m surprised that ABC hasn’t distanced themselves from the project’s creator. Since the project was only vetted by extreme right-wing Republicans, only previewed by Right-wing Bloggers, and was created by people with extreme right-wing political views, one has to wonder whether if it is based in fact, or in revisionist history?

In the light of all the recent advances in genomic studies, one has to wonder about the use of evolutionary techniques in modern day novels. I like Greg Bear, who is a very good author of some Hard Science Fiction. (“Hard” in this case means the usage of modern “hard” sciences in a theoretical novel. No telepathy, space jumps, wormholes, or the like are allowed as they are all hypothesii (sic) that have no direct evidence in experimental studies.) Especially with the last two novels I read that were written by him, _Darwin’s Radio_ and _Darwin’s Children_, one has to wonder about the science of Human Endogenous Retrovirii. This article gives a very good overview of the science behind the novels.

Well, this should keep people interested until later on this evening! Ciao!

Propaganda, Bush Style

First, let me write that if you like Keith Olbermann’s program, then write in! It seems the extreme right wingnuts took offense to Keith calling a spade a spade, and are now deluging MSNBC with vitriol of the most inflammatory nature. Fire up your e-mail clients and write to countdown@msnbc.com.

Second, I’d like to point out the new version of propaganda that Rove has perfected: the timing of news releases to coincide with trivial news articles. It was no mistake that Faux News covered the Aruba story almost non-stop for five months. Everything else in the news at the time was extremely negative for the Republicans. Now, however, with the recent media feeding-frenzy over the resurrected JonBenet Ramsey case, one has to wonder: what else was going on?

The Republicans have become masters at misdirection. When news that is critical of the administration, or can be seen as a huge indictment on the activities of certain Republicans, they trot out the smoke and mirrors. Most people wouldn’t notice this unless if they do a fair amount of digging around on the Internet. Let’s face it: most people are lazy when it comes to keeping abreast of public and civil affairs. The Right Wingnuts use this to their advantage, as it seems all five media conglomerates that control the majority of print and broadcast media are riding in the GOP’s pockets.

Think the Smoke and Mirrors argument is a little hokey? Check out this link from Think Progress. Yes, that’s right, Honorable Judge Taylor found:

“In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] forbids.”

Who in the media reported this? I’m a news junkie, but I found not one whisper, one tittle of information on this in the broadcast news. (My television is usually tuned to CNN most of the day, and MSNBC for Olbermann’s show.)

A better understanding of the issues surrounding this case can be found on this article written by Thom Hartmann. Also, check out this link on the “coincidences” between the release of unfavorable news items towards the administration and the raising of the threat level. Scroll down half the page to get to the Top 10 list, written on October 12th, 2005, is enumerated by Keith Olbermann.

To wit- the Bush Administration broke the law. A federal judge has found that not only was the law broken, but the Constitution was violated as well. Rather than cover this news, the media decided that a decade old sensationalistic news story was more worthy of top coverage. The GOP gets another “Get Out of Jail Free” card yet again.

How is this not propaganda?

Ripping into the Rhetoric

If you paid attention to the news yesterday, you would have noticed in between the attention that CNN and Fox paid to the Jon Benet Ramsey Case and some coverage of Hurricane Ernesto, that Ronald Dumsfeld, er, Donald Rumsfeld, made a speech at the VFW. In this speech, he used the usual rhetoric of accusing people who do not believe in the policies of the current administration to Nazi sympathizers and enablers prior to World War II. The last time such inflammatory rhetoric was used by the government was during the McCarthy era, wherein accusation of being a communist equaled instant guilt, and any who opposed McCarthy were labelled as Communist Sympathizers.

One of the reasons why I’ve been on such a rampage about the terms “fascism” and “reason” lately is because this administration has turned into the very thing that all Americans should loathe. While paying lip service to the ideals that we Americans hold so dear (such as ‘one man, one vote’, capitalism, equal rights for all, the right to privacy, freedom of speech, even if you do not agree with the other person’s viewpoint, freedom of the press, freedom to practice your religion as you see fit, and on and on) they have systematically worked up pogroms to expunge much of these freedoms. Much of this has been done under the guise of accusing those who would oppose the expatriation of these rights as being an enabler for the terrorists. Enough is enough!

Finally, there was a person who stood up to the rhetoric. In standing up, not only did he delve into the historical perspectives and showed exactly what happened, but he countered almost all of the points that the Secretary of Defense made. Hopefully, others within the broadcast media will start to make similar stands in the upcoming weeks.

For those of you who do not watch “Countdown With Keith Olbermann”, take a look at this segment:

War Widows

Just found a very interesting article pertaining to one Honorable <ahem> George W. Bush and a war widow. The topic? Iraq. The setting? Maine.

While reading the recount of the meeting, I was struck by how cold, impersonal, and genuinely disinterested the POTUS was in concern to the human collateral that has been offered up in the name of a war founded in lies, deceit, and treachery. (Yes, treachery, there is no other way to view the Valerie Plame and Joseph Smith affair.) The number one thing that can be seen when parsing through government records, reports, and data provided by the GAO is that this war was almost entirely founded on the notion of enriching the compatriots of those associated with the Foundation for a New American Century. No one else has been enriched by this. The “value” of this war is questionable, at best. Not to mention the fact that by going into Iraq has drained resources needed to keep North Korea, Iran, and China in check when it comes to nuclear weapons and economic extortion. From the journal:

‘But Halley has just given me a much more detailed account of her meeting with Bush. She told me that she went much farther in her criticism of the President, telling him directly that he was “responsible” for the deaths of American soldiers and that as a “Christian man,” he should recognize that he’s “made a mistake” and that it was his “responsibility to end this.” She recounted to me that she was “very direct,” telling Bush: “As President, you’re here to serve the people. And the people are not being served with this war.” ‘

Before some of you criticise me, there is one thing that I want to make very clear here: I am not a “peacenik”. I do believe that War is a tool that needs to be used from time to time, as human greed, stupidity, ego, and corruption are everywhere and does not seem inclined to disappear anytime soon. However, before this most potent and lethal of all tools is used, I believe that other options have to be exhausted first. World War II was a mistake, in my opinion. We should have entered into the fray sooner. Vietnam was another mistake. The policy of the “Communist Domino Effect” had no basis in reality, but, then again, no one was able to actually study Communism without be branded a Communist themselves during that era. (Also for the record, I loathe communism as it makes everyone a slave to everyone else, a notion that I find despicable.) We should never have entered into Vietnam, no matter how hard the French pleaded with us.

In effect, wars such as Iraq are lost as soon as started, as there is no objective, no concise analysis of the geo-political structure, no plan for the aftermath, no framework that has been developed to deal with guerrilla insurgents. It was most especially lost when the one goal that was defined was “Democracy”. This is a mistake, as Freedom and Liberty only exist when a person wants to fight for it. It cannot be imposed from the outside, just like any other value.

Continue on to read the Journal from TPM Cafe.