A little bit of self reflection

Navel gazing is not something I do a lot of, probably because I haven't seen my navel for nigh on fifteen years. Poor me!

My slightly addictive personality gets me into trouble. Recently, on a Forum I was baited back into posting by some remarkably thick comments. And once drawn in, it's difficult (for me anyway) to back down. If I do, they think they've won! And we can't be having that, can we?!

But is winning the argument all that important?

I've found that I've been more obsessive and more wound up. And for what!

So I've taken the bold step of stepping back. Taking a deep breath and trying not to let it bother me. Let them think they've won. Let them! Life's too short to be worrying about the unimportant. There's too much to be done and not enough time to do it in.

But......... just for the record.........he was well wrong.

Advent - Christmas has it coming!

We're close to hitting Advent, and what has actually become the de facto Christmas - the Season of Christmas now lasts a couple of days while Advent is now the new Christmas.

Before too long the usual run of Nativity plays will soon be warmed to perfection, as parents and grandparents alike will be oohing and aahing their way through innumerable Crimbo dramas.

But what are they actually watching? Is it history? Are they the eyewitness accounts that most people believe they are?

The answer is no.

What we normally watch on school stages up and down the land are a melded version of the Nativity myth. People assume that what they are seeing is what happened. I don't think it is, but does that make it any less 'true'?

First things first. We need to remember that the layout of the New Testament in the Bible is not its correct chronological order. Yes, it's true that Jesus preceded Paul and his letters, but that's not the order the NT was written in:
Paul's letters 50-62CE
Mark 65CE
Matthew/Luke 75CE
John 80-90CE

These are approximate dates but rather conservative ones too.

So what do we learn about the miraculous birth of Jesus from Paul (the earliest NT writer)? The answer is nothing! The only thing that Paul says about Jesus' birth was that he was "born of a woman" (Gal 4:4). Note he doesn't say 'born of a virgin', but 'born of a woman' - a bit like you and me, and every human that ever lived.

The earliest Gospel writer, Mark, doesn't have a birth narrative.

Matthew and Luke both have birth narratives but they're not the same. Matthew has Magi - Luke doesn't. Luke has angels and Shepherds - Matthew doesn't. Jesus' birth is announced to Joseph in a dream in Matthew - Jesus' birth is announced to Mary by an angel in Luke. Post birth, the family flees to Egypt to avoid the slaughter of the innocents by Herod in Matthew, only coming back when he dies - they head to Nazareth to live in Luke, only stopping in Jerusalem for a dedication at the Temple (no mention is made in Luke of the murder of the male infants).

John doesn't have a birth narrative either.

Now what does this mean? At face value you have a 'no-yes-yes-no' pattern. So what! Two people mention it, and two don't.

But you need to remember the order they were written. That's the important part. You need to look at the Gospel writers and when they proclaim Jesus as God's Son:
Mark (65CE) Jesus proclaimed Divine at his baptism
Matthew/Luke (75CE) Jesus proclaimed divine at his birth
John (80-90CE) Jesus proclaimed divine before his birth.

Paul has nothing about Jesus' life. As the interpretation of Jesus continues through time, his divinity is pushed further and further back until you get to John who states a pre-existent Christ.

And that's why the Nativity plays we all watch are not history - they are INTERPRETATION. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Mythology is NOT history. But because it's not history doesn't make it less true.

And so I enjoy the story of Jesus' birth, but I don't believe it. And so I enjoy it even more.

Cold, hard statistics tell it all

I think it was Oscar Wilde who said "He knew the price of everything, but the value of nothing".

Recently I did a Wedding for an 'out of town' couple. It required the usual amount of 'work' - a bit of face-to-face stuff and the typical sort of 'desk' work. It also required some lifting, polishing, hoovering, etc as we don't have a church cleaner. Then there was the Big Day itself with all its stresses and strains.

Before the actual Wedding I was asked the fee for the Church as well as my own fee. I replied that the suggested donation for the Church was £150, and I was waiving my fee, but if the family wished to give me something then I'd prefer it if they put something into our Building Fund. The Wedding Co-ordinator I was dealing with told me to expect quite a generous envelope.

Come the actual Wedding I was handed an envelope with a cheque enclosed for £150.

Now, what have I to complain about, you might ask? 'Surely you got what you were suggesting was an appropriate amount!'

Well yes, that's true. But let's put it into a little context. From what I heard the entire Wedding (and this was a BIG Wedding) cost somewhere in the region of £250, 000. Now that's a lot of money. The donation to the Church (which remember was to include my fee) amounted to £150. That works out at 0.06% of the total expenditure.

Did the Church Service constitute 0.06% of the total day? Did it account for 0.06% of the work to make the Wedding what it was?

What the donation reveals is the extent to which the 'Church' part of the couple's day played a meaningful role. Everything else was a 'no expense spared' affair. When it came to the Church, the bare minimum sufficed.

Now I realise that this sounds very much like sour grapes. But it's not! I just felt used and abused. I wasn't to gain financially from any sort of generous donation, but I did feel that the £150 reflected the seriousness with which the Church part of the Big Day was seen.

In my little Church it is precisely those who do not have so much who are the ones that provide so generously, both of their time and their money. I hope I have a newer and richer view of those who sit in the pews wekk in and week out.

Today I discovered that while money can get you plenty of things, it doesn't buy you respect.

Very much list-ing to one side

Global Rich List

This was both interesting and thought provoking. It has stopped me complaining about petty things - for a couple of hours anyway

Only a Theory

I've just fairly recently finished reading Kenneth Miller's wonderful book Only A Theory which I thoroughly enjoyed. It was his follow up to the equally, if not more successful book Finding Darwin's God, which I also lapped up.

Ken Miller is a orthodox Christian (oh to be one of those!) who is also an orthodox Darwinian. He sees no difficulties with synchronising his faith with his Science. As a Scientist he has been a Prof in Brown University for around 20 years. He's also involved with High School students, in that he co-authored at least one Biology Textbook that's found its way into most of the Schools in America.

His Science is impeccable and his belief in the Scientific method equally stringent. But he's also a Christian who takes his faith very seriously, and that's why he's been at the forefront of the most recent Creationist/Intelligent Design Court 'battles' - most notably Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2005. But why does he pound so hard on the Creationists/IDers? Does he want to destroy Faith? As a Christian I'd imagine not. Why he is so opposed is because he sees their particular understanding of Faith as trying to destroy Science and Reason. That's why he's so active in any campaign to prevent Creationism/ID from ever being considered an alternative Scientific view - it's not Science, it's Theology (and only one interpretation of theology at that).

Science and Faith are not in conflict but neither do they make easy bedfellows, as Science deals with the Natural, while Faith deals with those things outside of the Natural world (ie. the Supernatural). To try and clumsily mesh the two together is a recipe for disaster. That is evident from the Creationists approach - trying to demonstrate that Science and a literal understanding of Genesis are compatible. This clearly doesn't work because if it were true (and 'truth' is something that has prime position in Science) then it would've already be shown to be true and then adopted into Science. The fact that this hasn't happened speaks volumes for the Creationist/ID desire.

It's interesting to read the words of Augustine, some 1,600 years ago - I've added comment in [].

Even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens...the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth [in other words Science, though it would be another1,300 years until anyone put that specific label on it], and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics [Science]; and we should take all measures to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn


Creationism/ID is dangerous because it threatens two things:

1. it threatens to halt Theological exploration because it views it as "done and dusted" a couple of millennia ago, and
2. it threatens to make us stupid(er). No longer will we have to investigate and improve, because if Fundamentalists had their way then the Supernatural would be considered part and parcel of the Scientific process (which of course deals only with the Natural). As Ken Miller said once in a TV interview - if the Creationists won Kitzmiller v. Dover then Biology would be the easiest and quickest subject in School, because you'd walk into class and the Teacher would announce "God did it! Class dismissed." The rest of the day/term/year would be your own

This is why I rail so loudly against this form of Religious understanding. I believe people deserve better.

2 days too late, but never mind

It made me laugh

Bah, mint humbugs!

I saw this on another blog and decided that since it's nearly Christmas I could steal with impunity - so I did.

This raises a number of questions that should test a religious parent. Namely, is it all right to tell the kids about Santa, and THEN tell them when they're older that it's all a story to make them feel good?

I don't want to appear like some sort of Grinch, but it does create problems. Doesn't it!?

Monks Get Cross

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7718596.stm

When Monks attack!

Health and Safety gone nuts

The Burger Van at local football matches do the same thing - not give out half cooked chips, though that is true. No, what I'm talking about is the practice of removing plastic bottle tops after you've bought them.

Upon asking a Burger Van proprietor why this was necessary I was told that it was because of health and safety. There was a worry that the bottle tops might be used to throw at players/refs. She told me this as she was handing me my change in the form of pound coins - ideal missiles for throwing at the players/ref, and more likely to cause real harm.

No health and safety concerns over coinage eh!

Tempted to use the 'C' word

After all the hubbub concerning the BBC and Ross/Brand I was surprised to hear the 'C' word uttered tonight, and by none other than Jeremy Paxman!

Right in front of a guest and directly into his lapel mic Paxman said that McCain 'Could' win the election. I was shocked and immediately contacted the Daily Mail.

The idea of McCain winning is as appealing as contemplating a third Dubya term. What's most frightening about the prospect of John McCain becoming President is not him or his policies per se, but his age. And it's not an ageist thing. The worry is that a man of his age might die in office, and then the Hockey Mom would become President. Sarah Palin in office would be a de facto George W third term.

There seems to be a genuine sense of hope in America today - a sense that a new start might be in the offing. A sense that the utter fuck-up of the Bush Disaster will be consigned to history, or at least will be dealt with, but that might take more then two terms to do.

I've never been so excited about a US election before. I only hope that what happens tomorrow becomes the catalyst for real change both in America and consequently in the world.

Branded as bad men?!

Oscar Wilde probably said something quite pithy about shagging a friends granddaughter, but if he did I didn't hear it.

Today Russell Brand took one for the team, and Jonathan Ross made an abject apology in an effort to save his salary, or at least to do a bit of damage limitation on his career. I listened to the podcast of the Radio 2 show (as a regular subscriber to it I might add, and not an enraged Daily Mail reader who wanted to achieve a suitably high blood pressure before complaining to the Beeb) and while it crossed many lines of taste, it was actually quite funny. It seemed to me to be two silly boys stuck in a room with an old cassette recorder being rude and silly. A moderate Derek and Clive for the 21st century. It really amounted to two egos sparking off each other. Of course it was going to get 'sexual' - it always does! Jonathan Ross DID transgress when he swore. Russell Brand DID transgress when he talked about Andrew Sachs granddaughter. Yes they took it too far, and yes, they caused great offense to Andrew Sachs himself, and for that they should hand their heads in shame.

But wait a minute. Let's take a measured look at what happened.

1. It was a pre-recoreded show, therefore someone at an editorial level decided not only to edit it, but also to release it in the form that caused so much 'offence'.
2. There were only 2 or 3 complaints on the night of the broadcast. That swelled to 27,000 by this time today. That means that the 26,998 who didn't complain on the night must have listened to the show via the podcast, or through BBC iPlayer, or, as is more likely, 'heard' it second or third hand through some other outraged friend.
3. You know what you're going to get with Russell Brand. That's not an attempt to excuse the content of his last radio show - there's no justification for leaving what he left on Andrew Sach's mobile phone. What he said was wrong and while his apology was late, I fell it was genuine (genuine, because it wasn't an attempt to save his job, but was made after the announcement that he was resigning). Those who listened in 'live' or who downloaded the podcast were well aware of the sort of thing they were going to get.

Are Russell and Jonathan bad men? Stupid, yes. Juvenile, yes. Thoughtless, yes. Bad, no.

We're in the middle of a Credit Crunch where repossessions of people's homes are up 70% from the same period last year. We're in a situation where Environmentalists are talking about having reached 'tipping point' for our planet. Cancer and other life threatening diseases are on the increase. War and poverty continue to wreck the lives of the most vulnerable people on our planet. Ross says "fuck" and Brand says "I shagged your granddaughter". Not good. But surely not all that bad.

Is democracy wasted on the thick?

So the National Television Awards have been and gone, and we all thank God they've gone away for at least another 365 days. This annual live televisual event continues to illustrate why democracy never works.

The majority of award shows are voted by a panel of 'experts'. Now you might well question the qualifications of such 'experts' but nevertheless they normally have some experience or expertise that allows them to make a decision regarding winners and losers. Not so for the National Television Awards. They are voted on by the great unwashed, the hoi polpoi. And it shows. It is, of course tarted up - there's no such thing as 'Soaps' in the NTA. No siree, bob! They've become continuing serial dramas. Well, excuse me!!

It reduced TV to the common denominator - the vulgar base. It was a school-yard popularity contest, except this one was conducted via text message and website. Judging from the short-listed programs in each categories there didn't seem to be a consideration for what might have actually been the best produced piece of programming. Instead, I believe, people looked at a category and thought "do I know anyone in that program?" or possibly "do I like anyone in that program?". I also noticed that there was no documentary category, however there was a "factual" section, that was occupied by Gordon Ramsey, Top Gear, and The Apprentice (I thought that was a reality show?!?).

The whole thing was a toe curling experience, and it's not just me being snobbish. It was live and so it needed to be sharp, especially if humour was going to be employed. Sadly, it wasn't. And Sir Trevor MacDonald didn't help. I've no idea why he's chosen year in, year out. He a personable fellow, but he seems to lack a personality - and the best gag writers can't do anything to help him. It's a bit like putting an Elastoplast on a severed jugular.

And that's why democracy is such a good idea - in principle! But not in practice. God knows who/what people will pick if they have a choice. You don't believe me!? Let me just say 'Arnold Swartzenegger' or 'George W Bush'. 'Nuff said?

There's nothing wrong with people having a choice and making a decision so long as they take it seriously and make a considered one. Look at the current US Elections. With only 6 days left before the vote, Republican and Democratic candidates are treading very carefully and speaking with utter care. Why? Because they know that the slightest ill judged phrase, or word out of turn can change a voter's ballot box decision. In other words, when polling day arrives they know that the hoi poloi will wander into the booths and say to themselves, "who do I like more?", not "who will be the best leader for my country?".

Youth is wasted on the young, just as democracy is wasted on the masses.

Strictly Come Off It!

'Strictly' is one of my guilty little secrets. If anyone asks me do I watch it, I reply "I've never seen it!". The truth, of course, is much darker. I never watch it.......intentionally. I'm in front of the telly when it's on, but I'm always too busy reading, or typing to be truly watching it. I suppose it's more a question of keeping an eye on it.

It's one of those love-hate things. Bruce Forsythe gets right on my tits and I'd love to slowly throttle him with Tess Daly joining in so the two of us could look at the camera, Forsythe's near limp body in our clenched fists, while we both say, "Keeeeeeeeep strangling!".

As with most of these reality TV programs they have a habit of sucking you into them. I think it's because you get to watch people in their highs and lows, and see them progress in their desire to win, or at least improve. And I do have my favourites - ah.....Ola!

But have these shows had their day? And are they becoming more about the Panel of Judges than the contestants?

Reality is hard enough without turning it into a game show. Apart from The Family on Channel 4 which is a real reality show, most of them are actually an escape from reality. There's a cosiness and security that draws you in and says, "In this tough, tough world, where the Credit Crunches hardest, and the Winters of Discontent last for 12 months at a time, why not come into our safe little world where even the harsh word of a Judge will always be balanced out by the boos of the crowd".

And it's a temptation that many of us, myself included, find hard to resist. So come on Ola! Come on John! Eat sh*t and die Brendan! You've made my Saturday that little bit less real. Thanks.

Lucky I'm not Superstitious

Yet more gout, so I'm stuck in with my feet up - it's a hard life I know! Have just finished watching Deal or No Deal. For those who do not the idea of the game it is very simple. People are allocated random boxes with amounts of money in them ranging from 1p to £250,000 and then one of them is selected to play. They bring their box to the front with the unknown amount in it. In each round the player selects 3 boxes to eliminate and at the end of the round 'the Banker' phones up and offers the player a sum of money to buy their box. The player can choose to Deal (accept the Banker's offer) or No Deal (continue on with the game).

Essentially it's a guessing game. There's no real skill involved other than knowing when to cut your losses if things go pear shaped. There is an element of gambling in it, but basically you pick a box at random and see how it goes.

But because humans are involved it becomes more than a game. People arrive with 'a system', either picking odds then evens, or more usually numbers that have a personal significance e.g. birthdays, anniversaries, house numbers etc. At other times people hold hands before a box is opened, or else they other contestants lean to the left or spin around. Anything to try and influence the outcome of the box opening.

B F Skinner famously did an experiment with pigeons where an automated machine dispensed food randomly. The pigeons developed what seemed like particular rituals (which he called "adventitious reinforcement") which correspond to superstitious behaviour. Some pecked at the outlet while others waggled their heads, all seemingly to try and produce food when they performed. Of course, the distribution of food was completely random and what they did had no influence on it at all. Although Skinner's results have been disputed approx. one year ago Derren Brown did a similar experiment with people. A group of men and women were trapped in a room and told that when a digital counter on a wall reached 100 the doors would be unlocked. The counter increased in fits and starts, but pretty soon it was apparent that some people thought that the increase in numbers was due to them doing something - jumping up and down, or whatever.

It's amazing how often we think that particular things that we do have an influence in the physical world. Wearing a certain pair of socks, leaving the house in the same way, touching a piece of wood, rubbing a rabbit's foot can, some say, produce a favourable outcome. Of course this is utter nonsense.

Where does superstition come from? I'm not sure what the official line is on this one, but I'd imagine that it stems from an ego-centric worldview: a worldview that believes that the Universe owes us a living, or that we can control our environment.

In Deal or No Deal, when a superstitious behaviour "produces" a favourable then it is hailed as a good system. When it fails, it isn't really mentioned or dwelt on. The reality is that it's neither a good system, nor a bad one as the process is entirely random. The lady who won £75,000 today stated that she'd had some sort of dream in which she wrote herself a cheque for £75k. And she did. The dream was hailed as something special. If she hadn't won £75k but the £5 instead I'm sure it wouldn't have been mentioned.

I find this sort of behaviour with regards to prayer. People, very genuine people I might add, do believe that prayers changes the physical world. This is especially true when it comes to illness. People pray for the sick person, and if they recover it is hailed as the result of their prayers, but if it doesn't then it's ignored or an alternative positive spin put on it. Again, I think, this is a manifestation of a human/ego-centric worldview: that in this massive Universe of ours the Deity would want to intervene to help us find our car keys.

For me, prayer doesn't change the world around us, but rather it changes us. It helps us to cope with all the crap that life throws at us. It gives us hope, and strength, and a sense of purpose. But does it change a diagnosis, or alter an exam result, or secure a job? No. But it does give us the inner resources to deal with such things. Brown did a similar type of experiment with humans trying to win enough 'points' to get out of a room. Brown's results with people mirror those of Skinner's with pigeons.

It's going swimmingly

Today I was with Ben and Amanda for a quick dip in the rather chilly baby-monkey pool at our local Baths (how old am I!!!). Swimming is not something that comes all that naturally to me. And that's strange, because physically you'd think I'd float without a problem, what with all the fat surrounding me. But oddly it seems that my legs float to the surface of the pool. My arse sinks, but my legs float. It is the oddest thing!

Humans have always been fascinated by water. Not me mate! I can swim okay and I have the Badges to prove it, but I don't like being out of my depth. And I don't like the idea of all sorts of beasties swimming unseen beneath my feet (this, of course, applies to swimming in the sea, but not always!). Maybe it's a control thing. Very possibly. Not being able to put your foot on the floor puts you in a very pivotal situation - either you swim, or you sink. Maybe not as grave a situation as that, but the general principle is sound. John Ortberg's book could be easily retitled "If You Want To Have A Nice Swim, You've Got To Take Your Foot Off The Bottom".

Feeling safe is one thing, but it can only preserve life. Pushing off can be scary, but it's the only way to experience real living.

No-one's going to make a monkey out of me...........again!

I don't know why I do it?!? It happens time and time again, and every time I say the same thing to myself - "I can give it up! It wouldn't cost me a thought!". But here I am again. Feeling just as sullied and unclean as before.

I seem to be obsessed with a particular Evangelical Forum. When I read the posts my blood boils and my faith in intelligent Christians fades. For a while I stopped posting stuff, mainly because I was so disgusted at the attitudes and illogicality of those who were keen to air their opinions. And I did stop posting anything for about a month, until tonight! A sweet, but rather dim-witted woman was deriding Evolution with the usual "if evolution is true why are monkeys still monkeys?" Oh the high level of ignorance displayed.

Recently I've been reading up Evolution, and more especially reading stuff that tries to square the avalanche of evidence for Evolution with new thinking on God. When I say "reading" I really mean of course "I've just ordered it from Amazon". When I receive it, and actually read it, I'll post my thoughts.

In my modest research around the subject I'm amazed how many people (mainly Creationists I have to say, though not always) have a binary attitude to the Evolution debate - you have to either accept it or reject it. This seems to be a rather draconian outlook. In Process Theology there is no real problem with Evolution - indeed, it is heartily embraced. But PT does require you to adjust your view of God. No harm with that, says I!

To my mind, the case for Evolution is massive. There is no case for Creationism, as you cannot claim that finding fault with an opposite argument in any way validates your own - the fallacy of false dichotomy I think it's called.

Why not embrace the Science, bite the bullet, and reject the Bronze Age thinking. Surely it takes more faith to move forward with new knowledge and adapt beliefs accordingly, than clinging desperately to ancient irrelevancies no matter what the facts are?!

Forest For Rest

As it was a glorious day (and we don't get too many of those here in Ireland!) I thought I'd go for a walk in Cairn Wood, which is half way between Bangor and the Craigantlet hills if you take the back roads. As it was 11.30am there weren't too many people around so I was able to walk along some of its designated paths in absolute silence. Bliss! I took my mobile along with me, and whilst I couldn't get a signal I was still able to use the camera, and so I took around 20 or 30 pictures.

I was just blown away by the beauty of the place. I walked among the trees aware of Nature and my place within it. I felt like a little cog, but a little cog in the huge, enormous, beautiful machine that is our planet.

On the way in there was a noticeboard that gave some general info about the area and the walks around the Wood. After skimming down the blurb my eye caught a tag-line from the Forestry Commission. It read, "Kill only time, leave only footprints, and take away only memories".

It was so simple, and yet so beautiful. And it reminded me that life is so simple and so beautiful. Yes it can be complicated, and yes it can be dark and distressing, but yes it is simple and beautiful. Only we make it unnecessarily complicated. And at that moment I was drawn to the Bible, and to a passage in Micah:

"He has told you, O mortal, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God? "

I only hope that I can do that. Forget doctrines and creeds. Forget theology in all its convoluted forms. Forget religion and denominations. Faith can be simple and Faith can be beautiful. ANd so can we. Amen.

Tats the End of Tat

What a day it was today!! The sun was shining and people were bustling round Bangor. So I went down to the seafront where there was a car boot sale opposite the Marina. Having nothing much to do I pottered round the various stalls.

What I encountered could only be explained via the word "tat". Well, maybe "tat" is unfair. "Dirty tat" is closer to the mark.

It looked like people had cleared out their attics, sorted through their stuff, throwing out the rubbish and selling what's left at the car boot sale.

I noticed a number of visitors (I presumed by the accents) and my heart sank. Not because they were here, but because they were being subjected to a sub-standard Jumble Sale. What must they have thought! I remember wandering round the Flea Market in Amsterdam and it being anything but that. It was well organised and had a great variety of stalls selling all sorts of things. It was a lovely Sunday experience.

Pirated DVDs and second-hand toys (that could do with a wipe with a damp cloth) were the best on offer today. It was rather embarrassing to say the least.

If North Down wants to improve its Tourist appeal then things like the car boot sale need to be taken under its control. Car boot sales are fine for Church car parks and the like, but you'd expect something better, or better regulated, for the town centre.

A Game Of Two Halves Nots

Now let's get one thing straight from the very beginning! I quite like football, especially local football, but I don't live and die by the League Table. If my team does well, so be it. If it does badly, well, it's not the end of the world.

And that's a good thing, because at the moment Bangor FC have had an appalling run of luck. I say luck, but for a football team to have a run of bad luck they need to have an initial talent base from which their 'bad luck' seems so unfair.

Bangor started the Season quite well, actually topping the League Table for a week. But all that changed when other teams started playing games of football. Poor Bangor's last 4 matches have been lost, scoring only one goal, and letting a staggering fourteen in! Fourteen!!It's been a massacre. Bereft of mercy the last 2 Home games were both 0-5. And they have the cheek to charge £11 to get in - it's £9 if you want to stand, but at my age...........

I've never understood people (men usually) who's mood rises and falls depending on the results from the Premiership, 1st Division, or wherever. Yes it's good to have a hobby and it's good to show loyalty to a team, but please people! A bit of perspective!

What Bangor FC teaches me is never to give up hope. Yes, they can be rather poor. Yes, they can disappoint on a regular basis. Yes, the 'Club Shop' is never open so I can buy a scarf. Yes, it's mainly supported by older men. Yes, the burger van has a poor vegetarian selection. But more importantly, yes, there's nothing quite like a live match, and the sense of camaraderie is lovely (more like 'misery loves company' most Saturdays).

While things are bad now, there's every chance that things will improve, and even a chance, fairly remote I realise, that some massive win will unexpectedly be pulled off. I text a friend every game I'm at to keep him up to date as he lives in Manchester, and strangely the National Sports Headlines don't include the JJB Sports Northern Irish Premiership results. BBC! Why, oh why, oh why, oh why! What he said to me was this, "It is only by coming thru the pain and misery of being a bangor fan that we can truly appreciate the joy of the occasional victory!"

Wise words my friend, wise words.

Making No Bones Of It

Like Paul on the Road to Domestos I had an epiphanal moment. Not quite 'on the road' but more like parked in the drive.

I was thinking about fossils and how Creationists say that all fossils are as a direct result of the global flood of Noah. All very sweet. Ah, bless!

Then it struck me. If fossils were formed via the Flood (ah, bless!) then why are there only dinosaurs and other prehistoric fossils? If the flood wiped out all life and it occurred only 4-6,000 years ago, then why aren't there fossils of cows, lions, sheep, donkeys, horses and other modern animals in with the dinosaurs in the same strata?!? And why not humans too?!?

I know Creationists (ah, bless!) talk about animals floating and sinking at different stages, hence the dinosaurs appear lower (and therefore older) but as Ken Ham has said (ah, bless!) the bulk of the dinosaurs were actually quite small - that's why Noah could get them on the Ark (ah, bless!). If that is the case, then why aren't there small dinosaurs fossils alongside the fossils of similarly sized modern animals? Surely they would've sank at the same rate/time?

Oddly enough, there aren't any! Indeed, I'm not aware of any modern animal fossils being found.

Don't you just love Creationists?! Ah, bless!