Mythoblogia

Friendly people at the door again, pro-science but anti-evolution

2011-11-16T23:24:00.001Z

Bear with me, or skip to the bottom for the conclusion. Basically the November issue of "Awake" provides at least 2 proofs of evolution. I don't think that was the intention!

The long story: I'm not against faith, or belief, or even religion, per se. It's all part of humankind's rich tapestry and we'd be the poorer without it. But it's a mystery to me why some people choose to ignore or refute obvious - and testable - conclusions even whilst they accept the very evidence that backs it up. We don't argue against the science, they say, but the Bible/Koran/Torah says that Jehovah/Allah/Yahweh created every living thing, and we believe it. Irrespective. End of story.

Specifically it's my friends at the door again. Well, friends is a too-strong word but they are regular and reasonably welcome visitors to my front door, anyway. We both like to debate, I guess. And they (tirelessly) want to convert me, I guess again. Perhaps they have a quota to meet.

And they do believe in some good stuff. There is general agreement on too many people doing the wrong thing by others, over-consuming materially, polluting, making poor life choices and generally accepting temptation rather than quizzing it and figuring out what would be a better, more community-minded way. They even downplay (or outright dis) religion-as-shiny-castles-on-a-hilltop (hi, Catholics out there!) and reject false compromises like Saturnalia (sorry, Christmas) and that similarly bizarre seasonal equinoctial atavism, Eostre. As they should, since neither is mentioned in their Bible. And as for birthdays, well what a brazenly obvious plot against Yahweh that is, too. Philosophically, pretty good stuff. At least understandable as a faith.

Which is not to say they don't get a bit frayed around the edges when Satan is discussed. Personally I'm entirely happy to put Satan into the myths and legends box (along with all the gods, Cronus, Zeus, Yahweh, the demi-gods and 'sons of gods' - the lot). But some of these visitors to my door take the Bible so literally that Satan springs to life, at times before my very eyes.

"What if Satan actually wrote - or inspired - the Bible?" I ask, innocently. "How could you tell?"

Of course Satan didn't write or inspire the Bible as that is definitely the inspired word of God; or at least their version of the Bible is, anyway. Just read it, they say. You can tell.

A-ha. Of course you can.

Back to pro-science, anti-evolution. The theme for this month.

To quote from their blurb, let's say "you are on a remote, uninhabited island. While walking along the beach, you see “John 1800” engraved on a boulder. Do you assume that because the island is isolated and uninhabited, the marks must be the result of wind or water erosion? Of course not! You rightly conclude that someone made that inscription."

Well, I say, yes and no. Generally I agree we'd spot that it was made on purpose but then again we are trained from birth to recognise our native written language, English (an assumption but let's live with it), and "John" is an Anglicised form of whatever the original Hebrew (or Greek) was. Perhaps in some other language or a less-readable font we'd fail to pick it up as purposeful. Maybe. Ditto the European-style Hindu-Arabic numerals which make perfect sense to us now but wouldn't have made any sense at all less than 2,000 years ago. But let's go on with the quote.

"Why? For one thing, a string of well-defined letters and numbers—even if they are in a foreign language—does not occur naturally. Second, the statement contains meaningful information, indicating an intelligent source."

OK, let's assume it was indeed well-defined. It still doesn't mean that there's not a well-defined written language lost in antiquity, or perhaps one from an alien civilisation, that doesn't mimic a pattern of natural erosion and weathering. It could be a code, how would we know? But let's not pick it apart endlessly for the sake of it. Let's just accept that we'd recognise the hand of 'an author' when we saw it. It could be utterly unreadable to us but in all probability we'd recognise it as the product of some guided thought and action because it formed a distinct string, shape or pattern. Humans after-all are good at patterns, so we'd likely spot it. However we are actually so good at pattern-recognition that we also spot patterns which simply aren't there. Like the face of Christ in a slice of toast, subsequently sold on eBay. That's somewhat troubling.

But it's been engraved as well. Assuming it's not utterly random weathering and we aren't mistaken, then engraving takes thought, planning and effort, perhaps even tools and tool-making. That alone constitutes meaningful information. But the sun rising and falling daily (or the Earth rotating, if you prefer) constitutes meaningful information as well. Such information is 'meaningful' in terms of energy exchange and subsequent effects (including weathering and various chemical processes). None of which is necessarily indicative of an "intelligent source".

But let's be generous and accept we understand English, see that it's engraved and assume there's an intelligent source. So what?

Well to quote again, "people always associate meaningful information with an intelligent mind". As I just said, that can be doubted. The interplay of the tides, the moon and the sun constitute meaningful information that has demonstrable effect on both the animate and the inanimate. It matters, to all matter, and especially to life. Yet we don't necessarily associate that information with an intelligent source. Some information just is.

Oops, I think I just broke the connection that they were trying to make. Let's pretend that "meaningful" information can instead only come from an intelligent creator, even if that's contestable. And don't ask me what "meaningful" information may be - but I assume it's information that assists their argument.

So they ask, "can complex information write itself?". Absolutely, why not? I can't recall anyone proving otherwise. That doesn't stop the debate, though. As I said earlier, my visitors believe in the science, so they evoke the "design" of DNA in just some of its complexity. Well they dumb it down, but everyone does that at times. The point that they make is that DNA - or the underlying nucleic acids - looks just like a language. Especially so when peppered with English labels like G-A-T-C. Indeed, they say, here is both a language and a complex set of instructions that can build - gasp - you. Given that we have already "proven" (let's pretend) that "John 1800" engraved on a rock represents an intelligent agent at work and not accidental weathering, how could we possibly believe that the impossibly complex DNA "language" could have written itself? Like "John 1800", it must have an intelligent designer.

Well, that's the argument in a nutshell, anyway. But - even allowing for the slack we have already cut - does it stack up as logical? Let's pull it apart some more.

"John 1800" engraved on a rock suggests the hand of a man or woman with a chisel and a basic command of English coupled with a dash of numeracy plus the time and inclination to plan this inscription. It could have a variety of meanings, from a somewhat obscure Biblical reference to a reminder for John to do something unknown at 6PM. The literal meaning is quite unclear. What is clear is the engraving itself (thought, tool, action, actor needed) and the use of the English word (and name) "John" coupled with the Hindu-Arabic numerals "1800". We can't really act on that information alone, other than to draw conclusions based around a few assumptions. But it could be more detailed and explicit, for that matter, in principle.

How does this compare with a biological entity such as DNA? If you walked up to an electron microscope and peered at some random sample DNA would it not look like mush, or perhaps soup? So we wouldn't be able to read it, or to make any sense of it at all. The pattern is not obvious, even when magnified greatly. It's not engraved or printed, and it's clearly not a language as we know it. Indeed it took decades to figure it out, and thousands of years to muster the technology to even look at it.

OK, that's unfair. Let's assume instead that you can miraculously "read" the DNA as easily as we read English, i.e. as an abstract, symbolic representation of a spoken language. Right, that doesn't work either. And I'm still being unfair - or are my visitors comparing apples with oranges and trying to draw conclusions that simply can't be drawn?

After all, DNA isn't abstract, it's not symbolic and it's not representational. Instead (to simplify enormously) it's a physical biological entity and accompanying process, a suite of variously competing and/or cooperating molecules that either self-assemble or are drawn into assembly by complementary processes, the end result of which is self-replication - or destruction. Genes go along for the ride, happy travellers whilst they pull their weight but are cruelly discarded - or simply turned off, sometimes by accident, other times because they aren't as useful as they once were. The "reading" that happens is machine-like replication and assembly; mere laborious cutting, copying and pasting. And the whole process is built on randomness. Indeed in the case of humanity we randomly and unknowingly divide our gene-laden chromosomes into 2 halves, shuffle them about a billion times and see who sinks or swims (literally). No-one (to my knowledge, and outside of IVF and cloning) guides or selects the chromosomal combination or the attached genes that makes "us" our individual selves. Rather, it's all driven by chance and fitness, repeated over and over.

Does that sound at all analogous to a bloke with a chisel, chipping out a message to John?

Given the profound differences, can we be sure that the use by mankind of a written, symbolic and representational language such as English compares instructively with a complex biological system such as DNA and the human genome? Can we indeed draw the conclusion that since one was definitely made by an intelligent agent therefore the other must have been as well? Frankly, no.

The shorter story: I don't think it's valid to spot a pattern of symbols engraved on a rock and by extension conclude that any pattern of "complex information" similarly "engraved" in any way anywhere else must therefore be similarly and intelligently "designed". I acknowledge that symbolism requires a theory of mind, and that English is a complex embodiment of the complexity that is language; I also recognise the sheer vastness and intricacy of the human genome. What I don't see is how one complex "intelligent" creation "proves" any other's origins as well. What is the proof of that connection? Indeed there's a huge leap (of faith!) to be made if we are decide otherwise.

But if you do decide otherwise, consider this: like all modern languages, creations like Esperanto and such like aside, English didn't just arrive, holus-bolus and complete - both the written and spoken forms descended from earlier, simpler or just plain different languages. Indeed human language itself probably started as a series of helpful, cooperative and effort-coordinating grunts - or even the imitation of birdsong - if you go back far enough. Yet over thousands - perhaps millions - of years "words" were added, changed shape, were mispronounced and eventually misspelt and adapted to new uses. Some survived intact, conserved because they were used most regularly; others fell into disuse and were "parked" in dictionaries as linguistic fossils waiting to be dug up by the literati.

Thus there was no single intelligent "creator" of modern English as it's the result instead of a long-term beneficial yet otherwise undirected communal process; nor can it be said to be "finished" as words continue to come and go. Indeed it's in a dynamic process of - you guessed it - evolution.

So what you are really saying is that the engraved statement "John 1800", being both meaningful, complex information and the demonstrable result of the evolution of human language proves that DNA, being meaningful and complex information also, is likely the result of evolution as well.

Is that really what you wanted to say?

Lastly, and this is proof number 2 for evolution, the Awake article goes on at length about so-called "junk DNA", something that scientists have investigated much further in the last 40 years and now believe to represent not simply "junk" but a repository of both potentially re-usable (by cut/copy and paste) "fossilised" genetic code and currently in-use and conserved but "non-coding" (for protein) code. As well as totally broken code. There's far more to it than that but Awake nevertheless spins the old line that - my interpretation - 'scientists are so blind, they didn't even realise what a treasure this "junk" was', whilst missing (or hiding) the real point - that this so-called junk is a goldmine of remnant code from our evolutionary past.

There's a bit more along the same lines as my argument on this here and more technical info on non-coding regions here.

I'm still here!

2011-07-13T02:50:00.002Z

I've been a bit slack here with my posting but there's been a lot more activity on my other blogs... please check 'em out!

Addicted2wheels - bike racing for everyone
Offline - my take on the planet and its politics
Dopage - all the dope on the dopes who dope, allegedly
Secrets of a Sydney Past - personal photos and recollections of Sydney's history
Central Coast Imagery - my photography blog
Musical Must-knows - software and gadgets for the electronic audio artiste
My Alfa Blog - as in rust-free Italians
My PC Help Blog - as in fixing hardware and software

More rambling notes on creation myths and comparative religion

2011-02-06T23:06:00.001Z

I recently noted that the Internet is full of "Christians" (that's what they claim to be, anyway) claiming that the Bible is "scientifically correct" and thus legitimised or "proven" in some way. Many of these sites repeat this claim word for word, suggesting that copying and pasting is very popular amongst these 'authors'. I also noted that they commonly singled out Hinduism for its lack of scientific credence, despite an obvious lack of "science" in their own Bible. My view is that these are faiths - you believe them as you take them, and that's cool - and any semblance of scientific veracity is purely incidental - if not accidental.

Further, "proving" veracity in this way is a dangerous game that can - and does - backfire.

What I said:

Mythoblogia

Ah, the cherry-pickers are everywhere on the Internet, claiming that one religion is "better" than another based on - believe it or not - an accord with "science".

I love this sort of confidence, if not arrogance. Since (the logic goes...) God created us, the Earth and the Universe then God must be intimate with the science that underlies all of creation. Thus a faith that makes unscientific claims, as recorded in key documents of that religion, reveals itself to be unaware of the reality of creation and thus invalid.

I also said:

Mythoblogia

Right, so now we are talking about a faith that pre-dates Christ by 3,000 years! Do we really expect recent scientific theory to be borne out by beliefs that old? Or to be capable of description in language of that time? Is it relevant to even look for such a correlation? Well if you do, how about the statement above where "according to Hindu scriptures (these beliefs) may be millions of years old". Now that suggests that the Hindus believe in a very old Earth, whereas a strict interpretation of the Old Testament Bible would suggest a much, much shorter timeline - as in just thousands of years. And which view is in accord with current scientific belief? Well the Hindu one, obviously.

And now I've found some more to say about Hinduism that backs up its "scientific veracity", if we can call it that:

Hindu Creation Story

This is not the first world, nor is it the first universe. There have been and will be many more worlds and universes than there are drops of water in the holy river Ganges. The universes are made by Lord Brahma the Creator, maintained by Lord Vishnu the Preserver and destroyed by Lord Shiva. Since the universes must be destroyed before they can be recreated, Lord Shiva is called the Destroyer and Re-creator. These three gods are all forms of Supreme One and part of the Supreme One. The Supreme One is behind and beyond all.

Which is pretty much in line with the current popular scientific view of a recurrent universal cycle of mass and energy, where a "Big Bang" is followed by expansion and then collapse, followed by another Big Bang and another expansion and subsequent collapse, repeated ad infinitum.

So again we see that Hinduism - a far, far older religion than Christianity - is closer to the "scientific" mark than the Biblical account. Not that I find this compelling evidence of scientific knowledge myself but it does illustrate the dangers inherent in cherry-picking your "facts" to support a predetermined outcome.

And Hinduism has yet more to add to this creation story.

Hindu Creation Story

How long is the life of a universe? Its length is beyond imagination. One day to Lord Brahma is longer than four thousand million of the years that we know. Every night when Lord Brahma sleeps the world is destroyed. Every morning when he awakes it is created again. When the Lord Brahma of this universe has lived a lifetime of such days the universe is completely destroyed by Lord Shiva.

Everything disappears into the Supreme One. For an unimaginable period of time chaos and water alone exist. Then once again Lord Vishnu appears, floating on the vast ocean. From Lord Vishnu comes forth Lord Brahma of the new universe and the cycle continues for ever.

So here we have more evidence of Hinduism being far closer in concept to our modern scientific view than the Biblical account. Note the immense age of each successive universe - "beyond imagination" or roughly "four thousand million years", Now I can't say how accurate the translation into English is, or vouch for quoted site's accuracy and its correlation with Hinduism - but if correct it's a remarkable claim that's again much closer to the modern view that the strict Biblical one.

It certainly pokes holes in those "Christian" claims for superior insight into creation. And if the Bible can't get creation right then what else is misinformed? As I said, it's a matter of faith, not science, and we shouldn't even get into this sort of argument.

On cherry picking "facts" to support your myths. Or beware snake oil science - fun, though!

2011-02-05T01:59:00.001Z

Ah, the cherry-pickers are everywhere on the Internet, claiming that one religion is "better" than another based on - believe it or not - an accord with "science".

I love this sort of confidence, if not arrogance. Since (the logic goes...) God created us, the Earth and the Universe then God must be intimate with the science that underlies all of creation. Thus a faith that makes unscientific claims, as recorded in key documents of that religion, reveals itself to be unaware of the reality of creation and thus invalid.

However on that basis alone all religions that profess a God of any description will fall over as there is no scientific basis for an uncreated creator, nor for supernatural powers. You can't claim to special powers to raise people from the dead, walk on water or part the seas and expect to maintain some sort of "accord" with science, surely?

But let's play along anyway since it's interesting...

Scientific facts that prove the Bible Text

Science is a systematic knowledge of the physical or material universe gained by observable facts. The sacred writings of all world religions basically contain a system of faith. Yet each do make statements within the province of science that provides a uniquely valid test to prove their authenticity. If their scientific observations are in reality superstitions reflective of the culture in which they were written, these so called sacred books are disqualified as the inspired Scripture of God. If, indeed, the scientific observations of any of these purported Holy Scripture agree with the facts of science today, then that Bible is the inspired Word of a true and living God. Why? The Creator and God of the universe is the God of science — the author of the scientific laws that govern His universe. Only the God of science could cause scientific facts to be recorded in a book —the Bible — hundreds or thousands of years before scientists discover them.

OK, that's the theory, and here is some of the "evidence":

Scientific facts that prove the Bible Text

Three thousand years ago the Hindu scriptures recorded the earth was resting on the backs of several huge elephants. The elephants were resting on the back of a very large turtle that was swimming in a sea. Greek mythology claims that the god Atlas was holding the earth on his shoulders. But our Bible says in Job 26:7 — "[God] hangeth the earth on nothing." What a remarkable statement of fact. The earth is suspended in space. Nothing is holding it up. Job wrote about the same time the Hindu Scripture was written. How did Job know this scientific fact? Only God could have revealed this to Job. The Old Testament prophets wrote as they were moved by the holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). The Judeo-Christian Bible is the inspired Word of God.

OK, so according to this popular view (copied all over the Internet, anyway) a thousand years before Christ the Hindu scriptures purportedly recorded a naive yet creative and imaginative "theory of Earth", if you like. Now if you were a Hindu god, how would you explain the Earth, if indeed you wanted to? Would you use terms familiar to the people of that time, or would you insist upon a scientific explanation current in the early 21st Century? What if the words needed to describe such modern concepts simply didn't exist? Perhaps you'd use allegory?

Anyway, another problem is that belief that today's science is "final", not to be improved upon. Whereas our scientific method insists that theories are made to be questioned and tested, leading us progressively from ancient views to the more recent propositions of Newton, Einstein and our latter-day quantum physicists. Which scientific "view" should the Hindu gods have chosen, in order to satisfy us? Yesterday's, today's or tomorrow's?

And in any case are we being fair to Hindu beliefs with this elephantine-Earth model?

Hindu Creation Story

According to Western scholars, the religious tradition that we know as Hinduism is the product of at least 5,000 years of development, with roots stretching back to the Indus Valley civilisation, which prospered some 4 - 5,000 years ago. However, the origins of this religion are shrouded in mystery and according to Hindu scriptures may be millions of years old.

Right, so now we are talking about a faith that pre-dates Christ by 3,000 years! Do we really expect recent scientific theory to be borne out by beliefs that old? Or to be capable of description in language of that time? Is it relevant to even look for such a correlation? Well if you do, how about the statement above where "according to Hindu scriptures (these beliefs) may be millions of years old". Now that suggests that the Hindus believe in a very old Earth, whereas a strict interpretation of the Old Testament Bible would suggest a much, much shorter timeline - as in just thousands of years. And which view is in accord with current scientific belief? Well the Hindu one, obviously.

Logically, then, we have quite quickly invalidated the Bible on this one point alone. Obviously that wasn't the intention - or was it?

My Bible-packing 'friends' visited on a steaming-hot public holiday. In an air-con car, of course

2011-01-27T07:01:00.001Z

Well, acquaintances, anyway. They are certainly regulars. And it was a stinking-hot day - around 37 degrees Celsius (which is really, really hot in Fahrenheit). I wasn't surprised that they'd ignore the public holiday - they don't celebrate such stuff and, mostly, nor do I. But I was surprised to see the pair of them out on the hottest day of the year. However the fact that they arrived in an air conditioned car certainly minimised any suffering (not that they are into that either). But it did make me think once again about science and the Bible.

Let's face it, it's an old book. Parts of it may date to 600 years BCE, perhaps even 1,500 years BCE if you take Moses at his word. 'Science' in the Middle East at that time wasn't exactly where it is now, or as well known to most 'average' people. So anything that even remotely sounds scientific catches the eye for a wee bit. Until you go, "nope, a circle's not a sphere, is it? And the Earth's not a sphere anyway". But some people - including my Bible-quoting regulars - are impressed. Why so? Why are they so desperate to prove any point?

Well the Bible - both New and Old Testament - reads like it was written by lots of people. Yes, people, not a divinity. Now they like to think these people were divinely inspired, and they trust - they have faith - that this is so. Which is fine, except such divine inspiration suggests infallibility - it must therefore be correct in all aspects. The prophecies, the cities, the wars, the facts. All must be correct. However if something is clearly, demonstrably wrong then to me that suggests that at least that fragment is not divinely inspired at all. And if that piece is of human-only origin, why not all of it? It really has the smell of man all over it, to me. Which is not to say it isn't a great book worthy of contemplation, it surely is - but divinely inspired? Probably not.

So back to the "science".

Scientific Facts in The Bible

Scientists are now finding that the universe in which we live is like a diamond studded Rolex, except the universe is even more precisely designed than the watch. In fact, the universe is specifically tweaked to enable life on earth.

The Universe is like a Rolex? I don't think so. I don't know why expensive mechanical watch designs are used so often as an analogy for life, the universe and everything. First up, a Rolex looks manufactured. Life doesn't. It's one of many identical copies, albeit it may come in different models. Life doesn't often do clones, although it can - instead it does diversity, even within genus and species. Whilst a watch looks smooth, glossy, clean - perhaps even gold plated - and very, very ordered. Life doesn't - it's dirty, chaotic and diverse. A watch posses internals of great complexity but obvious craft and careful, structured design that builds upon proven - even evolved - principles of gearing, manufacture and metallurgy. Life doesn't. Life may very well evolve but it's more like a soup to look at, a diverse and gooey, blobby mess of chemicals, catalysers, replicators and proteins. It doesn't even look remotely like a watch, that's for sure!

And of course a watch didn't just arise fully formed, it is part of a continuum of directed design - with the most recently updated and improved design made manifest. We don't usually keep making the earlier models, except as curiosities or as a cheaper model line. But life doesn't work like that. There's no apparent direction, just niches and opportunists. And they all flourish, be they the latest model or the oldest and oddest. As long as they have a niche to work with, they persist - they may take some interesting side trips but they are not "directed" to become something in particular. Life doesn't look directed - it's all over the shop. And for a watch it's all about keeping Earthly time, whilst looking expensive I guess. It's really nothing like life or the universe, is it? The wheels go round and round in seemingly perfect order, seeking only to mesh and gear reliably and in such a way as to keep the time. There is no chaos, no stellar explosions, no unexpected asteroids nor volcanic activity. No dust clouds, no quasars, no quantum mechanics, no background radiation, no gas giants, no surprises. Whereas life is full of surprises.

Let's ditch the Rolex analogy, it doesn't work.

As for "the universe is specifically tweaked to enable life on earth", how do we draw that conclusion? Why couldn't the universe be tweaked for any planet with suitable chemistry in a similar orbit to our own? Why Earth's alone? Given the immense size of the universe - or universes - it'd be surprising if similar planets - and life - doesn't exist somewhere.

And why "tweaked"? If God just "is", why can't the universe just "be"? Why does something have had to tweak it, just so? And who says it was directed, anyway? Just because we have seen life arise here and now (and in the past) doesn't scream "design", rather it says "chance" coupled with a lot of time and many, many rolls of the dice. Not just here on Earth but everywhere throughout the universe - or universes. Fact is we see life here because we are here. We won a lottery of sorts - but that doesn't mean there is someone out there selling tickets.

More later.

Historicity of Julius Caesar vs Jesus Christ

2011-01-19T02:23:00.001Z

Those nice people who come knocking on my door every few weeks came along the other day - and one of them said that "there is 1,000 times more evidence for Jesus Christ than for Julius Caesar", and that compared with Christ the case for Julius was "mere hearsay". I found that hard to accept. I mentioned books, authors, coins, statues... and he recanted the "hearsay" statement, as he should've.

It did make me wonder, again, about the historicity of Jesus, though. In fact I am far more certain of Caesar's existence than of the Biblical Christ. In many ways Christ doesn't have to exist anyway, except in your faith (if you are of that faith, I mean). If you took Jesus - as a real person - out of the Bible (leaving only a mythic Jesus, I mean) then nothing really changes. The stories, the parables and the thrust of the Christian religion(s) remain as "real" and valid as any other mythology. I accept that Zeus didn't really exist, for example, but I also accept that for many people Zeus was king of a pantheon of ancient gods. It doesn't matter that Zeus didn't actually live and breathe, as such.

Nothing really topples over without a living Christ, does it? He, perhaps surprisingly, didn't write the Bible. (You'd think that if anyone was going to do it then it would be Him, but apparently he preferred to deliver sermons and raise the dead, leaving the writing task to others some time later - perhaps 60 to 100 years later.) Indeed it's arguable (indeed highly likely) that the Bible wasn't written by anyone who actually knew Jesus, only somewhat later by people who had heard of him or perhaps knew an apostle who knew him. It's all one step removed, at least. So even without a real, living Christ we would still (potentially) have a New Testament, and the Old Testament was already written, so again no Jesus required. Of course it doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist, just that He didn't have to exist for the Christian churches and their Bibles to go forth and multiply (and divide, as it happened). Not that a devout Christian would necessarily accept an invented Jesus, but it's a possibility that doesn't break anything historically.

But if you take Julius Caesar out of reality all sorts of things break. Julius actually wrote a book, so who wrote it if he didn't? Indeed the book itself is about the Gallic Wars, and we know archaeologically that these wars indeed took place. So if Julius didn't exist who then led the legions into battle and why did "they" hush up the name? We also have busts and images on coins, purportedly of Julius - as you'd expect of any ruler, let alone the first dictator and Caesar of what became Imperial Rome. So if Julius was made up, whose image is that? And who actually was the first dictator after the Roman Republic began to founder? The 2nd Caesar and arguably first real Emperor, Augustus, effectively took over from Julius, but if he never existed then why the charade? Why did Augustus feel compelled to continue this increasingly complicated "Caesar" myth? And what of Mark Anthony and Cleopatra, were they in on this conspiracy of an "invented" Julius Caesar as well? Indeed if there was no Julius Caesar then one would indeed have had to have been invented to plug the gap in Roman history. Because Julius and his life is chronicled, documented, argued and celebrated by a range of historians and historical figures both during and after his life, whereas Jesus is almost certainly only mentioned afterwards, perhaps up to 100 years later.

Whilst I personally, on the balance of probabilities, still believe Jesus to have been a real, historical person I am absolutely convinced, without doubt, that Julius Caesar was real. To turn that around and claim that Caesar was "hearsay" is absurd.

Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Section II Ch. 5

As F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, has rightly said:

"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories."

Otto Betz concludes that "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus."

Historicity Of Jesus FAQ

Several problems confront a study such as this. For one, it is known that some texts have been corrupted over time, or have been changed by unscrupulous copyists. Thus, it is not always possible to separate later interpolations from the original writings. (See the section on Josephus for an example of this.) Second of all, some texts have been lost, and are only known through quotations in secondary sources. In addition, not only have some alleged references to Jesus been lost as primary sources, but some early criticisms of Christianity were suppressed by the early Church and no longer survive. Furthermore, of the surviving texts, both pro-Christian and otherwise, many texts cannot be dated with precision, or survive in more than one form. Thus, caution is warranted in interpreting material.

Historicity Of Jesus FAQ

A reader of the ancient texts is struck by how little the literature has to say about events in the New Testament. For example, Herod's infamous murder of the Innocents (in which he ordered the slaughter of hundreds of children), while playing a major role in the New Testament, is not mentioned by any other source, including the various accounts of Herod's reign. Likewise, Josephus' account of first century Palestine devotes much more attention to John the Baptist than to Jesus.

Historicity Of Jesus FAQ

This passage is called the Testimonium Flavianum, and is sometimes cited by propagandists as independent confirmation of Jesus' existence and resurrection. However, there is excellent reason to suppose that this passage was not written in its present form by Josephus, but was either inserted or amended by later Christians

Historicity Of Jesus FAQ

In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that Christians

"derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44)

Two questions arise concerning this passage:

1. Did Tacitus really write this, or is this a later Christian interpolation?
2. Is this really an independent confirmation of Jesus's story, or is Tacitus just repeating what some Christians told him?

Some scholars believe the passage may be a Christian interpolation into the text. However, this is not at all certain, and unlike Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual tampering exists.

The second objection is much more serious. Conceivably, Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity.

Historicity Of Jesus FAQ

In his The Lives of the Caesars, Suetonius, writing around 120 CE, states:

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome." (Claudius 5.25.4)

Occasionally this passage is cited as evidence for Jesus's historicity. However, there are serious problems with this interpretation

Historicity Of Jesus FAQ

Pliny the Younger, writing near 100 CE, corresponded regularly with the emperor Trajan. In these writings, Pliny specifically mentions and describes the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor, and asks Trajan's advice about what action to take against them, if any. However, Pliny's writings provide no independent confirmation of the events of the New Testament, but merely show that there were indeed Christians living in Asia Minor.

The Straight Dope: Who wrote the Bible? (Part 4)

As with the Old Testament, we just don't know who wrote most of the New Testament. Tradition has assigned the Gospels and most of the Epistles to certain authors, all of whom were important figures in Jesus' life or the early days of the faith. It was important for the early church to believe the authors wrote the works attributed to them, since their eminence lent the writings authority. But since we don't have the original signatures, none can be verified except through textual clues.

Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Section II Ch. 5

CORNELIUS TACITUS (born AD 52-54)

A Roman historian, in 112 AD, Governor of Asia, son-in-law of Julius Agricola who was Governor of Britain AD 80-84. Writing of the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians at Rome:

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." Annals XV.44

Tacitus has a further reference to Christianity in a fragment of his Histories, dealing with the burning of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70, preserved by Sulpicius Severus (Chron. ii. 30.6).

Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Section II Ch. 5

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS (born AD 37)

A Jewish historian, became a Pharisee at age 19; in AD 66 he was the commander of Jewish forces in Galilee. AFter being captured, he was attached to the Roman headquarters. He says in a hotly-contested quotation:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a men, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day." Antiquities. xviii.33. (Early second century)

Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Section II Ch. 5

SUETONIUS (AD 120>

Another Roman historian, court official under Hadrian, annalist of the Imperial House, says: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (another spelling of Christus), he expelled them from Rome." Life of Clausius 25.4

He also writes: "Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." Lives of the Caesars, 26.2

Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Section II Ch. 5

PLINIUS SECUNDUS, PLINY THE YOUNGER

Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (AD 112), Pliny was writing the emperor Trajan seeking counsel as to how to treat the Christians.

He explained that he had been killing both men and women, boys and girls. There were so many being put to death that he wondered if he should continue killing anyone who was discovered to be a Christian, or if he should kill only certain ones. He explained that he had made the Christians bow down to the statues of Trajan. He goes on to say that he also "made them curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do." In the same letter he says of the people who were being tried:

"They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up." Epistles X.96

The Mythic Past: Historicity of Julius Caesar

A world of difference exists between the evidence for a historical Julius Caesar and that for "Jesus Christ".

The evidence (primary? we can't speak of much "primary evidence" for anything in the range of 2 thousand years old. Even the manuscripts are not the manuscripts but copies...), of a historical Julius Caesar consists of several extensive mentions by the historian Sallust, (86-34BC); a biography by another historian, Suetonius (c75-120AD) as well as one by Plutarch (46-127AD). Chapter after chapter by the historian Appian (c95-165AD) relate complex chains of events in which Julius Caesar was intimately involved. There are the many other critically important mentions too, for example in the works of Cicero, Dio Cassius, Livy, Lucan, Valerius Maximus, Vitruvius, Catullus...
What is the epic story of Pompey the Great without Julius Caesar? What gaping holes would there be in the stories of Cleopatra or Mark Antony without Julius Caesar? Or for that matter of Octavian, Cicero and Cato? So much of Roman history depends upon this one man he is like the centerpiece of its history...
In addition, we can find numerous inscriptions and monuments, statues and coins. There is not enough material to satisfy my appetite, (I am still hoping for textual material to be rescued from Herculaneum) but there is, undeniably, quite a bit of historical evidence that a man named Julius Caesar did indeed exist.

Jumping to conclusions - "near the centre of the universe" therefore "created by a god". Huh?

2010-10-14T22:29:00.001Z

I just can't stop reading this stuff. It interests me, always has. Just as I was fascinated by Greek and Roman mythologies when I was 8 or 9 years old, I remain passionated addicted to the bizarre. Not that I necessarily "believe", but I like to consider all options... and the weirder the better.

So, here's another - apparently the universe has a centre. Not surprising given that the big bang started from a singularity and expanded from there, in theory at least. So wherever that bang happened could be considered the centre. Surprising, however, given that space is "infinite": how do you put a middle to the unlimited? I find it hard to believe that we can pin down a centre of something so large, inexplicable and nebulous, except by some truly funky assumptions. But there you go. Even more extraordinary, we are "near" the centre. Not at it, mind, just near. That nearness is amazing proof that "we are located at a very special location by design". Of course it is. Not that it could be a coincidence, of course. Or that our perception of a "centre" may be influenced by all of our measurements being taken from here, not somewhere else. You've convinced me!

The Universe Has a Center

Our solar system appears to be near the center of the universe. Galaxies look the same, and are moving away from us in the same way, in all directions. The cosmic microwave background radiation comes to us very uniformly from all directions. These and other data strongly indicate we are located at a very special location by design.

Just thinkin' and ruminating on ruminants, even-toed mammals, creation and evolution

2010-08-03T01:03:00.001Z

My creationist visitors are almost weekly these days. It's like they come to me for training or perhaps competition - 'see if you can break this guy' or 'test your faith here'. They are generally pleasant and up for the debate, so I am happy to help out.

In general terms I can summarise their creationist arguments as follows (with my opposing view in brackets):

It's in the Bible and the Bible is 'true', therefore Creation is true (what I call the 'faith overrules logic' argument as the Bible - good read it may be - isn't compelling as a document of infallibility)
Evolution isn't mentioned in the Bible therefore it ain't true (ditto)
If Evolution is true, where are the transitional forms? (To which I point out the local marsupials and monotremes all about us, the myriad versions of reptilian fossils that appear to show proto-birds, proto-mammals and so on and on)
But where are the half-fish, half-reptiles? (To which I point out fish fossils that appear to lead to modern fish, and others that lead to amphibians and to reptiles, and the myriad fish and amphibian fossils with both fishy and non-fishy characteristics. Such examples include crude lungs that appear to become later swim bladders, lungs that stay lungs but remain particular to reptiles and their allies and new, different lungs that appear thereafter only in the mammal line. Embryology and fossil forms that show us where reptilian jawbones have been conserved in mammals but are used now in our ears. I also point out fresh and salt water evolution and its effect upon salt balance in various animals and how different lifeforms treat the disposal of nitrogen differently, and how this is reflected both biologically today and in fossil morphology. There are also the fossil forms of birds with a different, reversed arrangement of major flight bones that proliferated in the fossil record before disappearing, seemingly out-competed by 'modern' birds with a mutation that flipped the structure over, creating a more effective flight mechanism. And so on.)
But that can't be proven, all such so-called transitional lifeforms are simply examples of 'special creation', where God has always intended to redesign and update his lifeforms as the planet's conditions altered. (To which I say yes, you could say that, but equally you could say that they have evolved to suit these conditions.)
God planned for variation, we can demonstrate that: look at all of the forms of dogs and cats, for example. Yet they remain dogs and cats. (Yes, that's natural variation within a species, and fits with the theory of evolution as well. But when we look at the fossil record we see a gradual change in morphology, where what we think of as a dog or cat becomes less obvious. If we go back far enough there are no dogs or cats, just other, different animals. Evolution explains how speciation occurs, without having to interpose a God at every speciation event decreeing a design update.)
God has an army of spirits at his disposal, both for Creation and Special Creation, and both the Bible and Speciation are in harmony on that. (At this point I really have to do some work and we beg to disagree and move on...)

Whilst the evolution of man and the apes is fairly obvious - just look at them, the similarities in morphology and behaviour scream at you - it's interesting to reflect on why we believe that seemingly improbable species like whales are related to cows. And we can demonstrate that link both with their shared, conserved DNA as well as basic morphology (like the link with even-toed mammals in general. The Theory of Evolution can be used to make a prediction and guess what - it demonstrably works. The Bible doesn't make any such prediction, although it does include some great stories. If you want to do some further online research on this, here are some interesting thought-starters....

Why There Are No Half-cat, Half-dogs - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

According to the theory of evolution, all living things have a common ancestor. Therefore, cats and dogs have a common ancestor which lived sometime in the past. For a moment, let's go back in time to when this common ancestor lived and thrived. For the sake of argument, let's go ahead and simply call this creature a pre-catdog. Like most animals, the presence of these creatures was almost certainly spread over a large geographical area. Over time, different groups of pre-catdogs changed slowly with each passing generation. Genetic mutations happen in all animals, including humans. Over a long period of time, different groups of pre-catdogs begin to look and act much different from each other. For the sake of the argument, lets label the group of evolved pre-catdogs in the northwest corner of the geographical area 'dogs', and the opposite corner 'cats'. Eventually, due to the increasingly high number of genetic differences between the species in these two opposite corners, they are no longer able to reproduce with each other. Thus, there can be no half-cat, half-dog animals today.

Evidence about Evolution

When a germ becomes penicillin-resistant, the germ has evolved. That event may not be very exciting, but it does meet the definition of evolution. Any biologist can make a bacteria evolve in about a day or so. It's easy.

A much-used example is the speckled moth. In 1848, 98 percent of these moths were gray, and the rest were black. Then the Industrial Revolution put a lot of soot on Britain's trees. Being light colored was now dangerous to a moth that lived on tree trunks. Birds could see them too easily.

By 1898, only 5 percent of the moths were gray. More recently, the air pollution laws have cleaned things up, and gray is once again predominant. This meets the definition of evolution. The frequency of an allele changed (and then changed again).

So, evolution does happen. Notice that that conclusion doesn't depend on any theory. There's a definition, and there are observations that meet the definition. That means that the process of evolution is a fact.

Some More Observed Speciation Events

By Chris Stassen

Here is a short list of referenced speciation events. I picked four relatively well-known examples, from about a dozen that I had documented in materials that I have around my home. These are all common knowledge, and by no means do they encompass all or most of the available examples.

Example one:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.

(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Example two:

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)

(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Example three:

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Example four:

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.

(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Speciation by Polyploidy

Polyploidy is when the number of chromosomes in a cell becomes doubled. This can happen by a mutation that simply makes two copies. It can also happen when the chromosomes from two different species are mixed.

One obvious consequence is that the resulting creature has no one it can breed with. However, this is not necessarily a problem. For example, many plants are both male and female, so they can simply fertilize themselves. Some earthworms can do this too.

Speciation by Polyploidy

About half of angiosperm (flowering plant) species seem to have originated this way. Relatively few animal species are thought to have originated this way, because not all animals can self-fertilize or reproduce asexually. However, brine shrimp, weevils, bagworm moths and flies seem to have arisen this way.

Observed Instances of Speciation

5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.

5.1.1 Plants

(See also the discussion in de Wet 1971).
5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
5.1.1.3 Tragopogon

Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.
5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica

The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.
5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.
5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis

Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.
5.1.1.7 Brassica

Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.
5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.
5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)

Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.
5.1.2 Animals

Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.

Different Species With The Same "Junk DNA"

Most of your DNA is "junk". We call it that because the DNA sequence inside a "junk" region is never used to form a protein. The junk isn't after a Start codon, or else is right after a Stop codon, so the gene expression mechanisms simply never look at the junk. They skip over it. There is also "junk" which is inside a gene, but which is ignored when the gene is used. The details are complicated, but if you are interested, see Section Two of this Talk.Origins FAQ.

Junk DNA is inherited. Suppose we find a pattern in the junk DNA of two different species, and don't find that pattern in other species. Evolution can explain the situation by saying that the two species recently had a common ancestor, and both species inherited this pattern from their ancestor.

Different Species With The Same "Junk DNA"

To the best of my knowledge, Creationism does not predict or explain such situations. Since the pattern is in the junk, one cannot argue that the pattern confers any short-term benefit or meets any need.

Different Species With The Same "Junk DNA"

Next, we ask if the conclusion is believable. Could a land animal have evolved into a whale? The answer is that the land ancestry of whales is a century-old idea, and well-proven without this new line of evidence. The ancestry was originally suggested based on the fact that whales are mammals, with a placenta and live birth and mother's milk. The idea is confirmed (for example) by mitochondrial DNA similarities, by protein similarities, and by fossils of small whales with legs. Also, whales with vestigial hind legs are sometimes born.

Finally, we ask if this conclusion leads anywhere. To be science, it has to make predictions, that can be tested to see if they are right.

The answer is yes. From the standard biological taxonomy, we can predict that only artiodactyls ("even toed" mammals) have the patterns. So, we can test animals that aren't artiodactyls, like cats and iguanas. We can predict that since cows have the patterns, all ruminants should. So, we can test sheep and goats. We predict that all cetaceans have the patterns, so we can test dolphins and killer whales. Furthermore, we don't predict just that dolphins have the patterns. We also predict that dolphins have the patterns at the exact same genetic locations.

In fact, many of these predictions have already been tested, and so far they have always been correct.The Minke Whale, Baird's Beaked Whale, Dall's Porpoise, Short-Finned Pilot Whale, and Bottlenose Dolphin all had both patterns, and in exactly the predicted places. Sheep, the Reticulated Giraffe, the Axis Deer, and the Lesser Malayan Chevrotain also are as predicted.

To sum up: this evidence unambiguously says that whales and cows have a common ancestor.

Just thinkin' - Salt, plate tectonics, water and evolution

2010-08-02T06:12:00.001Z

OK, the theory of the evolution of lifeforms on this planet is based on incomplete evidence. Whilst the theory makes sense and explains a lot, we can't experimentally re-run the tape and try again. And those things that we have tried haven't as yet solved the mysteries of how life made the first leap - into life itself - or how RNA/DNA arose - or even how what we call "consciousness" arose. Nor can we expect to find a fossil for every situation, no matter how much we crave it. There are gaps in our knowledge that may never be filled, although the gaps are closing.

But on the other hand there is compelling evidence for evolution in general. The transitional fossilised forms that have been found show for example the clear links between early lobed fish and later amphibians; between early reptiles, dinosaurs, birds and mammals; and between mammals in general and ourselves. And each year more gaps do get filled, or reinforced with extra evidence. Particularly interesting is how different sciences can take part in the exploration - for example biologists and anatomists can examine the biological basis of evolution and help to explain the curious things we find in embryology. Like how the reptilian jawbone became the mammalian ear apparatus. And how our curiously salt-watery mammalian bodies evolved from much earlier - and fishier - life.

And that's what I am looking at now. Salt, water and evolution. Understanding how life has evolved on this planet helps to dispel some creation myths, for starters. And I don't necessarily say that there's no "God" involved at any point; however I am convinced that life has evolved rather than been "specially created". A "God" could have set the scene and pressed "go", for example. Although I have the feeling that as we accumulate more facts even the "booting up" phase of life will be revealed as "explicable" after all.

Anyway, just to go back a bit - in fact a long way back - we are looking at a time (perhaps 3.8 billion years ago, give or take) when there was a different atmosphere on this planet and just one massive continent. There was a large inland sea or collection of seas containing fresh or brackish water, plus the salty margins. What the fossil record shows us is life forming on the margins in salty water and finding itself into the inland seas. As the atmosphere changed and climate varied life had to scurry around a bit to keep up. It could adapt to a freshwater environment and then lose that, only to regain it later. So some features were evolved, lost or retained and re-evolved as a situation changed. Further adaptations came about as the single massive continent split up and climate adjusted yet again. Bear in mind this took a long time - as in billions of years.

So how a lifeform treats salt (its balance, its hunger for it and how it excretes it) depends upon what conditions that creature faced during its evolution. And if a critter found a need to switch back to an earlier tactic, and could, it did. In brief, I'll gather up some pointers to more reading on salt, water, nitrogen and urea and you can do the rest.

Salt Might Be 'Nature's Antidepressant'

Evolution might have played an important part in the human hankering for salt. Humans evolved from creatures that lived in salty ocean water. Once on land, the body continued to need sodium and chloride because minerals play key roles in allowing fluids to pass in and out of cells, and in helping nerve cells transfer information throughout the brain and body. But as man evolved in the hot climate of Africa, perspiration robbed the body of sodium. Salt was scarce because our early ancestors ate a veggie-rich diet and lived far from the ocean.

Salt Might Be 'Nature's Antidepressant'

Behavior also came to play a key role in making sure we have enough salt on board. Animals like us come equipped with a taste system designed to detect salt and a brain that remembers the location of salt sources -- like salt licks in a pasture. A pleasure mechanism in the brain is activated when salt is consumed.

So the body needs salt and knows how to find it and how to conserve it. But today scientists are finding evidence that it's an abused, addictive substance -- almost like a drug.

'Broken' gene reveals evolution of salt retention and possible ties to hypertension

In the December issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, (available now on-line) the researchers show that the frequency of one version of a gene that plays a crucial role in salt retention correlates with distance from the equator. Populations that live in hot, humid climates near the equator tend to have the normal version of that gene, which produces a very effective protein. Populations adapted to cooler climates tend to have a mutant gene that codes for a totally dysfunctional protein.

"The surprise," said study author Anna Di Rienzo, Ph.D., associate professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago, "was finding that as populations moved away from the tropics the original or normal version of the gene became less and less common and the 'broken' version more frequent, which suggests it is protective. There seems to be a strong selective advantage conferred by the non-functioning protein, and that advantage increases with latitude."

Tetrapod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tetrapods (Greek τετραποδη tetrapodē, equivalent to Latin quadruped, "four-footed") are vertebrate animals having four feet, legs or leglike appendages. Amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are all tetrapods, and even the limbless snakes are tetrapods by descent. The earliest tetrapods radiated from the Sarcopterygii, or lobe-finned fish.

Tetrapod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The common ancestor of all present gnathostomes lived in freshwater, and later migrated back to the sea. To deal with the much higher salinity in sea water, they evolved the ability to turn the nitrogen waste product ammonia into harmless urea, storing it in the body to make the blood as salty as the sea water without poisoning the organism. This is the system currently found in cartilaginous fishes and the first bony fishes (acanthodians). Ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) later returned to freshwater and lost this ability, while the fleshy-finned fishes (Sarcopterygii) retained it. Since the blood of ray-finned fishes contains more salt than freshwater, they could simply get rid of ammonia through their gills. When they finally returned to the sea again, they did not recover their old trick of turning ammonia to urea, and they had to evolve salt excreting glands instead. Lungfishes do the same when they are living in water, making ammonia and no urea, but when the water dries up and they are forced to burrow down in the mud, they switch to urea production. Like cartilaginous fishes, the coelacanth can store urea in its blood, as can the only known amphibians that can live for long periods of time in salt water (the toad Bufo marinus and the frog Rana cancrivora). These are traits they have inherited from their ancestors.

If early tetrapods lived in freshwater, and if they lost the ability to produce urea and used ammonia only, they would have to evolve it from scratch again later. Not a single species of all the ray-finned fishes living today has been able to do that, so it is not likely the tetrapods would have done so either. Terrestrial animals that can only produce ammonia would have to drink constantly, making a life on land impossible (a few exceptions exist, as some terrestrial woodlice can excrete their nitrogenous waste as ammonia gas). This probably also was a problem at the start when the tetrapods started to spend time out of water, but eventually the urea system would dominate completely. Because of this it is not likely they emerged in freshwater (unless they first migrated into freshwater habitats and then migrated onto land so shortly after that they still retained the ability to make urea), although some species never left, or returned to, the water could of course have adapted to freshwater lakes and rivers.

Tetrapod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The transition from an aquatic lobe-finned fish to an air-breathing amphibian was a momentous occasion in the evolutionary history of the vertebrates. For an animal to live in a gravity-neutral, aqueous environment and then invade one that is entirely different required major changes to the overall body plan, both in form and in function. Eryops is an example of an animal that made such adaptations. It retained and refined most of the traits found in its fish ancestors. Sturdy limbs supported and transported its body while out of water. A thicker, stronger backbone prevented its body from sagging under its own weight. Also, by utilizing vestigial fish jaw bones, a rudimentary ear was developed, allowing Eryops to hear airborne sound.

Urea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In aquatic organisms the most common form of nitrogen waste is ammonia, while land-dwelling organisms convert the toxic ammonia to either urea or uric acid. Urea is found in the urine of mammals and amphibians, as well as some fish. Birds and saurian reptiles have a different form of nitrogen metabolism, that requires less water and leads to nitrogen being excreted in the form of uric acid. It is noteworthy that tadpoles excrete ammonia but shift to urea production during metamorphosis. Despite the generalization above, the urea pathway has been documented not only in mammals and amphibians but in many other organisms as well, including birds, invertebrates, insects, plants, yeast, fungi, and even microorganisms.[citation needed]

Bird - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on fossil and biological evidence, most scientists accept that birds are a specialized sub-group of theropod dinosaurs.[10] More specifically, they are members of Maniraptora, a group of theropods which includes dromaeosaurs and oviraptorids, among others.[11] As scientists discover more non-avian theropods that are closely related to birds, the previously clear distinction between non-birds and birds has become blurred. Recent discoveries in the Liaoning Province of northeast China, which demonstrate that many small theropod dinosaurs had feathers, contribute to this ambiguity.[12]

Salt gland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The salt gland is an organ for excreting excess salts. It is found in elasmobranchs, seabirds, and some reptiles. In sharks, salt glands are found in the rectum, but in birds and reptiles, they are found in or on the skull, in the area of the eyes, nostrils or mouth. In crocodiles, the salt is excreted through the tongue.[1] Such glands work by active transport via sodium-potassium pump that moves salt from the blood into the gland, where it can be excreted as a concentrated solution. Salt glands function to keep salt balance, and allow marine vertebrates to drink seawater.[2]

The need for salt excretion in reptiles (such as marine iguanas and sea turtles) and birds (such as petrels and albatrosses) stems from the fact that their kidneys are much less efficient than those of mammals.[3] Unlike the skin of amphibians, reptile and bird skin is impermeable to salt, meaning that the transition to a tougher skin meant a loss in salt-releasing ability.[4] The evolution of a salt gland would have allowed early reptiles and birds to eat aquatic plants and animals, who have high salt concentrations. This does not, however, explain the evolution of the gland in the elasmobranchs, suggesting convergent evolution.

Some theories suggest that mammalian tear ducts and sweat glands may be evolutionarily related to salt glands. Human tears are high in potassium, lending support to this theory; however, most phylogenists disagree with this idea.

The Vertebrates

Although one group, the hagfishes, never replaces their notochord with a vertebral column, and thus might seem not to qualify as vertebrates, they share a number of other features with other vertebrates and certainly should be classified with them. Still uncertain is whether they represent the most primitive vertebrates or are simply degenerate vertebrates.

All the other members of the craniata convert their notochord into a vertebral column or "backbone" (even though in some it is made of cartilage not bone). They also differ from all other animals in having quadrupled their HOX gene cluster; that is, they have 4 different clusters of HOX genes (on 4 separate chromosomes). Perhaps this acquisition played a key role in the evolutionary diversity that so characterizes the vertebrates.

The Vertebrates

With their gills exposed to sea water, all marine fishes are faced with the problem of conserving body water in a strongly hypertonic environment. Sea water is about 3.5% salt, over 3 times that of vertebrate blood. The cartilaginous fishes solve the problem by maintaining such a high concentration of urea in their blood (2.5% — far higher than the 0.02% of other vertebrates) that it is in osmotic balance with — that is, is isotonic to — sea water.
This ability develops late in embryology, so the eggs of these species cannot simply be released in the sea. Two solutions are used:

* Enclose the egg in an impervious case filled with isotonic fluid before depositing it in the sea.
* Retain the eggs and embryos within the mother's body until they are capable of coping with the marine environment.

Both these solutions require internal fertilization, and the cartilaginous fishes were the first vertebrates to develop this. The pelvic fins of the male are modified for depositing sperm in the reproductive tract of the female.

The Vertebrates

Although the earliest bony fishes may have appeared late in the Silurian period, their fossils become abundant in freshwater deposits of the Devonian period. In addition to gills, these fishes had a pair of pouched outgrowths from the pharynx which served as lungs. They were inflated with air taken in through the mouth and may have provided a backup gas exchange organ when the water became too warm and stagnant to carry enough dissolved oxygen. Their kidneys were adapted for the hypotonic environment in which they lived. [Illustrated discussion]

These animals diversified through the remainder of the Devonian period (which is often called the "Age of Fishes"). Some migrated to the oceans. In this more stable environment, their lungs became transformed into a swim bladder with which they could alter buoyancy. Their kidneys became transformed as well adapting them to their new — hypertonic — surroundings.

The Vertebrates

The nostrils of bony fishes open only to the outside and are used for smelling. Some of the lobe-finned fishes developed internal openings to their nostrils. This made it possible to breath air with the mouth closed as modern lungfishes do.
Judging from present-day lungfishes, two other significant adaptations evolved in this group:

* two atria and a partial septum in the ventricle of the heart. This permitted a partial separation of oxygenated blood returning from the lung(s) and the deoxygenated blood returning from the rest of the body.
* an enzyme system to convert ammonia into the less toxic urea. This mechanism is highly-developed in the African and South American lungfishes. While in the water, these fishes excrete their waste nitrogen as ammonia, just as most ray-finned fishes do. In time of drought, these animals burrow in the mud and switch to urea production.

These rare modern lobe-finned fishes are the sole survivors of once-flourishing groups that also gave rise to the tetrapods — the four-legged vertebrates. In the Devonian (perhaps as early as 395 million years ago), the paired fins of some sarcopterygians moved under the body and developed limbs (complete with digits). This enabled them to venture out on land. So once again, evolution was opportunistic giving rise to the first land vertebrates, the amphibians.

The Vertebrates

Beginning late in the Paleozoic era and exploding in the Triassic period, the reptiles underwent a remarkable adaptive radiation producing:

* Synapsids such as the pelycosaurs which had their legs under, rather than at the sides of, the body. This permitted more rapid running on land.
o Soon a group of small, active land-dwelling therapsids evolved from these and, by the Jurassic, they had produced the
o mammals.
* Anapsids. All the members of this group became extinct by the end of the Triassic period with the possible exception of turtles — "possible" not because turtles are extinct (some 260 species survive today) but because their classification is still controversial. Gene sequences suggest that they may actually be diapsids. In any case, although most live in fresh or salt water, they reveal their terrestrial heritage by returning to the land to lay their eggs.
* Diapsids
This group developed the ability to convert their nitrogenous waste into uric acid. Uric acid is almost insoluble in water so its excretion involves little loss of water. (It is the whitish paste that pigeons leave on statues.) This modification largely freed the diapsids and their descendants from a dependence on drinking water; the water in their food is usually sufficient.

Just thinkin': Biblical 'End of Days' Prophecy and all that... hokem? Creepy? Worrying?

2010-07-29T04:55:00.001Z

These nice people often come to my door bearing books and I have to say I like to read 'em as much as any book, really. And I also like analysing and pickin' things apart. So anyway - apparently, I'm told - the Christian Bible (or their version, anyway) is actually true from start to finish (both Old and New Testaments) and we can test this by its popularity, consistent and harmonious theme and by the book's proven-to-be-true prophecies. (I'm not saying I agree with any or all of that, BTW.) Oh, and because it's 'scientifically validated' as well. I may look into that later (no surprise, I must say I have my doubts there!).

So on with the prophecies... and yes, I will cherry pick the best but you can easily search for the rest....

And when you start looking there's a heck of a lot of 'em. Some say at least 25% of the Bible is prophecy. That may reflect obsessives identifying for prophecies that aren't there, of course. If I can summarise, some are clearly predictions - and almost none of them stack up exactly. A few are close-ish. Especially if you round up some numbers and make the right assumptions.

So I'm struggling to find even the vaguest, most general prophecy that sounds "right" without making lots of excuses. You may do better at it, but it's filled with such gems as the River Nile drying up (likely one day but it hasn't happened yet) and Damascus being destroyed forever (ditto). Oh yes, we can say that just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't happen... in fact everything will almost definitely end one day, if we wait long enough... but what good is a prophecy so vague that it proves nothing?

The nice people who come to my door suggested (in support of an 'end of days' prophecy) that global earthquakes were up not by 10% or even 100% but up eleven times in frequency of occurrence over the last 20 years. Of course alarm bells rang in my head. Some places in the world have an earthquake every year, most less, some a lot more. Can we seriously believe that people living near a subduction zone or volcanic hotspot haven't noticed that they are getting shaken 11 times more than previously? It's a lot. It'd make the news, surely? But it hasn't. But these nice people are walking around telling anyone who'll listen that New Zealand and Japan (to take just 2 examples) are literally shaking apart without the locals even noticing. Bizarre. (I checked just to be sure and no, there's no evidence to support even a 10% rise over the last 20 years, although it's feasible that we are simply making more, more sensitive and more widespread measurements now than 2 decades ago, and that we are communicating such news more rapidly as well.)

Chase the links below and more if you will but it's clear to me that you have to stretch things to make 'em fit. And that defeats the purpose, surely? Prophecies should be undeniable, exact and to the point if they are to be taken as "proof". Oh, and watch out 'cause towards the end people get really desperate to see 'end of days' clues in modern events. And when 'end of days' doesn't happen they will simply recalibrate their timeline of course...

Bible prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hebrew Bible prophets often warn the Israelites to repent of their sins and idolatries, with the threat of punishment or reward. Blessings and ruinations are attributed to the deity. According to believers in Bible prophecy,[4] many of these prophecies are viewed as having been fulfilled within later passages.

A second prophetic theme is the coming of a Messiah or Messianic Age: most Christians believe that these Messianic prophecies are fulfilled by Christ Jesus while Jews still await the arrival of the Messiah of the Davidic line. (See Messianic.)

Another major theme concerns the "end times", or "last days", particularly according to the Revelation of John.

Bible prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* In Genesis 6, God is quoted as saying "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."(Genesis 6:3) There is uncertainty as whether that refers to man's lifespan or to the amount of time that will elapse before the great flood.[6][7] The oldest undisputed people to have lived are a 122 year old female named Jeanne Calment[8] and a 115 year old male named Christian Mortensen.[9] The Book of Genesis as well as Exodus gives several people living to be older than 120 years after Genesis 6:3 (Genesis 9:29, 11:11-32, 23:1, 25:7, 25:17, 35:28, Exodus 6:16-20).[10]

* Genesis 15:18 promises Abraham and his descendants the land of Canaan from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates and Genesis 17:8 states:

The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.

Verses such as Acts 7:4-5 and Hebrews 11:13 indicate this was not accomplished during Abraham's time. F. F. Bruce argues this was accomplished during David's reign. He writes:

David's sphere of influence now extended from the Egyptian frontier on the Wadi el-Arish (the "brook of Egypt") to the Euphrates; and these limits remained the ideal boundaries of Israel's dominion long after David's empire had disappeared.[11]

Bible prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Book of Isaiah also foretold;

* Babylon would be overthrown by the Medes. (Isaiah 13:17-19) Babylonian palaces will be taken over by wild animals.(Isaiah 13:21-22)

Christian apologists state that the prophecy in Isaiah chapter 13 and 21 could possibly have been directed originally against Assyria whose capital Ninive was defeated 612 BC by a combined onslaught of the Medes and Babylonians. According to this explanation the prophecy was later updated and referred to Babylon[26] not recognizing the rising power of Persia. On the other hand it can be mentioned that the Persian king Cyrus after overthrowing Media in 550 BC did not treat the Medes as a subject nation.

Instead of treating the Medes as a beaten foe and a subject nation, he had himself installed as king of Media and governed Media and Persia as a dual monarchy, each part of which enjoyed equal rights.[27]

Bible prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* Damascus will become a "heap of ruins. The cities of Aroer will be deserted and left to flocks". (Isaiah 17:1-2)

The prophecy may date from 735 BC when Damascus and Israel were allied against Judah.[28] Tiglath-Pileser took Damascus in 732,[28] which some apologists point to as a fulfillment of this prophecy, but this campaign never reduced the city to rubble.[citation needed] Rather, the campaign temporarily forced the inhabitants to flee for a few days before returning.[citation needed] The city remained intact.[citation needed] Damascus has never become a heap of ruins and is the oldest standing city in the world.[citation needed]

Bible prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

# The river of Ancient Egypt (identified as the Nile in RSV) shall dry up.(19:5).
# "The land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt."(Isaiah 19:17)
# "There shall be five cities in Ancient Egypt that speak the Canaanite language.(Isaiah 19:18)"
# "In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria. The Assyrians will go to Egypt and the Egyptians to Assyria. The Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together. 24 In that day Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth. 25 The LORD Almighty will bless them, saying, 'Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance.'"(Isaiah 19:23-25)

Bible prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jeremiah prophesies that;

* "...all nations will gather in Jerusalem to honor the name of the Lord.".(3:17 (NIV))
* Hazor will be desolated.(49:33)
* The Babylonian captivity would end when the "70 years" ended. (Jeremiah 29:10)

It lasted 68 years (605 BCE-537 BCE) from the capture of the land of Israel by Babylon[38] and the exile of a small number of hostages including Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael (Daniel 1:1-4).[39] It lasted 60 years (597-537 BCE) from the deportation of the 10,000 elite (2 Kings 24:14) including Jehoiachin and Ezekiel[40] though there is a discrepancy with Jeremiah's numbers of exiles (Jeremiah 52:28-30).[41] It lasted 49 years (586-537 BCE) from the exile of the majority of Judah (2 Kings 25:11) including Jeremiah who was taken to Egypt and leaving behind a poor remnant (2 Kings 25:12).[40]
However, some Christian scholars try to explain the figure in a different way stating that Jeremiah gave a round number.[42]

Bible prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

# Jeremiah prophesied that Babylon would be destroyed at the end of the seventy years.(25:12) (Babylon fell to the Persians under Cyrus in 539 BCE (66, 58 or 47 years after the beginning of the Babylonian exile depending on how you count). According to Daniel 5:31, it was the currently unidentified "Darius the Mede" who captured Babylon.)
# Babylon would never again be inhabited.(50:39) (Saddam Hussein began to reconstruct it in 1985,[46][47] but was abruptly halted by the invasion of Iraq. Iraqi leaders and UN officials now plan to restore Babylon.)[46]
# "The Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn cereal offerings, and to make sacrifices for ever". (but the destruction of temple in 70 CE brought an end to the Jewish sacrificial system) (33:18) (See Korban)
# God will make Jerusalem a heap of ruins, a haunt of jackals; and will lay waste the towns of Judah so no one can live there.(9:11)

Bible prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* Ezekiel prophesies the permanent destruction of Tyre.(Ezekiel 26:3-14)

Tyre was an island fortress-city with mainland villages along the shore.[48] These mainland settlements were destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, but after a 13 year siege from 585-573 BC, the king of Tyre made peace with Nebuchadnezzar, going into exile and leaving the island city itself intact.[49] Alexander the Great used debris from the mainland to build a causeway to the island, entered the city, and plundered the city, sacking it without mercy.[50] Most of the residents were either killed in the battle or sold into slavery.[50][51] It was quickly repopulated by colonists and escaped citizens,[52] and later regained its independence.[53] Tyre did eventually enter a period of decline, being reduced to a small remnant: echoing Ezekiel's words in a book published in 1891,[54] historian Philip Myers wrote "The larger part of the site of the once great city is now as bare as the top of a rock—a place where the fishermen that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry".,[55] and older sources often refer to it as a "fishing village". However, it recovered and grew rapidly in the 20th century. The ruins of a part of ancient Tyre (a protected site) can still be seen on the southern half of the island.[56] whereas modern Tyre occupies the northern half and also sprawls across Alexander's causeway and onto the mainland[57]: it is now the 4th largest city in Lebanon[58] with a population in excess of 100,000 people[59] (see Tyre (Lebanon)).

Bible prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* Matthew 24:7-8 is part of Jesus response to the disciples in verse 5 asking, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" It states:

Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.

The famines part of this verse has often been associated with the third seal of Revelation (Rev. 6:5-6), and the pestilences and earthquakes aspect has often been associated with the fourth seal of Revelation (Rev. 6:7-8).[87][88] The presence of the term birthpains could be representative of better times ahead.[87] Scholars point out that these events have always been on earth, so the verse must refer to a significant increase in the intensity of them.[88]

Bible prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

# Isaiah 7:14 - Matthew 1:22-23 states "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" — which means, "God with us". However the Jewish translation of that passage reads "Behold, the young woman is with child and will bear a son and she will call his name Immanuel."[114] Isaiah chapter 7 speaks of a prophecy made to the Jewish King Ahaz to allay his fears of two invading kings (those of Damascus and of Samaria) who were preparing to invade Jerusalem, about 600 years before Jesus’ birth. Isaiah 7:16: "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken."

Bible prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many academic scholars and historians who read the Bible today maintain that it contains no accurate predictions of any past or future events. Transcribers of the scriptures may have inserted prophecies or attributed work that was written much later to earlier authors. The neo-Platonist Porphyry of Tyros argued, for example, that the eleventh chapter of Daniel was written around 165 B.C. rather than at the time of the Babylonian exile period of 6th century B.C. when the book was purported to have been written (a view now shared by many modern scholars: see Book of Daniel). Gustave Holscher maintained that certain passages of the Book of Ezekiel were not written by a pre-Exilic prophet of Israel but were later added in the Persian period. In other cases readers of the Bible create what they see as "prophecy", a tendency known as postdiction. In the last century this view has been accepted by some more liberal theologians. Some have maintained that prophetic verses are ambiguous enough to allow flexibility of interpretation. Others say that there are prophecies which were not or could not be fulfilled within time frames which have already expired.

Bible Prophecy Time Line

League of Nations founded 1919 "that they should make an image to the beast" - Rev.13:14
"give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak" - Rev. 13:15 NIV
(The 8th world power which springs from the 7, the world organization is a miniature mirror image of the nations of the world)

Bible Prophecy Time Line

Jews regain Promised
Land, establish state
of Israel 1948 "...then the LORD thy God will...gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee...And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it." Deuteronomy 30:3-5

Bible Prophecy Time Line

Sputnik begins
space age 1957 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give its light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken." - Luke 21:29
(The space program brought the stars within man's reach, shaking the power that the heavenly bodies once had.)

Bible Prophecy Time Line

Record-breaking
tsunami and coastal
storms begin 2004 "And upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring." - Luke 21:25
God battles nations
at Armageddon soon "the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty...into a place called...Armageddon."-Rev.16:14-16
"The armies of heaven...strike down the nations" - Rev. 19:14-15

Bible Prophecy

The revelation of prophecy in Scripture serves as an important evidence that the Scriptures are accurate in their interpretation of the future. Because approximately half (50%) of the prophecies of the Bible have already been fulfilled in a literal way, it gives a proper intellectual basis for assuming that prophecy yet to be fulfilled will likewise have a literal fulfillment. At the same time it justifies the conclusion that the Bible is inspired of the Holy Spirit and that prophecy which goes far beyond any scheme of man is instead a revelation by God of that which is certain to come to pass. The fact that prophecy has been fulfilled serves as a guide to interpret the prophecies which are yet ahead. (Walvoord, J. F. The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books)

The Complete Timeline of Bible Prophecy

The financial judgments of James 5:1-8 have come upon the sons of Japheth (beginning with the United States, but likely to include Western Europe, Central and South America; and possibly South Africa and Australia as well.) for their part in the African slave trade and its aftermath. [Concerning the United States, the judgments of James 5 are the casual roots of the September 11, 2001 terrorists attack on New York City and fall of the twin towers of Wall Street's World Trade Center, as well as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The war in Iraq, alone, is costing the US taxpayers in excess of $200,000,000 per day in borrowed US dollars. These continuing judgments have also caused the Katrina hurricane and flood which destroyed major portions of New Orleans, which was a major US slave portal. They are also behind the current foreclosure crisis across the US, which has had the domino-effect of crashing Wall Street and the world's financial markets, because of the trillions of dollars invested in US home mortgages from foreign institutions around the world.]

The Complete Timeline of Bible Prophecy

During the coming years, Satan will do all that he can to convince the world—and particularly Bible-believing Christians—that the European Union (EU) is the revived or revised Roman Empire of Bible prophecy (see Revelation 17), and that the Antichrist will come out of Europe. Satan is the great deceiver, as neither of these statements is true [see How To Quickly Locate the Antichrist in Scripture; see also Endnote #9 on Revelation 13:3 and Endnote #28 on Revelation 17:18, The Chronological Revelation, for a detailed explanation of what the revised Roman Empire in fact will look like. Satan knows about the great financial inversion and transfer of assets that must come into the Body of Christ. His primary objective is to deceive Christians into believing that the EU is the revived Roman Empire and is in fulfillment of Bible prophecy, so that the Church doesn’t take authority over his plans and purposes for the EU and come against them. Stated differently, the Devil knows that he must turn loose of the world’s financial resources because they belong to God and He has given them to His children—but, if he can control the world wide flow of money through the EU’s massive computer systems, he can still control the world’s finances and severely limit the end time preaching of the Gospel in this the final harvest of souls into the Body of Christ. The Apostle Paul admonished us to be not ignorant of the Devil's plans..."Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices (2 Cor. 2:11).

EARTHQUAKES AND THE END TIMES: A GEOLOGICAL AND BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE

Hal Lindsey, the world's best known Bible prophecy teacher and author of 17 books on prophecy, writes in one of his latest books:

Earthquakes continue to increase in frequency and intensity, just as the Bible predicts for the last days before the return of Christ. History shows that the number of killer quakes remained fairly constant until the 1950s - averaging between two to four per decade. In the 1950s, there were nine. In the 1960s, there were 13. In the 1970s, there were 51. In the 1980s, there were 86. From 1990 through 1996, there have been more than 150. 1

What is the source of Lindsey's statistics? In his book Planet Earth 2000 A.D. Lindsey cites the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in Boulder, Colorado.2 Yet he does not give details of the report (author, date, report name, location, etc.).3 Lindsey's earthquake frequency numbers have been widely circulated by popular prophecy speakers such as Chuck Missler and Jack Van Impe.4 However, Missler and Van Impe do not give any further information on the source of Lindsey's statistics.

EARTHQUAKES AND THE END TIMES: A GEOLOGICAL AND BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE

Is there a noteworthy deficiency of big earthquakes (M ³ 7.0) in the first half of the twentieth century as many prophecy teachers suppose? No, there is a noteworthy excess. The global earthquake frequency data can be used to argue just the opposite of the popular urban legend. For the data in Figure 1a we note 1093 big earthquakes for the first half of the century (1900 to 1949). That is an average of 22 big earthquakes per year. For the nearly completed second half of the century (1950 to 1997) we note just 867 big earthquakes. That is an average of just 18 big earthquakes per year. When 1999 is completed, it is likely that the second half of the century will have about 900 big earthquakes. For M ³ 7.0 events, the second half of the century, therefore, is expected to have about 200 less earthquakes than the first half. Zirbes writes:

We continue to hear from many people throughout the world that earthquakes are on the increase. Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant throughout this century, and, according to our records, have actually seemed to decrease in recent years.33

Nice people come to my door armed with books to discuss RNA and probability with me

2010-07-01T02:06:00.001Z

I always enjoy my chats with these nice people. They give me books to read as well and always find extra time to discuss evolution and creation with me. Somehow they are never convinced by my logical train of thought - but at least they are interested enough to discuss it with me. OTOH they don't seem to convince me either. Their logic is that the world is so unutterly complex and unfathomable that it must have been designed from scratch by a God and a team of angels. Whereas I can't see how anything short of a parallel universe of Gods and angels could have even considered taking up the challenge of designing in immense detail every single organism, our world and the entire universe. Let alone completing the task in 7 days or less. If there is a God and a team of angels we have no testable evidence for it, just a vacuum of knowledge into which our imagination inserts a human-friendly answer. Which is fine, I have no problem with mythology, indeed I love it.

But anyway, this week we had a discussion of DNA and RNA and how unutterly complex and (yes, I know) unfathomable it all is, and how unlikely - and that even Fred Hoyle apparently recognises the impossible odds involved. I said yes, but we had maybe half a billion years of primordial soup to play with before some sort of stepping stones formed, and that it took maybe another quarter of a billion years before single celled organisms found their way into the fossil record. That's a lot of time to play with. If God and his team had been serious about it, why wait? Was that part of God's planning phase? Was He distracted?

Anyway, there's no real answer to that (or anything really) as it's just God's prerogative to do whatever He likes, so whatever "is" is simply evidence of God's will. Kind of like a get-out-of-jail card really. The argument of complexity hinges on it (ie life) being incredibly unlikely without some intervention. Everything is just too complex and unlikely to be chance alone. It's hard to argue against that, because it is amazing, except to say that jumping therefore to the least likely conclusion - that a God set out to create the whole damn thing - is equally unfathomable. If He, She, It or They did kick it all off then they surely took a few shortcuts, like using evolution as a starting principle. Why re-invent so many critters with such variation when you could just define a few rules and let it run? But no, every organism is individually designed in infinite detail, apparently. It must be nice to be so certain.

Which leads me to quote a few things about RNA and DNA and stuff.... the bottom line is that even the highly-evolved RNA/DNA/Ribosome/protein synthesis process is neither perfect nor ideal, just as it is as not as simple as it could be. Indeed it appears a tad more complex than it ought to be, especially if someone planned it all. But it's the game we have uncovered and it works.

Ribosome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ribosomes are the components of cells that make proteins from amino acids. One of the central tenets of biology, often referred to as the "central dogma," is that DNA is used to make RNA, which, in turn, is used to make protein. The DNA sequence in genes is copied into a messenger RNA (mRNA). Ribosomes then read the information in this RNA and use it to create proteins. This process is known as translation (genetics), i.e. the ribosome "translates" the genetic information from RNA into proteins. Ribosomes do this by binding to an mRNA and using it as a template for the correct sequence of amino acids in a particular protein. The amino acids are attached to transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules, which enter one part of the ribosome and bind to the messenger RNA sequence. The attached amino acids are then joined together by another part of the ribosome. The ribosome moves along the mRNA, "reading" its sequence and producing a chain of amino acids.

Ribosomes are made from complexes of RNAs and proteins. Ribosomes are divided into two subunits, one larger than the other. The smaller subunit binds to the mRNA, while the larger subunit binds to the tRNA and the amino acids. When a ribosome finishes reading a mRNA these two subunits split apart. Ribosomes have been classified as ribozymes, since the ribosomal RNA seems to be most important for the peptidyl transferase activity that links amino acids together.

Ribosomes from bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes (the three domains of life on Earth), have significantly different structure and RNA sequences. These differences in structure allow some antibiotics to kill bacteria by inhibiting their ribosomes, while leaving human ribosomes unaffected. The ribosomes in the mitochondria of eukaryotic cells resemble those in bacteria, reflecting the evolutionary origin of this organelle.[1] The word ribosome comes from ribonucleic acid and the Greek: soma (meaning body).

Biophilia: The ribosome as ancient relic

The ribosome is a fascinating and enormous vestige of the RNA world

One little problem of biology is its ultimate origin. Darwinian biology traces back to something called the "last common ancestor" (LCA for short)- a bacterium-like species from which all life appears to have diversified, containing DNA, proteins, and a membrane. But what came before the LCA? Much of the machinery of the LCA descended from a lengthy process of prior evolution, partly chemical in nature, which is to say that heritability of traits might have been due more to replication of the individual parts of the proto-cell (e.g., by natural expansion of its membrane with like-structured compounds), than by a segregated informational molecule that encoded everything else. For membranes, this is still the case. There is no gene that "encodes the membrane", though there are now plenty of genes that encode proteins that manage membranes and synthesize their components.

Biophilia: The ribosome as ancient relic

A quasi- self-reproducing system has recently been devised whose input is short fragments of RNA, which get ligated together by their large products, leading to amplification of the catalytic RNAs, as well as selection and diversification.

Biophilia: The ribosome as ancient relic

There is now strong evidence indicating that an RNA World did indeed exist on the early earth. The smoking gun is seen in the structure of the contemporary ribosome (Ban et al. 2000; Whimberly et al. 2000; Yusupov et al. 2001). The active site for peptide bond formation lies deep within a central core of RNA, whereas proteins decorate the outside of this RNA core and insert narrow fingers into it. No amino acid side chain comes within 18 Å of the active site (Nissen et al. 2000)." - Joyce and Orgel, The RNA world, 2005

Biophilia: The ribosome as ancient relic

Taking the long view, the ribosome is absurdly large and inefficient. DNA and RNA polymerases typically clock in at ~500 kDa, or a fifth the size of ribosomes. The cell spends a huge part of its mass and effort on these little machines. The E. coli cell devotes between 15% to 45% of its dry mass to ribosomes. A rational designer would base the whole mechanism on proteins, which are much better catalysts, and make it far smaller, replacing tRNAs with much smaller protein-based bridging units as well. But no. This is a classic case of sunk costs, of path-dependent development, of sclerotic infrastucture. Cells can not just redesign their most critical function- their method of translation, so we appear to have a luxuriant and wasteful remnant of what we began with- a world where efficiency might not have been the top priority, given the difficulty of making anything work reliably.

Ribozyme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Investigators studying the origin of life have produced ribozymes in the laboratory that are capable of catalyzing their own synthesis under very specific conditions, such as an RNA polymerase ribozyme.[1] Mutagenesis and selection has been performed resulting in isolation of improved variants of the "Round-18" polymerase ribozyme from 2001. "B6.61" is able to add up to 20 nucleotides to a primer template in 24 hours, until it decomposes by hydrolysis of its phosphodiester bonds.[2]

How come we have 60 mins in a day? Or 12 hours in a day? So old it's almost mythological

2010-04-12T06:32:00.001Z

The day and the year

Some things are fairly obvious. The sun rises and sets in a day, so that's that. At least we all agree on what a day is...except it also includes a night, which (like daylight) varies in length over the course of a year. And varies also by your position on the globe. OK, some problems there. We'll leave those problems for now and come back to them later.

Now a year is easy enough, too. We've already noticed that the days lengthen then shorten in a regular cycle, so if you take note of the shortest and longest days and count between them you've got the elapsed "time" between midwinter and midsummer. You probably also noticed that we have 2 days in between where the day and night are equal in length. And lots of others - another 361 in fact - in between. So with those 4 key days marked in the full cycle plus the in-betweeners we have a full year of days and the rudiments of a seasonal calender. Simple enough. (If only it was exact, which it isn't - but that's another story).

Going cropping, and 24-hour shopping

Of course this all mattered a lot to those early cultivators who were heavily reliant on the seasons to grow, eat and live. One failed crop really mattered. Today we just go to the supermarket to shop and don't really make that life-blood connection to the land, the seasons and our food supply. It mattered also to the hunters and gatherers, too, so it's probably very ancient knowledge; even if it didn't include specific details and names for our calendar of days, hours and minutes that we schedule our lives for now.

OK, so why 24 hours in a day? Why does that have to be? Well here we probably have the ancient Sumerians and Egyptians to thank. Let's assume the Sumerians invented it first and passed it on, but frankly who knows for certain? Maybe the Sumerians borrowed it too.

Anyway, look at your hands. 4 fingers and a thumb on a standard hand. Go back 5, 6 or even 10,000 years and imagine for a moment that you have stopped hunting and gathering and have begun cultivating the land.You have more produce than you and your family need and want to share, trade or sell the excess. But how do you count it? (What the heck is counting anyway?) And how do you divide it up into fair or equal shares? Well you could just look at it and make some sort of rough division, or you could get more precise and actually count and divide it. So how did we come to invent that? Well that hand you have in front of you looks just like a Sumerian one and works just the same. You have 3 joints on each finger and 4 fingers. That's 12 on each hand, isn't it? You can even use the thumb to point and count as you go. Now you could just make a fist and stick up one finger (and thumb) for every "thing" you are counting, leaving you with a maximum of 5 "things" counted on one hand. But 12 beats 5, doesn't it?

It gets better. You have 2 hands! With one hand you can count to 12 (that's 4x3) and with the other count off sets of 12. With 5 digits on the other hand you could count off 5 sets of 12, or 60. Base-12 is also easily divisable, ie you can divide it evenly many times.You can probably see how this caught on and spread from general counting to lots of other things, including 12 hours a day, 60 minutes in an hour and 60 seconds in a minute. (Of course the 12 months in the year is a result of astronomy and in particular the moon and its 28-day cycle of phases.)

Technically this 4x3=12 and 5x12=60 gibberish falls under base-12 counting (compared with the 'standard' metric system's base-10 or a computer's binary or base-2 system). You can read about base-12 (or 'duodecimal') in more detail below. Point is that we have the Sumerians (or their predecessors) to thank for the ancient preference for a system based on 12 and its multiples.

Further reading:

It turns out that the Sumerians used base 12, not base 10. Each finger has three segments for a total of twelve segments on each hand. It’s even convenient to touch the thumb to each segment for counting. Combine both hands and you have a two-digit hand-based abacus. The Sumerians also believed that twelve was a special number – it can be divided by 2, 3, 4, or 6, while 10 can only be evenly divided by 2 and 5. So they divided the day into twelve segments – each being two modern hours long.The 60 minutes to an hour and 60 seconds to a minute come from the Babylonians who used a base 60 mathematical system.Finally, the Egyptians split the 12 segment day into 24 segments and standardized the hours.

Paul Nielsen : Why 24 hours in a Day?

December 2003 answer: It appears that the Egyptians were responsible for the 24 hour day. The Eqyptians were fond of counting in base twelve (instead of base 10 which is commonly used today). This is thought to be because they counted finger joints instead of fingers. Each of your fingers has three joints, so if you count by pointing to finger joints with your thumb you can count to twelve on each hand. This might seem arbitrary, but is actually just a strange as counting in base ten simply because we have ten digits.

Curious About Astronomy: Why is a day divided into 24 hours?

However, hours did not have a fixed length until the Greeks decided they needed such a system for theoretical calculations. Hipparchus proposed dividing the day equally into 24 hours which came to be known as equinoctial hours (because they are based on 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of darkness on the days of the Equinoxes). Ordinary people continued to use the seasonally varying hours for a long time. Only with the advent of mechanical clocks in Europe in the 14th Century, did the system we use today become common place.

Curious About Astronomy: Why is a day divided into 24 hours?

Historically, units of time in many civilizations are duodecimal. There are twelve signs of the zodiac, twelve months in a year, and twelve European hours in a day or night. Traditional Chinese calendars, clocks, and compasses are based on the twelve Earthly Branches.Being a versatile denominator in fractions may explain why we have 12 inches in an imperial foot, 12 ounces in a troy pound, 12 old British pence in a shilling, 12 items in a dozen, 12 dozens in a gross (144, square of 12), 12 gross in a great gross (1728, cube of 12), 24 (12 * 2) hours in a day, etc. The Romans used a fraction system based on 12, including the uncia which became both the English words ounce and inch. Pre-decimalisation, the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland used a mixed duodecimal-vigesimal currency system (12 pence = 1 shilling, 20 shillings or 240 pence to the pound sterling or Irish pound), and Charlemagne established a monetary system that also had a mixed base of twelve and twenty, the remnants of which persist in many places.

Duodecimal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This blog has moved

2010-03-27T11:28:00.001Z

This blog is now located at http://mythoblogia.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://mythoblogia.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

Astrology 101 - Aries, for starters

2008-09-04T06:26:00.002Z

OK, get out your grain of salt....

ARIES - The Martian. You are an alien amongst us all. You were cooked for 9 months, apparently immune to all astral influences until the instant when you popped out, fully formed yet tabula rasa: an empty slate, ready to be written upon. And at the precise moment of your birth - not when your bulbous head appeared, or your spindly arms or even your pudgy torso - but only when you were in a position to be "registered" as born (perhaps at that crucial point when the midwife tore off the gas mask and remembered to check their watch) - Mars stamped his warlike foot upon your brow.

Apart from "ouch", what does this mean to you? Who is this Mars character?

Well you can go there right now, courtesy of Google Mars. Don't stay long, we have more for you here
Or simply read about this spectacular red planet. You all come back now
But this is not enough, for the real Mars is a Roman God, born of the Etruscan fields. Splendidly earthy stuff that explains why you love to dig dirt
However that lovely bucolic Etruscan deity has become tainted by bloodlust. For Mars is forever linked to Ares (read Aries in English), the Greek god for just about the worst atrocities you can imagine, including the absolute barbarity that is war. Fabulous. I suppose some of you enjoy this sort of association, eh?

But you are here for the astrological side of things, so let's press on. You were born and stamped "Aries" because of your allocated Sun Sign. You were also kindly given an ascendant and all the rest of it. You were also allocated a fabulous new set of genes and a family of some sort, complete with an environment (good or bad) to grow up in. (But that's all of little importance as it's just the time and place that matters, for that's how astrology works.)

First up (an odd thing to say so far into the discussion) you must never trivialize or demean your allocated Sun Sign by looking at it in isolation. No, for whilst it is the dominant feature of your chart, it is a feature you must be prepared to modify relentlessly until you get the perfect fit with your self-perceived personality. You can do this by astute use of ascendants, other planets and their positions. This is after all the Art of the Astrologer, if not the science as well.

Having said all that, being a dominator yourself you'll understand that your Sun Sign is truly dominant - so let's discuss it now in some depth. Because you were born when and where you were (and assuming that to be Earth, for starters) you are automatically configured as a typical ARIES. So you are all - all of you - unfailingly outgoing, lovable and spontaneous people with a dark cloud hanging over you. That dark cloud seeks not only to give you a much-needed light shower every morning but to warn others that ARIES is to MARS as MARS is to snack bars. You are a market dominator with your enrobed bars and diversified range of snack products. Don't mess with an ARIES!

Yet you are also funny, an excellent kisser and quite slight in build with a shocking haircut. Despite this you remain adorable and lucky in relationships. Indeed, so lucky that you can't get enough of 'em. Oh, and family is very important to you as an Aries (unlike those other Sun Signs who spurn family ties, an Aries will collect such ties in a large closet). You are known also for a generous and giving nature that knows few bounds, bar the ones that bind. Hang with little old Aries you long enough - especially in a steamy, sordid relationship - and you are bound to get something (see your doctor if symptoms persist). Actually it's hard not to hang with you as you are as addictive as you are criminal in nature. Aries are great people for mass hangings, very loud and enthusiastic and of course always baying for more blood. But you know that.

And your best feature? You are always 'right'. This lends great stability to your personality and assists your friends in so many ways. Your proneness to increasingly persistent and impenetrable argument is both charming and disarming, causing your friends to wallow around in ecstatic circles, fawning over your immense intellect. Aries people represent simply the vast majority of the most powerful people on Earth, and you are all well aware of it.

Favorite Aries color: Red
Favorite Aries thing: Power
Favorite Aries hobby: Sex
Most common employment: Computer games industry
Most Aries are: Baby-faced assassins

Astrology - myth or science?

2008-02-26T23:52:00.003Z

Well astrology (and I mean Western astrology in a broad sense) is scientific in that there's a testable hypothesis; and there are plenty of people running longitudinal studies - or repeated experiments over time, if you like - to test the case. However these experiments are typically flawed in 2 major ways and probably a million smaller ways.

Firstly there is rarely a control in any of the tests, so we don't know for sure how the predicted reality compares with the "real" reality; or if there is some bias inherent in the testing process.

Secondly the tests assume that the basis of astrology is true; and the experiments that are typically run don't test the root assumptions, which remain untested. Which leads to many people repeating the same experiment over and over again, often "finding" the same result but with no confirmation available other than the "rightness" suggested by the result itself. In other words the subject "agrees" with the result, therefore it must be true. Which is of course hogwash (another technical term).

So how could it be tested? Well it has been tested as a process and indeed there's some slight evidence for a correlation between personality and the position of planet Mars. That's all, just Mars. And it's a small correlation, not a blindingly obvious one. You can stretch the point and find other tiny correlations in the data but essentially it's all very weak. Other people say other things, often compellingly negative; but that's what I know and believe - that there's a faint blip in the data that says "maybe". I wouldn't bet my house on it, that's for sure. Of course we could just be looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place.

You could also test it yourself by devising an experiment where multiple people have charts prepared and interpreted by random, multiple astrologers, including controls on the experiment to eliminate bias. I can tell you that almost all reputable astrologers will get these calculations "right"; and some astrologers will get common results in interpretation, often based on shared study of of certain learned books. And others will have completely variant interpretations. Often the "rightness" of these interpretations will be confirmed by the subjects, irrespective of technique; but as we know this proves only that the subjects "agree", not that it is objectively correct. When you look at the actual, testable and repeatable evidence for a correlation between sun sign and such things as occupation or personality it all starts to unravel.

At which point the astrologers will say 'but what about the ascendant?', or 'what about oppositions and conjunctions?'. Indeed we could explain it all away if we tried hard enough, by using arcane astrological procedures or even simply saying that the birth time is out by some minutes or hours or whatever. We'd then "adjust" the chart to suit our subject's "reality". Indeed - a little surprisingly - that's exactly what some astrologers do. And they honestly believe that's the right thing to do.

Which makes it all very hard. Personally I think the best interpretations come from strongly "psychic" astrologers who "feel" the subject during the 1:1 session and interact in a "counseling" way. Which suggests that the astrological process may simply be a cover for some other set of instincts or skills - and therefore open to further exploration.

I can also say - anecdotally! - that I have been surprised when an astrologer actually "gets" my rising sign at first meeting and without benefit of anything other than my physical appearance. That's surprising enough but I have also seen multiple people correctly identified in the same manner, which is more surprising again. I don't know "how" they did it but I'm open to the suggestion that there's "something in it".

Astrology is also fun - and a cool way to get to do some maths whilst playing with some rather ancient and interesting symbols. That there's a psychological component in it just adds to the compelling nature of it all. Treat it as fun and keep an open mind - that's my personal view.

Romulus and Remus

2007-11-20T23:45:00.000Z

When you can't explain how something important started it's tempting to make up a story. Whoever makes that story up gets credit points, especially if the story gains currency. If you are convincing enough it can put you in a powerful shamanic position.

Sometimes the story simply and conveniently fills in the blanks (think of the Arthurian legends and how they have grown over time to cover changing situations); other times it's designed to support the politics of the present (almost all religious texts do this, to reinforce a few people in powerful positions). Sometimes it's a rewrite of an old story (think flood tales prior to Noah) that seek to explain 'how things are'. So where do we put Romulus and Remus and the story of Rome's beginning?

Interestingly we seem to have re-found the site of ancient 'Romulan' worship: “This could reasonably be the place bearing witness to the myth of Rome, one of the most well-known in the world, the legendary cave where the she-wolf suckled Romulus and Remus, saving them from death,” said Culture Minister Francesco Rutelli, presenting the discovery.

What does it say about Imperial Rome that Augustus fostered the worship of this apparent myth that Rome was suckled by a wolf-mother (great name for a rock band, btw)? Clearly it supports the culture that Augustus wanted. The idea that Romans were tough, fearsome warriors brought up by wild animals is a potent thought, especially for your enemies!

This concept that people could draw succour, support and strength from animals is also an ancient one with strong links to earth and animal gods. To get those forces on your side is also important, whether you personally believe in it or not. We always like to believe we are right and that our god(s) are on our side after all.

Arthur and his horses

2007-05-07T21:42:00.001Z

Yes, OK, I'm on the case. Seems Arthur had a few names for his horses. That's assuming Arthur himself is for real. Which he probably isn't. The legendary Arthur that we know so well, or think we do, developed initially from the somewhat patchy and unreliable (but eminently readable) history of Britain written by Geoffrey of Monmouth, aided and abetted by the fabulous Welsh collection of anonymous fables known to us as the Mabinogion. And then of course the French got in on it and created a farce with a car chase and pretty, flirty girls getting older men into a twist. Ah, OK, I made that bit up.

Nevertheless it was that Frenchman Chrétien de Troyes who began what we know today to be the literary tradition of Arthurian romance. You can pick it up from Thomas Mallory's utterly wonderful Morte D'Arthur, published in 1485, too. Ahh, the valour and bravery of it all, the knights, the round table, the fabled sword Excalibur. Whilst there may be a grain of truth in it, English kings did not behave like French nobles, we know that for a fact. Lovely stories though.

So to the horses and their names. To quote legendofkingarthur.com (as you would), Welsh chronicles mention two names of horses owned by King Arthur. They are in the Tale of Culhwch ac Olwen, which is one of the stories that make up the Mabinogion. They attribute to Arthur a mare called Llamrei (or Llamrai) and another horse called Hengroen. Later French sources call his horse Passelande.. It's worth mentioning the Celtic horse-gods, too: Horsa and Hengist. Could be a link there, eh?

Yahweh, Mithras and Mazda.

2007-04-23T03:42:00.000Z

Yeah, OK, Mazda is a car company. But before the name was linked to a car company, or a light bulb manufacturer for that matter - in fact long before - Ahura Mazda was (and is) the most powerful god of the Zoroastrians. Chief prophet of the Zoroastrians was Zoroaster, aka Zarathustra. With its almost-but-not-quite monotheistic concept of god, handy location in Iran and later India, and powerfully dualistic ideas of good vs evil, Zoroastrianism can be claimed to have had a likely large influence on later religions such as Islamism, Judaism and Christianity. Of course it didn't start out nearly so monotheistic, if that's what it is; and we just don't have enough evidence to be really sure about the whys and wherefores of that evolution - but we do know that Ahura Mazda was powerful beyond all other spirtual beings and dominated the scene. We also know that Zoroaster was urged by his god to do good and spread the word against earlier, bloodthirsty 'sacrificial' religions; that Ahura Mazda created the earth; there would be a last judgement; and that the good went to paradise and those who sided elsewhere died and went to a fiery place. Now we don't know when these ideas sprang into being - or even if there were precursors. But it all sounds a bit familiar, doesn't it? Indeed there are strong parallels with both Christian and Hindu beliefs.

One of the lesser beings that floated around in the Zoroastrian mindspace was the widely-believed Mithra, god of the Mitanni and yet another god of light and wisdom, again from the same region. Mithra spread from Iran to India, then Greece, Rome (as Mithras) and even to Britain. Whilst the light and wisdom was co-opted into Sun-worship as well, many people see Mithra as a model for the Christian Jesus. In various versions Mithra(s) has a (possibly) virgin birth (from solid rock) and is (possibly) resurrected from a cave. Indeed the cave as temple is a prominent idea in later Mithrasism (hmmm, did I just make that up?), as is (possibly) 'baptism' by the blood of a slain bull. Bulls have had a lot to do with religion and mythology over the years... here's more on that tale.

And a lot of the "parallels" between Mithra(s) and Jesus can be refuted if you try hard enough. At its core, however, it's my feeling that there's plenty of evidence that many ideas were circulating and shared between religions prior to the birth of Christ the prophet.

Language myths

2007-03-19T03:51:00.000Z

Ignoring the truth - or what we imagine to be the truth of written language spontaneously being invented at least 3 times in human history - what are the mythological origins of language? Surely there's a god or 2 involved here!

In ancient Egypt the invention of writing is attributed to the god Thoth. Thoth was handy with words and managed to invent speech as well. Even more Dune-like was Thoth's ability to transform speech into material objects. Speak and it shall come... into being.

In Mesopotamia, among the Sumerians it was Enlil who was the creator of writing. Although during the later Assyrian and Babylonian periods it was reputedly the god Nabu who invented both speech and writing. It had to be someone, after all. Like Thoth, these Mesopotamian language gods were also able to turn words into things.

There are more, but that'll do for now.

Indus Valley civilisation

2007-03-19T03:26:00.000Z

Not so much a myth as a mystery, the Indus Valley Civilization (c. 3300–1700 BC) was - as the name suggests - an ancient riverine civilization that flourished in the Indus and Ghaggar-Hakra river valleys in what is now Pakistan and northwestern India.

Another name for this civilization is the Harappan Civilization, after the first excavated city of Harappa (uncovered in the 1920s). Not a lot is known about this civilisation or why it vanished, although there are many theories about rivers drying up, earthquakes and just plain old invasion. Near neighbours the Sumerians may have known this civilisation as Meluhha. The languauge - largely untranslated at this stage - is a likely candidate for Proto-Dravidian (that descended into current Tamil), or perhaps Proto-Indo-Iranian (that descended into, umm, Iranian, for example) and consisted of about 400 symbols and a base-8 number system. Pretty interesting and distinctive, in fact. Plenty more to read here at AncientScripts.com and at Harrappa.com.

Centaurs and their ilk

2007-02-21T06:26:00.000Z

OK, we know they don't - or didn't exist. Or we are pretty certain, anyway, because we've never found 'em for starters - dead or alive, fossilised or not. They also just plainly look wrong. Half-man, half horse? Why? How would that happen, grafting? Who would graft two species together?

Only a god, I guess. It's hard enough to find examples of real animals where you scratch your head and wonder "but how" - the duck-billed platypus may be one such example. And indeed you can figure out a how if you try. But a horse and a man? Not a man with one or two characteristics of a horse, but a complete half and half creation. Sound weird and unlikely? Sure is.

So how? It's been suggested that early horse-back riders appeared startlingly bizarre - indeed just like a combination of horse and man. If we aren't accustomed to seeing something, especially something unlikely, we may make up a myth to explain it. Sounds plausible.

There's more here and here on this curious myth.

Speaking of Potter, what of Flamel?

2006-12-27T23:21:00.000Z

Whilst Harry Potter is a fictional character it is clear that creator JK Rowling researched her subject. There was a Philosopher's Stone, or at least a belief in it; and there certainly was a 14th Century French alchemist called Nicholas Flamel. Cerberus, centaurs, gryphons... you name it, they are "real" enough in that mythical way we so love to read about. Don't stop with reading the Potter books, do some further research yourself.

Burning Harry Potter

2006-12-03T22:24:00.000Z

Forbes mag reports here on book-burnings, especially of Harry Potter novels. Now these fundamentalist views are right - author J K Rowling is indeed influencing your people in the direction of mystical, magical realms that probably have little foundation in truth. They are built on faith and belief, not testable fact. Sure, some of it is "fact", in the sense that it's been researched and is citing previous work. In the Harry Potter series we read about the Philosopher's stone and Nicholas Flamel, to pick just 2. And sure enough there was a real enough belief in such a stone and its power in Alchemy, as indeed there was a Nicholas Flamel. We can look all of this up in other books, check it out and see how "real" it all is for ourselves. Now some of us - especially the young and impressionable - may fall for it in a big way and just "believe" without questioning. Others will know instinctively that it's a modern fable. So do we burn it because it's a fable, and probably burn Grimm and Aesop as well? Do we do this because it's wrong, or because it threatens our own beliefs?

If we burn Potter should we not burn all myth and legend, or any belief we don't, umm, believe in ourselves? And ban it from our minds, just to be sure?

One basis for religious myths

2006-11-28T10:16:00.000Z

It's not hard to guess why we have epic myths about creation, but religion goes much further. The typically well formed religion offers buffers against all sorts of ailments, distress and indecision. If you aren't sure about something - perhaps an ethical question, or how to treat loss - you can always seek an answer from a priest or from a book. In fact religion goes deeper again and provides solace and protection against even the thought of our inevitable death. Or so the research tells us. This is from SCIENCE, Volume 314, Issue 5803
dated November 24 2006 (originally published in J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91, 553; 2006) and is worth quoting at some length:

"PSYCHOLOGY: Managing Terror by Gilbert Chin. Our awareness that we exist exposes us, unfortunately, to the inescapable terror of dying. Jonas and Fischer have explored the role of religious beliefs in allowing people to manage their terror in situations where mortality is made salient. In particular, they focus on the distinction between extrinsic (searching for safety and solace) and intrinsic (searching for meaning and value) religious beliefs. Just after the November 2003 bombings in Istanbul, customers in a Munich coffee shop were more likely to rise in defense of their cultural worldview (to disagree with newspaper articles that were inconsistent with their own assessments of the likelihood of an attack in Germany) if they scored low on an intrinsic religiousness scale than if they scored high; this difference in behavior dissipated with time as the reminder of death became less salient. In follow-up experiments involving students from a Jesuit school and a local university, they found that intrinsically religious people did not think more about dying when reminded of mortality (in contrast to extrinsically oriented individuals) and that this capacity to buffer one's state of mind contributed to their not having to mobilize terror management defenses in the face of death."

Now I see the word 'psychology' and imediately have doubts. I haven't seen the research but my rule of thumb is to doubt. Firstly how do you define someone on the 'intrinsic religiousness scale'? By survey, or by their actions? If by survey, how strongly correlated are their actions against the scale? Secondly how do you actually know what someone thought? Electrodes? Mind merge? They told you? Hmmm.

Could it be that the 'extrinsically oriented individuals' told something closer to the truth (as they had not been indoctrinated or 'taught' what to think)? And perhaps the 'intrinsically religious people' simply had been taught how to respond and merely did so? Now you may say 'ah-ha!' as if that's the point, but simply because people can't express a fear of death and instead mumble an incantation that they have learned at Church on Sundays doesn't mean they don't actually have a fear of death, rather that they just that they don't like telling researchers about it.

Revelations

2006-11-17T01:28:00.000Z

I can't not write about Revelations. It's apocalyptic. It's about the end of the Earth. Or of our days on Earth, maybe. Supposedly written by John, Revelations is based upon the "visions" that he received on the isle of Patmos. The first vision was related by a manlike, perhaps Christ-like figure in robes who spoke with a voice like a trumpet (which could mean very loud - perhaps he used a megaphone!). The second vision is creepier still with a a door opening in heaven and a description of the coming of the end of the world. Basically Satan has a last fling at Armageddon and loses, restoring peace to the world. You can read into it what you will but it's great stuff, full of imagination. Read more here.

Zeus - Greek god of the sky and thunder

2006-11-07T21:19:00.000Z

In Greek mythology Zeus is the highest ranking of the Olympian gods and the god of the sky and thunder. He was the son of Cronus and Rhea, and the youngest of his siblings. He married to Hera, although he consorted with whoever he chose. Typically he took other forms to engage in trysts, often to win favour with local dieties who often preceded him (presumably by human design to winover followers to the new religion) . At the oracle of Dodona his consort was Dione, the "goddess". According to Homer's the Iliad, he is the father of Aphrodite by Dione.

Zeus is known for his numerous erotic conquests of nymphs - and one pederastic relationship with Ganymede. His numerous offspring included Athena by Metis; Apollo and Artemis by Leto; Hermes by Maia; Persephone by Demeter; Dionysus by Semele; Perseus by Danae; Heracles by Alcmene; Helen by Leda; Minos by Europa, the Muses by Mnemosyne; and Ares, Eileithyia, Hebe and Hephaestus by Hera. His Roman counterpart was Jupiter, and his Etruscan counterpart was Tinia (not to be confused with a foot fungus).

Zeus also slayed the monster Typhon.

Want to search the Bible?

2006-10-26T08:48:00.000Z

Try this! Biiible search (no offence to Google!) And then counter it with this (the Evil Bible Top 10 list).

Palimpsests - revealing the past

2006-10-19T23:09:00.000Z

Occasionally I see a word that just has to be used, somewhere - anywhere. Today's word is palimpsest. According to Wikipedia a palimpsest is a document that has been wiped clean and used again (comes from the Greek to 'wipe clean', roughly speaking). Cicero and his fellow Romans used wax-coated tablets that - you guessed it - could be wiped clean and reused. Sounds like a technology we could (re)use today. Historically speaking palimpsests are especially useful when we are able to decipher what was written before. One 'original' document may have overwritten a previous version, like the Christian churches scrubbing out and writing over pagan beliefs (if not adapting them to suit their needs). It's a window into the past.

Haruspices

2006-10-02T23:05:00.000Z

Haruspices - you know, the ancient form of divination trusted by the Etruscans and refined by the Romans. The Babylonians were also into it. In its essence we are looking at the duck's guts - or a chicken's, or whatever animal conveniently comes to hand. It's messier than tarot cards and you can fall fowl (hehe) of the animal protection authorities. It was however a much respected practice and worth a read.

The Epic of Gilgamesh

2006-09-27T22:30:00.000Z

The Epic of Gilgamesh is an ancient story from Babylonia, and comprises of a series of Sumerian legends and poems about the hero-king Gilgamesh. He was born out of the mother goddess, like Kurduk, but is more man than god (although he reputedly lived 126 years which is pretty good for a guy back then). Anyway, we are looking at about the 3rd millennium BC, with the most complete version known to exist being preserved on 11 clay tablets in the library of the 7th century BC Assyrian king Ashurbanipal. Gilgamesh's tale appears to have been widely known and to have influenced literature from Europe to India, and certainly the tale of Utnapishtim and the deluge rings some bells. The story involves Gilgamesh, a demi-god-king who is down in the dumps and his friend Enkidu, born from the mother goddess as well but lured into man's domain by a woman (indeed by a 'harlot of the temple', which is presumably where you found harlots in those days). Enkidu and Gilgamesh do great man-like stuff full of bravado before Enkidu shuffles off his mortal coil. Gilgamesh is distraught and the tale goes on at length about his feelings of loss. At one point Gilgamesh crosses into the afterlife and back again (by boat, which is how you do such things) in search of a herb that gives you rebirth. He finds it, carries it carefully back to shore and has it stolen by a snake. Of course the snake then sloughs its skin - as snakes do - proving the worth of that herb. I could do with some, actually. Anyway, that leaves Gilgamesh unhappy again - all that work for nothing. It's quite a tale.

Creation Myths part 2 - Marduk

2006-09-27T02:01:00.000Z

It's worth noting that some accounts of Marduk suggest that after cleaving Tiamat in 2 to form the heavens and the Earth he drained the blood of the god Kingu to give live to the bone and flesh of Man. Man of course to be the slave of the Gods, so that they could laze their days away watching TV or whatever.

So what have we got here? It's patriarchal, man defeating woman in the broadest sense. It's also an individual asserting himself over others. It's a creation myth, both of the world and of Man. It's Babylonian - the centre of civilisation at the time. So what does it really mean? Well Marduk was also Babylon's own home god, if you like, so it was asserting Babylon's dominance over everything else. The Marduk story evolved, as all stories do, to fit the political times. It reinforced male-dominated, power-based city-life over the old way of mother-Earth goddesses and a group awareness of spirituality mingled with a respect and worship of the sun, moon, stars and seasons. Well that's how I see it, anyway!

Creation myths

2006-09-25T22:41:00.000Z

There's nothing quite as compelling as a great story of internecine family disputes, especially when it leads to Creation. Creation of us and Earth, because they were already here (they always are). Let's start in Babylon, as most things do, with the victory of Marduk over his great-great-great-grandmother Tiamat.

In brief - if this can be brief - it starts before Creation with the primal Apsu, Mummu (son) and Tiamat, the earth-mother (later the Greek Gaea) if you like. It's a story of a patriarchial system slandering and defeating the previous matriarchal system, which is again quite a common theme. It's done to justify the way we want to live our lives on Earth, but it must be played out in myth first to 'prove' a case. Most religions are like this - there's not just a meaning but an intent behind the stories,to defame what came before and justify the new. Anyway, what happened is familiar enough - they had kids. Lahmu and Lahamu, followed by Anshar and Kishar. Then Anu, then Ea. They were bigger and stronger than their fathers and grandfathers and collectively were wreaking havoc. Apsu asked Mummu for advice about these noisy kids and so it came about that they suggested to Tiamat that they 'dispose' of the children. Tiamat of course would hear nothing of it, quite rightly, and Apsu and Mummu went away to brood and plot. Well Ea was sensitive to brooding and plotting and sought to get in first by slaying Apsu (grandfather) and Mummu (brother). Now this is very icky in many ways as we have sibling rivalry and murder at work for starters, but it gets worse. Tiamat was a bit upset about Ea killing her husband, his grandfather, and flew into a rage. Now Ea went to his dad, Anshar, and he got his son Anu to confront Tiamat. However he was put off by Tiamat's rage and said 'no way, dad'. So they all got together these god-kids and their god-parents and Ea volunteered his son Marduk to defeat Tiamat. Marduk agreed but insisted on a clause in the contract that made him the ultimate God thereafter. So it was. Marduk slayed Tiamat, cleaved her in 2 and turned her carcass into the Earth and the heavens. It's a lovely tale that deserves further study, doesn't it?

Resurrection

2006-09-25T13:14:00.000Z

It occurs to me that this is quite common: resurrection, I mean. Whilst the sun rises and falls, only to be reborn the following day, it is pretty much the same size and shape every day. Just a bit higher or lower in the sky. Whereas the moon dies every night and is reborn, but manages to wax and wane as well. Now if I was an unsophisticated cave dweller I'd be pretty amazed by that... in fact I'm amazed anyway. It gets confusing but Osiris had to be resurrected to make sense of his life. Mithra, Adonis and Tammuz similarly were reborn, and they were by no means the only ones. It's not hard to see a connection between the annual death and rebirth of Gods and the yearly cycle of rebirth that is represented by the seasons. It's not surprising that new religions continued the theme, accepting the mantle of ideas that went before.

Griffins, Gryphons and their ilk

2006-09-14T22:03:00.000Z

Griffins can be simply eagle-headed men or women, but more usually are lion-bodied and can have an eagle's wings as well as equine ears and - sometimes - even a serpent's tail. Not a critter to mess with, it's as much a Persian as a Greek invention and has been around for a few thousand (let's say 3 thousand) years at least. It's a powerful combination, eagle-eyed, talon-clawed, soaring high or standing on either the 4 paws of a lion or on man's powerful legs. A Hippogriff is a horse crossed with a Griffin.

More on Goddesses

2006-09-13T22:23:00.000Z

There's a long history here and it's natural that man, struggling in the wild, fighting tooth and nail for a niche in the wilderness should take special note of women, for their procreative powers, and the land, for its ability to bring forth fruit and meat. So we have the beginnings here, even if only in our imagination, of both the worship of females as 'mother goddesses' and of the land and animals thereon for their sustenance. It is equally obvious that fertility is aligned with the phases of the moon, so goddesses will align with the moon as well. The worship of the sun is equally obvious, and if we take into account the lack of television 50,000 years ago it's no wonder that the heavens above held us in awe and fascination. It's not hard to see why these things prompted beliefs, especially when no explanation was readily at hand. Thinking again of snakes, it's not that hard to see the phallic shape and skin-sloughing as signs also of birth and rebirth. It's conjecture, sure, but what else would man (or woman) have thought about before books, TV and supermarkets?

What's slightly more surprising is that we still do it. Plenty of people believe in "the stars" (astrology) and many more pay their respects to patron saints who hark back to earlier, much earlier, beliefs. There's even the apparent Christian worship of the 'goddess' Mary to consider. Christianity not just the worship of a god, Elohim, Yahweh or Jehovah, but of a son of god, Jesus, his virgin Mother Mary and a host of saints and martyrs. It's a complex set of intertwined beliefs that split off from Judaism 2,000 years ago, and like most religions it supplanted previous beliefs. In so doing it took over important festivals and dates; it also adapted previous gods and goddesses to serve new purposes. How close is Mary to Aphrodite, for instance?

Tiresias, the blind seer

2006-09-08T00:36:00.000Z

Another fascinating story that I have marvelled over for decades is the story of the blind seer, Tiresias. It's got it all.

It goes somewhat like this (there is another version, but this is the 'classic' imho): Tiresias wandering in a glen, finds 2 serpents (there's the snake theme again) entwined, as they do when coupling (a la the caduceus). Mesmerised, he pokes them absent-mindedly with his staff (the axis mundi?). Naturally, they don't like that at all and being quite unusual snakes they convert Tiresias from man to woman. Well he blundered into these same (?) snakes 7 years (a mystic number, 7... 7 days in a week, too) later and probed them with his staff again, thinking that if once converted him one way, twice would see him back to maleness. And so it proved.

But that's not how he was blinded. Zeus and Hera were arguing over who enjoyed sex more, the male or the female. Zeus thought that the woman had the greater pleasure. As they knew Tiresias had been both sexes, they asked him. Of course he sided with Zeus (supposedly rating the woman's pleasure 9 to a man's 1) and in a fit of pique Hera blinded him. Zeus took pity and gave him 2nd sight, the seer's gift of prophecy. This is intriguing because Hera, female, represents the moon, the earth, the night and all that is shades of grey; whereas Zeus, male, is more starkly black and white, like the blinding sun and its power to withdraw and create darkness. So Hera took away the Sun and Zeus gave Tiresias the Moon.

Kali and Medusa

2006-09-07T12:50:00.000Z

No, they weren't flatmates in some sordid uni squat. But they do have some interesting parallels.

Medusa, the Gorgon with writhing snake-hair, feared by all, one look turning animals to stone, slain by Perseus in the Greek legend; her blood used to kill or to heal, her severed head worn on a shield by Athena.

Kali, Indian goddess, accompanied by serpents, long dishevelled hair, feared by all, tameable only by Shiva; killing sword and severed head in one hand, healing plants in the other.

Of course there are many variations of both legends, and I ahve cheery picked the best bits. Both are interesting and absorbing stories and worth a good look.

Visit my Technorati Profile

Months of the calendar

2006-09-07T06:59:00.000Z

A bit Anglo-centric and Western I know but I've always liked the history behind seemingly simple things like the calendar. Firstly there are some contradictions, like the 10th month is not December (my Latin is poor but I think decem is Latin for 10) as you'd expect, nor November (novem, or close thereto, is Latin for 9) the 9th, and of course the 8th month is not October (octo, Latin for 8) , either. That's the Julian Calendar at work, of course.

You'll see lots of Roman references here. The original Roman year was of course 10 named months, along the lines of Martius, Aprilis, Maius, Junius, Quintilis ("ie our July"), Sextilis (ie our "August"), September, October, November and December. Plus a gap in Winter when nothing was doing from an agricultural point of view, so they didn't bother naming that part - yet.

It was Numa Pompilius, by legend the 2nd king of Rome (circa 695 BC) who added Januarius and Februarius. He also moved the start of the year from Marius to Januarius and fiddled with the length of each month to fit it all in with the Earth's travels around the sun, and to ensure some odd numbered ends of months, considered to be lucky. Because Earth actually orbits in a year of 365 and a quarter days an additional month of Mercedonius or more usually Intercalaris (or intercalendar) was added every now and then to balance things, and always after Februarius. Now we have leap years of course, but still they are hitched to February.

Of course nothing stays the same forever. In around 46 BC Gaius Julius Caesar reformed the Roman calendar (which is why we call it the Julian calendar). He changed the number of days in several months, again, and this time removed Intercalaris.

So what are the other months, and why are they so named?

January, Latin Januarius, meaning of Janus. Two-faced Janus is the Roman god of gates, doorways, beginnings and endings. His festival month is January, natch.
February, Latin Februarius, meaning of Februltus or a righting of wrongs. It was Julius Caesar who gave us the leap year of 29 days every fourth year and 28 days otherwise. Nothing to do with Mount Olympus and the Greeks after all. Hmmm, must look up what the Greeks called Februarius, if they called it anything. BTW, Februa is the Roman festival of purification, held on February 15th.
March, Latin Martius, meaning of Mars. March was the original beginning of the year, and after a Winter layoff the time for the resumption of war. Mars is the Roman god of war and identified with the Greco/Roman god Ares. If you know your Astrology you'll recognise the sunsign Aries as the beginning of the year, and you'll also know Mars to be the ruling planet. It all fits, see?
April, Latin Aprilis from Etruscan Apru. In Greek it's Aphro, short for Aphrodite. Now that makes some sense. Aphrodite is the Greek goddess of love and beauty. She is also identified with the Roman goddess Venus.
May, Latin Maius, of Maia. I understand that Maia means grandmother, mother, nurse or 'the great one', so take your pick. Maia may also be equivalent to the old Italic goddess of spring, the daughter of Faunus or even Faunus herself.
June, Latin Junius, of Juno. Juno is a street (ok, a parade) in Sydney and I always wondered why. Anyway she is also a principal goddess of the Roman Pantheon, the goddess of marriage and the well-being of women; she is also the wife of Jupiter. She is roughly equivalent with the Greek goddess Hera.
July, Latin Julius, as in Julius Caesar. When you get to be Caesar of Rome you get your pick of months. Previously known as Quintilis (5th). Julius Caesar reformed the Roman calendar in 46 BC and as I said, took naming rights.
August, Latin Augustus, as in Augustus Caesar, Julius's successor. Previously known as Sextilis (6th). You can guess that Augustus was impressed with Julius's work, gave it a look over and stamped his name on it as well.
September, Latin septem, for seven. Well it was the 7th month at one stage.
October, Latin octo or eight. As I said...
November, Latin november, the ninth month. As before...
December, Latin december or the tenth month. No surprises here, if you've bothered to read all of the above, anyway.

Having said all of that, Julius and his advisers got it a bit wrong - the year was slightly long and the error was pushing important agricultural, fertility and religious dates back, bit by bit. They probably realised that the errors would add up but for whatever reason it was left. Until the leap year errors became too great and the Gregorian Calendar was introduced to fix it up. It was very largely based on the Julian in any case but conveniently (for Pope Gregory) managed to centre itself on the presumed birthdate of Christ.

Flood tales

2006-09-07T00:49:00.000Z

You may have read or heard of Noah and his ark, or Utnapishtim and the Gilgamesh epic, or the even earlier Sumerian Epic of Ziusudra, and of the great flood (or floods?) that caused boats to be built by the belivers and destroyed the unbelievers. Well the genetic diversity of mankind - or the limited diversity - suggests that at some time when there were numerically few modern humans around we did indeed become greatly reduced in number - perhaps perilously so - and quite obviously recovered (although the facts are disputed, as always). Whilst the deluge stories may be hard to believe, there may be a grain of truth in there, too. Mankind did settle near rivers after all (we still do) and they did on occasion flood, so at least some flood-plain based civilisations at various times would have experienced a widespread and devastating flood.

The story of a great flood is also mentioned in ancient Hindu texts, particularly the Satapatha Brahmana. Not Noah but Manu was informed of the coming deluge and was protected by the Matsya Avatara of Lord Vishnu (the 8th Avatara was Krishna, by the way) who had come to rid the world of the morally depraved and save the pious, and the animals and plants. Sound at all familiar?

Another snake's tale - Indra and Vritra

2006-09-06T23:09:00.000Z

The Yahweh vs Leviathan story is all about slaying that pesky old religion and asserting the power of the new over the old. Same with Zeus defeating Typhon. It's the new Greek Olympian pantheon defeating the old Pelasgian earthy religion. No surprise then that there's a similar Vedic story, where our hero Indra defeats the old (Dravidian) dragon Vritra. Like Zeus, Indra had thunderbolts to aid him. Inderestingly Indra is etymologically related to tundra or thunder if you like. Whilst not cognate with Thor, it's an interesting connection.

Typhon, Echidna and kids

2006-09-05T23:22:00.000Z

Speaking of Zeus and Typhon, it's worth mentioning that Typhon's mate, Echidna, escaped destruction. She cowered in a cave and protected the kids, Zeus deciding to let them live on as a challenge for future heroes. What a nice guy. Anyway, Echidna and Typhon's kids are the Nemean Lion, Cerberus, Ladon, the Chimera, the Sphinx, and the Hydra, possibly others as well. Quite a family.

Serpents and their ilk

2006-09-05T22:04:00.000Z

Seems that serpents, snakes if you like, inhabit a special place in our darker thoughts. At a guess it is their sinuous, shiny, somewhat phallic appearance coupled with lightning-fast forked tongues and deadly venom that gets us interested. There's plenty to think about when a snake is close by.

Snakes are of the earth, as we are, although we place ourselves above nature now (to our peril, perhaps). Anyway, whatever the reason, they have been co-opted as symbols, as protectors and as representatives of evil, or of power. For perhaps 4,500 years they have wrapped themselves around staffs (or the axis mundi) as in a caduceus, or around trees as in the Elamite World Tree or the Biblical Genesis story. They became Medusa's hair, capable of turning men to stone, or the god Zeus himself as his pre-Grecian serpent form Meilichios. And so it goes. The theme is strong, ranging from the companion or protector, to the dark Serpent Lord. As we morphed into a patriarchical religious view of the world our now male gods saw a need to slay these sneaky reptiles and prove themselves masters of the earth. Thus we see Zeus conquer Typhon and Yahweh defeat the Leviathan.

Mother Goddess vs Patriarchies, revisited

2006-09-05T00:41:00.000Z

Just on that theme of Mother Goddess vs Patriarchies, it's usual in mythologies to absorb the past, to build upon previous beliefs. We are mostly talking about spoken-word stories of course. For a very long time mankind could only pass along such information by camp-fire story-telling, and even when we invented writing only the elite really had that knowledge. In some places it remains so. Thus persuasive story-telling was it.

So why the change? Why move from balanced beliefs where 'good and evil' could equally be male or female, to a patriarchical system where male gods did the good stuff and the female ones were either watered down or made to do evil?

Was it a conspiracy of priests? Of Kings? Was it related to the general shift from an agrarian existence to a wealthier, more specialised type of city-state existence, where fighting wars across vast distances became the norm? And so we needed to persuade many men that it was right and noble to march in armies across the known world, for king and country?

There was another shift here, too. Mother-Goddess religion was about 'do this and this at the right time and the evil (e.g. a famine) will go away, allowing the good (i.e. rain, good crops) to naturally reappear'; whereas the patriarchies were (and are) about 'doing stuff that we ask of you because we ask for it, and in return we strong male gods will protect you from evil'. A less-than-subtle subtle shift from expecting good to flow from the earth to a sort of protection racket. This one change distanced man from nature and allowed us - to this day - to rationalise just about any abuse of the environment or ourselves.

Mother Goddess to Male God... why?

2006-09-02T12:46:00.000Z

It's all about power, isn't it? The world was advancing quite nicely with a Mother-Earth Goddess-based religious tilt then we had to have this male-centric power struggle, didn't we? Plenty of religions get along quite nicely whilst sharing power with females, so why is it that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic mob have this males-only rule? It's not as simple as monotheism vs polytheism, it is a serious post-Abrahamic divide. A decision was made - either by God himself or by the men behind his marketing - that God was one, and that one was male.

It's worth a thought or two. Why male? Why not neutral? Was man made in God's image or is man recasting God in his?

Check out Tiamat. She held the tablets in Sumerian mythology, not Moses. Her creation myth is here. And here is a more complete exposition of the shared roles of males and females in the Babylonian creation myth.

Explaining the inexplicable

2006-08-30T01:07:00.000Z

We all wonder where we have come from and what life is all about, especially so in times of personal crisis. For some it's explained by faith. Faith in ourselves or a deity of some sort; or in our scientists hypothesising and testing their theories. Alternatively we can take a purely philosophical view and work logically within our own minds to seek answers. No matter how we go about it, it's apparent that wonderment and enquiry is part of our human nature.

Historically also, these myths and their accompanying religion or beliefs have suited the time. That is to say they met a need, or served a purpose. That raison detre may have been to explain, to empower or to enslave. In any case it supported the philosophy and power structures that existed at that time; these beliefs then evolved gradually or were overthrown as needed, by individual rulers with their own agendas.

Of course these gods, faiths and beliefs sprang from the nature of society that existed at the time. It was relevant to the time. If we accept that premise, we can imagine a Neandertal society 100,000 years ago having some rituals and beliefs surrounding, supporting and explaining fears and practical needs, such as death, the hunt, and the cycles of the seasons. There is evidence that is so. Cro Magnon man may have broadened his horizons into more artistic realms but remained enslaved to the seasons, the hunt, the need to find food and shelter. Cro Magnon's basic survival fears may have lessened but the archaeological record attests to this continuing need-based ritualism. Logically their lives remained centred around food and shelter. Survival skills, the need to maintain detailed seasonal and geographical information about dangers, the sources of our food and shelter were paramount. When such resources were scarce we looked for answers. It is only logical that the answers we found were based on what we could see or feel, be it the earth itself, the moon, or the stars above.

When more recently we were struck by the idea of staying put our faith changed again. We understood and controlled our needs to a greater extent and gradually explained away many of our fears; growing our food in one spot and sharing the excess with others allowed us to specialise and divert ourselves in new ways. The seemingly simple ideas of agriculture and animal husbandry changed our lives enormously and put new strains on our beliefs about the earth, the sun, the stars and ourselves. The emphasis of our lives had changed over time, gradually, to a more studied understanding of the seasons, the phases of the moon and so on, in tune with our agricultural needs. But as the specialisation of labour gathered pace and many more people lost touch with the earth and the cycles of life, there was a vacancy for more abstracted heroes and villains, rather than the simpler fire, mother earth and water gods of our past.

And so it goes till the present day.

My recommended reading list on this includes Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel, which has an excellent and believable account of how agriculture and animal husbandry set the stage for many of our societal changes; and Joseph Campbell's Masks of God for his insights into our religious evolution.

Let's start with some reading

2006-08-25T23:35:00.000Z

I will cover in this blog subjects beyond literal truth. And I use truth advisedly as mathematics is the only provable truth, IMHO. Everything else is either awaiting a mathematical proof or is a belief, a theory or an assumption.

Just to explain my thinking: you may believe in what you can see, hear and/or touch, and that's cool; but it's not necessarily a literal truth. Even if a thousand people see, hear and/or touch that thing it doesn't make it true. It may be real enough to the people concerned but it's not an incontrovertible truth. It may be an illusion. It may be a shared thought. It may be a shared assumption. It's something, but it's not a literal truth. To be a literal truth requires proof. To my mind we can only be certain of mathematical proofs, as I haven't seen any other proof that convincingly lives outside the mind or perception of man.

And I could be wrong about maths. Perhaps there is no independent proof? Ahhh, but that's an undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveller returns....

So to the first installment of my 'way out but worth it' booklist, in no particular order:

Bill Shakespeare's works in full. An essential lesson in the use of the English language, up there with Fowler's.

The Elegant Universe (by Brian Greene. Post-Einstein string theory to get you thinking.)

Anything by Richard Dawkins or Stephen Jay Gould. As I said, there are mathematical proofs and there are theories. Some theories are more compelling than others.

The Torah (the Pentateuch, the Book of Moses: a lively read, basis for Judaism and the Old Testment and a fascinating read on any level)

The Bible (Greek for 'Books'; The Old and New Testaments: basis for the Christian cults and a brilliant read)

The Koran (Arabic for 'Recital': another excellent piece of writing and the basis for Islam. I have the Dawood translation)

The History of Magic (by Eliphas Levi: a great, compelling read. Spot the a ha! 'Harry Potter' moments and see the footprints of Rowling's research)

The Theory of Celestial influence (by Rodney Collin: immensely detailed, it wallows around trying to 'prove' a case scientifically but falls magnificently short. Can be heavy, clumsy and painful to read... but still worth it for the determined!).

Anything by Joseph Campbell, but Occidental Mythology is a great start. I'll get to Joe in a moment.

That's just for starters. Let me know what you think.

This entry was originally posted on Wednesday, August 23rd, 2006 at 9:51 am on my OODB site and is filed under No idea where this one goes, Writing, Religion and Essential Truths. You can follow any responses to this entry through the usual RSS feeds here or there. You can leave a response by commenting here , or trackback from your own site.

Welcome to myths, legends and weird stuff

2006-08-25T23:06:00.000Z

Welcome to my world. I grew up reading the myths and legends of Greece and Rome and I've never quite shaken the bug. I won't restrict myself to blogging about the western classical myths, I aim to take on all myths. By that I mean explore the stories and unearth what I can. I'm not trying to be judgemental... I just find it interesting.

There are plenty of other sites on the web that do a great job, but I'm not setting up to compete. This is my show, designed to suit my taste. If you find it interesting too then that's great - and a bonus.

Cheers for now, Rob.