Manny's Many Twitter Accounts [Update 13]

We recently outed the serial abuser, loon, attention-seeking spammer and Internet troll, Manuel "Manny" de Dios Agosto, the emotionally immature failed wannabee Catholic priest from the Bronx who several of us have known for several months to be behind the Twitter account @Sacerdotus. The evidence can be seen here.

It is also very apparent, and has been for many months, that Manuel's method of abuse and harassment involves using multiple Twitter accounts. This blog will serve as a register for all Manuel's known accounts, so people who wish to ignore his incessant attention-seeking, infantile spam, cyber-bullying and harassment, know which accounts to ignore or block altogether. If Manuel's behaviour again descends to the depths he reached in the summer of 2012, when all his accounts had to be taken down by Twitter Support pending his undertaking to behave in future, this list can serve to support any official complaints against him.

Please feel free to register any new accounts in the comment section below, together with supporting evidence, and I will add them to the main blog. The usual signs that they are Manuel's accounts includes:

• Repetitively re-tweeting tweets from his other accounts.
• Promoting Manuel's blogs.
• Challenging people to a debate about Christianity then ignoring questions or becoming abusive when asked to clarify a point or substantiate a claim.
• Constant claims that people won't debate him or are afraid of him.
• Abusing the people Manuel normally abuses or agreeing with Manuel's abusive tweets.
• Having several of Manuel's accounts in the follower and following lists.
• Sharing Manuel's obsessions.
• Accounts impersonating people who Manuel is currently abusing, stalking or otherwise showing an obsessive interest in.
• Abusive accounts by people purporting to be devout Catholics, showing an obsessive fascination with the trappings of Catholic priesthood and variations on the 'Sacerdotus/Sacerdotvs/curatus/curatvs' theme.
• Replies from Manuel with one account to tweets sent to a different one. Running many accounts obviously gets confusing

Account	Notes	Current Status
@Sacerdotus	Manuel's main account in which he pretends his name is Michael. [Update 4 March 2015] Bizarrely, Twitter have reinstated Manuel's original account after promising to reduce trolling and abuse. It seems the hopeless muddle in Customer Safety which so embarrasses their CEO, is continuing. Of course he immediately recommenced begging for money and harassing his usual victims - Twitter informed.	Active again. Suspended again as of 30-March-2015
@SACERD0TUS	The account Manuel uses to get around being blocked, apparently believing that no one will notice the all caps to disguise the fact that he has replaces the letter 'o' with a zero.	Deleted
@Sacerdotvs	Used by Manuel to get round blocks.	Permanently suspended.
@SacerdotusBlogs	Account set up when all Manuel's other accounts were suspended. Immediately commenced abusing those whom Manuel had been harassing prior to suspension. Also suspended a few hours after creation.	Deleted.
@RosaRublcondior	An impersonation account Manuel was using to post gratuitously offensive obscenities until all his accounts were suspended by Twitter. Then used by him to support a petition to get me banned. Substitution of 'i' for 'l'.	Permanently suspended.
@RationallyFaith	Thinly disguised account normally used by Manuel to agree with himself and to abuse those who disagree with him.	Permanently suspended.
@Bronxbomber777	Used by Manuel to post threats of violence, often sexually explicit, especially to females.	Permanently suspended.
@YearOfFaith2012	Plagiarised by Manuel from an official Catholic account, presumably in an attempt to give it credence. Used for the usual abuse and to make it look like people agree with him.	Permanently suspended
@NYCLATINO2011	Used by Manuel to pose as a gay male prostitute to contact gays prior to spamming them with homophobic abuse. Has been known to post pornography visible to minors. Account appears to have been deleted very recently. Was active earlier on day of writing. (28 May 2013) Now active again and being used by Manny to compliment himself and tell others how brilliant he is. Manuel has developed a tactic for trying to hide his trail when he gets frightened that he's gone too far. He renames an account, then creates a new one with the original name and immediately deletes it. He seems to think this deletes all his old tweets but keeps all his followers. It doesn't, of course.	Name changed to @NYCLATINO2012.
@NYCLATINO2012	Ditto.	Name Changed to @NYCLATINO2013.
@NYCLATINO2013	Ditto.	Permanently suspended.
@jaxz0hnp	An impersonation account used to abuse and harass user @jaxzohnp. Simple substitution of 'o' with zero again.	Permanently suspended.
@StJohnSmith	Used for same function as @RationallyFaith.	Still active but all tweets and following appear to have been deleted. May have been renamed as above.
@Catholic_Blog	Yet another account used by Manuel to promote his blog, post abuse at those who disagree with him and agree with himself because very few real people ever do.	Permanently suspended.
822451ac-f4aa-11e2-802e-000bcdcb5194	This AOL Opaque OpenID account is used by Manuel to spam blogs requiring a registered account to post comments. The purpose of this form of OpenID appears to be to facilitate anonymous abuse and spam on blogs. He assumes people won't know it's him being his usual obnoxious and infantile self - rather like a child who thinks you can't see him when he puts his hands over his eyes. The clue of course is that he invariably agrees with and supports himself - a thing which no sane person would do - and his posts resemble those of a 8 year-old in terms of emotional maturity.	N/A
@TylerNull	Used by Manuel to promote his YouTube efforts because no one else does.	Renamed to @Peregrinusmmvii.
@Peregrinusmmvii	Another new account which began attacking Manuel's favourite obsessions and hate figures soon after the above account picked up its first warning, which came soon after it took up where Manuel left off, soon after @Sacerdotus was warned again.	Permanently suspended.
@RosaIsSuspended	The account Manuel now uses to post automated infantile abuse.	Permanently suspended.
@SacerSpended	Now all Manuel's usual accounts have been permanently suspended he is trying a new trick. He uses this account to pretend to be pleased Manny has been suspended and claims to have found who the 'real' @Sacerdotus is. Of course, it isn't the expelled seminarian Manuel de Dios Agosto but some other innocent person whom Manuel claims he found using links I provided on the blog where we exposed him. Needless to say, these links don't exist. The laugh is that this account was only created a couple of days ago and immediately followed me claiming to know all about @Sacerdotus and his lies, yet appears not to know what his other account is or why he should be interested in Manuel. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that he's simply confirming yet again that he is indeed Manuel de Dios Agosto, expelled seminarian, otherwise why would he be so implausibly pretending @Sacerdotus is someone else? I wonder if anyone can guess why Manuel is so desperate to want people not to know his real identity, and the reason he was expelled from St Joseph's Seminary, New York. [update 19 November 2013] Just when you thought Manuel couldn't get any more stupid, the idiot is now using this account to claim he's me!	Permanently suspended.
@Blog_Catholic	Manuel is back with a new account cleverly disguised so no one will think it's his by creaftily turning round the name of one he used earlier - @Catholic_Blog. I bet that has people fooled, eh, Manuel?	Permanently suspended.
@SacerdotusLives	And another new account so he can continue his obsessive attention-seeking and abuse. Bizarrely he implies in this one's bio that Twitter have given him this temporary account while his 'contacts' in Twitter sort out the mistake they made when they wrongly suspended all his others. I wonder if his contacts in Twitter are any more real than his vast army of contacts who are supposedly watching my every move and sending him information on my criminal/terrorist activities which he claims to be including in the regular reports about me he sends to 'The UK Authorities' Any bets on how long this one will last?	Permanently suspended.
@SCDTVS	After 4 months enforced absence, Manuel is now up and runnign again, and already posting abuse with a brand new account brilliantly disguised by removing a few letters, posting exactly the same stuff and resuming obsessive abuse of his usual victims. Can't accuse Manuel of being anything other than a traditionalist. Name changed to @CatholicGadfly and a new one created with the same name	Permanently suspended.
@Atheist707	Apparently he's been stung by everyone spotting him within a few minutes of starting up again despite his brilliantly disguised account, so he's now come up with another ploy. Now he's pretending to be an Atheist who just happens to mention Sacerdotus, his blog and his @SCDTVS Twitter account in every tweet. It's the same ploy he tried with his @SacerSpended account last November. He's soon abusing all his usual favourites too. And now he's even claiming that other people are him too! You might as well quote the above complaint reference when you have cause to report him for abuse. I'll register this new one against it with Twitter. Name changed to @StudiousAtheist then a new account created and deleted. He has apparently panicked after being threatened with legal action for posting a defamatory tweet depicting a minor without permission and claiming another Twitter user is abusing the child.	Name Changed to @StudiousAtheist.
@StudiousAtheist	Having failed to get away with his idiotic attempt to pretend to be an Atheist with some secret knowledge he was never quite able to explain that he isn't really Manuel de Dios Agosto but me and another Twitter user are ... look! This is Manuel's world we are in, where nothing makes any sense except to Manny and the walls of his bedroom in his mother's apartment just round the corner from the zoo, so bear with me, okay?... Manny has now had the brilliant idea of creating an identical account with a different name. He has already started abusing all his usual obsessive target of course. No one will ever guess so don't tell Manny we all know, okay! [Update] Manuel is now using this account to abuse a Catholic priest from Suffolk, UK by posting his contact details on Twitter and claiming he is demented and responsible for his embarrassingly bad blog on which he used to alternate between posting psychotic lies and begging for money, for no other reason apparently than his email address includes the name 'sacerdotus' (i.e. priest). And you thought Manuel couldn't find new depths to plumb!	Permanently suspended.
@CatholicGadfly	The account Manuel has renamed @SCDTVS to, having been exposed as Manny within minutes of creating it and recommencing his habitual abuse. Presumably, he imagines this will preclude his account being suspended. With this account he's now posing as a Jeff T. Follon MA, who, as a quick Google search will show, appears to have sprung fully formed into existence, complete with a Mannyesque 'degree', last July. I expect everyone will fall for that, eh Manuel? Has now inserted an underscore in the username to try to hide his abuse following a warning from Twitter about his abusive behaviour. (@Catholic_Gadfly). He appears not to realise this doesn't work despite having been shown you can't hide your history when he tried it by changing @SCDTVS to @CatholicGadfly.	Permanently suspended.
@SacerdotusRadio	Used by Manuel to post links to his podcasts where he tells lies, usually to himself, presumably hoping to convince himself that they are right. Usual infantile blather only spoken instead of typed out. Cunningly disguised again presumably in the hope it'll fool Twitter long enough for him to fool a simpleton or two that he's not really the expelled seminarian, Manuel de Dios Agosto, or Mad Manny from Bronx.	Permanently suspended.
@RosaRubicondlor	Don't worry Manuel. Your followers are far too stupid to notice you've cleverly substituted an 'l' for an 'i' like you did with your @RosaRublcondior account with which you used to tweet sexually explicit obscenities pretending to be me. Do you think they'll fall for your latest insane attempt to prove you're not the expelled seminarian by posting links to one of your accounts which you made in a poor copy of my blog and in which you are posting your normal lies? The give away is the insane gibberish you post in it. It has your emotionally retarded signature.	Permanently suspended.
@RationalFaith1	Manny has resurrected this old name for a new account specially to promote a new blog where he can debate with himself in different guises. He's understandably sensitive to being mocked for repeatedly challenging people to debate him then crying foul when they call his bluff, so in his new blog he can hold pretend debates with himself to 'prove' he isn't really afraid. Watch him feed himself idiotic points to knock back and convince himself with the brilliance of his arguments. I guess he's flunked his basic philosophy course at Leahman Community College already - I do hope he wasn't expelled again because of his old problem - and now has a lot of spare time on his hands once more.	Permanently suspended.
@Catholicgadfly	Created when Manny inserted an underscore in his @Catholic_Gadfly account to try to hide his continued abuse and harassment after being warned by Twitter and promising to desist in future. The only reason can have been to try to confuse Twitter Support.	Deleted or renamed.
@SacerdotusHgout	Used to advertise Manuel's little group on Google+ where he can post lies without getting suspended by Twitter. However, G+ also take a dim view of their services being use for targeted abuse and harassment and are quick to delete offending accounts. [Update 05 Nov 2014] Despite being told by Twitter support that this account had been permanently suspended along with the rest of Manny's then active accounts, it appears to have been reinstated. I assume this was following yet another promise by Manuel de Dios Agosto that he would try to control his habitual abuse, he recommenced posting abusive tweets today. Twitter support notified, meanwhile, please let me know when his behaviour deteriorates to its previous level. On previous experience this normally takes about a month as Manuel realises people ignore him. [Update 26 Feb 2015] Now suspended again "because this user appears to have created multiple accounts for disruptive purposes, or with overlapping uses".	Permanently Suspended.
@CatholicGadfIy	In what can only be another attempt to confuse Twitter Support, Manny has again changed the username of this account. The underscore has now been removed and the penultimate character has been changed from lower case 'L' to upper case 'i'. Manny seems to believe this will confuse Twitter support who will think his @Catholic_Gadfly account has been deleted so he can continue his campaign of abuse and harassment despite his recent suspension and promise to behave. 16-Jan 2015 Inexplicably, in the last few days, Twitter have suspended then un-suspended this account, told me they can't find it, that it isn't posting abuse and that it has been suspended while it is still active and Manny is repeating the tweets Twitter originally said they warned him about. Watch this space. Maybe Twitter support will sort themselves out.	Permanently suspended.
@TheBishopOfRome	This account, the name of which shows Manny's delusion of grandeur, had been a suspect for a Manny-controlled account for some time but was only confirmed as such when Twitter took it down simultaneously with his @SacerdotusHgout account, having implied that there were others with: Thanks for letting us know about this issue. We’ve investigated and suspended the account you reported because this user appears to have created multiple accounts for disruptive purposes, or with overlapping uses, which is a violation of the Twitter Rules (https://twitter.com/rules). Please note that the suspended user may appeal the suspension, which could result in the restoration of one or more accounts. Clearly, this relates to more than one account being suspended at that time. And Manuel was so confident that he had found a work-around to his problem of creating all his accounts with the same Bronx ip address by creating them from Lehman College. Obviously, Twitter are getting better at this since their CEO expressed his embarrassment at their inability to control the sort of abuses that Manny get off on.	Permanently suspended

No doubt there are other accounts owned by Manuel de Dios Agosto. They will be added as and when they are identified.

This site details how to go about dealing with abusive behaviour on Twitter. Twitter Support should already have records of Manuel's previous form in this regard.

In addition to using these accounts Manuel has recently begun spamming blogs with impersonation comments using a simple method to fake a username and disguise it as a Twitter account. The technique can be read about here. The clue is to check the URL beneath the name. If it is a Twitter domain URL it can ONLY have been entered manually as described in the preceding link. There is no other reason to enter a name this way other than to mislead and impersonate.

---

Grains of Truth

Chandra X-ray Observatory image of Cassiopeia A,
a 300-year-old supernova remnant.
Credit: NASA/CXC/SAO.

It must be awful being a Creationist these days with so much information available on the Internet and having to be ignored or explained away and with so many new discoveries being made available to a mass audience and having to be avoided. At times it must be a bit like walking about in a rain storm whilst telling yourself there is no such thing as rain.

Take, for example, this article by Maria Cruz which appeared in Science last week. It concerned a paper published in the Journal of Astrophysics by Haenecour et al. (Astrophys. J. 768, L17 (2013)) which reported on the discovery of grains of material that pre-date the formation of the solar system. These grains were part of the molecular cloud out of which the solar system formed and which subsequently became incorporated into solid accretions.

These presolar grains can be identified by their unusual isotopic composition which can only have been formed outside the solar system. The team used sophisticated techniques called 'nano secondary ion mass spectrometry' (NanoSIMS) and 'Auger electron spectroscopy', to identify silica (SiO₂)grains in two meteorites. The isotopic composition of the oxygen atoms in the silica suggests that they were formed in the core collapse of an earlier supernova - an exploding star in which heavier elements are formed out of helium by nuclear fusion under intense pressure and heat.

This reaction creates such a violent release of energy that it overcomes gravity and causes the star to explode, creating the nebulae in which new stars form. Unlike the first generation stars which formed out of collapsing molecular clouds of almost pure hydrogen, second and subsequent generation stars form from collapsing clouds which include these heavier elements, the so-called stardust. As the cloud collapses under gravity, the heat and gravity causes the fusion of hydrogen nuclei to form helium to start up. The release of energy causes the heavier elements to be thrown out to form an accretion disk out of which planets form around stable orbital centres. This is how we know that our sun is at least a second-generation star.

The problem for Creationist loons and the professional liars who promote Creationism as an alternative science, is that their preferred fairytale version of the creation of the Universe says that everything was created together in a single day, so there would never have been a presolar time or first and second generation stars. The existence of presolar grains will either have to be ignored altogether, or some other traditional coping strategy will need to be called into play, such as attacking the scientists or dismissing science as 'scientism', in order to handle the painful cognitive dissonance without incorporating this new information into their fairytale.

Reference: Supernova Grains Identified in the Lab, Maria Cruz,
Science 3 May 2013: 340 (6132), 526. [DOI:10.1126/science.340.6132.526-a]

---

Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.

Sacerdotus - The Fraud Exposed

[left caption]

[Right caption/credit]

This detailed report on Manuel "Manny" de Dios Agosto, aka @Sacerdotus and many other Twitter aliases, has just been published on Twitter by @Yhwh_TheLord. As regular Twitter Atheists will know, Manuel is a notoriously obsessive stalker, fantasist and abuser who uses Catholicism and an obviously fake piety as the excuse for his abusive posts there as well as on his blog site.

I happen to be his most recent obsession ever since I exposed his ludicrous claims to have scientific proof of the Christian god by simply challenging him to produce it and debate it in a neutral forum, but apparently I'm not the first.

It fully validates everything I had exposed about Manuel and his murky past in blogs here and here.

[Update] Within a few hours of this blog going live, Manuel had taken down most of the sites listed. Fortunately, anticipating Manuel's panic, @Yahweh_TheLord had grabbed and saved screenshots which are linked to at the end of this blog.

[Further update - 31 March 2024] Sadly, the online account where @Yahweh_TheLord placed the screenshots has now expired and Manuel has taken down all the social media posts they relate to. Sceptics might like to speculate about why he would do that if they don't incriminate him.

Enjoy.

St Paul - Lying On The Road To Damascus

The Conversion of Saul, Michelangelo Buonarotti Simoni,
Capella Paolina, Palazzi Pontifici, Vatican City.

One of the problems Bible apologists face is the frequency with which the Bible was obviously written by people who made crass errors because they were ignorant of so much history and yet needed to set their tales in olden times to give them credibility.

Leaving aside such obviously glaring examples as the Noah's Ark story which was set in an event which simply never took place at all - a global flood a few thousand years ago - and the Tower of Babel story which was set on a flat Earth before there were enough people alive to build such a building if the Flood tale was true, there are plenty of more subtle examples.

I have written about one, identified by Thomas Paine in The Age Of Reason, where Genesis talks of people being "chased unto Dan" - somewhere which wasn't so called until many hundreds of years after the event it purports to describe - See How Dan Destroys The Bible.

Ear Worm Crosses The Species Barrier

Outside near my garden right now is a male Blackbird in a beech tree announcing to the blackbird world, and particularly to any spare females, that this is his territory and he is available. He has been there every day for about two weeks or more singing variations of his repertoire of musical phrases and cadences and competing with the Gold finch's babbling silver trickle of notes and Great tit's piping in the same tree. (A typical Blackbird song on this RSPB site).

European Blackbirds are noted for incorporating musical phrases into their song and extemporising on them. This particular one seems to have a snatch of a song by Robert Burns called Ye Banks and Braes which is ironic really because the phrase it keeps singing is the tune to the lines "Thou'll break my heart, thou warbling bird, That wantons thro' the flowering thorn!"

Ye Banks and Braes

Ye banks and braes o' bonnie Doon,

How can ye bloom sae fresh and fair?
How can ye chant, ye little birds,
And I sae weary, fu' o' care!
Thou'll break my heart, thou warbling bird,
That wantons thro' the flowering thorn!
Thou minds me o' departed joys,
Departed, never to return.
Aft hae I rov'd by bonnie Doon

To see the rose and woodbine twine;
And ilka bird sang o' its luve,
And fondly sae did I o' mine;
Wi' lightsome heart I pu'd a rose,
Fu' sweet upon its thorny tree!
And my fause luver stole my rose -
But, ah! he left the thorn wi' me.

Robert Burns

Maybe it's just a coincidence and that it my brain's ability to recognise patterns which is working, but what we have here is an example of a meme or ear worm. It's something every successful pop tune writer tries to achieve - a phrase you keep playing over and over in your mind.

This Blackbird has pulled off the neat trick of passing a meme across the species barrier so my mind now keeps singing "Thou'll break my heart, though warbling bird...". A meme is of course a unit of cultural inheritance; in this case a musical phrase which interprets in the context of my British cultural background and my personal development as a song by Burns, complete with the Galawegian Scottish dialect words with phrases like "And I sae weary, fu' o' care!" and "And ilka bird sang o' its luve, And fondly sae did I o' mine; Wi' lightsome heart I pu'd a rose, Fu' sweet upon its thorny tree!"

In the context of the Blackbird's culture of course, that same meme has a totally different meaning understood only truly by another Blackbird.

This is the exact analogy of how genes only have meaning in the context of the environment in which they are expressed and by which the information in them is translated into meanings. This is a point which Creationist pseudo-scientists either don't understand or deliberately obscure when they claim that no new information can arise from mutation (which is nonsensical anyway) when what is important is not the information but what that information means in the context of the environment in which it expresses. Even with no change in information, an environmental change can produce a change in the meaning if that information and so an evolutionary change in the species carrying it.

The importance of the cultural context of memes is also illustrated in a blog I wrote a few days ago about cultural bias in which I presented some common 'proofs' of the existence of the locally popular god and the truth of different holy books with 'proofs' which only work on people with a pre-exiting belief in those gods and holy books. To people from other cultures, the fallacy of those 'proofs' is laughably obvious because it is quite simply devoid of an rational meaning.

It is because the interaction between the genotype and the environment produces the phenotype and the environment selects in favour of fitness to survive in that environment, that species look as though they were made for that environment. They were. They were made by the environment itself.

---

Share

Twitter Tweet

StumbleUpon

Reddit

Looking At Life

In an earlier blog I looked at life and showed how, although people use it to mean something else, biologically speaking, 'life' is simply entropy management. Most people use the word life to express some hazy, often muddled, idea including consciousness, thinking, existing or even an idea of a 'soul' as though being alive means you have some magical entity inside you which gives you 'life'.

Religious people even think 'life' is something you get at some stage in your development as an embryo, although they will argue ceaselessly about when this occurs - the moment of conception, at the first 'quickening', at birth. In this respect, as in so many others, the ideas religious people have are almost unchanged from the opinions held by people in the childhood of our species when the world was so poorly understood it must have seemed a magical place.

It has even been claimed that there is something qualitatively different about the chemistry of carbon and the molecules based on it - the so-called organic molecules - as though they obey a different set of physical laws which separates organic 'life' from inorganic 'non-life', so life is what carbon atoms, together with oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulphur and occasionally other atoms produce.

This muddle and confusion over what exactly life is would be amusing if only Creationists in particular didn't keep challenging people to explain what it is, or to create it, or to say what its purpose is. Challenging one of them to define it first is a sure-fire way to bring the conversation to a shuddering halt, often with an indignant flounce and an insult hurled over the shoulder together with a passive aggressive threat to back it up. But never any coherent definition of 'life' of course.

Oldest Americans Refute The Bible

The Toca da Tira Peia Rockshelter during the 2008 excavations.

The news just keeps getting worse for the frauds at the Discovery Institute.

Today New Scientist brings news of what could turn out to be evidence that humans were living in Brazil 20,000 years ago, some 14,000 years before the Universe was created according to the Christian mythology the Discovery Institute is trying to get illegally insert into US public schools disguised as science.

For those who haven't yet encountered the Discovery Institute and its professional liars, it is the organisation behind the current attempt to con the American people into believing that 'Intelligent Design' is science, despite it being found not to be in the 'Dover Trial'.

The Discovery Institute is using the Wedge Strategy to try to discredit science and replace it with the primitive Bronze-Age origin myth from Genesis, prior to overthrowing the American Constitution and establishing a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. Its power ambitions are not limited to the USA. It is supporting similar subversive activities in other secular countries.

These theocracies would be almost indistinguishable from the form of government established in Afghanistan under the Taliban, complete with a Christian version of Sharia courts and a strict, literal enforcement of the biblical Laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For more on this see Why Creationists Lie To Us.

The article by Michael Marshall in New Scientist reports on a paper in the Journal of Archaeological Science in which the authors present evidence of stone tools which were found under a rock shelter in Brazil being 20,000 years old.

Abstract.
When and how did the first human beings settle in the American continent? Numerous data, from archaeological researches as well as from palaeogenetics, anthropological and environmental studies, have led to partially contradictory interpretations in recent years, often because of the lack of a reliable chronological framework. The present study contributes to the establishment of such a framework using luminescence techniques to date a Brazilian archaeological site, the Toca da Tira Peia. It constitutes an exemplary case study: all our observations and measurements tend to prove the good integrity of the site and the anthropological nature of the artifacts and we are confident in the accuracy of the luminescence dating results. All these points underline the importance of the Toca da Tira Peia. The results bring new pieces of evidence of a human presence in the north-east of Brazil as early as 20,000 BC. The Toca da Tira Peia thus contributes to the rewriting of the history of the peopling of the American continent.

Lahaye, C., Hernandez, M., et al; Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 40, Issue 6, June 2013, Pages 2840-2847.

Of course, like all scientific claims, this one is not universally accepted. As Marshall says:

For others, it is the tools that are raising eyebrows. "Rock shelters are difficult to interpret," points out John McNabb of the University of Southampton, UK. Stones falling from above can break, making them look like human-made tools. As a result, McNabb calls the evidence "suggestive but unproven".

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

The Wedge Document,
Discovery Institute

It has long been accepted that the earliest traces of human habitation in the Americas were of the 'Clovis People' who are known to have entered North America from Siberia about 13,000 years ago. However, evidence have been accumulating for the last 30 years that there was an earlier colonisation by at least 15,000 years ago.

This latest find should probably be regarded as tentatively adding to that evidence, pending corroboration. If true, it would show that modern humans had crossed into North America from Asia and had penetrated down the Panamanian Isthmus and deep into South America much earlier than previously thought. It has long been assumed that they came via the 'Beringia Land Bridge' during a lowering of sea levels during a glaciation period. An earlier migration is certainly not precluded by that theory.

We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.

The Wedge Document,
Discovery Institute

But of course, even if 'Clovis' turns out to have been the earliest culture to arise in the Americas, it is devastating for biblical creationism and especially for a notion of a 6,000 year-old Earth and life being reset about 4,000 years ago by a devastating global flood.

The surprising thing is that Christian fundamentalists persist in this denial of the evidence when even one of their favourite founding fathers, regarded as one of their greatest thinkers, St. Augustine of Hippo, inadvertently proved that humans could not all have descended from Noah when trying to argue that people could not live on the other side of Earth:

But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part that is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled.

It is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man. [My emphasis]

Source: De Civitate Dei, Book XVI, Chapter 9 — Whether We are to Believe in the Antipodes; Augustine of Hippo,
translated by Rev. Marcus Dods, D.D.; from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College.

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

The Wedge Document, Governing Goals,
Discovery Institute

Well quite. It's not often that I agree with St. Augustine but one can't argue with that logic. We know there are people living on the far side of Earth and, as St. Augustine points out, they wouldn't have been able to get there in such a short time, ergo there never was a flood and Earth is much older than the Bronze-Age goat-herders thought. St. Augustine's blunder was in making a testable prediction of course - something that the more astute apologists and creationist frauds know they must avoid at all costs incase it is ever tested.

St. Augustine's prediction has been tested and the Bible was promptly falsified, as is so often the case when its claims are compared to reality.

So, all we need now is for the frauds at the Discovery Institute to accept reality and abandon their strategy of trying to fool the American people into giving them unaccountable power to abuse and with which to abuse others. Any bets on that happening any day soon?

Reference:

Christelle Lahaye, Marion Hernandez, Eric Boëda, Gisele D. Felice, Niède Guidon, Sirlei Hoeltz, Antoine Lourdeau, Marina Pagli, Anne-Marie Pessis, Michel Rasse, Sibeli Viana, Human occupation in South America by 20,000 BC: the Toca da Tira Peia site, Piauí, Brazil, Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 40, Issue 6, June 2013, Pages 2840-2847, ISSN 0305-4403, 10.1016/j.jas.2013.02.019.

( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440313000733)

Keywords: Optically stimulated luminescence dating; Toca da Tira Peia; Brazil; First peopling in America; Luminescence

---

Confirmation Bias

Er... But which god?

Confirmation bias is what causes people to say stupid things like, "Everything proves God/Allah". The Cosmological Argument and Teleological Argument depend on confirmation bias in the target audience - something of which religious apologists are only too well aware since they use it all the time.

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

Wikipedia - Confirmation bias.

So what's this got to do with religion? You're probably thinking it doesn't apply to you. If you're religious you probably believe you have very good, objective reasons for your beliefs and you see evidence of your god all around you. The strange thing is, and what gives the lie to it being objective evidence, is that people of other religions see the same thing and think it's evidence for their god and their religion.

Well, you might say, we have proofs for our religion that can't be proofs for theirs. The problem is, so do they.

The strange thing is that your 'proofs' don't seem to convince people who don't already share your beliefs and their 'proofs' don't seem to convince you. Take a look at these which I came across researching for an article on miracles.


Any Muslims convinced by these and ready to accept Jesus as their personal saviour yet? Why not? Plenty of Christians are convinced.

How about these?


Have they got any Christians or Jews chanting, "There is no god but God and Mohamed is his Prophet", yet? How come? Millions of Muslims will tell you they are proof of Allah.

Isn't it strange how they only convince people who are already convinced?

You seen now why Atheists don't find any of these 'miraculous' appearances convincing at all? Just like Christians do with the Islamic 'evidence' and just like Muslims do with the 'miraculous' images of Jesus or Mary, we see them for what they are - evidence only of the human ability to see patterns and of the human ability to look for and find 'evidence' which 'confirms' pre-existing beliefs.

---

Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.

Impossible Miracles

The problem with miracles is that no one can prove they happened - which is a bit of a drawback for a church like the Catholic Church which relies so heavily on miracles to impress the 'flock' and keep them in awe and wonder.

The problem is with the definition of a miracle in the first place. Here's what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say:

(Latin miraculum, from mirari, "to wonder").

In general, a wonderful thing, the word being so used in classical Latin; in a specific sense, the Latin Vulgate designates by miracula wonders of a peculiar kind, expressed more clearly in the Greek text by the terms terata, dynameis, semeia, i.e., wonders performed by supernatural power as signs of some special mission or gift and explicitly ascribed to God...

The wonder of the miracle is due to the fact that its cause is hidden, and an effect is expected other than what actually takes place. Hence, by comparison with the ordinary course of things, the miracle is called extraordinary. In analyzing the difference between the extraordinary character of the miracle and the ordinary course of nature, the Fathers of the Church and theologians employ the terms above, contrary to, and outside nature. These terms express the manner in which the miracle is extraordinary.

A miracle is said to be above nature when the effect produced is above the native powers and forces in creatures of which the known laws of nature are the expression, as raising a dead man to life, e.g., Lazarus (John 11), the widow's son (1 Kings 17). A miracle is said to be outside, or beside, nature when natural forces may have the power to produce the effect, at least in part, but could not of themselves alone have produced it in the way it was actually brought about. Thus the effect in abundance far exceeds the power of natural forces, or it takes place instantaneously without the means or processes which nature employs. In illustration we have the multiplication of loaves by Jesus (John 6), the changing of water into wine at Cana (John 2) — for the moisture of the air by natural and artificial processes is changed into wine — or the sudden healing of a large extent of diseased tissue by a draught of water. A miracle is said to be contrary to nature when the effect produced is contrary to the natural course of things.

The term miracle here implies the direct opposition of the effect actually produced to the natural causes at work, and its imperfect understanding has given rise to much confusion in modern thought. Thus Spinoza calls a miracle a violation of the order of nature (proeverti, "Tract. Theol. Polit.", vi). Hume says it is a "violation" or an "infraction", and many writers — e.g., Martensen, Hodge, Baden-Powell, Theodore Parker — use the term for miracles as a whole. But every miracle is not of necessity contrary to nature, for there are miracles above or outside nature.

Source: The Catholic Encyclopedia (accesses 28 April 2013).

A cynic might think that the last sentence above is deliberately confused and designed to give the appearance of refuting Spinoza and Hume whilst not redefining a miracle to bring it within the realm of nature, and thus not miraculous. Both Spinoza and Hume had pointed out essentially the same thing - that miracles are, by definition, unnatural or 'super-natural' and are thus a violation of natural laws. To argue that a 'miracle' which is 'above or outside nature' is not contrary to nature is absurd if one accepts the normal definition of 'nature' as everything about the material Universe.

na·ture
n.
1. The material world and its phenomena.
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.

Source: The Free Dictionary (accessed 28 April 2013)

Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.

Source: Wikipedia - Nature (accesses 28 April 2013)

So there can be little doubt, despite what the Catholic Encyclopedia tries to imply, that miracles, at least as they are defined and understood by those who promote them and those who believe in them, are things which have no natural explanation or, in Spinoza's and Hume's words, violate natural law. In fact, Spinoza goes further and says natural laws cannot be violated, so even if miracles appear to be unnatural, this is simply due to the ignorance of the observer. Miracles are simply natural events for which we don't yet have a natural explanation.

And this is where the problem begins.

We all want to believe in impossible things, I suppose, to persuade ourselves that miracles can happen.

Paul Auster, The Book of Illusions

Because there can be no natural explanation there can be no evidence other than someone else's word for it that a given miracle actually happened. Additionally, because miracles are unnatural the likelihood of them occurring spontaneously is zero - otherwise they could have a natural explanation. Even if we are charitable and allow that they are not actually impossible (how can something that happened be impossible?) but are just so highly unlikely that a natural cause can be excluded, or at least given a lower probability that a supernatural or 'divine' intervention, we are left with a highly unlikely event.

We are, in effect, being required to take someone's word for it that a highly unlikely, even impossible, event actually happened, without them supplying any evidence. Why on Earth would any rational person do that?

How many people would you believe if they told you, without the slightest scrap of evidence, that, for example, they had just seen the Virgin Mary appear out of thin air in Central Park, New York, or a man fly to Heaven and back on a winged horse from Hyde Park, London? How about if they claimed to have just witnessed a man satisfy the hunger of thousands of people with a few loaves of bread in Montreal, Canada?

What other explanations would you consider first? Which other perfectly natural causes could there be for that person telling you such a thing? Note: 'because it's true' is only one possibility amongst many. Why would you consider explanations other then it being true more satisfactory or more believable than that they were telling you the truth?

And would you really believe them without wanting to see just a little evidence? I suggest that you wouldn't believe a word of it. And yet when religious people read about, or are told about, miracles, they believe what they are told, yet nowhere in all that was there ever more than one person telling another something that you would never have believed had they told you first hand. The story has been given a spurious gloss of credibility by being repeated by authority figures - authority figures who had no more basis for belief that you did.

This is how the church uses its 'authority' to persuade people to believe the unbelievable. Believing everything the church teaches by faith simply means the church has not yet found your lower limit of credulity.

As John W Loftus points out, Christians have a double burden of proof when it comes to proving miracles.

On the one hand, they must show that a particular "event" was not very likely...

On the other hand, Christians must show that the purported miraculous event happened. And yet, everything they say to establish the first burden of proof takes away the strength of the second burden of proof. That is, the more they argue that an event was miraculous, the less likely such an event occurred. But the more they argue that an event was likely to have occurred, then the less likely that event can be understood as miraculous.

The only way people judge whether or not a miracle occurred is whether or not it fits within their control beliefs (i.e., which God he believes in and was taught to believe). One cannot start with the evidence for a miracle to show that the Christian God exists, simply because a person must already believe it’s plausible for the Christian God to exist in the first place (unless it’s a case of accepting what someone says because that person is believable). Otherwise, the evidence isn’t evidence for anything, much like how the evidence in a criminal trial isn't evidence of anything since the prosecutor and defense attorney will have two different ways of seeing that evidence based in separate control beliefs. And yet, how is it possible to believe in the Christian God in the first place without the cold hard evidence that will lead him to believe? The explanation of a self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit doesn’t solve anything.

John W. Loftus. Miracles, a Double Burden of Proof, and Control Beliefs

So here is a simple challenge for any Christian. Take any miracle you wish and which you believe, and explain why a non-believer should believe it really happened and that the cause could only have been the Christian god. After all, if you believe in said miracle, that must be what you believe, so all you need do is explain the rational basis for your belief. It is not enough to say that someone else believes it.

What could be easier than that?

If you can't, you might like to consider exactly why you believe it yourself.

---

Recent Evolution in Britain

Welsh groundsel lining the roadside at Chirk

By Alex Lockton - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

Senecio cambrensis

By Alex Lockton - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

A lovely example of the very recent evolution of an entirely new plant species has been discovered in North Wales. I'm grateful to @Kaimitai on Twitter for bringing it to my attention.

The new species, Senecio cambrensis, also known as Welsh groundsel or Welsh ragwort, arose as a fertile allopolyploid hybrid between S. vulgaris or common groundsel, and S. squalidus or Oxford ragwort. Hybrids of these two species are the fairly common but sterile S. x baxteri (in taxonomic nomenclature 'x' indicates a hybrid) which is thought to have been the actual ancestor of S. cambrensis. Sometime in the early 20th century an accidental doubling of the chromosome number led to a fertile plant - the Welsh groundsel.

Left: Senecio vulgaris. Right: Senecio squalidus.

The new species can only reproduce with other members of its own species making it indisputably a new species - contrary to the claim made by Creationist pseudo-scientists that evolution cannot give rise to new species.

Why Faith Is Dangerous

The recent Twitter spat between two people whom I admire has prompted me to look again at faith and what it can lead to. They are the (normally) left-leaning political journalist with a mercurial mind, rapier wit and impeccable logic, Mehdi Hassan, who is also a Muslim, and the evolutionary biologist, author, Humanist and Atheist, Richard Dawkins.

The spat began when Dawkins, who had previously been told by Hassan in a public debate, that he believed Mohammad had literally flown to Heaven on a flying horse, just as the Qur'an says, and Dawkins, perhaps rather abrasively (which is too easy with only 140 characters) seemed to question how he could hold such illogical views and still be considered an objective journalist.

Understanding Religion - I'll Pray For You!

What the pious really mean.

I'll pray for you because:

• If I'm honest and say I hate you people won't think I'm a kind, caring person. Tweet
• I want you to think I have some power over you that you can't do anything about. Tweet
• I like to think I have some power over you that you can't do anything about. Tweet
• I like to think I have an invisible friend who hurts those who won't agree with me about everything. Tweet
• I can't be bothered to learn stuff but I want people to think I'm better than you in some way. Tweet
• I want you to feel guilty about beating me in an argument with facts I didn't like, because I should be allowed to win every time even though I can't be bothered to learn stuff. Tweet
• You won't agree with me so I'll try threatening you with my really powerful imaginary friend. Tweet
• I want people to think I'm religious because I'm hoping to get away with people thinking I'm someone they can trust. Tweet
• I can't counter your argument so I want to threaten you whilst making other people think I'm your moral superior. Tweet
• I want my friends to be impressed by me and admire my smugly self-satisfied piety. Tweet
• I want people to think I'm so special I have a close personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe who makes my wishes come true. Tweet
• It costs me nothing and is much easier than doing something practical to help. Tweet
• Pretending to be other people' moral superior makes me feel good about myself. Tweet
• If there really is a god I'm hoping to impress it with my piety, so I show it off at every opportunity. Tweet
• What use is religion if you can't use it as a weapon when you need to? Tweet
• What use is religion if you can't use it to try to elevate yourself above other people? Tweet
• I'd really like to hurt you physically but I can only use words and make-believe in this medium and I'm a coward anyway. Tweet
• Just like a rapist, I want to have power over you without any responsibility because I'm inadequate. Tweet

Isn't it great the way religion can be used against other people in so many different ways? Has mankind ever devised any better source of excuses for the morally bankrupt than religion? Tweet

---

Tweet Link

Gallstones - Another Little Gem From The Intelligent Designer

Opened gallbladder containing numerous gallstones

You have to hand it to the Intelligent Designer. Just look at the way it came up with the idea of gallstones. Whatever would we do without them?

A gallstone is a crystalline concretion formed within the gallbladder by accretion of bile components. These calculi are formed in the gallbladder but may distally pass into other parts of the biliary tract such as the cystic duct, common bile duct, pancreatic duct, or the ampulla of Vater. Rarely, in cases of severe inflammation, gallstones may erode through the gallbladder into adherent bowel potentially causing an obstruction termed gallstone ileus.

Presence of gallstones in the gallbladder may lead to acute cholecystitis, an inflammatory condition characterized by retention of bile in the gallbladder and often secondary infection by intestinal microorganisms, predominantly Escherichia coli and Bacteroides species. Presence of gallstones in other parts of the biliary tract can cause obstruction of the bile ducts, which can lead to serious conditions such as ascending cholangitis or pancreatitis. Either of these two conditions can be life-threatening and are therefore considered to be medical emergencies.

Source: Wikipedia - Gallstones

The archetypal sufferer from gallstones has the five 'f's:

• Female.
• Fertile.
• Fair.
• Fat.
• Forty.

Fair referring to skin colour.

However, many exceptions are found and gallstones are not uncommon in men, postmenopausal and thin women and non-Europeans although less so than in Europeans. They are very rare in young people.

The problem starts because body fluids with a high concentration of anything and especially salts, lend themselves to the formation of stones by simple chemical processes. Unfortunately, many of these fluids are collected in temporary stores such as, in the case of gallstones, the gallbladder. Stones may also form in places like the kidneys where they can obstruct the outflow of urine, causing kidney damage or be passed down the ureter to the bladder causing excruciating pain and sometimes accumulating there to obstruct urination, or salivary glands causing the flow of saliva to be obstructed and the face and neck to swell up as saliva accumulates.

The function of the gallbladder is to store bile until food is present in the small intestine. It then contracts squirting bile down the bile duct into the small intestine where it plays a role in digestion of fats. Bile is actually a waste product produced by the liver from dead red blood cells, or rather from the haem part of haemoglobin from which most of the iron has been removed and recycled. When the bile duct is obstructed bile is retained by the liver and passes into the blood where it causes jaundice and shows up in the urine which resembles freshly brewed tea or black coffee. If not treated, this can cause renal failure.

The problem is compounded by the fact that, for no apparent good reason, the bile duct joins with the duct from the pancreas to form the hepato-pancreatic duct before it joins with the small intestine at the 'ampula of Vater', so any obstruction in the hepato-pancreatic duct also obstructs the pancreatic duct. As well as controlling blood sugar levels with insulin, the pancreas also produces enzymes for digesting proteins so any obstruction or damage to the pancreas can also cause it to begin to digest and eventually destroy itself. Infections in the bile duct can also spread to the pancreas causing acute inflammation of the pancreas or pancreatitis which is fatal in about 25% of sufferers (though not all these are caused by gallstones).

It would be a particularly nasty and vicious intelligent designer who came up with this example of bad design which, in the time before anaesthetic surgery and before modern medicine would have been a common cause of death, especially of females in midlife and still is in people without access to health care. There is no purpose to gallstones; there is no purpose to them predisposing to infection by normally benign intestinal bacteria; there is no benefit from the pancreatic duct uniting with the bile duct and so making it easy for the pancreas to become involved with gallstones and any infection they may allow. Unless, of course, the purpose was to cause illness and death.

The entire system is a kludge; an "it'll do" solution which has its origins somewhere in evolution and particularly in embryology, and so we are stuck with it.

To understand why evolution, which we would expect to eliminate these kludges and lead to perfection of 'design', has not eliminated gallstones or 're-designed' the hepato-pancreatic duct we need to look at the common predisposing factors above. The reason is the same reason we have not eliminated cancer and degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's, motor-neurone disease and Parkinsonism. There is little or no benefit to the genes from any mutations which would bring about these changes because they only present as problems after we have produced our offspring.

If there is no benefit to the genes there can be no evolution other than random genetic drift. The link to fair skin, which, in evolutionary terms provided some benefit particularly in a cloudy, relatively sunless north west Europe, suggests some linkage between changes in melanin (the dark pigment) production in the skin and gallstone formation, so they may simply be an unfortunate by-product of an otherwise beneficial mutation in the context of an environment with a lot of clouds. And that evolutionary change expresses before we produce offspring by reducing the incidence of rickets in growing children.

What benefit there might be to the genes in having mothers live long enough to be grandmothers, and so helping to raise the next generation carrying her genes is much less obvious than it would be if they affected her reproductive success directly, since her grandchildren are only one quarter her on average, but never-the-less we should expect to see some evolutionary change towards eliminating the formation of gallstones and/or reducing their potential seriousness over time even for that small advantage. But then we only evolved fair skin relatively recently so there will not have been time yet for this effect to be noticeable. Gallstones are probably part of the cost of evolving fair skin in a cloudy environment and we will still need to bear that cost for many years, possibly hundreds of thousands yet.

As an example of intelligent design and especially the design of an omni-benevolent designer, gallstones fail badly. Any designer who came up with this idea is neither intelligent nor benevolent. As an example of the mindless, undirected and amoral process of evolution, gallstones are readily understandable.

Sorry, Discovery Institute and your willing stooges who push fundamental Bible literalism disguised as science with 'Intelligent Design'. You have very many of these examples to explain. Ignoring them and relying on the ignorance of your credulous victims won't work with rational people.

---

Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.

Sudden Rapid Evolution

If you're anywhere in Europe, and very many states in North America if not now then certainly very soon, you'll be able to look out of your window, or in any public garden or park and see an example of very recent evolution in the form of the Eurasian Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto decaocto.

I still remember seeing my first one in Woodstock, Oxfordshire when on my way home from working in Oxford. This must have been in about 1964. One of the technicians in our laboratory was also a keen naturalist and had told me excitedly only a few days earlier that he had seen a pair in Charlton-on-Otmoor.

How The Intelligent Designer Works

Lancet fluke (Dicrocoelium dendriticum)

If you're a Creationists you'll know already that the Intelligent Designer created the entire Universe and everything in it just for us, and especially for you.

If you're a Christian you'll know it did it exactly as the Christian Bible says the Christian god did. You'll also know that you must never say that the Intelligent Designer is the Christian god because that would make it harder to get fundamentalist Christianity taught in American public schools, and schools in other secular countries, as though it is a real science, and not a religion, which would be illegal. You'll already understand though that the Intelligent Designer is completely indistinguishable from the 'one true' god in the Christian Bible, so it must be all the omnis, including omni-benevolent, and never does anything which isn't done because it loves you... and everyone else, obviously.

If you're a Muslim you'll know the Intelligent Designer is call Allah and created everything exactly the way Muhammad said it did in the Qur'an especially for humans and in particular for you personally, because it wants you to love and worship it.

So this is a heart-warming story of how the one true Intelligent Designer designed a little creature which those mad atheistic scientists call Dicrocoelium dendriticum or the lancet fluke because it is shaped a bit like a medical lancet which used to be used for cutting into veins to let some unwanted blood out.

Dicrocoelium dendriticum is a member of a group of flatworms called trematodes. Scientists call flatworms Platyhelminths, which means - you've guessed it - flat worms. Why do they bother making up all these big words, eh?

The Intelligent Designer designed this particular flatworm, like a lot of other flatworms, which of course it also designed, to live inside the bodies of other animals as parasites. Parasites don't need to bother with looking for food, avoiding predators and things like that because the animals they live in do that for them. Isn't that a brilliant idea, if you're a flatworm?

The Intelligent Designer designed this particular parasite to live in the biliary ducts of animals like sheep and cows and sometimes even humans. The biliary ducts are the tubes which take bile from the liver to the intestines where it is used to help with digestion of fats.

But that idea gave the Intelligent Designer a problem because, when the flatworms want to breed, they lay eggs which end up in the gut of their host and eventually outside the hosts body altogether, along with other waste. But they need to be back inside the host, which is where they were designed to live. How to get them there?

This is where the Intelligent Designer came up with a typically brilliant idea. It got snails to eat the faeces of the animals, together with the parasite's eggs, which hatch out inside the snail. But then it realised that the host animals like sheep and cows don't eat snails, so it had another brilliant idea. It came up with a design to get them back out of the snails again. It made it so the snails don't like the baby flatworms inside their bodies so they surround them with a hard case and get rid of them as cysts containing several baby flatworms in the slime they use to make their slime trails.

But then the Intelligent Designer realised its plan had hit another snag, apart from the baby parasites being still outside their hosts: cows and sheep don't normally eat snail slime, just like they don't normally eat snails and if they waited till the slime had dried up the baby flatworms would dry up to and die.

Here is where brilliant idea number three comes in. The Intelligent Designer noticed that ants eat snail slime because they want the moisture in it, so he made it so they also eat the cysts the snails excrete with the baby flatworms in them.

But there was another problem! Cows and sheep don't eat ants either! So it was still stuck for a way to get the baby flatworms into the sheep and cows. It now had them inside ants instead, having tried with getting them into snails and having to think up a way to get them out again.

Now came the most brilliant trick of all. It had to think of a way to get the ants eaten by cows and sheep and what do cows and sheep eat a lot of? Grass of course. But there was never going to be a way to get grass to eat baby worms.

Here is where the Intelligent Designer pulled out all the stops and really got creative. It noticed that every cyst contained lots of baby flatworms so it made one of them go to the ant's nerve centre and take control of it so it behaves in a very odd way for an ant. Normally, when it gets dark and cold, ants go back into the ant nest for the night and come back out when the sun rises. Ants who have been taken over by baby lancet flukes don't go back to the nest. Instead, they climb up a blade of grass, grip the stem tightly with their jaws so they won't be knocked off, and wait for a passing cow or sheep to eat the blade of grass, and them with it.

Voilá! The baby flatworms are back where they started - inside the cows and sheep, and occasional humans who might accidentally eat a contaminated ant and who can then become very ill. The cows and sheep can also become very ill and the quantity of meat and milk they provide for humans is reduced, and we have to be careful to cook the meat from them in case we get these parasites into our bodies.

So, how did that benefit us, which is what the Intelligent Designer wanted to do? The answer is, no body knows. Lancet flukes don't seem to do anything at all for us and can even be a problem. One theory is that the Intelligent Designer sometimes stops making everything for us and sometimes makes the world look like it was all designed for parasitic worms, or viruses, or bacteria, or grass, or tsetse flies, or any one of a million other creatures. Obviously when it designed the lancet fluke the Intelligent Designer was having a day when it hated things like snails and especially ants and wasn't thinking of cows and sheep or even us at all.

Another thing no body knows is why an Intelligent Designer would design things like these parasitic worms with such a complicated life cycle when it could have just designed them to lay eggs which hatch out where they live and not need three different hosts and several different stages before the adults get back to where their parent came from. It must be hard for people who believe in an Intelligent Designer to explain why it often acts like a really stupid one, which is probably why they normally ignore things like that.

Some mad scientists even think the Universe looks just like it wasn't designed for anything in particular and that all the different creatures have just fitted in. They even say it wasn't designed at all just because it doesn't look like it was!

But Creationists could easily prove the Intelligent Designer designed everything just for us - if only they could think of why it designed parasites like the lancet fluke, and million of other things that either don't do anything for us or even cause us a lot of harm in apparently random ways. And if only they could prove it was designed at all and could explain why it looks just the way it would if it wasn't designed and there was no intelligence or plan.

---