It’s been a couple months since I’ve even been on wordpress (had more pressing matters than words – if you’ll excuse the phrase). However this news story came out of the New York Times and I found it rather exciting:

Now the title may be a stretch yet, but scientists were able to extract protein material from the preserved bone marrow of a T-Rex.

Much cooler is that they were able to test the sequences they’d retrieved for genetic similarities with current organisms. 3 of the 7 sequences reacted to chicken in a way that really supports the contested idea that dinosaurs eventually evolved into birds. Strong genetic correlations with dinosaurs and birds is a great find.

The best thing about this procedure is there may be some other fossils where protein can be extracted… I can see a bunch of paleontologists reading the initial reports and, in shock, spitting their coffee all over their monitors as they rush to go examine some of their fossils.

But the thought that DNA and protein can survive so long is a a great turn of events. This may mean that Jurassic Park may be possible in the future. This is great for everybody. Ok, well maybe it’s not great for creationists. =P

At the very least, this answers the immortal question of, “What would a T-Rex taste like?” Like Chicken!

Mike

San Diego classifieds

The story just broke recently where it turns out congressman Pete Stark doesn’t believe in god.

It’s about time. The majority of presidents lately have been christian, and the last Unitarian president I can recall is President Taft. I don’t think there has been a high ranking “infidel” (agnostic/atheist) since President Abraham Lincoln.

I hope this helps push more non-believing congressmen to feel comfortable coming forward and announcing their true beliefs. Statistically Atheists are 14% of the population (29.4 million as of 2001 by the American Religious Identification Survey), so it would make sense that proportionately there may be as many as 74-75 agnostic/atheists in congress (534 seats -house and senate- multiplied by 0.14)…

I think this sort of reveal could go a long way towards helping change the current American views on Atheism… Yes, atheists are the most hated and distrusted minority in the country, and we are considered by many to be a greater threat to America than terrorists.

Every study ever conducted on the subject has demonstrated that atheists/agnostics are actually among the most moral, upstanding people in a society (by far the lowest rates of crime/murder/rape, violence, teen pregnancy, abortion, stds, divorce, and other social problems).

This blog may be a bit rushed, but the point is that this may finally help push religious people to become more tolerant of the non-religious. Maybe then the non-believers won’t be so openly discriminated against.

And maybe, just maybe, we can follow the founding father’s ideals of keeping a high wall of separation between church and state.

Mike

Free online classifieds

I’m sure many of you have already heard the story about James Cameron producing a documentary where they investigate a tomb uncovered in 1980 which some suspect housed the body of Jesus and his family (including his mother Mary, wife Mary Magdalene, son Judah, and Mathew – there are apparently 5 other coffins in a neighboring tomb yet to be identified). According to the film-makers this is supposed to be a celebration of the life of a great man, however christians have already begun a public outry, declaring that the film-makers are attempting to undermine christianity.

To be fair, if Jesus didn’t resurrect the game is over, that’s the core tenant of the christian faith – it’s understandable they’d be upset… IF the documentary made a good point. But we don’t know yet what points it makes! Of course we only know very little about the documentary, but this hasn’t stopped christians and alleged bible scholars from attacking it head on.

Yes this is an old find (1980), and one which has been covered before 11 years ago with a BBC documentary which proved ill-researched and not particularly well founded in science, archeology, or anything of that nature. Yet allegedly there is new evidence and new arguments to be made on this site.

And this is the key point. They claim to have enough new evidence to propose that makes this tomb worth investigating again. By all accounts this won’t be a retread of the defeated BBC documentary, but something challenging and new. Cameron assures us, “It doesn’t get bigger than this. We’ve done our homework; we’ve made the case; and now it’s time for the debate to begin.”

Of course already christians are trying to combat this, before the documentary has come out or even been seen by them. If you are an intelligent individual this should raise some red flags for you. If they haven’t seen this documentary, then how can they know all the claims forwarded and effectively combat them?

The answer is simple: They can’t. They’re making this shit up in a preemptive manner to discredit the documentary any way they can. Or they’re relying on what they do know of the Tomb to try and (mistakenly?) predict what the arguments will be and discredit those.

Bold words to be sure, but very probably true – the church does have a long and illustrious history of smear campaigns, misinformation, distortion of evidence, and so on… They are exceedingly efficient at it, the complete lack of understanding for evolution and the perpetuating of misconceptions being just one glaring example.

I will say this: Reading a book by its cover is the province of fools and the ignorant. If going in with an open mind will challenge your faith, then you seriously need to re-evaluate your faith.

Forgive me if I sound harsh, but these people are essentially laying a verdict on a movie before it’s release (with no pre-screenings either) or trying to debunk an argument that’s not even yet been forwarded. It is, in concept, utterly absurd.

As I’ve said before, religion thrives on misconception. To repeat a quote of mine that became popular among my debate team, “christian churches are made of straw” – of course referring to the Straw Man Fallacy (also known as the “Fallacy of extension.” And this seems to be what many of these religious scholars are actively doing. Misconceptions are already abound, spreading like wildfire among those who are committing much the same fallacy and not realizing that their concerns are apparently going to be specifically addressed. These misconceptions are as follows:

1. Those were all common names at the time – so what? It’s probably coincidence.

From what little has been revealed, the answer lies in probability. It turns out that those names weren’t as common as expected and when you factor in the specific combination it becomes much less probable. Andrey Feuerverger (professor of statistics and mathematics) recently did a statistical analysis based on how often each name appears during that time period, its frequency, and to be conservative he allowed for the possibility of the name being more frequent than we know. Even then the odds of all five of those names being together is at least 600 to 1 against. That means the probability of this being the correct tomb and not sheer coincidence is a surprising 99.84%!

Let me repeat that, the statistical odds of this being more than coincidence are 99.84%. Something of course glossed over (or somehow missed?) by those attacking the film.

2. What are they going to do with DNA testing? There’s nothing to test!

They are using DNA testing to examine the family relationship and see who is directly related to who. We know that they’ve determined Jesus and the one thought to be Mary Magdalene are not related – which indicates they’re a couple if not spousal. It should go without saying that this alone really changes the odds of this being coincidence with all things considered. They are not using DNA tests to compare with living persons, the shroud of Turin or other such farcical things…

Now I am not staunchly defending the documentary, nor am I taking a particular stand in either direction at the moment. What I am suggesting and really advising is that people hold off until they see the damn documentary before they go making arguments.

Personally I don’t necessarily agree with the ideas being forwarded (I’m rather of the opinion that he never existed, not even as a mortal human), but I am willing to go in with an open mind and see the evidence presented and make assessments based on that.

I encourage others to similarly wait, see what the arguments and evidence are, and THEN make your decisions.

For more information, please refer to these (mostly) unbiased articles:

Discovery’s article on the subject:
James Cameron discusses the film:

Here’s an example as to how journalists are falling into the trap of letting their personal believes affect the way they write and portray the story, look at this (note the absence of documentary claims but focus on the counterarguments):

Yahoo News article:

Or if you really want to see the bad, look to Fox News.

Again the whole point is to not jump to conclusions and listen to the morons defending faith without even seeing the damn thing. It may be easily falsifiable, but wait and find out.

Yours in reason,

Mike

Free online classifieds

I can respect Tom Cruise as an actor…

Sure he plays pretty much the same role in every movie (the cocky jackass who finds humility, loyalty and other virtues), but he plays that one role very well!

Yet riding on the hype of War of the Worlds he announced to the world that he was, indeed, a nutjob and basketcase. Professing faith in scientology he offended rational people everywhere.

My current feelings for Tom Cruise are best represented by this picture:

This just perfectly sums up Tom.

This came out of a brief photoshop lesson and it seems so perfect, so… him. We’ve got the purple crown with a strange symbol (it’s really a wristband and symbol for the Bleed Purple Foundation) which is pure silliness contrasted with a stern and perceptive staring into the distance look (good ol’ Tom is keeping a watch out for the minions of Lord Zenu). We have a yellow background to contrast everything even further.

Yes, this is the prophet of scientology. This is the man that, in 2000 years, people may actually be worshiping as a demigod or the son of some diety. They will say he healed the sick, he defeated the robot uprising unwittingly unleashed by Microsoft, he died and came back to life in his true alien form, and so on. That the whole religion was created in 1954 as a bet will be long forgotten. There is no science, only TOM.

This picture is the future folks. Peace.

Mike

Free classified ads search engine.

Stephen Colbert is one of my favorite television characters ever. The man is simply awesome. Anyway he is sort of an over-the-top emulation of Bill O’Reilly, indirectly mocking him and the more strident “conservatives” by acting like an idiot enthusiastically supporting every decision of theirs. He is very much like O’Reilly except the idiocy is a joke, and not real.

Anyway in a move that is almost too good to be true, Colbert was invited to appear on the O’Reilly Factor and O’Reilly appeared on the Colbert report. Both interviews are amusing, but the one on the Colbert Report was just awesome. Here are some links:

Colbert on O’Reilly’s show

O’Reilly on the Colbert Report

O’Reilly was strangely respectful on his show when Stephen was on, though after Colbert left he went on a diatribe about how Colbert was bad for the country, and the damage that was being done. Maybe he was afraid of going toe-to-toe with Stephen (who does think very quickly on his feet) and looking like a jackass, or maybe he toned it down and held back because he knew he’d be appearing on the Colbert Report later. I’m sure O’Reilly also realizes that acting like a jackass to someone who’s pretending to idolize him would look Bully-ish. However it does look like O’Reilly has to work to hold his composure at times.

There were some very funny moments in the Colbert Report interview, and some fairly subtle jabs near the beginning about O’Reilly’s sex scandal (the reference of Jon as a sexual predator and how Bill would know what that’s like). There are some great moments so go watch if you haven’t seen it yet. The best line though has to be: “If you’re an act, then what am I?”

Peace out nation,

Mike

Free classified ads search engine