Thursday, November 24, 2011

Top 5 Science FAILS in the Koran

As long as they can't see where they are going, they can't prove me wrong!

Let's be clear.  No one says that faulty science in a holy book disproves the existence of a God.  It has no bearing on that claim at all.  What it DOES have a bearing on is the claim that the science revealed in the Koran IS proof of God's existence. 

Before we get to the list I would like to briefly address this.  There is not a single scientific revelation in the Koran. 

Not one

You sure? Are you saying this was a waste of time??

You can't claim that science was revealed in the Koran if people didn't understand it at the time.  If it was not revealed by any means but in retrospect then it wasn't revealed at all.  In order to "reveal" something, you must make it clear to the person, otherwise it is still hidden from us.  Making claims to knowledge that wasn't exampled by men of that time because of a vague simularity in the text or a non-specific passage that may resemble modern scientific understanding is intellectually dishonest and rife with confirmation bias. 

Get it?

If you think the Big Bang was revealed in the Koran because it talks about the expanses of heaven, but NOT ONE Muslim scientist ever actually spoke of that model for the universe in any way then your claim is a false one. 

It wasn't revealed

There is something behind this curtain... what is it?  You'll have to wait 400 years to know what I have revealed today!

Enough of that.

Let's look at the 5 best examples of bad science in the Koran;

                                    Man didn't Evolve??
"O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women. Be careful of your duty toward Allah in Whom ye claim (your rights) of one another, and toward the wombs (that bare you). Lo! Allah hath been a watcher over you."  -(4:1)

Men and women all came from a single pair?  Not only is that pretty incestuous, but it is scientifically wrong.  There was no first man and first woman and humans certainly weren't created in our current forms!

Ok, maybe HIS ancestors were.

Evolution explains this quite clearly.  We evolved into our current forms from our biological ancestors and they evolved from theirs and so on.  It is such a gradual process that you can't pin down one generation as the first humans any more than you can pinpoint the exact moment when an infant becomes a toddler or when boy becomes a man.  Clearly the Muslim's who wrote this had no understanding of the biological history of the human race.  Strangely evolution has been suggested by many cultures many years before this, so it wasn't even an unknown idea at the time! 

FAIL Islam!

The Universe was made in 6 days?
"And We did certainly create the heavens and earth and what is between them in six days, and there touched Us no weariness"

The Universe was created in 6 days???  Pretty sure that we all know that is not scientifically accurate.  It took billions of years for the Earth develop after the Big Bang.  Plus or minus a few million years.  Do you know what number is really close to a few million??

Not sure but it is NOT 6!!

FAIL Islam!

Thunder is an Angel??
"And the thunder exalts [ Allah ] with praise of Him - and the angels [as well] from fear of Him - and He sends thunderbolts and strikes therewith whom He wills while they dispute about Allah ; and He is severe in assault" -13:13

Ummm, really?  There have been SCIENTIFIC hypotheses on the nature of Thunder since Aristotle in the 3rd Century...


Sounds like a shock wave in the air due to the sudden thermal expansion of the plasma in the lightning channel, but what do I know? It's probably an Angel.

So why is the Koran still depending on Angels and Demons to explain natural processes?

Islam FAIL!!

Sperm comes from behind the Ribs and the Spine??
"He was created from a fluid, ejected emerging from between the backbone and the ribs." -86:6-7

Many Muslims will steadfastly maintain the truth of this one, because some of the seminal fluid originates from that general area.  But the damning part of the verse is that "he" was CREATED from this fluid.  That part of the fluid is the sperm.  That is the active ingredient of the seminal fluid and the only part needed to create life.  The rest of the fluid is only a carrier and has no part in the actual fertilization process. 

The crazy part of this one is that THIS too was a fact that was at least believed by very early man.  Aristotle not only believed that the fertilizing agent came from the testicles but that each testicle was responsible for the birthing of one gender.  So that tying the "male one" off (or cutting it off) would ensure the other one ruled sex selection and the woman would birth a girl.  THIS was crazy, but at least they were on the right track.

You want me to do what?!?

Allah keeps the Birds aloft?!?
"Do they not see the birds controlled in the atmosphere of the sky? None holds them up except Allah . Indeed in that are signs for a people who believe" -16:79

Really?  Is THAT what is keeping them in the magical skies?  Not the nature of aerodynamics, lift or thrust, not any of those things? 

How do I do it?  Well, it's a combination of pixie dust, angel spit, and a healthy distaste for science.


Seriously?  Magic is the Islamic explaination for the power of flight in birds?

So this is a sign for unbelievers?  Yea, the VERSE is a sign.  A sign of the inaccuracy of the Koran, and one more reason to not believe anything it says.

What do YOU think?

Is this the word of middle age sheep herders or the word of a Supreme being?

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

My Wife the Activist....(on the Evils of Operation Christmas Child)

Recently I caught wind of a charity that was being supported at my sons school, and thought that I should look into it as I always do.  It is not that I care if a charity is religious or not, there are many religious charities that do great work out there just as there are secular ones.  No, I don't care about the ideologies of the members of the organisations  What I care about is the CHARITY and good that a charity goes. As long as the help and money is going to the people who need it most and it is charity being given freely without deception, then I am (as you should be) happy with giving them my support and my money.

YOU LIED!  I can't eat this, even WITH mayo!

So I looked into it to ensure that the money was going where it was supposed to go. This is an act that I encourage everyone to do when donating money to charity.  Make sure your charity is above board.  Even some of the big ones can be pretty shady. 

Such is the case with Operation Christmas Child.

On the surface it seems nice enough but as soon as you start looking around warning signs start to pop up.  Nothing too alarming, but enough to make you look into it if you are of a skeptical mind.

I googled the organization to see if there had been any complaints filed about how they conduct their business. 

First thing that I learned is that they use this charity in traditionally non-christian countries to evangelize to the poor and needy as a way to trap them into listening and taking their literature.  They admit this freely in their newsletters and in speeches. 

They are just as clear in their fearmongering message. 

You are a liar, you are a cheat, you are worthless......

Unless you are MY buddy!
You all know how I feel about telling children that they are bad people.  Ray Comfort does it regularly to emphasize how badly they need his buddy.

If you do this, you are a predator.

But, I am starting to rant and this is not my rant to make.


This is my wife's rant.

So I will let her do it.  She was a pit bull and within 5 minutes she had dug up TONS of terrible information on the organisation and it's leader Franklin Graham (the son of Billy).

I say "dug" but it was really all right here...with a sign saying "read me"...and a crossing guard directing me to it. )It really was that easy)

She decided that she would write to the Principle....

and the school board....

and the trustees.....

and the Director of Education!

She is awesome.

If no one says "Good Job" with a creepy happy face, she'll never know our appreciation!

ANYWAY, here is her letter.  (Read it for the real scoop on Operation Christmas Child)

Re:  Operation Christmas Child

As a parent of a third grade child at (blanked out) Public School, I am writing this letter to you to voice my concerns about Operation Christmas Child and to explain to you why a public school is not an appropriate venue to host such a program.

In the past, my family has provided support to Operation Christmas Child, however, with surprisingly little research; I felt I had received enough information to make an informed decision and change my mind about this program and it’s parent organization.  I sincerely believe it is very likely that other parents would share in objection to this program if they were aware of its complete agenda as I now am.

At first glance, Operation Christmas Child seems to be a worthwhile exercise for our children; a hands-on activity which teaches them to give to others less fortunate by packing a shoebox of gifts for needy children in the third world.  However, upon closer research, the organization behind Operation Christmas Child, called­ Samaritan’s Purse, (which is headed by evangelical minister Franklin Graham), has a very different goal: proselytizing with the purpose of converting children to fundamentalist Christians.

The shoeboxes, therefore, are not gifts in the true sense of the word.  There are strings attached to these boxes that our children are putting together.

Mr. Graham himself admits the program
“…is not just about reaching children with a shoe box…this project focuses on sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ with them through Christian Literature distributed with the shoe boxes.”  
Before receiving these shoebox gifts, children must attend a Christian rally.  Essentially, these underprivileged children are being offered a gift in one hand, and a pamphlet in the other.  It’s simply unethical.

Operation Christmas Child abuses the generosity of our students by using their shoebox gifts as a tool for Christian evangelism. The shoeboxes are distributed (along with proselytizing Christian literature) to children of diverse religious beliefs in other countries of the world in an attempt to convert them to Christianity.

In the November, 2002, Samaritan’s Purse Canada Newsletter, Mr. Graham says:
I believe God has blessed this program because it is about more than Christmas presents. It is about introducing children and their families to God’s greatest gift—His Son, Jesus Christ. As long as evangelism is the focus, God will continue to bless it.” 
The Newsletter also states:
Shoe box gifts are distributed along with The Greatest Gift of All, an illustrated booklet that gives a clear presentation of the true meaning of Christmas—God’s love and salvation in Jesus Christ. The booklet has been printed in 65 languages. Local churches and ministry groups help us deliver the gifts and Gospel booklets… 
The 2002 Operation Christmas Child Special Report also quotes Mr. Graham as saying:
Our outreach to these children and their families may begin with a shoe box gift but our ultimate goal is to open doors to share the Good News of Jesus Christ and to open hearts to receive Him as Lord and Saviour."

As you can see, some of Mr. Graham’s comments are truly disturbing given the multi-cultural make-up of the students in our schools. It is not appropriate for our schools to ask our students to help promote one religion over another.  By allowing this program to be hosted by a public school, you are sending a message to parents and our children that the school (and public schools in general) are condoning the actions of Operation Christmas Child and that you support their efforts to convert others.
Further to this, Mr Graham makes his anti-Semitic, anti-Islam, anti-Hindu, and anti-tolerance message very clear in other statements that he has made at Samaritan’s Purse speeches, interviews, and in their newsletters.  Mr. Graham's words and actions toward other world religions reveal a remarkable lack of respect for the dignity of people whose world views differ from his own:
On Islam, Graham says, “…it is a very evil and wicked religion.”
On Hinduism Graham says, “…we traveled to the subcontinent of India, with its hundreds of millions of people locked in the darkness of Hinduism… These people were bound by Satan’s power.”
On a local religion in Indonesia Graham says, A witch doctor ruled that particular village, and I could sense an evil presence.
The Samaritan’s Purse website contains an article entitled;
Shoe Box Gifts Help Dispel Spiritual Darkness in Haiti
this denigrates another local area, it's people and it's religion by claiming it is a false religion and that they are shrouded in "darkness".
The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance say that, statements that categorize other religious groups as evil, degenerate, sub-human and/or hated by God are statements that promote religious intolerance.”
These statements made by Mr. Graham and Samaritan’s Purse promote religious intolerance. Do you think that it would be appropriate for our public schools (or any public facility or institution) to be used as a venue for an anti-Semitic organization? Or an anti-Islamic, or anti-Hindu? The principle is the same.
This is a travesty, and would NOT be tolerated in any other form.  How can we, in all good conscience, support an organization that is just below the surface boiling with intolerant hatred of other religions?  The students that make up your student bodies are of very diverse religious backgrounds and to have them unknowingly participate in an activity which represents such attitudes is unethical and intolerable.

As our public schools are made up of children of many diverse religious beliefs, you would also be sending them the message that you value Christianity over their beliefs. This is absolutely NOT appropriate for any publicly-funded institution, and certainly less appropriate for any public school.

It is not my intention to suggest that there has been any deliberate attempt at the school level to misinform. Rather, I believe that the Samaritan's Purse organization deliberately downplays this issue so that they can further their very real goal of bringing more people from their “evil” religions and over to Christianity by exploiting our desire to do kind things to help others.

For complete documentation of my comments regarding the use of the shoeboxes, and additional quotes from Operation Christmas Child, please refer here          
I urge you to please take a few minutes to review this information as I did.

Thank you for your time.

Yea, Hinduism might be harmless, but it's a gateway religion to more dangerous ones, like anything not Christian! 

For the rest of you, take her advice and stay away from these people if you are actually interested in helping the children.  Remember that children of Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish (among others) parents are participating in this effort only to have the recipients told that a nice "Christian child" sent these boxes.  Are we all unwittingly to participate in this blatant attempt to manipulate our feelings of sorrow and obligation to help our fellow man in this way? 
Before receiving these shoebox gifts, children must attend a Christian rally.  Essentially, these underprivileged children are being offered a gift in one hand, and a pamphlet in the other which you can only take once you attend their church.  It’s simply unethical to use people at their weakest for an effective membership drive.

The Spongebob brings em in the door, but it is the guilt and fear that makes em stay!

(Even the US Air Force has apologized for once condoning this organisation.)

All there is left for ME to say is WOW.

And well done baby!

My wife rocks, you should listen to her.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Rational Response- Why are There Still Monkeys?

I have been inundated with ridiculous responses to my writings lately and decided that I needed to have my say about this "argument".

"If Evolution is true, then why are there still Monkeys?"

This is the second most common argument against Evolution (the first being a fundemental misunderstanding of the word "theory") and I can't sit idly by and listen to it any more.


I just needed to get that out of my system.  Now on to the article...

First let me comment on the logical fallacy in the very question. 

This is a classic Argument from Ignorance (I will cover this in the next Logic-101 series) where someone doesn't know the answer to a question, or a claim doesn't make sense to him and they feel that is enough reason to dismiss the scientific model. 

This is clearly untrue.  It is not something based in a positive knowledge of how the model fails, but based on a persons inductive reasoning not being able to reconcile the model with his experience and knowledge.

This is not how we determine scientific knowledge.

Huh?  It's how I do it!
 We determine it by attempting to debunk it through real and contrary evidence, we test it, we observe the results, we ensure that those results are common by repeating the tests and ensuring the same results every time, and we ensure that those tests produce predictable results.

That is called the Scientific Method folks.

But on to the explaination.

The first thing that needs to be understood is that we didn't evolve from "apes", we evolved from what is called a common ancestor.  This common ancestor would not be recognizable as a modern ape.

They might look more like this...

The next thing to understand is that evolution is a conditional process based on the variations in a population.  That variation is predicated on what attributes of that being help it to survive long enough (in it's specific environment) to have offspring. 

Different populations, and different environments will not have the same variations as both the gene pool and the requirements of the environment will be different (as will it's genetic drift).

Over large periods of time these populations go their seperate ways along the evolutionary path based on the reproductive success of the variations specific to their population.  These variations only produce very minor changes that are practically impossible to see in short periods of time, but over very large periods of time they will produce a population that would no longer be similar enough to the other groups to be able to inter-breed. 

BINGO- Humans and Chimps via Speciation!


This is a very short and very basic explanation, which is by no means comprehensive but I hope that you get the basic idea.

The common ancestor of my example doesn't even have to die out.  It could have (but didn't) survive if one group was well adapted to its environment and another developed to be well suited to a different one.  Individuals don't evolve, populations do.

I don't want to get any further into it, as I will end up muddling the explanation.

But I hope that you have gained a very basic understanding of this very common quesion.

I'm still confused...

The Bible REALLY Says That? -Part 2

"But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a woman during her menstrual impurity"  then "he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God"
It sounds like God has some pretty bad attitudes towards women. 

How can you "defile" someone by having sex with them?  How can you stain what makes them a good person?  Stated simply, you can't.  Sex doesn't "stain" you, nor "defile" you, nor "ruin" you.  It has no bearing on your morality or worth as a person.  It can't make you less honest, less empathic, less loyal, less loving or even less intelligent. 

It has no bearing on your value as a human being.


You are property. 

Unless you have attributes of sale and your value will be decreased by the amount of miles on your product, there is no reason to define a woman who has had sex as "defiled". Plus the language of it is as though it is something a man does TO a woman (implying her lack of choice) and not done WITH a woman.  Why is HE not defiled by such an act?  Remember, God is referring to a woman in the possessive as the "Neighbor's".  he is not saying don't do this to women, but don't do this to HIS woman. 

Maybe they mean don't rape your neighbor's wife.  Is this any better?  Not much, because he isn't saying;

"Don't get rapey with women, it's just not cool";


he is saying;

"Please, if you're getting rapey, don't do it to a woman who belongs to someone else, that isn't cool.  Find your own."

Find my own?? DAMN YOU BRAD PITT!

That is really just a side issue to the real and most confusing point in this verse though. 

Never come near a mentruating woman?? 


Pretty sure this isn't what happens

How is a natural body function able to make a man (to whom is isn't even happening) not lawful or right??  That is a complete non-sequitir.  One has nothing to do with the other.  To say that something to central to a woman is dirty, or stained is a completely immoral, disrespectful and disgusting statement. 

We honour women for being able to bear children on one hand and then condemn them for the bodily functions that allow that on the other one?

To say that you are not a just or lawful man if you go near a woman on her period is equally ridiculous.  She is not evil, nor possessed, nor given monthly superpowers that can affect your personal morality by her mere proximity.

PLUS, if we can't be near them, how will he ever garner "man points" that we so desperately need if we can't go to the store to buy her tampons?

We NEED those points for when we screw up.  I can't afford to be a bad person for even talking to her during her most "sensitive" time!

Her WEDDING DRESS?  Bad dog!  I'm in so much trouble...
Does this sound more like the Wisdom of an omnipotent God, or the ignorant ramblings of an iron age sheep herder?

Read up, and you decide...

Saturday, November 5, 2011

Quote of the Week-Georges Carlin

"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! .........But He loves you"

Georges Carlin was one of comedy's most outspoken atheists, if only people could see the dichotomy that he spoke of.  "Do as I say and love me or I will torture you forever"  I agree Georges, it doesn't sound like love to me.

Sad to see you gone.

Logic 101- Formal Fallacies


In this edition of Logic 101, I felt that we should go back to the beginning (well, since "Logical Absolutes" is the absolute beginning, this is more like the semi beginning) and talk about the most common formal fallacies. It is important to get these out of the way before speaking about the informal ones, because with these you don't need to examine the content of the argument to recognize that it is false. It is the construction of the argument itself that is flawed.

All Formal fallacies are a form of non-sequitor (latin for "does not follow")

A Non Sequitir, in formal logic, is an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from its premise. This has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of that premise, it merely demonstrates that you can't reach that conclusion using the argument that is posited because there is a logical disconnect between them. 

A common example is;

1. If I am a cat, then I am a mammal

2. I am a mammal

3. Therefor I am a cat.

This doesn't follow as it doesn't fully distribute the middle term in the categorical syllogism. Nowhere does it say that all mammals are cats, just that all cats are mammals.

See what I mean?

There are other forms of non-sequitirs such as affirming the consequent, or denying the anticedent.  These are arguments where a connection is drawn between A and B, then being told that A is either true or false, and assuming the truth or fallacy of B as a result.  It is a jump in logic, or "doesn't follow".

Enough of that.

Now we will move on to a few of the more common logical fallacies and detail them so that you can avoid this in any argument. The three most popular formal fallacies are that of appeals to Authority, Probability, and Popularity. Remember, that Authority, Probability, and Popularity can sometimes be used as EVIDENCE to sway your audience (or opponent) but are not logical grounds for reaching said conclusion so it is best to stay away from them.

Appeal to Authority-
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious. Pointing to an authority and claiming that makes it true is akin to saying "He was right about other stuff, so he must be right about this". It is an assumption, but this logical fallacy is usually only asserted when the "Authority" is not an expert in that area of knowledge, or if the information expressed from a recognized authority goes against the expert concensus.

Appeal to Probability- This is an argument that fails in its structure in that it assumes that since a probability is high, that an event will inevitably happen, or since the probability is low it will never happen. Creationists try to use this to disprove evolution by saying it is stastically unlikely, therefor impossible. That is a conclusion that does not follow from it's premise. Even statistically unlikely things happen all the time. 

This cheque is too unlikely, so it can't be real.  Am I having a stroke?

Appeal to Popularity- Appeals to Popularity are VERY common in debate. This fallacy usually takes the form of something like this; "90% of the people in the world believe in a god, in fact most people in the history of the world do. They can't all be wrong!".

I like to demonstrate the falseness of this argument with the following comical statement;

"One MIllion Lemmings can't be wrong....JUMP!"

Seems like a good idea but I'm not taking any chances
Just because a lot of people have bought into an idea does not give it any merit. At one time everyone thought the earth was flat, or that the sun was carried across the sky by an unseen hand. Popular opinion has been, time and time again, proven to be wrong in many arenas of knowledge.

So there you have it, three logical fallacies and the explanation of a Non-Sequitir.  These are arguments that fail even before the content of your argument is examined, so if you want to be heard, avoid them at all costs.

Next time in Logic 101- The Argument from Ignorance

Friday, November 4, 2011


It has been over a month since I have written anything, and there has been a lot to write about that I have missed.  I have been waylaid by life and my hearts insistence not to work as it should. 

It's been a bad month for sickness as I have been in and out of the hospital all month with either Bronchitis or with heart issues.

Even still the mail keeps coming.  I have had an influx of emails from angry Christians wanting to know why I don't target other religions like I do Christianity (which I feel I do) and angry Muslims trying to convince me through a skewed understanding of science that it agrees with the Korans "science" (I have always found "retrospecitve science apologetics" very strange) and still others just telling me that I am worthless and not "worth even a penny".  (Which he recanted as an insult after I called him on it by saying that we are ALL "Unworthy and worthless without Jesus", which we both knew was not what he meant)

WE'RE UNWORTHY! (You think that's what he meant?)

This sort of hateful email only serves to enbolden my motivation to speak out and try to make this conversation normal.  It is more important than ever to make EVERYTHING open to critique. 

If an ideology is immune from criticism, then it is free to do as it wishes under the protective veil of "respecting their belief". 

Can't we just get along?

This can't be allowed to continue.  We have to be able to judge each and every idea by it's own merits openly, especially when it is something that affects our daily lives as religion does. 

If we aren't open to point out moral and ideological flaws in ideas of any kind, then those ideas are left (as are the people who espouse them) open to some very bad and potentially very harmful information with no method by which to examine the morality of those ideas. 

So keep talking, and keep writing.

*cough cough*

and I apologize for my absence.  Here we go, picking up where we left off.....

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Remembrance Day Edition

Remember the lost
both sides, and theist or not
Today we're the same

PS- "Boots" we miss you dearly.  To everyone else that I have known and worked with who are lost to us now, to those who were unknown to me but whose families can never forget, and to those who gave their lives in conflicts long past.....We remember your sacrifice and the honourable difficulties of the life of a soldier.