2009.11.07
Keep those comments coming!
Wikimedia Commons
Welcome, visitors from the esteemed science/biology/evolution Web site Pharyngula, and others. We're happy to have you at this humble, homespun and truth-telling blog that originates in the peaceful hills of western Virginia (NOT West Virginia, though that's a pretty good state and we're real close).
This blog is moderated, and I'll be away from my computer for most of today, at a Division III football game in a place known more for its moonshine than anything else.
Because it's moderated, I have to approve your comments before they show up. I'll get to that late tonight, I promise, after that white lightning wears off. But until then your comments will not show up.
But be patient, and please come back. We have a lot of fun here, and we like you!
That stuff might clear your sinuses, but it will rot your brain. Tread lightly.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 7, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
Dan,
Since you were too cowardly to address questions posed in you post about the Fort Hood shooter having a Va. CHP in 1996, I have but one more comment for you.
Goodbye. I will no longer read this drivel. You have lowered yourself lower than a snake's belly in a wagon wheel rut. People read and comment to your BLOGS and columns by CHOICE.
This Blogger/reader is exercising his choice.
Bob
Comment by Bob H — November 7, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
Now Dan...I hope you brought enough for the whole class..
Comment by tony — November 7, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
John Fogerty is on Live By Request on PBS. Does it get any better than this? Not in this life!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 7, 2009 @ 11:17 pm
Hey Bob H-- don't let the door hit you on your way out! And Sandi, I agree -- John Fogerty is great. He's still singing his songs in the original keys and sounds fantastic. (His guitar was mixed way too far down, though.) And, while we're at it, Fogerty's plastic surgeon ought to get a shout-out, too.
Comment by AF — November 8, 2009 @ 2:36 am
#2 Bob H
Hypocrite, creationist, coward.
Before you go could you address the points I made that completely shred your foolish creationist screed in the "Tuesday's column: Lessons on journalistic ethics - from Jayson Blair?" thread?
Because if you go because Dan was failed to answer a couple of points you made, while failing to answer the points I made well that makes you a hypocrite and we already knew you were a creationist (probably a Y.E.C. who are all either amazingly ignorant credulous fools or liars (just because it is lying for jesus doesn't make it ok, no matter what Eusebius said/did)). And based upon your post to Dan, it also makes you a coward.
If there are any other Creationists here who would like to take over for Bob in that thread, I eagerly await someone who knows something, anything.
Comment by VVarlock — November 8, 2009 @ 5:49 am
Having been handed his ass by Warlock, BobH is taking it, his marbles, and leaving the playground.
Comment by Kristen — November 8, 2009 @ 7:24 am
I tell ya one thing Warlock.....I believe in Creationism more than I believe that the whole universe just accidently happened...to me atheist is a much dirtier word than creationist..
Comment by Tony — November 8, 2009 @ 8:20 am
"Hypocrite, creationist, coward."
Good job, Warlock. Wait until they leave the room and then badmouth them. Heh.
Comment by Henry — November 8, 2009 @ 9:01 am
I'm going to take a wild-eyed shot in the dark here and guess that BobH will be reading that post.
Comment by Kristen — November 8, 2009 @ 11:21 am
BobH is gone? He'll be back. Probably feeling a little put down cause the house got the Health Care legislation through. Everybody who takes their football home always comes back to play another day.
Comment by Mike Scott — November 8, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
Tony
Atheist
You are an atheist when referring to the tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of gods humans have had throughout history (with the apparent exception of the abrahamic one).
There is not one theory that purports to base itself on random chance. Every modern scientific theory (of which I am aware) for the origin of the universe is based upon the properties of matter and energy and the principles upon which our universe appears to operate. There are piles of supporting information and data which provide a natural explanation for the origin of our universe.
For the christian creation myth there is none, no evidence. Add to that the book from which the christians draw their creation myth, is flawed in many other ways. Add to that that the christian creation myth isn't believed as fact by a majority of those who belong to the religion which originated said myth (most Jews believe that the story is an allegorical not factual explanation of our origins). Add to that the actual christian creation myth is incorrect in many ways based upon actual scientific knowledge. And on and on.
So, what exactly do you believe and why? Do elaborate, be detailed.
Comment by VVarlock — November 8, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
Henry #9
I was actually, if you see my next sentence; challenging him to defend his earlier post, in which thread I had summarily trashed his creationist lies, before he left.
If anyone knows this creationist to tell him to come back to finish what he started, or any other creationist wants to take up this discussion I think we can hammer out some Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis lies pretty handily.
Comment by VVarlock — November 8, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
Warlock...I dont feel that I have to explain my beliefs to you..I stand by my statement.your the one that needs to espouse your atheism in practically everything you post..and quite often resort to name calling as you did here..who are you trying to convince..us or yourself?
Comment by Tony — November 8, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
Tony
You certainly do not have to defend your beliefs to me here or anywhere.
However, if you decide to jump into a conversation between me and someone else, you had better be prepared to have me question why.
I was countering a point by Bob and you decided to chime in with your support of creationism (for which you have as of today now refused to provide evidence or even to explain, detail or elaborate upon your beliefs).
I do not 'deserve' an explanation from anyone. I do not rank high enough in your daily life to merit such position that I can require anything of you.
However, count on me to call you out on your statements when I doubt them, especially when I have basis and reason and science on my side.
You choose to stand by your statement, fine. I choose to call your position anti-scientific, illogical and unreasonable. My position is based upon evidence and reason, yours is based upon bronze age mythology. As long as you do not try to propose that they are equivalent methodologies for arriving at the truth and can stand me mocking your creation myth every time you bring it up, we will be fine.
I do call names, I admit that I even occasionally enjoy it (although in most instances I keep it out of the course of any actual discussion, I usually use it as a tactic to elicit reaction thus starting a discussion).
I am a snide, cock-sure arrogant prick. I am not a good representative of atheists. I am merely me. However, I try to be the best informed, most knowledgeable prick in the room at any given time. As a result I study more, more often and more varied topics than anyone I know and probably anyone you know too.
My atheism comes out here almost entirely in response to something a christian religionist says. In this thread, it came out because BobH was running away while failing to respond to my shredding of his christian creationist propaganda in another thread. It typically comes out for similarly reason, but at least usually in the same thread.
Who am I trying to convince?
Everyone.
I am pretty convinced myself, although in the course of my research every week I run the risk of having to re-evaluate my beliefs or cast aside my former knowledge as incorrect or irrelevant based upon some new data or study.
As for the rest of you, you all need work.
That was a joke for those right wingers who failed to have the sense of humor option added.
Comment by VVarlock — November 8, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
Your an empty sudo intellectual..I wont call you name though..you handled it well yourself
Comment by Tony — November 8, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
BTW Warlock..this is a blog.its all about "chiming in"
Comment by Tony — November 8, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
#15, Warlock -
Browbeater, Sufferer of Delusions of Grandeur, Room Temperature Nitwit
I have an especially low level of respect for people who antagonize others, who are constantly proselytizing their avowed atheism, and oh-so-tactfully preach to others as to how much more intelligent they are than the rest - so Warlock, I'll try to make this brief.
Faith is defined as a belief that is not based on proof. "(for which you have as of today now refused to provide evidence or even to explain, detail or elaborate upon your beliefs)" - Do you believe in life on other planets? No? Prove it. You do? Prove it. Either way, you're wrong, according to your belligerent form of arguing. Religion is based on faith, and you continually ask people to "prove" their religion. I for one believe in Creationalism, and I have no need to "prove" to you it was the way I believe our universe was formed. To believe that we assimilated from the primordial ooze based on intelligent design from some stars that happened to crash into each other is fascinating, but so is the theory that the Creatures Z from Planet X dropped off here a few billion years ago and we evolved from one of those super intelligent species - or we could have just as easily evolved into a talking donkey, according to evolution (and yes, sometimes I'm sure there are a few out there - although I'm not sure which end of the donkey is doing the speaking).
If you were around and cognizant, scientists claimed in the 70's and 80's that we were headed for another ice age, and that we were going to run out of gas in 2010 unless we found another source of fuel and oh, the hysteria that ensued! But guess what? Back to that thing called Faith - "a belief not based on proof". You may choose to call it a hypothesis if you so wish so as to leave the religious connotation out of the equation - but those scientists which hypothesized the ice age were wrong, and we still have fossil fuels, so what does that say for your "science"? Don't get me wrong, I don't dismiss science - but I don't place a blind trust in something that can be proven wrong time and again, and I wouldn't be so proud to claim basis,reason "and science" as my benevolent armorer. Not that there is anything wrong with basis and reason, but you assume that others who are not atheists can't reason - either that, or you just like personally attacking others who write in. Either way, both are symbolic of your superior intellect, no? Our global warming epidemic is now under great scrutiny by many scientists, so what happens if this in fact turns out to be another (oh my can it really be?) wrong theory? Scientists are proven wrong on a pretty frequent basis. At least they admit it.
For you to compare and contrast and define why you are so superior ("in which thread I had summarily trashed his creationist lies") but to fail to realize that your scientific views based on hypothesis (read:faith to the religious type) are the exact same thing just shows your ignorance. You're like the bully in school who always bristles when anyone doesn't believe the same thing they do, and challenges everyone, but rarely offers a real glimpse into something new or original. I could care less what you think, so go run into your man-cave and proceed to shred my comments and give me your best "I'm so much smarter than you because I said so" argument. You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours. It's a free country, and you're free to believe what you will - difference is, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.
All of the folks I know that are of truly superior intellect never converse about their level of intelligence. Apparently they're smart enough to realize that humility goes a long way.
Carry on, carry on-ers....
Comment by jc — November 8, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
Tony, if you do not want to defend or explain your own faith, I suggest you not diss or insult anyone else's or those with none. That is a rather unfair tactic IMO.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 8, 2009 @ 8:10 pm
The dissing on this blog is done by Warlock.who answers everything with acres of drivel..youve got so much BS with you Warlock that it coming out of your ears..i said I believe in creationism more than I do that everything just happened.I mean whats to explain....whats to defend?
Comment by Tony — November 8, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
Tony, I'm sure Warlock would support your absolute right to believe in the flying spaghetti monster if you had any remote support for your position.
If you can't support your own position, don't attack someone else's. If you're secure in your position, you won't be threatened by someone else's.
Comment by Kristen — November 9, 2009 @ 7:20 am
jc
So much wrong, so far wrong.
Your criticism of science is of course, incorrect.
Since I just read a book on the topic, I will cover your oil error here for the sake of brevity, you can do your own education about your incorrectness on global temperature concerns.
What was said, by one oil company scientist, was not that we were going to run out of oil/gas by 2010. In 1956, M. King Hubbert predicted (btw the book is American Theocracy and it is a great read) that the U.S. would reach peak oil production from the known oil production areas (which at that time did not include Alaska or anywhere a deep water platform would be required) very soon. He predicted that it would happen in the 70's (it actually happened in 1970). His urging was that the U.S. needed to find more oil reserves (possibly foreign) because it was going to become harder and harder to extract from the places we were extracting oil from here in the U.S. He predicted that at the rate of depletion the known U.S. reserves (at that time) could run out before 2010 at least to the point that it would no longer be feasible to extract what remained.
Guess what, he was right. http://watd.wuthering-heights.co.uk/mainpages/hubbert.html
The U.S. would have run out of domestic oil before the year 2000 without finding the Alaskan oil deposits or our dependence on foriegn oil, in part because the rate of depletion went up. Remember being told how evil and scary OPEC was, that was a part of the 'we have no choice but to get oil from foreign sources' hysteria.
We found more oil reserves in Alaska and the tech, for getting it from deep water became more available and more advanced and we became dependent on foreigners for much of our oil (2+ million barrels a day from Canada, 1+ million from Mexico and another 4+ million barrels per day from other foreign sources according to the EIA, the official U.S. department for energy statistics).
The sites from which we were getting our oil have dropped in production dramatically (over 60% since 1970 from almost 10 million barrels a day to less than 4 million barrels per day). Since then we have had to do things like pump water into the existing oil sites and dig more wells into the same places, or dig deeper into heavier, less desirable/efficient crude.
Now the world's experts believe that we will come to world peak oil production before 2020.
Since Hubbert was correct about U.S. reserves, it is reasonable to believe that these scientists will be right about world reserves. And we should be pretty concerned, there is coming a crisis like we have never had to surmount.
So, not only did he correctly predict that we were in trouble and needed additional sources of oil, but the U.S. followed his advice and got them so now we still have oil to use. So, that says not that scientists were wrong, but that they were exactly right, as usual.
As for Global warming, I was not convinced by the few papers on the topic and the many that have been done since seem to question a lot of the original conclusions and data. It is known that the earth goes in cycles and that humans are polluting the earth, but the earliest estimates appear to be under significant scrutiny. That being said, we are in an upswing in temperature, the polar ice caps are half what they were 20 years ago and there are very good theories that fall from this information, including the reflection of solar energy declining. Also, that being said, this is yet another display of the perfection that is the system of science, it is again checking and correcting itself.
Now on to why you are wrong about science in general.
Science is not based on faith, but upon evidence. Btw-not to nit pick but 'proof' is for math, nothing outside of that area can actually ever be 'proven'.
Scientists gather and interpret data. Scientists as a whole, as in those papers which survive the peer-reviewed literature process, are most often correct. When they are later shown to be incorrect it was often that more data is now available to clear up earlier information or better technology is available to gather more precise data.
I never place blind trust in anything, but science is the best way we have for knowing anything, about anything. Science's strength is that it is designed to find its own errors and correct them when better information is available. Creo-types often claim this is a flaw, but they are looking it through the lens of their 'faith' and its inability to correct. Science rarely gets things wrong outside the theoretical arena, but when they do, the system will check itself. Can the same be said for creation stories, no. I am proud to use the best system we have for understanding our universe as 'my armor' as you put it. What do you use? A book of bronze age fairy tales which has been shown incorrect on many of its details and can not correct itself or even be corrected in its own form?
As for your claim "I don't place a blind trust in something that can be proven wrong time and again" this is completely countered by your claim that you are a creationist.
Before we get into those myriad points though, we would first have to have you delineate what you meant by creationist, ie you would have to tell us what you believed so we could show you how the christian (or whichever) mythology has been shown incorrect or immoral hundreds of times.
I do not assume that people who are not atheists can not reason. I do often find this to be the case, but not always. Most people are able instead, to put up a wall of cognitive dissonance between what they know and what they believe.
Another way to describe faith is "believing what you know ain't so" (R.I.P. Carlin). The majority is in this position, putting their faith in an untouchable and thus unexamined position; separating it from their reason by this wall of 'faith'.
Claiming I trashed his creationist lies shows not that I am superior, but that my knowledge and the available facts are superior to his creationist assertions. (although in this case he provided a link which exactly countered his own point about the Second Law of Thermodynamics so I would say that at least my ability to read and comprehend is superior to his).
The ignorance here is yours, your claim that a hypothesis has to do with faith. Scientific hypotheses have nothing to do with faith and are not the same arena. They are falsifiable, ie. they can be checked, researched, studied and will be corrected or discarded when found to be incorrect. The same can not be said for things that christians take on faith (like the earth is 6013 years old and 'light' was created before the sun, there was a global flood, that it was 4000 years ago, etc.)
This line of yours is particularly telling "You're not going to change my mind..." Your position is not open to change. New or better evidence will not touch your faith because you have put it into a box and will not hold it up to the light of day. In contrast, my position, like that of most atheists I know and every scientist I know (albeit that is a small number on a conversant basis) IS subject to change, or modification based upon new evidence.
As for my need for humility, when the opportunity presents itself I am. That is not typically the case when arguing with Y.E.C.s. I am humble before the awesome expanse of the universe, before the greatness that is the scientific process and before the geniuses who got us to the place where we are today. But before an ID supporter, no need, they have nothing to offer. They can keep their argument, which basically amounts to an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance.
Comment by VVarlock — November 9, 2009 @ 8:23 am
Tony
#16 its pseudo-intellectual. Seriously at least spell your insults correctly you are looking more and more like a Y.E.C. every post.
#17 Feel free to chime in, do so frequently. However, when you do so with creationist lies, or anything else which is demonstrably false, count on me to call you on it (when I know it is false at least, I am not all-knowing, just much knowing).
#20
Your inept attempt to discredit my information as 'BS' aside, I will address the meat of your post.
"i said I believe in creationism more than I do that everything just happened.I mean whats to explain....whats to defend?"
As I said before you do not have to defend your beliefs, you have, as yet even refused to define them. That is your choice, you owe me nothing. Although, if you did bother to delineate your beliefs and held them up for me to shine light upon, you would undoubtedly learn something about said beliefs, I know I almost always learn something when I challenge my own beliefs.
I already addressed your false assertion of 'everything just happened' (post 12, not even that long). Please read if you are going to bother to respond. I know my posts tend to be long. I am verbose, but you might actually learn something if you read them, or at least they could drive you to look something up and you could learn something then.
As for what you have yet to explain, well to start with there are thousands of creation myths, I am assuming you are coming from an Abrahamic frame, but there are many variations within this one myth. Do you believe the earth is less than 10000 years old? Do you actually believe that the earth was made about the time science shows we were domesticating animals? These are Y.E.C. positions.
Then there are Day Age creationists who believe that the days in the bible creation story are 'ages'. They still get the order wrong, but at least they are getting closer to 4.6 billion year old earth.
So, which creation myth and which details are you talking about when you call yourself 'a creationist'. The volume of choices makes the word almost unintelligible.
As for what's to defend', well assuming you are willing to delineate and defend any position (which you have pretty much shown yourself not to be), how about your unscientific and unreasonable position (whichever position you happen to hold). How about the evils of christianity and the falsehoods and ignorance of the Abrahamic mythos in general.
If you wish to have this discussion, so do I. If not, stop making crazy, illogical, unscientific assertions or stop caring when I tear them down.
Comment by VVarlock — November 9, 2009 @ 8:47 am
OK..pseudo ..feel better? I dont have to explain an opinion..its neither right nor wrong..When I say "I believe" it means just that...you can keep writing till the cows come home..you do not set the parameters for this blog..your merely a contributor..you set no rules or policies..I contribute as I wish to..Dan runs the blog....and the crazy one around is that lil ole atheist..you!
Comment by Tony — November 9, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
jc@18
"but to fail to realize that your scientific views based on hypothesis (read:faith to the religious type)"
That statement absolutely shows that you have no understanding of scientific thought. There's not a shred of faith in a scientific hypothesis. In science, a hypothesis that doesn't stand muster after repeated an reproducible testing is cast out quicker than empties before a license check. It's about evidence, and has nothing to do with faith.
The example you give of scientist predicting coming ice age was such a hypothesis. Science is fine with that hypothesis, but unless it's supported by some real data, it's simply not going to stand the test of time and repeated experimentation. It too will be cast aside if it has no explanatory function and therein lies the power of science. If it's an crappy idea, it goes in the latrine.
I require proof. Real, tangible proof. I'll be the first person to think evolution is a crock when they find a bunny in the Cambrian period.Not some pie plate plaster cast, but a real fossil that doesn't fit in the chronology of the development of life on earth and that is verified in the same way that millions of others have been. If I wake up tomorrow and my good Christian neighbors have disappeared into rapture, I'll be on my knees faster than sinner at tent meeting. If the dead arise and meet me like they did in Matthew 27:52, I will have to rethink this whole permanent death thing. All of these events have about the same probability of happening.
It takes faith to believe something like Matthew 27:52; it takes evidence to support a hypothesis. These two modes of thought are not the same.
Comment by Mike Scott — November 9, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
Tony #24
You could not be more out of the realm of reality. There are incorrect opinions. Just because it is an opinion does not mean that it can not be incorrect.
Your asserted opinion is that the world was 'created'. Since you will not delineate what you mean by that I will have to beat around the topic until the crap squeaks.
If your belief/opinion is that it was created 6013 years ago, it is wrong. If your belief/opinion is that it was created in the order described in the bible, your opinion is wrong. If your belief/opinion is that woman was created from man's rib, you are wrong.
You can say you believe that the sky is pink, hell you can easily believe it, but it does not make said opinion correct. It does not mean that said opinion should not be scrutinized, mocked or held up to the light for examination.
Feel to contribute as you wish, all contribution is of interest. However, as I have said previously,
'Stop making crazy, illogical, unscientific assertions or stop caring when I tear them down.'
Again your call.
Btw - I never called you crazy, if you refer to my post I called the assertion crazy.
Comment by VVarlock — November 9, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
jc-
"If you were around and cognizant, scientists claimed in the 70's and 80's that we were headed for another ice age"
Wrong, wrong, a thousand times wrong. This damned myth has been pushed by the right wing/climate change deniers and it has to be killed like the disease ridden zombie that it is. There were some individual scientists that made that claim during that time. But there was NO widespread consensus in the scientific community, indeed climate science itself was still in its infancy and as such, they knew that making long term predictions was a bad idea. In 1975, The National Academy of Sciences said, "...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate..." It has only been after tremendous advances in computational power, decades of observation and other leaps forward, that the predictions we see today have been made with any confidence.
If you want more details on this idiotic propaganda that the right keeps pushing, read this report from The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled, "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus."
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf
Comment by Jason — November 9, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
Tony, if you cannot or simply feel no need to explain or defend your faith, I say again, that is your choice and on one will care. What I will not accept is your continued baiting and insulting Warlock (and any other atheists not so vocal) while repeating how you don't "need" to. Either debate your position or bow out of the thread. Hitting and running just makes you look foolish.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 9, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
I bait Warlock.lol..But I tell ya Sandi.it doesnt matter what you accept....And Im not going to bow out because you dont like it.....You or Warlock or anyone puts any pressure on me to do anything.you are nothingness...I say what I feel......dont like it.well you know what they say in Russia.Tuff****skees!
Comment by tony — November 9, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
Tony, Tony, Tony, where would we be without you?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 9, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
Tony
You done with this thread? Wanna continue or pick this up elsewhere. If you want to keep on, I would be glad to discuss in whatever context you allow your creationist beliefs.
Personally I love a good contentious discussion and this is a topic I feel especially well prepared to handle.
Comment by VVarlock — November 10, 2009 @ 3:33 am