The Brunswick school district, AKA Dover’s dumber little brother, is still struggling with the creationists trying to smuggle creationism into the science classroom. The latest report, though, suggests that the pro-science side is being aggressive in fighting back, and the pro-ignorance side is backing off due to pocketbook pragmatism — a costly court case could hurt them badly.
I thought this comment was revealing.
District 2 Republican Catherine Cooke, who presents herself as an active parent and therefore insider in the county school system, said she knows creationism is not to be taught as science, but she’s not against the topic being explored in some form.
“There’s a lot of scientific proof for creation,” Cooke said, without elaborating on that proof. “It’s not one-sided.”
Wow, Ms Cooke: a contradiction — she knows it’s not to be taught as science, but she thinks it is scientific — and a falsehood — there is no scientific evidence for creation. It actually is that one-sided.
I also liked the subtle dig in the reporter’s description, “without elaborating on that proof.” Of course she didn’t, she can’t. I’ve sat down with a lot of these people who claim there is science behind creationism, and when I ask them to get specific and tell me what some of it is, they suddenly get the look of a poleaxed rabbit and start stammering the names of creationist authorities who told them so, at best.
Poleaxing rabbits is something only an evil atheist such as you could’ve thought of.
Not that your wickedness is in need of any proof, since you go around asking for “specific proofs” when everyone knows that God moves in mysterious ways.
I don’t know much about Brunswick County in North Carolina but I bet the number of competent biology teachers there is exactly zero.
Catherine Cooke, who of course is a Republican, says there is lot of scientific proof for magical creation. Lots of it. It’s probably overwhelming. How do these idiots get on school boards?
I refuse to let myself be astounded by the depth of human stupidity and yet, here I am, staring at that sentence. What the hell is going on in this woman’s brain? It’s like a volcano exploded and started gushing stupid.
The pro-creationists are ideologically all over the place, so until they agree with each other, they won’t be a threat.
The most intelligent quote was from a born again, who apparently has a realist streak, and fiscal responsibility stripes:
Good for him.
Amusing that one of the players on the biology side is named Christy Judah
That’s a pretty confusing name.
BobC @ 2 : How do these idiots get on school boards?
Elections
What I also find encouraging is in the sidebar of the article which advertises a talk by Richard Leakey on Monday at relatively nearby UNC-Wilmington entitled, “Why Our Origins Matter.” Brunswick County has some beautiful beaches and is adjacent to pretty enlightened Wilmington in New Hanover County. However, the inland towns are very Bible-based – that’s why I tend to support DonorsChoose science teacher projects in this part of the state.
A few questions for all the intellectual giants that frequent this sorry excuse of a website.
1. Given that not a single person on the planet knows the exact cause of gravity, what makes you think you “know” anything about origin of life issues? Please note that I said cause, not effect.
2. If PZ is such a great thinker, why does he “believe” in the infernally stupid theory of global warming (caused by humans)? This does nothing to lend any credibility to your claim to be a scientist.
3. In as much as there is no plausible evolutionary explanation for the concept of love/hate, both concepts that PZ claims to believe in; what great pains do all of you go to to explain to the significant others in your lives that you indeed don’t love them but rather feel biologically compelled to share resources with them? Sounds really romantic to me. I bet none of you have the guts to try this out on your so called “loved ones.”
4. Anyone here care to take a stab at a real science? Try explaining the fact that everything we know about quantum physics is based upon mathematics of imaginary numbers ie NOT REAL. One very painful result of this accidental theory is the forced conclusion that the logically impossible is indeed necessary.
I don’t claim to have all the answers, unlike most of the self procalimed geniuses around here. The unmitigated hubris of almost everyone here makes you sound like so many madmen barking at the moon.
PZ, what seems to be trying to say if I havre parsed the wording correctly is that she knows that courts have ruled that creationism cannot be taught as science but she thinks that there is in fact scientific evidence for creationism.
“I don’t claim to have all the answers, unlike most of the self procalimed geniuses around here. The unmitigated hubris of almost everyone here makes you sound like so many madmen barking at the moon.”
The reason you don’t have the answers is because you haven’t actually read up on anything you just criticised. Any answers anyone gives to you, you won’t accept, because you’re already ignored them all.
psyentist, you about you answering a question? Did you ever have an original thought, or you just a cut/paste guy. Your questions are cut/paste and have been answered repeatedly if you just did a little research. But then, that would require actual thought as to how to frame the proper questions, which would show the fallacies in your questions.
You can’t disprove science with questions, just evidence. Where is your evidence?
As a blue-collar non-scientist, my science knowledge is… Well, substandard, at least compared to most people around here, but I’m looking like Nobel-Prize material up next to this moron.
they suddenly get the look of a poleaxed rabbit and start stammering the names of creationist authorities who told them so, at best.
To be fair, and to highlight a failing of the education system, that is true of most evolution believers (except obviously change creationist to evolutionist.
To Heh – Lame attempt or more correctly a none attempt to deal with material you clearly don’t understand. Next batter.
psyentist:
1. We can make guesses. Guesses that make far more sense than simply “god did it.”
2.I’m not touching this.
3.We love/hate because as a social mammal it is helpful to the continued existence of our species. Those ancestors that didn’t hate others and went through life loving everything even that which harmed it are now dead. Those that didn’t love didn’t find mates to reproduce.
4. I see no reason not to study quantum physics as it is part of the world god gave us. God lets us create art, doesn’t he? Then consider it imaginary art.
Psyentist, an understanding of gravity has nothing to do with the origin of life whatsoever. What makes you think understanding one has anything to do with understanding the other?
1. What does not knowing the cause of gravity have to do with knowledge regarding the origin of life?
2. Why can’t global warming be at least partially caused by humans? It only makes sense that humans aren’t helping the matter at the very least.
3. Love and hate most assuredly evolved, the same way a mother crocodile instinctively doesn’t swallow its young when she moves them back and forth from land to water in her mouth.
4. I don’t know much about quantum physics, but you don’t know much about anything.
“Unmitigated hubris”? Tee hee. Good one!
Oh, wait, were you serious?
Well, then, it’s time for another edition of PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Focusing on point #4, then, here’s are a few simple questions which anyone who has studied introductory quantum mechanics should be able to answer.
1. For ten points, calculate in the Heisenberg picture the time evolution of a harmonic oscillator state produced by acting on the lowest-energy eigenstate with a spatial translation operator.
2. For five points, does the energy of a hydrogenic atom depend upon the angular momentum quantum number l, and if so, under what circumstances and why?
3. (5 points) Given the canonical commutation relation [x,p] = i, derive an expression for the commutator [x,p^n]. (15 points) Use your result to express the momentum operator in the position basis.
I give partial credit.
I’m sure you appreciate that knowing all the answers isn’t necessary, just knowing enough that you’re not wasting everybody else’s time by blathering about stuff you do not understand.
Psyentist,
to answer, in brief:
1) know the diff between evolution by natural selection and abiogenesis. No one claims to know exactly how life began, but evolution of species has over 150 years of evidence. Learn a little.
2) PZ posted on what he means by ‘believe’ when he gave a good response to how to answer the question of ‘do you believe in evolution?’ Search for that, it will provide insight.
3) Not everything is understood, the brain is an amazing complex organ. However, natural selection does provide some interesting explanations. Most importantly, lack of knowledge does not equal existence of god(s).
4) Everything we know about quantum mechanic is not based upon imaginary numbers. Particle accelerators are very real, produce real, tangible, verifiable results. That is just one example. There’s more, but I’m not going to make a monster post you probably won’t bother to read.
YOINK!
PZ
Instead of signing in, can you set it up so that we have to answer a simple logical question before we post?
It would save us having to deal with silly little gnats like this.
Wow, that’s so ignorant it’s staggering. I take it you don’t actually have any understanding of the mathematics of “imaginary” numbers.
They are no less “real” than the Real Numbers. Have you ever held 3.17882 in your hand? Have you seen the square root of pi? Cooked up the golden ratio in your oven? Of course not. Just as there are many real-world applications that cannot adequately be described in terms of integers, there are others that cannot be properly represented in the reals, and require the complex numbers.
This isn’t unique to quantum mechanics, but in fact is an inescapable part electromagnetism and circuit theory. I guess the irony of using a computer built on quantum mechanical principles by electrical engineers to ridicule the concept of imaginary numbers completely escapes you.
Imaginary numbers? That’s because early-modern European mathematicians were reluctant to accept that these could be legitimate numbers, just as they had trouble with zero and negative numbers.
The great mathematician Karl Friedrich Gauss once proposed “lateral numbers” as a better name for imaginary numbers, but his proposal did not catch on. Likewise, “asset numbers” and “debt numbers” might be better names for positive and negative numbers. Or to stick with geometry, “forward numbers” and “reverse numbers”.
David,
1. You are 100% correct, we can make guesses, hopefully educated ones.
2. Can’t blame you for not wanting to field this one.
3. Love and hate to be real must be, by their very nature, freely chosen not compulsory (biological) or they have no meaning. Thus my challenge.
4. I wouldn’t suggest that quantum physics not be studied, I’ve done it myself – having two degrees in chemistry. I simply suggest that sometimes it is OK to follow these accepted theories where they lead even if its highly inconvenient – namely profound illogic. This same thing can be seen numerous times in my chosen field.
“Imaginary” numbers are called “imaginary” for much the same reason that Native Americans are called “Indians”.
psyent – I can’t imagine you’re real. You must be something like an imaginary troll.
If they had called the “imaginary” numbers (case 1) “superrealistic” or (case 2) the “godful” numbers would anything in this world have been different? Would you then consider quantum physics to be absolutely real (case 1) or proof that god exists?
You apparently believe in the word and not in the thinking – and your comments have therefore the relevance of a flea’s fart. The way you use your brain is simply a disgrace. You may as well continue reading the bible ’til your brain is sucked dry…
The equation of “compulsory” with “biological” is a false one; you presume the conclusion of your argument.
Do they not teach high-school mathematics to chemistry majors anymore?
Like I said before, put up or shut up.
psyentist:
3. Understanding the biological reasoning for love/hate does not make them any less meaningful.
“I don’t claim to have all the answers, unlike most of the self procalimed geniuses around here.”
Included in the same post as you claim to definitively know that a couple centuries worth of accumulated knowledge by hundreds of experts in the fields are wrong.
I know there’s a word for someone accuses others of doing something that he himself is doing. What is it again?
Blake
My answers
1. = 42
2. = 42
3. = I’m not quite sure, but I believe the answer is greater than forty one, while less than forty three.
Chemistry. Whew. For a minute there I was worried you’d turn out to be an engineer.
So I assume you’re working on your answers to Blake’s quiz? Or maybe you’re finding just the right words to explain why you spewed your bile over a subject of which you clearly have next to no knowledge.
David (#26):
Correct. And even if it did, that would not make biological explanations for love and hate factually wrong. To assert that a proposition of empirical fact must be wrong because its being right would be morally squicky is to argue from adverse consequences — an invalid crossing of the is/ought line.
Hey, you can’t always get what you want.
Oooh, ooooh a crazy troll. This one is way out there crazy.
Actually everyone on the planet capable of coherent thought knows what “causes” gravity. That leaves you out. It is a property of matter. That is why stuff dropped falls on the ground and why you are not floating in space. You do know that you aren’t floating in space, don’t you, at least when you take your meds.
As to origin of life issues, what makes us think we know anything about it is a rather simple if alien concept to you. Data, piles and piles of data, mountains of data. Facts and some theories.
The rest of your points are equally stupid but since you are crazy, nothing anyone can say will make any difference.
PS BTW, the computer you use to access the internet is based in part on quantum mechanical principles. QM is accepted because it is verifiable, predictive, and useful.
Wow, it really is that easy to set off a bunch of madmen. Good luck barking at the moon.
psyent – thank you for being so stupid. Now we really feel likes geniuses :-).
Good bye dear imaginary troll…
Every profession has a few eccentrics in it. We usually try to get them into a place where they can’t do much harm. In my business, we try to either shuffle them off to operations or quality assurance, where they don’t have to think to much, and they can follow scripted instructions.
Pyentist, your four idiocies got clobbered here. Calling us madmen just confirms your willful ignorance. Beating your chest doesn’t help you btw. It is just a typical response from an internet clown.
We do not bark at the moon. We send people to it to bark at the earth.
@ #20
LOL!
Well said.
#7
Anyone here care to take a stab at a real science? Try explaining the fact that everything we know about quantum physics is based upon mathematics of imaginary numbers ie NOT REAL.
Can this really not be parody? Blasted Poe’s Law….
#7 – psyentist – You quite obviously don’t know anything of the self ‘procalimed’ geniuses here. I have taken your challenge.
I shashyed into the front room, where my GOB (grumpy old bastard) was reading a blasphemous book, and remarked to him in a forward and brazen manner that I felt biologically compelled to share resources with him. He acted immediately to wrestle me to the carpet and share, freely, his biological resources with me.
So fool, your challenge doesn’t stand the test you set.
Concern noted.
Piss off.
#36
Well we did once upon a time.
#20:
If I had 3 apples and I cut the fourth into two pieces one being 17.882% of the mass/volume (your choice) and the other piece being 82.118% of the apple and held the smaller piece in my hand, I would have 3.17822 apples.
Take a look at the parthenon for the golden ratio.
I can’t think of a good geometrical example for the square root of pi. Any ideas?
#39.
Sounds like science can be more fun than religion.
psyentist @ 7
I don’t claim to have all the answers
I think you should begin by formulating some good questions first.
unmitigated hubris
I’ll have you know that all of my hubris has been properly mitigated to the standards outlined in the American Society of Professional Mitigators’ handbook.
Wrong, on two counts. First, the Golden Ratio is an irrational number, so no amount of jiggering with rulers and dividing the results will yield its exact value. Second, the claim that the Golden Ratio was used in the Parthenon’s design is a myth anyway.
Blake Stacey @ 17
oooo oooo I know this one!!!
1. For ten points: 42
2. For five points:
That’s a trick question because you have not indicated whether the angular momentum is up and down, side to side, or counterclockwise, nice try though.
3. (5 points)
X^P= FAIL, preceding V~is^Ta= FAIL FAIL
Bill Gates
Ha ha, that’s 23 points for scooter!!! I cede the rest of my time to the awesome psyentist.
3. In as much as there is no plausible evolutionary explanation for the concept of love/hate, both concepts that PZ claims to believe in; what great pains do all of you go to to explain to the significant others in your lives that you indeed don’t love them but rather feel biologically compelled to share resources with them? Sounds really romantic to me. I bet none of you have the guts to try this out on your so called “loved ones.”
“When we observe the care with which a mud dauber prepares a mud enclosure, inserts a paralyzed victim as food and deposits an egg, can we be so anthropocentric as to deny this the name of love? How else could we interpret the male sea horse’s protective act of accepting babies into his pouch, the months-long incubation of an emperor penguin’s egg on the feet of its vigilant parent or the epic journey of Pacific salmon returning to their natal stream to mate and die in the creation of the next generation? If these are innate actions dictated by genetically encoded instructions, all the more reason to conclude that love in its many manifestations is fashioned into the very blueprint of life.”
-David Suzuki
Iaintcomefromnodamnmonkey – sure you ain’t coming from one. You’re one!
Evolution doesn’t explain concepts – humans invent them, so they must explain them. And humans are the result of an extraordinary adventure called evolution. Sad your monkey brain can’t imagine that something like that is possible and think that goddidit is a better answer.
What you have there are real world things described by real numbers, not the numbers themselves. By the same token we have materials with complex dielectric constants, and components with complex impedances – very real, concrete things that are described with imaginary numbers.
So how is one more “real” than the other?
I love it when the scientifically illiterate put forward non-questions with an implicit, “You evolutionists say you have all the answers? Well, answer this, why don’tcha? Huh? Huh? You can’t, can you, smart guy?”
Psyentist’s question #1 is, even in the eyes of this non-scientist, right up there with “You evolutionists say the world is the way it is because of scientific laws, but who passed the laws? Huh? Huh? You don’t know, do you, smart guy?”
Joshua Zelinsky at #8 is probably right that Ms. Cooke’s making a distinction between science and what the courts allow, but she might also be reconciling the ‘apparent’ contradiction another way. It’s pretty common for people to think of “science” as a very broad, loose category involving anything and everything that has to do with knowledge and experience — so there are a lot of different kinds of “science.” There’s the science in science books; there’s the science in making bricks; there’s the science in knowing how to be a good parent; and there’s the science in experiencing God through prayer. Paul had a mystical vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus, and thus verified Christianity “scientifically.” Uh huh.
For example, my woo-ish New Age-y friends have no trouble proclaiming that vitalistic energy fields are scientific — and agreeing that physicists don’t recognize them. Upon questioning, it turns out that by “scientific” they mean “you can experience them for yourself.”
psyentist #7 wrote:
I’m not sure where you’re going here. It looked at first glance as if you’re making some kind of dualistic division between physical processes and internal feelings (or maybe abstractions?), but in #22 you seem to be making a dualistic distinction between free will and biological compulsion.
If it’s the first one, then I think you’d also have to argue that there would be no “plausible evolutionary explanation” for any internal sensations at all, including hunger, pleasure, and pain — but that doesn’t seem like much of a leap. “Love” and “hate” are simply abstract concepts which refer to certain kinds of pleasures and pains, experienced on the subjective and social level.
If this is a problem with freedom vs. compulsion, keep in mind that our choices are influenced by our desires and personalities, and would be part of the deterministic flow themselves. It is not an either/or where either we act on nature, or nature acts on us. We’re nature, too.
How do we get idiots on school boards or the legislature or Congress? We elect them. When the Republican fool promises us less taxes and more government, we don’t actually believe him, but enough of us vote for him anyway that we’ve suffered from irresponsible political dialog at the federal, state and local levels because voters aren’t willing to call the lying candidates liars. When Democrats, despairing of doing anything else make the same silly promises, we are screwed. The good news has been that Democrats have been slightly less irresponsible than the Republicans lately, but that’s no thanks to American voters. As Pogo reminds us, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Irrelevant.
Life is made of cells which are made of chemicals. Therefore, we “know” that the origin of life must have been a chemical event.
It was still irrelevant.
Which part is “infernally stupid”? The global warming part, or the caused by human part?
And as you pretend to be a chemist, can you back up your assertion of global warming’s alleged stupidity with any science?
Because trusting climatologists and meteorologists to do their job and present their peer-reviewed findings honestly is wrong?
False.
And from the false premise, a false conclusion.
All of mathematics is only as real as what it describes in the real world. “Real” and “imaginary” numbers are, as pointed out above, merely labels applied to certain classes of numbers.
Quantum physics is of course very real — that is, demonstrated by experiment, as well as explained by theory.
False.
You are indeed making a claim that you have answers, although, of course, all of your answers are simply wrong.
You, on the other hand, sound like someone who has overdosed on moronic acid. Seek medical help quickly.
ErikFK, relax. First of all, the name I chose is a tounge-in-cheek on a ridiculous argument I’ve heard from more than one creationist.
As for the Suzuki quote, I always interpreted it as an way of saying that love isn’t just a human phenomenon, that it exists in “many manisfestations”. I posted it as a response to Psyentist’s question 2. I have no problem at all with the idea that love a biological process, or “dictated by genetically encoded instructions” as Dave puts it.
Believe me, Brother. I ain’t no damn creationist.
PS: You’re a monkey
#44: You are overly critical of my attempt at a joke. No one else seems to have gotten it anyways though (#48). Thanks for the link, interesting stuff.
Of course. Because “science” means “knowledge” — and they have a different way of knowing.
QED.
PRIVILEGED EXPERIENCE IS PRIVILEGED.
Iaintcomefromnodamnmonkey – damned! You got me. I had just left my cage in the zoo to use my keeper’s laptop to surf the internet.
But I know your real name. It is actually youaintnodamneddescendantofmine.
LOL on me!
Wow, it really is that easy to set off a bunch of madmen. Good luck barking at the moon.
translation:
“Curses! Foiled again.”
Sastra@50
Maybe Ms. Cooke is just getting on the Steve Jones (geneticist-University College London) bandwagon. Jones is saying that evolution is coming to an end if not already stopped. Since he is a respected scientist, many in the science community are upset with him. I don’t know why. Jones has been saying the same thing for the last 14 years. In his 1995 book he claimed “natural selection has been repealed”. So, why these evo-devos are getting upset now is puzzling.
So, why these evo-devos are getting upset now is puzzling.
are you having trouble with the timing, or the nature of the criticism of Jones?
either way, that you find it puzzling, if you are really aware of what the issues are, is a bit…
puzzling.
Actually, the “dig” in that story (‘offered no proof’) is one more example of the cowardly journalists finally starting to get off the “balance” and get on the “journalism.” We’re seeing it more and more, thank Tarvu. Though the barking lunatics of the far right love to call that bias, it’s actually just conscientious writing. Did she offer proof? Did we report the last 8,000 times when they said things like this that they had no proof? No. Should we continue to give them a free pass? no. Report it, and ignore the morons.
I consider that an improvement.
ice
I don’t know much about Brunswick County in North Carolina I bet the number of competent biology teachers there is exactly zero.
I don’t know where Bob went to school but I bet the number of competent teachers of any kind is exactly zero.
Why let knowing any useful information get in the way of forming an opinion.
Its the Democrat way!
psyentist:
I think that part gives the parody away.
Summation of Psyentist:
I can say the most asinine things ever, then call everyone madmen when they point out I’m a complete idiot! Praise Jesus!
Psyentist:
Let’s just stop right there. I challenge you to link to even one post by *any* of our usual posters where they claim to have all the answers, much less ‘most’ having made that claim.
Can’t do it, can ya? What do you know, yet another liar for God. Why am I not surprised?
Oh no! Someone pointed out my obvious lie! I’d better claim they’re ‘angry’ and ‘barking at the moon’! Judging by your behavior so far, that’s your next course of action, right? Why DO those evilutionists get so angry? All we did was lie about them constantly, what’s their problem?
You’re either a troll or an idiot – or a troll AND an idiot, and you wouldn’t know real science if it bit you on the ass. Don’t waste our time.
That was pretty good. In addition to the Molly, PZ needs to have an award for the best comment skewering a creationist / IDiot / religious whackaloon. Preferably awarded to one where the sarcasm and ridicule is readily apparent to us, but not necessarily to the dimwitted victim.
I nominate #20.
They keep this mantra up, I’m really not sure why. There’s no proof of creation and it is one sided. The world has been dated through several rocks and with several techniques for over 4.5 billion years old, and life gradually emerges in the fossil record. So what’s the evidence for creation?!?
Ich @ 59
“timing or nature of criticism of Jones”
Timing and criticism actually go together. In 1955 when he published The Language of the Gene some eyebrows may have been raised but no great furor. However, since then, the intelligent design folks seems to have claimed him. Their only argument with Jones is: how can evolution come to a stop when it never began?
So now on 10/8/08 he gives a lecture on 14 year old material and the evo-devos all get themselves into a wad. The puzzlement is: why the acceleration of critique?
Psyentist- I’ll touch #2- On my side I have thousands of climate interested scientists, gigabytes of data, over 30 years of investigation, all the computers you could need, over 100 years of laws of physics, the scientific societies of the world, and just to sum it up, evidence and successful predictions.
You, on the other hand, have give nothing. So whats your wonderful proof against Anthropogenic global warming?
I’m even older than PZ and I worked hard for my chemstry degree. Like many chemistry students, I found QM really, really hard, so understood what I could and learned the rest by rote.
So said, Psyentist makes me feel like a genius. Is S/he a Poe? P can’t possibly be a graduate chemist from anywhere that should be able to award degrees. Wait, P claims to have TWO chemistry degrees, obviously the $25 graduate one and the $37.50 masters.
The puzzlement is: why the acceleration of critique?
new generation of scientists, far more sensitive to the bad arguments.
In fact, if one can thank the recent fundie flailings for anything, it’s that it has raised the consciousness level for bad arguments relating to evolutionary theory of any kind.
even old ones.
Origin of life issues. Basically an origin event is necessary so it must have happened. Evolution deals with the diversity of species, natural selection, genetic drift, speciation, all these are to do with the diversity of life. This is scientific fact. What we know is that the world is around 4.5 billion years old, the origin of life happened reasonably early (within the first billion years), and it’s only in the last 700 million years or so that complex life formed. We see the progressive nature of the fossil record, we see the emergent life. So we know that life must have had a beginning around 4 billion years ago.
With the origin of life, all we can do is come up with ways it could have happened, like the Nebula hypothesis we are looking at events that happened billions of years ago so even if we find a way to turn non-replicating organic material into replicating organic material, it still might not be the way it happened. But we know an event did happen as it’s necessary. It had to have happened, just how is the mystery.
Human induced climate change is real, what’s unknown is the extent to which human activity is at fault. There’s good science behind it, and many scientists working on it.
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_human_induced_climate_change.html
Who says there’s no plausible evolutionary explanation for the concepts of love and hate? They seem entirely consistent with evolutionary theory. They are entirely materialist functionality and they offer survival advantages. Love helps reproduction. Love keeps the family unit together. Love helps educate the next generation, and love helps with social bonding that keeps the community together. There’s so much that love does that it fits perfectly with a Darwinian explanation.
Biology is real science creatard! It doesn’t suddenly become non-science because you don’t take the time to understand it. And who says that our counting system is right? Our counting system neglects many important numbers that we call irrational numbers which are vital to the way reality works. Why are irrational numbers any more absurd than π? Both have practical uses.
I’m not sure how many people here are self-proclaimed geniuses, I’m not one. Of course there needs to be humility in the face of the unknown, but without realising that there is so much known already then we are never going to get anywhere. Trying to score a point by showing the intersection of the known and unknown to cast a shadow on what is known is just being intellectually dishonest.
There seems to be some confusion over Steve Jones. He’s not saying evolution has come to an end, he is saying that human evolution has come to an end. Now, some of his arguments for this appear strange, to put it mildly, but he hasn’t become a creationist. Indeed he attacks creationism regularly.
See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2002/feb/03/genetics.research
http://royalsociety.org/event.asp?id=4140
Any creationist who listens to Steve Jones’s Royal Society lecture isn’t going to regard him as anything other than an enemy, unless of course they cease to be a creationist due to the strength of his arguments.
Strictly speaking, IDiots have no problem with evolution (or should have no problem); they merely claim that not everything can be explained by evolution or materialistic science.
You must be thinking of hardcore Creationists.
Unless, of course, IDiots are Creationists. So much for the Disco Institute’s rhetoric…
So whats your wonderful proof against Anthropogenic global warming?
I think you overstate you case. AGW has some hard science in favor of it but still doesn’t in my opinion reach theory status. There is doubt in both the ideal of why and if warming is actuality occurring, and if it is whether or now we could of should doo anything about it. It might even be a good thing due to solar output seeming to decrease.
Anyone who says that they know exactly what is going and what needs to be done about it is making a political statement, not a scientific one.
So whats your wonderful proof against Anthropogenic global warming?
we duly note you did NOT answer the question posed, Eric.
There is doubt in both the ideal of why and if warming is actuality occurring
nope, not really, especially given that if one looks at historical data, we SHOULD actually be in a cooling trend right about now.
if it is whether or now we could of should doo anything about it.
again, the only real complaints about whether we should “do” anything about it come from those who have entirely vested interests in NOT doing anything about it.
Anyone who says that they know exactly what is going and what needs to be done about it is making a political statement, not a scientific one.
a piss poor argument, given how much effort is required to actually MOTIVATE a political agenda to begin with.
or did you also forget the effort it took to curtail chloroflourcarbon production?
you’re in pretty shallow water there.
Reducing our carbon footprint would be a good start tbh.
The plausible evolutionary explanation for love and hate is to keep resources in the family. Rats, when they pair up, go around killing all the other rats in their area (paired or not). Usually the male kills males and the female kills females. The remaining, strongest pair raise a large, loving family. One reason you seldom see rats in the open is the unremitting hostility between tribes of rats, so they seldom leave their territory. All the rats in one tribe share genes and their love for each other and hate for strangers helps to transmit those genes.
It’s similar for humans, where “us vs. them” has been a way of life for tens of thousands of years before we got rich enough to make sharing with everyone (not just our little kinship group) an ideal.
Does that help?
Duh. I don’t HAVE an answer disproving AGW. It’s up to science to prove that it dose exist. That’s how science works ok.
Yes, really there is doubt.
And if it is true, I can thing of several other things that are more threating that need attention that AWG.
Kel@71
Creationists don’t seem to have an issue with the necessity of an origin event. In fact, they think they know what it was. That’s why they keep the “mantra up”
They seem to get tired of always being asked for proof of a Divine hand, when scientific naturalist (evolutionists) can’t show them a single solitary example of a living human clearly in the process of transpeciation. They suspect that those four billion year old rocks that you allude to shows little more that a handful of micro adaptations. Now, if you could show them a single human who is clearly in the process of going from human to the next step, I think that would clinch it for you. However, asking them to wait for another billion years is probably not going to cut it.
Chris @ 72 : …..that human evolution has come to an end.
Steven Gould used to say the same thing based on the idea that an isolated human population has been impossible for a few thousand years, something like that. I’m just a laymen and make very few comments on biology over here.
Says the man who just did a “drive-by” crazy… And it wasn’t even an original crazy. Just a cardboard cut-and-paste crazy. Which makes it a pathetic “loser screaming for attention” crazy.
@ Eric Atkinson
Well, thankfully for the rest of us the decisions won’t be based, in any way shape or form, on your seriously flawed, self-serving opinion.
Nothing, and I mean nothing that I’ve read from you in this or any other thread gives me the least bit of confidence that you are in any way qualified to make this statement.
Agreed, though it needs to be pointed out over and over and over and over and over and over that abiogenesis ≠ evolution.
Single human to the next step is asking for the impossible. Though I guess with creationists that’s the point.
And their “suspicions” are ignorant.
Fractally wrong, in so many different ways…
“I’ve sat down with a lot of these people who claim there is science behind creationism, and when I ask them to get specific and tell me what some of it is, they suddenly get the look of a poleaxed rabbit and start stammering the names of creationist authorities who told them so, at best.”
I’ve had exactly the same problem with darwinists!
Actually most of them suspect the 4 billion year old rocks are really just 6,000 years old and science is lying about the age. That the fossils laid down are just dead animals from the Noahian flood. In short, they have no clue and if the scientific evidence doesn’t change their minds now then they’ll never be changed.
Evolutionary theory is rock solid fact.
Global warming, much less AGW is no where near that level. This is not yet theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
Might be one day, but I don’t think its time to fuck up the worlds economy over this issue.
Build more Nukes…less dirtburners.
Yes, really there is doubt.
Well duh. And there are flat-earthers. Because some oil industry shills and habitual conspiracy theorists disingenuously perpetuate doubt does not mean that it is well-founded, based on theory, models and data.
And if it is true, I can thing of several other things that are more threating that need attention that AWG.
What a winner attitude! Basically you’re saying you care deeply enough about this issue to buck consensus and throw your lot in with a bunch of reactionary obfuscators to debunk it, but if they’re wrong [and they’re not even wrong; they’re cynical liars], you don’t really care.
I hope you own land in coastal Florida.
Saying there is a doubt, doesn’t make the doubt exist beyond mere assertion of doubt. Show us the great scientific conflagration of doubting Thomases brutally ripping each other apart in snide letters to the Editor.
That is beyond the sowers of doubt employed by those who fear their business model and the usual minor fringe element that gets attracted to the edges of the issue in permanent opposition.
In short, put on proof that this theory, well accepted by the peers of the field, is “in doubt.”
No, that’s just the sudden look of realization that you are in fact a bona fide crazy person, and hoping that they can get away from you before you go for their throats.
Celtic_Evolution
Well, thankfully for the rest of us the decisions won’t be based, in any way shape or form, on your seriously flawed, self-serving opinion.
What is it based on? Political belief?
Nothing, and I mean nothing that I’ve read from you in this or any other thread gives me the least bit of confidence that you are in any way qualified to make this statement.
Insulting me does not aid you argument. It only shows your poor debating skills.
#7:
As a physicist, I would like to point out that it _is_ known that gravity’s “origin” is via the mediation of spin-zero gauge particles, caused by the curvature of space-time.
And love and hate make perfect sense when you consider that people’s (rational) actions are often guided by their (irrational-seeming) emotions.
For example, the poster at #7 appears to be an irrational idiot. However, given the very limited information he has, he is, in fact, behaving rationally– his worldview deliberately ignores large tracts of reality as invalid, and he is making his decision on that.
The fact that he is not making contact with reality even with a long stick and a megaphone has nothing to do with the fact that he is being _rational_, the same way that a novice poker player betting high on a two pair against Doc Pesudopolis’s full house is being _rational_, because he lacks the information to make a better decision.
Of course not, can’t fuck up those economies. They are going so strongly right now…
Then in 20 years and the situation gets really desperate, we can then decide to do R&D into technology that would reduce our energy output and decrease our carbon emissions. Because acting before the last minute just isn’t in the best interests of feeding the finely-turned carbon polluting system we have now.
Eric, meet Talk Origins. Now familiarise yourself with the scientific evidence that’s in there before coming back.
(hit enter by accident)
The difference between the two, of course, is that it is fairly evident to everyone when the second is monetarily bankrupt, while the first never notices that he is totally intellectually bankrupt.
Oh, and it can be assumed that the second actually wants to improve his game, rather than simply be seen bluffing Doc Pseudopolis.
Can PZ top this?
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080921.html
Phil, is that you??
blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/
Kel. Been going to Talk Origns for ten years or so.
I think you have me mixed up with some creationist.
Wrong Eric there, check post #85.
Well, you do happen have the intellect of one.
Kel@83
“Show a single human going to the next step is impossible”
Creationists would say showing the Divine Hand is impossible. So, all there is are two groups clinging to their separate impossibilities. They have Faith which you think proves nothing. You have 4 billion years of rock showing a bunch of micro adaptations which they say proves nothing to substantiate claims of transpeciation of complex mammals
Ummm, no.
Evolution doesn’t work on an individual level, it works on a population. It’s asking for an impossibility because it’s asking for something that doesn’t happen. It’s the crocoduck challenge presented in a slightly less absurd manner.
Why? If God exists, he should be able to demonstrate his existence. The fact that there is no such demonstration argues against his existence.
No, science can at least demonstrate how all living organisms are related, and that evolution occurs in faster-lived organisms, and the mechanisms for the mutations that lead to species arising.
Creationists have nothing at all.
What they say is an argument from profound ignorance.
They just don’t look at the fossils in the first place, or how they do demonstrate species transitions.
Of course, of arguably greater importance than the fossils is the molecular biology, developmental biology and genetics. They don’t look at that either…
I read a blog last night someone linked in another topic on here, about some studies that found stupid people overestimate their own smarts by a significant amount more than smart people, while at the same time being sure in their stupid-reached conclusions to the point that they won’t change their mind even in the face of hard, unambiguous evidence, and that they typically think they’re smarter than everyone else, and think people who are truly smarter than them are REALLY stupid.
You know, not that it relates to anything I’ve read in this topic, or anything…
I love having a creationist here.
It makes me feel less stupidest.
I knowed I was smarter than somebody.
Jason A, is this the work you are referring to?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
The paper I had first heard about was “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments” and it is the first reference.
Can we anticipate a full recovery?
This is not yet theory.
This statement in entirely meaningless. It never will be a theory.
“global warming” is merely a label applied to a subset of climatology data. It is neither a hypothesis, nor a theory, in and of itself, but rather based on a collection of hypotheses extracted from the larger field.
which of course makes the rest of how you approach the issue all the funnier.
You have 4 billion years of rock
applied to evolutionary theory, that’s the MINOR supporting evidence.
Presidential poll on FOX NEWS site with Bill O’Reilly.
http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html#
What if homo sapiens have developed, via evolution, a “God belief gene” that renders them utterly incapable of non belief or even just a predisposition (kind of like the supposed gay gene). What if this gene is simply not expressed in atheists? Would this mean that evolutionists are simply wrongheaded in trying to “prove” believers wrong? If it turns out that there is a “God belief gene”, could it be assumed that it confers some kind of natural advantage over nonbelievers given that they are clearly more numerous throughout all of known history?
One creationist? Aren’t there two? I get that there’s one putting up a big sock puppet show, but I thought Silver Fox only used one or two other handles? Or am I wrong?
Take the ordered pairs (a,b) and (c,d) where a,b,c, and d are real numbers. Define,
(a,b) + (c,d) = (a+c, b+d)
(a,b)*(c,d)= (ac-bd, ad+ bc)
If b=d=0 then (a,0) + (c,0)=(a+c,0) and (a,0)*(c,0)=(ac,0). You essentially have the real numbers in that case.
Also (0,1)*(0,1)=(-1,0). Clearly (0,1) is just i and (a,b) is just a+bi (i.e, complex numbers).
All of the above was done with just the addition,subtraction, and multiplication of real numbers(didn’t even use division!). So complex numbers, and thus imaginary numbers, are just as “real” as real numbers.
Your post was nonsense, especially the last sentence I quoted. I’m not sure what “accidental theory” means. You either are a Poe looking for a reaction or someone who has MUCH to learn. The above construction of the complex numbers is not for you (who probably won’t understand it), but for those curious about how “real” complex numbers are.
Owl@101
“No demonstration argues against his existance”
No, lack of proof of the positive does not prove the negative. It simple means the positive is not proven.
“of greater importance, molecular/developmental biology and genetics. They don’t look at that.”
I think they do look at that and what they see is a back-mapping, an after the fact projection on human categorizations onto indifferent natural phenomenon.
When does 0 not =0? When you need it to in order for your theory to make sense.
No, lack of proof of the positive does not prove the negative. It simple means the positive is not proven.
you’re talking in absolutes, we’re talking in terms of probability.
just how long should we wait for proof positive before it becomes a waste of time to do so?
I hereby posit the existence of flying unicorns.
I now expect you to wait 5000 years at least before we have this argument again.
think they do look at that and what they see is a back-mapping
I think the term you are looking for is “front-loading”.
it is, of course, entirely ridiculous. As bad an “analysis” of actual genetics as “flood geology” is of actual geology.
Dear PZ,
I wish to complain about the standard of troll. Of late, the trolls have been very substandard. Can we have some flaming lunatics back again, and fewer tedious under-informed douchenozzles with Narcissistic personality disorder.
Cheers,
Emmet.
1978 Nobel Prize winner in Physiology and Medicine microbiologist Werner Arber said “Although a biologist, I must confess I do not understand how life came about… The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem.” His ID conclusions were confirmed by his research into the “beauty of the functioning of the living world.”
Maybe Dr. Myers will appeal to the Nobel committee to have Dr. Arber’s award revoked, because he is obviously some “kook”. Please don’t give the usual bunk that this is “quote mining” or arguing from authority.
I say the one that should be questioned for his hatred is “Mr. Tolerant”,PZ Myers. Dr. Myers who loves to play librarian and school administrator by wanting to book ban and ignore all the factors that go into making an excellent teacher has said: “The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy, far-right politicians…I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It’s time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.” If you tried this on Dr. Arber you would be laughed at. Of course if any “right wing” school board member said that about some atheist, you would post it and claim it is proof of how you are picked on.
Just to offer some rationality to the AGW conversation though it is largely outside my field one key aspect of it is often left out. If we start with a few simplifying assumptions, e.g. global biomass is still and has been more or less in dynamic equilibrium OR is increasing due to human population growth and its secondary effects of agriculture and animal husbandry offsetting such effects as deforestation. Global hydrological cycle is more or less and has been in dynamic equilibrium. No “unknown” green house gases are affecting global temperatures. Et cetera. Then we are more or less forced to look at the most likely suspects, i.e. CO, CO2 and CH4. Why? Quite simply because every day tens of millions of tonnes of carbon, that has heretofore been *sequestered* from the biosphere, is being released by combustion of fossil fuels and animal metabolism.
Who is burning all these fossil fuels and who is husbanding large concentrations of animal proteins in factory fashion? Human beings.
While it is quite true that some fraction of this overall release of carbon is quickly removed from the atmosphere in the formation of biomass and carbonates, it is only a fraction, we don’t see new rainforests sprouting around the globe. All major rainforests are undergoing continuous and intense destruction. The biomass in one hectare of climax rainforest is much greater than the biomass in one hectare of soybeans, or sugar cane, or corn or wheat or rice. And it remains in situ for much longer periods of time.
So if global trends of temperature increase are in fact due to the increasing abundance of the carbon gases mentioned above, and absent any plausible alternative explanation, then the anthropogenic cause is difficult to deny.
Having a passing familiarity with climatology from a slightly less casual interest in glaciology, it is admittedly *possible* that other factors are contributing to the phenomenon. Our understanding of past climate is not very detailed or extensive. However, looking at the situation objectively, if we can reliably predict that the near term (100+ years) effects of the warming trends we see will have relatively dire consequences, is it at all reasonable to conclude that we should make no effort to reduce the rate at which we are liberating sequestered carbon into the atmosphere because some independent factor is making it even worse than it would be if we were solely responsible? The alternative as mentioned somewhere up thread is that the climatological factors would be acting against warming, i.e. we *should* be seeing a cooling trend. If that indeed is so, then our problem is even bigger than we think it is.
I know this is a poor effort to contribute to the discussion but that seems to be one of the main problems of doing science and then conveying its results to a populace that is primarily attuned to transient events and superficial knowledge. Science is complicated, arcane and tends to demand inordinately large amounts of time and work to be used or practiced with any integrity.
It is a pity that hard work and integrity are not rewarded in an appropriate fashion, or even taught to school children as goals worth aspiration. Instead our society seems to be focused almost exclusively on the false aims of celebrity and obscene wealth. Both of which appear to be obtainable only through sleight of hand.
Despairing of ever enlightening the already sure, all that is left to me is to paraphrase an emminent theorist, Dr. Feynman, “… you can’t fool nature.”
I must confess I do not understand how life came about… The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem.”
abiogenesis. look it up.
that said, assuming you actually wish to extend that to evolutionary biology (you morons typically seem to enjoy conflating the two)…
guess what?
It’s not a satisfactory solution to anybody who actually works in evolutionary biology.
and, of course, it really shouldn’t to you, either.
unless you WANT to repeal all medical advances achieved through the study of evolutionary biology.
try a different science:
I must confess I do not understand how
lifelightning came about… The possibility of the existence of a Creator, ofGodThor, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem.”does that still seem satisfactory to you?
If so, welcome to the Norse Pantheon!
The universe was created by a dragon that now sits in the centre of the sun providing a heat source for the creation that is this planet.
Prove me wrong Silver Fox.
I say the one that should be questioned for his hatred is “Mr. Tolerant”,PZ Myers
Hey, Coach.
Did someone here say PZ is tolerant of moronic gibberish, such as what you are spewing?
In fact, we appreciate him for his very INTOLERANCE of irrational morons like yourself.
While it is an appeal to authority, more the point it’s entirely irrelevant. So what if a Nobel laureate thinks “Goddidit”, there are plenty of believers. It doesn’t mean that Goddidit, or that Goddidit is a satisfactory answer. For him it is, it’s satisfactory to say so. It’s a subjective statement that has no grounding in science.
“Might be one day, but I don’t think its time to fuck up the worlds economy over this issue.”
Oh, hear hear! ESPECIALLY with the economy being an absolutely granite-ribbed and flawless chrome beast at the moment.
Eric, you win the Most Unintentionally Funny Statement of the Day Award. Your plaque is in the mail. Really.
Oh, wait, I know … this whole crisis is the FAULT of unthinking global warming believers isn’t it? Silly me. It’s all connected, it just took Eric to show us the shining truth.
Ironicus
I think there is a pretty strong point to be made in a similar vein.
I can certainly accept the idea of an evolved sense that all occurances are the intent of an “agency”.
It’s simple enough to imagine that agency slowly evolving into god over time.
The idea of a “god gene” just seems like a hamhanded attempt to shortcut the individual components that make up faith.
Most of the individual components are pretty evident.
Fear of death, a need for authority, avoiding responsability etc.
Re: #117
I second the complaint. Frankly I think that you need to review and revise your entire standard for the vetting of trolls. The quality has fallen so low that any troll out of the local drainage system can get some traction. Where are the
intellectual bastions of ID? Behe, Dembski? Anyone?
Fear of death, a need for authority, avoiding responsability etc.
why, that sounds like a direct appeal to Bob to me!
are you a slacker too?
http://www.subgenius.com/
Evilution
#118 – coacholson – We LIKE being picked on. We are used to being picked on. In fact, you dickless wonder, when we say bring it on – we really hope you WILL.
Come on coach, bring on your gawd. Fire, brimstone and damnation! Let’s go bucko.
Show us a full frontal of your gawd. We can take it. Put up, or shut up.
coacholson #118:
Look up ‘compartmentalization’. Nobody said that people with stupid beliefs have never made significant contributions to science. What we said is they have stupid beliefs.
“Please don’t give the usual bunk that this is “quote mining” or arguing from authority.”
I also like how you already knew what was wrong in your argument, so you went ahead and asked us to please not call you out on it. Cute
Ichthyic #120:
“try a different science:
I must confess I do not understand how
lifelightning came about… The possibility of the existence of a Creator, ofGodThor, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem.”does that still seem satisfactory to you?
If so, welcome to the Norse Pantheon!”
Quoted for truth.
Where are the
intellectual bastions of ID? Behe, Dembski? Anyone?
in all seriousness, there have been times when the “stalwarts” you mention have appeared on this blog, and others like Panda’s Thumb, to try and defend their positions.
At such times it becomes quite clear that even the regular posters (not even the hosts) of those blogs are more than sufficiently knowledgeable to entirely deflate their arguments in less time than it takes to say “cdesign proponentist”.
for a really fun example, you might try the ERV blog and look at how a lowly grad student absolutely shreds all of Behe’s arguments regarding the evolution of viruses.
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=017254414699180528062%3Auyrcvn__yd0&q=behe+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fscienceblogs.com%2Ferv%2F&sa=Search
The point is, if one wants to maintain credibility with the “less than thougtful” fundie base, one can’t be seen to be soundly defeated by even regular posters on a blog on a regular basis.
this is why they only spew their nonsense (typically) from their own, self-controlled, regulated, rigged, populated with fundies, pulpits.
There actually is a good analogy in thinking these guys preach from a pulpit in a church, while we speak from behind a desk in a science lecture hall.
when they venture outside of their little “churches” they tend to get shredded very quickly, by just about anybody with half a brain, frankly.
so, in short, don’t expect the “luminaries” of the ID movement to raise their ugly heads in blog threads like this.
It’s very rare they will even respond on threads attacking specific arguments they themselves have put forward.
ERV was an excellent fisherman to have lured Behe out of his hidey-hole and put the hooks in him so firmly.
Me thinks this is a quote mine. First there is the ellipsis.
The second quote may not even come from the same author. Let alone the unsupported assertion that serves as a preface.
Such pathetically crude arguments deserve nothing but ridicule.
Cheers,
As PZ Myers said on that podcast he posted earlier, there’s not much originality in the ID movement. We really all have sufficient knowledge to deflate the arguments because we’ve heard them dozens of time before. It’s nothing ever new, it’s always the same stuff just worded slightly differently. Plus there’s the bit about it contradicting the laws of nature.
First there is the ellipsis.
excellent point.
I always tend to overlook the obvious quotemining in favor of debunking their arguments presented even USING the quotemine.
but that ellipsis is indeed a red-flag.
google-fu, away!
*hi-ya!*
*tries to locate source of original quote*
ITMT, I did find his autobiography, which the “Coach” might want to look at himself to see the actual work he did.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1978/arber-autobio.html
one wonders what “Coach” might make of what his work actually represented:
funny, I don’t seem him mentioning any deities involved there.
:p
This statement in entirely meaningless. It never will be a theory.
Boy you sure say dumb stuff.
It is not a fact that the the worlds temperature has changed in any way.. There are however measurments that show that it is likely that temperature have increased, but there are all sort of doubts about the accuracy of the measurements, the way and the methodology of the measurements.
One example would be where the measurements are taken. There have be problems where physical measurement data was taken from areas around parking lots and HVAC equipment.
To be frank , there is alot of data from many sources, indicating temepature increases, but even the IPCC uses language such as “highly likely” to describe anthropogenic global warming.
Given that global warming exists, the reasons and processs are hypothesis’s.
The greenhouse effect is not disputed, but with only three percent of greenhouse gases being man made, there are those that dispute whether global warming is happing due to Anthropogenic effects or whether we could effect it with even zero carbon input.
I just don’t know.
…and here’s his website:
http://www.biozentrum.unibas.ch/ret_arber/
couldn’t find any reference to any deities there, either.
My google-fu is GREAT.
now then, before I post it…
can anyone guess where “Coach” got that quote from?
c’mon now…
ok.
times up.
http://www.icr.org/article/4095/
ROFLMAO
It is not a fact that the the worlds temperature has changed in any way
ice core data.
now stfu, moron.
I got a chill when I realized Coach and Psyentist are probably teaching Jr. High or High School somewhere. Too clueless to know they’re clueless.
bernard quaterwit.
Silly me, of course each country in the world should spent 25% of its GDP because of the orthodoxy of AGW. Fuck the developing nations we know that controlling carbon is more important than food or disease.
Hell it dosen’t even matter if global warming could be a good thing. We know best.
Fuck the developing nations we know that controlling carbon is more important than food or disease.
your hyperbole is growing ever more tiresome.
That has got to be the lamest attempt to discredit data I have ever seen.
It’s been shown that carbon emissions have increased faster than any other point in the last 240,000 years and it’s coincided with the industrial revolution. It’s also been shown that there is a link between greenhouse gasses and the temperature on earth. We don’t know exactly what extent humans have played in the role as there are other sources of carbon emission, not to mention outside factors like sunspot activity. But to outright deny that there’s a substantial link between humans and the environment is mind -bogglingly ignorant.
#117 – Emmet Caulfield – I agree. We have had substandard trolls of late. Flaming lunatics have been in short supply. I join you in being disgruntled.
PZ needs to desecrate a rubber snake, while speaking in tongues and trying to force a cracker down it’s throat. That should stir up the catholics, and the Palin campaign.
If ID really is just repackaged creationism, does that mean that abiogenesis is nothing more than repackaged spontaneous generation?
Who is saying that Eric?
btw, coache’s post on Werner Abner is even a quotemine of the quotemine ICR uses!!!
here’s the original quotemine (note the ellipsis in this one too!)
a quotemine of a quotemine.
damn, now THAT’s funny.
I tried to get to the original source of the quote (which was obviously talking about abiogenesis and not evolution anyway), but it’s a rather obscure book.
Ok, how about we stick the rtd probe up your ass for a measurement point Kel. Where you measure makes a difference you know. Make measurements at a site in a open field for years an then someone builds a office building and parking lot on the site,ummm this couldn’t bias the measurement now could it Mr. Lame?
Talk about mind -bogglingly ignorant…I have not denied any such thing about human activity and the enbiroment, now have I?
Enviroment.. no b.
#140 – Eric Atkinson – ‘Hell it doesn’t even matter if global warming could be a good thing.’
Right, because jesus is going to save you.
Got any children or youthful relatives, idiot? I’m sure they love your bullshit.
Of course it makes a difference, but when making a case against the science of it, complaining about carparks is really freaking lame.
Do you think that scientists would not realise this and work to putting these gauges in controlled environments?
Even if some were near equipment and in carparks, it’s a lot to use that as an example of how measurement is inaccurate. Surely you don’t think that climate scientists are so incompetent that they wouldn’t be able to take those environmental factors into account?
Ok, how about we stick the rtd probe up your ass for a measurement point Kel.
why not yours? Your head’s already up your ass, so it should be easy for you to get a reading.
Who said anything about proof? I wrote “argues against”, as you quoted yourself. Are you completely incapable of reading?
To return to my point: lack of effect argues against absence of cause. Lack of speech, continued over time, argues against capability of speech, which, combined with a complete lack of tangibility, argues against existence.
Now, you might present a counterargument. For example: God does not speak because Satan has had him tied up with a ball gag in his mouth for the past 5000 years. But that has a certain puerility that even I cannot deny.
More seriously, pretend that there is an intangible being capable of manipulating genes and giving poor, deprived bacteria their very own flagellum. What counterargument would you make against mine; what reason would there be for this being to not speak?
Which means that they deny all of science, and all of epistemology. So, they are either hypocrites or deluded morons.
But really, I doubt that anyone of them has even bothered to learn what the science actually is. Such blathering is, once again, an argument from profound ignorance.
Just try to swim through Eric…
Kel doesn’t need a probe up his ass, he has you to judge from with your head up your ass.
Concern noted.
Try again.
Kel. If AGW exist as described, then to effect it we as humans will have to eliminate the CO2 we put into the air. Not just the US, but every industrial nation and each developing nation. Enery is the life blood of out world it produces food and technology which keeps us alive.
So reducing the energy we use and changing the source of that energy is going to cost some much money that people that are hungry might not want to spend.
I got a chill when I realized Coach and Psyentist are probably teaching Jr. High or High School somewhere. Too clueless to know they’re clueless.
that’s EXACTLY right.
I think someone earlier, here or on another thread, posted the link to the relevant study in support of your contention.
…ah, yes, there’s a link to the wiki on the phenomenon, which I’m just reposting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
And if we did spent the money and reduce the CO2 added by man, it might not even help.
then to
eaffect it[, one thing] we as humans will have to [do is]eliminate[reduce] the CO2 we put into the air.again, your hyperbole is tiresome.
Kel 121
“created by a dragon who sits at the center of the sun”
If you are using “dragon” as a metaphor for a creator that would seem to be OK. But “sitting” would be anthropomorphic resulting in a mixed metaphor and that would not be OK
Being always ready to test a hypothesis (read: take a dare from a smug idiot), I promptly turned to my spouse and intoned in my sweetest voice: “I feel biologically compelled to share resources with you”. After a brief double take she replied, “And I you, my dearest”.
Granted, it helps that she’s as big a geek as I am, also reads Pharyngula and assorted science, and we’ve been a couple for over 30 years. It makes for a large shared vocabulary.
Silver fox hereby gets my nomination for the “Pedantic avoidance response” award for his last post.
Trish Yes my kids love me and they are both atheist like me.
Idiot!
The coach is cut/paste creobot who wouldn’t recognize a scientific principal if it bit him. He does a hit and run so he doesn’t see his stupidity rebutted.
For all those ID people, remember that the journals Science and Nature publish cutting edge science, so if ID was real science there would be articles in those journals. The utter lack of any journal articles is proof that ID is not science. And if you want me to accept your conspiracy theory arguments, I have to see both the papers and the referee comments in order to confirm that there is a conspiracy. If a paper is rejected because it doesn’t follow the accepted rules of science, the problem is with the authors, not the journal and/or referees.
And now I am insulting people so I better go.
Everyone watch the collective IQ of this thread drop to Trish’s bra size when I leave.
Leaving now. Good night kiddies.
So we should just keep on the way we are because it’s more convenient that way?
The fact is that the amount of GDP from developing nations that is going to aid in the 3rd world has drastically dropped in recent years. Our way of life now is ignoring the plight of the 3rd world when it’s easily fixable if there was a focus in the way we live our lives now. We as western nations have been ignoring the 3rd world because it doesn’t work with bottom lines, the system as it stands now is inadequate to handle the 3rd world. But I’m sure the $1.2 trillion spent on military resources last year is far more important than stopping infectious diseases and treating the hungry.
There are very few people advocating we just switch off everything, it’s impractical and it does destroy the quality of life we need. If you actually listen to the climate scientists and environmentalists, they are talking about mid-to-long term solutions by putting money into R&D, by getting practical technologies that can be sustainable to handle future income. Saying we are powerless and continuing to feed the architect of our eventual demise is not a smart thing to do. We need to invest more in research into ‘green’ resources, we need to do it in the western world because we have the means to do so. We need to do this soon because the longer we wait, the harder the transition is going to be. We also need to provide it because the 3rd world doesn’t have the means to do so. But of course, there’s the money issue of it all. It will cost us, no-one is going to deny that. But it’s better we start the process now because we are eventually going to be stung, if nothing else, by running out of the fossil fuels that power our society.
Ichthyic, Silver Fox is the godbot Max Verret. Same stupid shit being posted by him though. All talk, no evidence.
Everyone watch the collective IQ of this thread drop to Trish’s bra size when I leave.
everyone breathe a sigh of relief now that we no longer have to keep wiping the drool off of our shoes…
I search on “Arber” and “quote-mine” found a long posting in the Richard Dawkins forum which included a scathing and detailed takedown of this nonsense, which includes the line:
“Reference [3] in this case is none other than a book by Roy Varghese, a well known liar for doctrine who has recently become involved in the Antony Flew affair. A source whose provenance is so untrustworthy right from the beginning that one wonders why it wa included here. Hints of the prejudices to come, methinks.”
And also:
“And once again, we’re back to relying upon Varghese. A man I wouldn’t rely upon to shovel shit from point A to point B without trained adult supervision.”
“Everyone watch the collective IQ of this thread drop to Trish’s bra size when I leave.”
Remember that ‘Smart people think stupid people are as smart as they are, they just don’t ‘get it’. Stupid people, on the other hand, tend to think they’re smarter than everyone else’ thing we talked about earlier?
Eric Atkinson is a substandard troll.
His attacks on Kel are on the level of a three year old arguing over a color book.
Then there’s his spelling.
We need better trolls. He isn’t even worth trotting out any French taunts.
a book by Roy Varghese
*sigh*
It’s like following a rabbit down a hole, and running straight into a pile of shit.
IOW, the usual.
;)
What is it with numpties and there constant lack of ability in using grammar and spelling?
No, it’s a literal dragon that sits on a stool in the centre of the sun (which in turn is on a turtle which is on turtles all the way down to the outer layer which is a physical object) and it breaths fire that heats the outer core of the sun and sends off radiation throughout the solar system. It’s one powerful dragon, it created the universe after all. To back this up, we should occasionally see sunspots, this is where the dragon’s offspring breathe when the dragon catches them being naughty. In the last few years, it seems the dragon’s children have learnt how to behave.
Can you prove this is false?
Ichthyic, Silver Fox is the godbot Max Verret. Same stupid shit being posted by him though. All talk, no evidence.
really?
let’s see…
dungeonable offenses:
-sockpuppetry/morphing (check)
-insipidity (check)
-wanking (check)
oh, scratch that last one, that was for Eric.
‘Smart people think stupid people are as smart as they are, they just don’t ‘get it’
I hear alot of that here. Sure, if you don’t group think here its idiot, moron, stupid, etc.
And Kal, you post 164 is well put but unless the cost benifit is really there, we can”t afford it. But we could build more nukes and less dirtburners.
Yes I said I was leaving but couldn’t resist this.
Re #135 and #147
As to the first referent, could you perhaps try to write that again and make it into something coherent? A more garbled and
comically non-sequitur effusion of witlessness I have seldom seen. Since you cleverly omitted any reference in your post I may have wrongly assumed you were responding to someone else but somehow, I don’t think so.
As to the second referent above, it only serves to point out the fact that you have no idea how climatology is done. Just for starts, here is a map of the temperature stations whose recorded data are incorporated into climate models:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image%3AGHCN_Temperature_Stations.png
Based upon these two responses my opinion is that you have no knowledge whatsoever as to how climate is studied. No real surprise there.
Now, tangential bickering aside, please explain why the burning of millions of tonnes of *sequestered* carbon per day will not over time affect the global environment.
What is it with numpties and
theretheir constant lack of ability in using grammar and spelling?haven’t a clue.
I doubt anything in this statement is true.
What is it with numpties and their constant lack of ability in using grammar and spelling?
Dammit wrong “there”
Now going back to primary school to relearn
Yes I said I was leaving but couldn’t resist this.
funny, we often see that exact same behavior from creationists, and others following the science-denial MO.
I’d suggest you seriously re-examine your position on the issue of climate change.
‘Everyone watch the collective IQ of this thread drop to Trish’s bra size when I leave.’
If you mean me, darlin’ then you are so far off base you can’t even poke a jackass into an oven and get there.
Speaking of trolls and quote-mines, I wonder if “coacholson” is the same “Olson” who posted here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/still_straining_to_find_an_exc.php#comment-813110
Someone certainly seems to like arguments from authority…
Ichthyic
I believe his “position” on climate change in bent over facing away from the television while Fox news is on.
I wonder if he grabs his ankles or bites a pillow.
Come on fool – go again.
Where is Cuttlefish? It’s not the same without a Cuttlefish poem. :(
Actually, I note that both Olson posts appear to be very concerned about the infamous “steel-toed boots and brass knuckles” line, which I have to admit, I wish PZ had not made. Everyone sane and intelligent realizes that it was outrageous hyperbole… but far too many people are too dumb and deluded to realize this. It’s just giving an unpleasant out-of-context quote to a gang of compulsive quote-miners.
/concern
Anyway: coacholson probably is the same Olson from the other thread.
Ich@146
“a rather OBSCURE book”???
Cosmos, Bios and Theos
One of the authors is Roy Varghese
Compendium view of 60 scientists including 27 Nobel Award winners
You can get it from Amazon (they have 40 copies new and used) from 4.47 to 32.50
If you think this is “obscure” don’t try finding Webster’s Dictionary
Ichthyic,
thanks for the followups on the quote mine suspicions. It is not that I am so lazy as to not pursue them but it is very time consuming since my connection is so slow.
Thank you also for vindicating my suspicions.
Cheers,
Hells bells Kobra – The cuttlefish has scuttled off under the rocks with his Mrs. for the night.
It just ain’t fittin’ for you to poke at him when he’s all snugg-i-ed up to the Missus.
It jest ain’t fittin. Knock it off.
One of the authors is Roy Varghese
obscure in the sense it has little to do with anything any of the scientists listed ever worked on.
I’m sure it’s a big hit in creationist circles, given that Roy is the one that quotemined the thing together to begin with.
nice try, moron.
You can get lots of crap on Amazon.
I note that the title has 69 hits on Google. Not even triple digits.
Sorry. That’s pretty obscure.
I note that the title has 69 hits on Google. Not even triple digits.
compared to:
4,350,000 for God Delusion.
I wonder if the “fox” has perused that “obscure” tome yet, eh?
btw, just for foxy…
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/roy_varghese_and_the_exploitat.php
This is the Roy Varghese you admire?
You’re a complete tool.
Kel there’s an e in there you know…
The problem with the current system is that we can ever afford it. If we move away from fossil fuels, that will cost jobs, it will cost the wealth of those at the top, it will break our economy as our system is irreducibly complex in our dependence on energy and the companies that do it.
In the last 8 years under bush, the net worth of those at the very top increased by about $700 billion dollars. Like I pointed out earlier, we spend over a trillion each year on military expenditure. We have the capacity to afford it if we choose, but by doing so we harm the inept system that is currently set up. The benefit is there, it’s just one for future planning that cuts the profits of those who benefit from the system now. Of course that is going to be met with resistance, but it’s a fallacious claim that we can’t do anything. We choose not to do anything because it’s easier than forward planning that could leave many of those in power out in the cold.
Just out of curiosity, I searched for a book that I would definitely consider to be obscure: Thespis, by Theodor Gaster.
[thespis gaster] = 6420 Google hits.
Huh. Go figure.
Amazon does have it as well, used.
Come on coach, bring on your gawd. Fire, brimstone and damnation! Let’s go bucko.
Show us a full frontal of your gawd. We can take it. Put up, or shut up.
Fuck that! I want his imaginary friend to turn this coach moron into a pillar of salt!
When god-bots ask me what would convince me god exists, I tell them that if I can point to someone and say, god, turn this fool into a pillar of salt, and the person turns into a pillar of salt, and then god tells me to skeedaddle to a particular church, THEN I’ll believe in god.
Until then, he’s fiction. If I have to believe a guy in a book is real, I’d rather believe in Mr. Darcy, thanks.
Cosmos, Bios and Theos
One of the authors is Roy Varghese
Compendium view of 60 scientists including 27 Nobel Award winners
You can get it from Amazon (they have 40 copies new and used) from 4.47 to 32.50
If you think this is “obscure” don’t try finding Webster’s Dictionary
On Amazon, a search for “Webster’s Dictionary” under “books” resulted in the following:
showing 1 – 12 of 22,109 Results
um… what was your point, again?
um… what was your point, again?
should we even care?
actually, I was thinking about it…
69 hits?
that’s remarkably obscure.
I bet I could make up a word off the top of my head that would end up getting more hits.
… fnarfle
Ok, that gets 159 hits.
@188: I’m not actually demanding his presence here. :P
Eric @ 135: There have be problems where physical measurement data was taken from areas around parking lots and HVAC equipment.
I’ve been telling people for years NOT to point the exhaust from HVAC condenser units Northward, and now look what happened.
The Polar Ice Cap is melting
Nobody ever listens to me
His point was that he can’t disprove the Dragon hypothesis. Well it may not have been his point, but it’s the outcome of his limited reasoning abilities. Poor guy, at least he tries.
Ich @ 191
“God Delusion – wonder if the Fox has perused that tome”
Been through it thoroughly. Think it is the worst book he has ever written. I concluded that he must have needed the money. Its an excellent example of what happens to a guy who doesn’t keep up with his philosophy. The one I liked the most was River Out of Eden. The Blind Watchmaker is recommendable. The Selfish Gene was not good and it was panned by peer review.
Wow, a Godbot giving a harsh review of a book about why Godbots are idiots. Who’d have thunk it? :P
Think it is the worst book he has ever written.
of course you do.
say, are you really Max Verret?
if so, do you realize you’re violating the posting rules of this blog?
The Selfish Gene was not good and it was panned by peer review.
meaning you never really read it, but decided not to because xians panned it in reviews?
right.
You’re not fooling anyone, you know.
Nobody ever listens to me
sorry, did you say something Scooter?
Damn, Atkinson scuttled off.
The correlation carbon emissions and food production is quite dubious.
Carbon emissions correlate with cash crop agri-business which tend to starve people out, replacing locally grown foods with mass production of commodity crops via fertilizer, trucking shipping, etc.
One can make a good argument that the global diet would improve if diesel were 15 bucks a gallon.
I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
Ich:
I was somewhat surprised to see this testimonial in Cosmos, Bios and theos.
“Then we shall be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason-for then we would know the mind of God” – Stephen Hawking
Succinct, and yet nonsubstantive.
A most peculiar critique, given that he is quite up front about desiring to be an advocate for skeptical empirical atheism.
He may not have succeeded in your eyes, but he didn’t do it because he thought there was a huge population of people who were already atheists who would say “Why, yes, I will throw money at Richard Dawkins just because he wrote another book.”
I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
indeed!
I recall being quite shocked when I first realized that diesel had finally gotten more expensive than gasoline.
but then, it really does seem to be a true case of supply and demand. IIRC, doesn’t a barrel of oil produce about 3x as much gasoline as diesel?
I was somewhat surprised to see this testimonial in Cosmos, Bios and theos.
sure you were.
that book was nothing but a bunch of quote mines, cobbled together by a master quoteminer, your buddy Roy, who I already linked to above, and evidently was only read by the few people who managed to critique it for the utter claptrap it was.
oh, and yourself of course.
like I said, you aren’t fooling anybody.
take a hike off a short pier, dolt.
Succinct, and yet nonsubstantive.
yes, at least tonight he has the vapid but short thing going for him.
still, I for one don’t plan on endlessly following rabbits down holes filed with shit.
*translation for Max*:
We’ve already shown one quotemine from that book that ended up on ICR’s website. There is no value in pursuing every quotemine you plaster here from your valued tome of crapola.
I’d rather spend the time pointing out what an utter ass you are for even TRYING to play that book up as anything but dishonest nonsense.
and you are… an utter ass.
Here’s a question for you, maxy:
do you find the Insitute of Creation Research to be a credible source of information?
a simple yes or no will do.
if no, then you might as well burn that book you’re quoting from.
if not, then cycle back to:
you’re an utter ass.
Crude isn’t consistent, it varies. The light stuff in the middle east yield more volatiles, gasoline and the other “…enes”. The heavy stuff around here yields more heating oil, lube and bunker, and the sour stuff yields more freaky chemicals but eats up the crackers. oooh I made a catLick joke.
I’m not an expert the chemistry, but I’ve handled millions of barrels of the stuff.
Don’t breath when you’re loading that Pemex crude, the SO2 will kill the shit out of you.
This first thing it does is kill your sense of smell, so you don’t know you’re breathing it, then you get real drowsy, then it paralyzes your autonomic nervous system as you are dozing off.
YIIIIIKES!!!
I suppose you never read A Brief History of Time, then.
Or is that too obscure for you?
This first thing it does is kill your sense of smell, so you don’t know you’re breathing it, then you get real drowsy, then it paralyzes your autonomic nervous system as you are dozing off.
YIIIIIKES!!!
they never gave you SO2 detectors? Gees, they even give those to sewer workers.
I suppose you never read A Brief History of Time, then.
Or is that too obscure for you?
perfect.
Wow, quotemining Hawking. That’s pretty low.
As it says in the introduction of A Brief History Of Time (where that quote comes from):
“This is a book about God… or perhaps about the absence of God. The word God fills these pages. Hawking embarks on a quest to answer Einstein’s famous question about whether God had any choice in creating the universe. Hawking is attempting, as he explicitly states, to understand the mind of God. And this makes all the more unexpected the conclusion of the effort, at least so far: a universe with no edge in space, no beginning or end in time, and nothing for a creator to do.” – Carl Sagan
Given the multiple industry use of diesel such as shipping, various forms of land transport plus the aviation industry, it is no surprise that it price per litre would increase as more personal vehicles use it.
So there are some who still deny GW, open your eyes, OK lets first start with global destruction and I’ll speak from personal experience.
Do to coal strip mining a layer of shale or bedrock is removed to access the 3 foot layer of coal,this removes all the flora and fauna above the coal.That’s 80 to 120 foot of material and then is put back, leveled off and a monoculture of corn and beans is created oh but lets not stop there.Along with the destruction of the aquifer the following process applies.
Due to the application of pesticides and the abnormal amount of fertilizer required to meet reclamation standards for crop production on previously considered timber soil…the creation of salts due to the leaching of nitrogen to below root system, interacting with heavy metals in a corrosive chemical reaction which in turn releases heavy elements into the deeper disturbed soil until it reaches a path to which the flow is no longer impeded due to the layer of disturbed or broken shale, following this easier path to seeps located well past the buffer zone(if present) and deposited into the creeks and finally dumping into the ocean creating a dead zone thus causing the body of water to store heat due to photosynthesis restriction,thus leading to yep wait for it…stronger hurricanes.And that’s just one fucking link,there are so many more.
Mining coal is so fucking yesterday,harvest the wind it never stops.And create jobs in the process.
@ Burning Umberella:
Hallelujah brother! Gawd moves me most mornings after my first cup of coffee.
Kel 216
See the difference between Sagan and Hawking.
Read Ann Druyan’s eugogy: The most difficult part of Carl’s dying was that we knew that we would never see each other again. I never anticipate seeing Carl again. The pathos here is palpable. Carl and Ann had no hope beyond the coffin because they could not reason beyond the grave.
Hawking has hope beyond reason.
Silver Fox, prove to me that the Dragon hypothesis is false or start worshipping!
Hawking is an atheist, he doesn’t believe in a created universe. The universe is self-contained
“The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: ‘The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.’ The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.” – Stephen Hawking
It helps if you actually look past his use of the word God and find out the context.
It amazes me that more energy companies are not investing heavily in renewable energy systems as these technologies have one big advantage, you don’t have to pay for fuel!
This would reduce a large portion of their overheads, (hello saving money) whilst at the same time giving them an edge over the competition as they can undercut on prices.
Ahh, ‘hope beyond reason’.
Or, as I like to call it, ‘believing in things you know aren’t true’
AKA magical or wishful thinking. woo.
There are three great entities involved in society.Goverment,Corperations and the People.Some of us belong to only one, some to two and some even to all three. But we all belong to the People entity.People die and have no longevity yet this group is the longer sighted one, whereas Corperations and Goverments never really die and yet are very short sighted, go figure.
In one forum I used to frequent, this was called the “declare victory and run away” maneuver.
What a non sequitur!!!
1) You cannot disproof Creationism at 100% (the same way you cannot disproof the “Brain in a Vat” conjecture, the existence of “Russell’s teapot”, the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” or Lasttuesdayism/Lastthursdayism, etc.).
2) So, as you cannot disproof Creationism a 100%, you must accept that as some not-one-sided evidence for Literal Genesis Creationism.
It’s amazing how some ways of Religious Conservative reasoning drive us directly to Negative Nihilism:
1) You cannot proof anything at 100%.
2) So, this is an evidence of the Inexitence of Everything.
Or, even worse than that, Positive Nihilism:
1) You cannot disproof anything at 100%.
2) So, this is an evidence of the Simultaneous Existence of Everything (Tegmark providing!).
As we are so far O/T with the global warming thing, can I ask a serious question? This is a genuine appeal for answers (although it might be a stupid question, who knows?)
IF the polar icecaps melt, would it affect sea levels? I have been led to believe that as the earth is a closed hydrological system, there is no more water on the earth than what was here aeons ago, and ice displaces the same as water, so would the levels rise?
Call me stupid to ask this if you wish, I do not deny mankind’s involvement in Global warming, I am an atheist of 20 years, and I am not trolling…:) I have no formal background in science, and am asking because I am on a science blog. Any help gratefully received!
The North polar icecap is floating and won’t increase sea levels if it melts. The icecaps over Greenland and Antarctica are not floating and will increase sea levels by several metres if they melt completely.
Yes, the sea levels are predicted to rise. Anywhere from a metre to about 10 metres. This might not seem like much, but a lot of human settlement is on the coastline.
Actually, what Zarquon said.
You can watch an interview with Werner Arber here. I skipped to the 24:00 mark, everything past that puts the lie to Arber being a “Darwin Skeptic”/”ID Supporter”
psyentist (#7 and #22):
Nice bait-and-switch in the move from “explain” to “make meaningful” (not to mention your blatant conflation of “real” and “meaningful”).
Been a long time since I’ve seen a set of goal-posts so constantly in motion.
Quoth Eric Atkinson:
Exactly. And instead of pretending that everybody else is just as ignorant as you, you should spend a few hours learning. Start here.
ROTFL!
It wasn’t peer-reviewed. That word doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Peer-review is something that happens before publication. You submit your manuscript to a journal (or book editor), include in the cover letter a list of people you consider qualified referees, the editor sends the manuscript to 2 — 4 people they consider qualified (usually using your suggestions as a guide), they send their reviews, and if they pan it, the editor decides to reject the manuscript; if they don’t, the editor tells you to make all the changes and additional analyses that the referees require, you do that and resubmit, and then it gets accepted.
——————-
Max, your request for a single individual that is in the process of becoming another species is an admission of ignorance.
Firstly, evolution does not happen to individuals, but to populations.
Secondly, there isn’t one definition of “species”, there are at least 25. That’s no trivial matter: for example, depending on the definition, there are between 101 and 249 endemic bird species in Mexico.
Thirdly, google “ring species” and “allospecies”.
And then try to figure out how many species wolf, red wolf and coyote are: one, two, or three depending on the definition.
You have a lot to learn.
There must be something to the rumour that great white’s never sleep. I see there was assing and dolting bandied about around 2:00 am.
Well done.
Hawking has hope beyond reason.
but there’s no hope for you WITHOUT reason, which you apparently abandoned long ago.
oh, btw, aren’t you really Max Verret, “Silver Fox”?
face it, you’re a lying sack who quotes lying sacks.
face it, you’re a lying sack who quotes lying sacks [that quotemine actual scientists].
and ice displaces the same as water
well, close enough, but remember that ice floats, so what you’re really asking is a question not about displacement, but volume.
If the ice which is melting is all floating it won’t make any difference to sea level as the volume of the melted ice will be the same as that of the water (there may be a slight difference due to ice being more or less pure water and the surrounding water being sea water but it will not be significant).
The problem comes when the ice is melting from a land mass. Then the ice is not displacing its own weight of water so as it melts it adds to to water already in the oceans and sea level rises.
For example, it’s estimated that if all the ice covering the Antarctic continent melted, it would generate more than 60 metres of sea level rise.
Of course, that’s the “biggie”, but there is still a lot of ice sitting on top of other continents/countries too.
Hard to give an “exact” figure, but it would be rather catastrophic if it all melted at once. Bad enough that it’s melting as quickly as it is.
some islands are already “sinking”.
Moreover, it’s not just that ice melting adds water to the oceans. The oceans warming themselves causes expansion (yes, water expands when heated), which also raises sea levels.
I think Wiki has a decent enough overview of some of the relevant factors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#Polar_ice
It helps if you actually look past his use of the word God and find out the context.
what? You mean you want him to NOT rely on quotemining godbots for his primary information?
god forbid!
:p
If he’s going to Godbot on here, is it really too much to ask for him to be an honest Godbot? I remember reading something in the bible about that. Think there was something strong against bearing false witness. I think it was a commandment. I guess that’s how much regard Creatards have for God’s word… If genesis is wrong then the whole bible is wrong, but Lying for Jesus™ is okay!
is it really too much to ask for him to be an honest Godbot?
based on previous experience, I would, sadly, have to say yes.
but then, I have yet to experience a godbot that wasn’t deep in denial, and mostly using projection in order to communicate.
I’m sure he thinks he’s being honest.
“too clueless to know better” as was noted above.
For a while, Maxie would do a godbot post and run. Then one day he decided to up his posts to a more constant presence. Since he became obnoxious in doing so, I kept challenging him to show some physical evidence for his god. Needless to say, none was forthcoming, and he appeared to shocked his belief was being directly challenged. He disappeared for a couple of weeks, then reappeared as Silver Fox, and also Bald Eagle (verified by PZ). So he has godbotting, stupidity, and morphing as his crimes at the moment. Eventually he will say something so stupid PZ will show him to the dungeon.
Sometimes I think we need a “yllom” award, for the most obnoxious troll for the last month. Disemvowelment should be their reward for a month.
He’s quite the tragic character.
Outstanding suggestion, let’s examine it in the traditional fashion then — by tossing Ben Stein in the millpond to see if he floats like a witch.
Four interglacials ago Greenland was ice-free, and so was western Antarctica. The sea level was 22 m higher than today.
The highest point of Bangladesh, ignoring the steep, sparsely inhabited mountains in the southeastern corner, is 6 m above present sea level.
Doesn’t the same hold for all of Florida…?
Scooter @ 5:
And how else do you suppose we do it?
I feel your pain. Over here in Iowa, we’ve got an idiot that has been pressuring the Waterloo School district to make them teach a high school class based on the Bible.
When her petition was denied, she claimed she was being oppressed, even though no other religious text had ever been taught at the school… Hmmmm… now what kind of fuss would there be if an entire class on the Koran was prosposed? Or, how about if an entire class on evolution was going to be taught? I’m pretty sure we’d all be hearing about that. *sigh* Stupidity is rampant these days.
Thanks to everyone who gave me an answer to my question about sea level and ice melting.
That’s what I like about Pharyngula: you can learn stuff whilst having a laugh at inadequate arguments put by religionauts!