RSS

KMG’s wish has been commanded. The blog is evolving faster than the Cambrian Explosion

10 Aug

Science and religion, like sex and death. Except after death you’re not nauseous.                                                                                                 genie

Advertisements
 
126 Comments

Posted by on August 10, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

126 responses to “KMG’s wish has been commanded. The blog is evolving faster than the Cambrian Explosion

  1. kmg

    August 10, 2013 at 11:20 am

    Creationists (and I use the word to describe all who claim evolution is false) have been on a crusade since the Supreme Court ruled that religion couldn’t be taught in public schools. Their avenue to backdoor religion back in was to create this sham called Intelligent Design (ID) and claim it was just as valid as evolution as a scientific theory. They published a book, Of Pandas and People, claiming that it was developed to show the ID scientific theory. They lied. All they did was take a previous draft and changed variations of the word Creation to Intelligent Design.

    Claiming ID/Creationism is a scientific theory displays a lack of knowledge as to the meaning of scientific theory. Scientific Theory is based on observable and/or measurable evidence and must be falsifiable. A scientific theory is not just, “Hey, what if…” Evolution meets the criteria, but ID/Creationism doesn’t. I could posit that the Flying Spaghetti Monster waved his noodly appendages and spun the universe into existence or that a giant turtle had explosive diarrhea to create the Big Bang and those ideas are just as valid as Creationism.ID. You can’t disprove it, so we should teach the controversy, right?

    My challenge to the Creationists is to provide the falsifiable studies or experiments that attempt to prove Creationism/ID. Junk science attempting to disprove evolution don’t count.

     
    • Cluster

      August 10, 2013 at 11:35 am

      Aside from Faith based ideas of our origin (creation), being much older than science, science has yet to prove conclusively what that origin is. Evolution on some levels is undeniable, but it still doesn’t tell the whole story, so anyone would be a fool to completely dismiss a Faith based theory in conjunction with, or not, of evolution. The fact is, none of us know for sure, so why not have an open mind? I have a feeling it has to do with a deep seated hatred towards religious people or religious tenets, but that’s a conversation for another day.

      And I have to say that conjuring up a Flying Spaghetti Monster as a creationist theory would need to stand up to over 2000 years of scrutiny before it could be considered any where near valid. But you can sure the ball rolling on that if you want.

       
      • kmg

        August 10, 2013 at 11:45 am

        People who believe in evolution do not try to claim it answers any questions as to the origin of life or the universe, because the theory has nothing to do with it. Yet, Creationists try to use that as a reason for evolution being false. Why is that?

        Now why is my FSM theory any less valid than biblical creationism? There has been the same level of evidence produced to support both theories, in other words, none. If you disagree, provide your evidence.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 10, 2013 at 12:37 pm

        Cluster,

        Your dismissal of evolution because it does’t explain “the whole story” is absurd; germ theory doesn’t explain why we exist – does that make it bogus as well?

        And you still don’t seem to understand that tearing down evolution in no way validates any religious assertions, for creation or otherwise. Every theory or hypothesis must rely on evidence which supports it, not on destroying evidence for a contradictory theory.

        Here’s an analogy. Bill is dead. Now, anyone could have done it, it’s unsolved at this point, but I think Jane killed him, you think Ruth did it. If you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jane is innocent, that still IN NO WAY supports your claim of Ruth’s guilt. Likewise, if you were to convincingly disprove evolution that would IN NO WAY thus support any religious tenet. Do you understand this?

        So how about asserting some positive evidence for your creation myths? Noting that religion is really, really old doesn’t cut it – yes, we know mankind is prone to irrational, superstitious beliefs, some new, some old – that says nothing about their truth. Are you an avid practitioner of astrology as well? I understand that’s a pretty ancient belief.

         
      • Cluster

        August 10, 2013 at 1:06 pm

        I am not dismissing evolution, I am just saying that it doesn’t answer all the questions. And if evolutionists lack the curiosity in knowing our origin and how that relates to the theory, then I don’t understand why. I think that would be a big component.

        The fact is none of us know for sure – certainly evolution on some level is undeniable, but I think everyone needs to refrain being absolutists on the subject.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 10, 2013 at 1:32 pm

        Cluster,

        I don’t think evolutionary scientists lack the curiosity about our origins, it’s just that abiogenesis doesn’t have much to do with the theory. Evolutionary theory is concerned with the development of life after it first single-celled organisms arrived on the scene.

        The only way I’m being an absolutist is to state that evolution is a proven fact – that is absolutely true.

        No area of science answers “all the questions”, so I’m a bit confused why that should be a slight against evolution…

         
      • Cluster

        August 10, 2013 at 2:02 pm

        Again, I am not against evolution. I believe in it, and it is fascinating. It’s just that it doesn’t answer everything, and I want to close the loop if possible.

        From one of my favorite songs – Steely Dan, Deacon Blues

        This brother is free
        I’ll be what I want to be

        Just sitting in the Detroit airport listening to Aja and watching the people.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 10, 2013 at 2:14 pm

        Well, I guess we’re in agreement then: Like you, I believe in evolution and I also would like to know the mysteries of the universe! What were we arguing about? Cheers!

         
      • ricorun

        August 14, 2013 at 10:06 am

        Cluster, the thing is that alternative theories have to be testable in a repeatable way, and to make affirmative predictions about what could be testable in the future, should technological advances allow it. ID fails on all counts. I certainly don’t have a problem with the notion of God, but ID is based on the capricious and intrinsically unpredictable “finger of God” which, IMO, cheapens both science and religion. And any “appeal to authority”, as it is called in logic class (i.e., your statement that “conjuring up a Flying Spaghetti Monster as a creationist theory would need to stand up to over 2000 years of scrutiny before it could be considered any where near valid.”), has no standing in logical argument. Besides, there are plenty of religiously based origin theories that predate biblical Genesis. Thus, even if you want to go that route, you must convincingly argue that the Bible must be considered the go-to text.

        Science makes the assumption that objective reality obeys objective laws which are discoverable. If you can’t make that assumption, it’s not science. For that very reason, science runs into problems with issues associated with ultimate origins (e.g., the origin of life, the origin of the universe, or the basic units of energy and matter). IMO, those are the true interfaces between physics and metaphysics. Further, IMO, it will always will be so, because there will never be a definitive way to prove that the origin of all reality is either random on the one hand, or intelligent on the other. After all, when talking about ultimate origins, how do you ascribe a cause to an effect if it’s supposed to be original?

         
  2. mitchethekid

    August 10, 2013 at 1:04 pm

    I live in Kansas. The same state that was the topic of Thomas Frank’s book What’s the Matter with Kansas? A decade or so ago, Dominionists were elected to the Kansas School Board with the sole intention of having ID or Creatonsim taught in science classes as an “alternative”. Although I had no problem with this debate occurring in a comparative religion or philsophy class, ( in fact I encourge it) there is no alternative to empericism. Just like for practical purposes, there is no alternative to math, taxes or gravity. Or as my saged and wisend Uncle says, “it is what it is”.

    Humans are currently the most dominate life form on a 3 deminsional rock, spinning around a larger rock that is on fire. It’s a furnace powered by an unfathomable, crushing mass that converts one element into another and releases energy, in the form of light, as a byproduct. I honestly don’t understand the controversy over carbon based life vs said carbon based life attributing it’s creation to an all knowing, all controlling human like entity. With the dynamic of the human family as a template. I think that the reptilain and mamilian vestiges in our CNS create a conflict with our higher brain functions. Lets use fear of the unkonwn as an example of the mamillian. Being fearful of the unknown is an adaptive trait. Caution, prudence, etc. But expressed in the realm of modern society we have racism. Now lets go to the reptillian, the major part of our brain stem. Non refelctive, reactionary, no sense of self or refection, just pure enzyme, emotional driven insinctual behavior. Robot like. Preprogramed. And used as a defense in murder cases.
    I have no probelm with something spontainiously manifesting out of nothingness. (See Chaos Theory) After all, nothingness as a concept IS somethingness. Just a somethingness devoid of content and contained within cognitive parethneses. Bertrand Russel tried to prove the existence of god using mathematics. He posed the following question as a paradox. Can the set of all sets be a member of itself? If the answer is yes, then it’s no but if the answer is no, then it’s yes. Personally, I think of god as a mathematical expression. There is no humanity or human like qualities involved, other than being able to relate. A stranger in a strange land so to speak.
    Lets do a thought experiment. Lets say there is an earth like planet on the opposite end of the universe.(Assuming there is an opposite end!) A trillion billion light yrs away. Lets say that planet was an incubator for a life form that evolved into dinosaurs. Without an asteroid and that they evolved into a self aware, tool building, art creating, music playing creature who also along the way had a concept of a higher power, a driving force, a master controller. What are the chances that their concept of this entity would look like, or be like them? Huh? Bueller? Any one?
    I know you may ask, where did this spark of life come from? I don’t know. No one does, but I don’t discount the possibility that the young universe was totally different than it is today nor do I discount the possibility that a carbon atom. under the conditions of the young universe with infinate energy could somehow (and I know the HOW is the important part, hence science) replicate itself. Split into two and thus millions and millions of yrs later produce a me who is writting this garbage. But god is a human concept and evolution is mathematical progression, as far as DNA goes. Personally, I favor critical thinking. I’m not one to allow others to tell me waht to think. Guess I’m a contarian. Wash in dirt, dry off in water. Sorry for the poor spelling. Spell check took the afternoon off.

     
    • bardolf2

      August 10, 2013 at 2:13 pm

      Let me be clear, I am completely against ID or its equivalent being taught in public schools since as you said it is not empirical. It is 100% out of place and I agree that it would be useful to have something like a class on understanding various beliefs on man’s role in the universe.

      On the other hand, in your own post you’ve shown the influence of a set of ideas based on the concept of evolution but without any scientific basis. I will pick out one.

      ” Being fearful of the unknown is an adaptive trait.”

      What can this sentence possibly mean? Well it makes some perfect sense, if I want to pass my genes onto the next generation I’ll need to not be eaten by a bear so if I am unsure if a bear is in a cave I’ll want to be cautious. But, if I am afraid to fly airplanes because of TV news and I drive a car 1000 miles instead then statistically speaking my fear of the unknown has put me in more danger. The plane flight is safer than the drive. Evolution theory posits that it doesn’t matter what I WANT for my genes, they will or won’t randomly make it to the next generation. Some traits will exist without any explanation simply by chance.

      Fear being an adaptive trait is reasonable, that doesn’t make it scientific any more than casually observing the earth makes it reasonable to conclude it is flat.

      Is there any danger in not being able to test the theory that being fearful of the unknown is an adaptive trait? Maybe yes. After all you have laid the abhorrent behavior of racism at its feet, maybe even given racism a natural aura. But lots of culture occupy our brains too. Self-created identity is a relatively modern development, less than a few thousand years old, before that one simply belonged to a tribe. One wouldn’t think of themselves as being Egyptian in ancient times or ‘white’ or a believer in the FSM. One would recognize they lived in a certain place, that they sunburned easily or that their family put Spaghetti Monsters on the car as a decoration. Large scale racism was a pseudo-scientific explanation of why people in Africa had less ‘stuff’ compared with people in Europe. Jared Diamond gives a more plausible explanation of the relative distribution which steers away from racism. The racism of modern slavery in the Americas was justified by confusing the meager amount evolution claims with the large amount culture says without reflection. It is not be coincidence that eugenics proponents misused the word Race in Darwin’s “On the Origin of the Species and Preservation of the Favored Races by Natural Selection.

       
      • rustybrown2012

        August 10, 2013 at 2:42 pm

        bard,

        I can’t speak for mitch, but I think your take on his use of the word “fear” is a tad too literal. I read it to mean he was writing about the cave-bear fear scenarios and not fear in general, especially not irrational fear. Yet even in the general sense, fear could be adaptive. Just because a trait can misfire doesn’t mean it can’t be generally beneficial. You can list dozens of examples where fear is useless or destructive, but you can’t deny that OVERALL fear and caution is and has been very beneficial to the propagation of our species. That being said, evolutionary behaviorism is a far less settled science than biological evolution, yet it seems reasonable to conclude that fear is an adaptive trait and one widely observed in the natural world.

        Similarly, I think your statement “Evolution theory posits that it doesn’t matter what I WANT for my genes, they will or won’t randomly make it to the next generation.” is a bit off the mark. Our, and any animals survival depends on how we behave as well as our physical attributes. Evolution has undoubtedly shaped our behavior, desires and wants.

         
      • bardolf2

        August 10, 2013 at 6:24 pm

        rusty

        I didn’t mean to say that unconscious responses to plausible harms aren’t useful for making it to the next generation, of course they are useful in any species. An encounter with a bear is naturally a plausible harm for a person even if he/she has never seen such an animal before. These automatic responses are buried in our DNA. “Knowing” that falling from a height will kill you it’s rather natural to be agitated when near a cliff. Fear of known dangers (and by known I would include things like repulsion of diseased animals) both learned and instinctual makes sense.

        My contention was with the “adaptivity claimed for fear of the unknown”. It seems more plausible that an animal in a novel environment gather as much information as possible, the opposite of fear of the unknown. If one can’t gather information, e.g. in the dark, there is no reason to stub one’s toe, but otherwise one should explore. One might believe that humans are naturally afraid of strangers (though again evolution can’t test such things) but relating racism to evolution or a million other behaviors to evolution via tenuous reasonings like a vague appeal to caution is dangerous.

        Evolution is generally too complex to be used in an argument in everyday life, beyond thinking it is a true idea. KMG on another thread wrote “Inoculation is an ironic example, since it wouldn’t exist without evolutionary theory.” Of course inoculation predates Darwin by centuries as wikipedia attests. I also think 100% of evolutionary psychology is made up stories for the public to digest.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 10, 2013 at 7:55 pm

        Bard,

        I think I get your point and I think we’re probably very close to agreement. I, too, as I’ve said, have a skeptical eye for definitive behavioral evolutionary claims but also accept common sense and science in regards to general claims. Part of our disagreement could be semantics – I was taking “fear of the unknown” to mean “general caution” and “prudence”, for example.

        I think there’s a lot of grey area with this discussion, and I think the fear of the unknown is balanced with the undeniable instinct for curiosity that you’re talking about. Both are evolutionary traits in my opinion, even if they are contrary to one another – after all, evolution is a process and our present existence is not the last word on the subject. Could be curiosity will kill the cat, or humans in this instance.

         
      • bardolf2

        August 10, 2013 at 8:24 pm

        rusty

        not all traits are ‘selected for’ in evolutionary theory sometimes there are just traits, balding e.g. might be a trait. If tomorrow there was a mutation in a crop it that neither hurt nor helped a plant in time some people would try to explain the mutations continued existence as helping the fitness.

        “Fear of the unknown” could not be understood as prudence which means ‘governing oneself by reason”, likewise caution is care taken to avoid mistakes. There is no natural reason to think a stranger who has one skin color is less dangerous than a stranger of another skin color. One might be conditioned to believe these things but identity via skin color is a modern invention.

        One other thing, evolution is random. It doesn’t move in a direction. It has no goal. It doesn’t aim for progress. It doesn’t aim. Mankind can never be a danger to Mother Earth from an evolutionary point of view.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 10, 2013 at 8:57 pm

        Bard,

        Uh, whatever man. Like I wrote, I think we’re pretty much in agreement, unless you want to pedantically split hairs about the meanings of the terms “fear”, “caution”, “prudence”, etc. Personally, I find that boring.

        For the record, I’m sticking by the notion that the phrase “fear of the unknown”, as it is commonly understood, is at least partly the byproduct of an evolutionary behavioralism function.

         
  3. Cluster

    August 10, 2013 at 1:11 pm

    The other day I expressed my belief that our bodies quite possibly could be a closed system in thermodynamic equilibrium of heat, pressure and energy wherein the energy, or soul transfers (as all molecular energy does) upon death, therefore a traveling soul if you will. I was shot down by a few, which is their right because it is only a theory, I have no idea if I am right or way, way off base. But that is the beauty of life, the unknown. Wouldn’t it be boring if we did know everything?

     
    • ricorun

      August 14, 2013 at 10:25 am

      Cluster, it’s fine if you want to espouse any sort of theory you want. Just don’t call it scientific. To do that you need to obey the rules — that your theory is testable in a repeatable manner, that it explains ALL of the available evidence (and merely demonstrating a lack of evidence doesn’t count), and that it makes testable predictions. Parsimony also helps, but that’s a relative thing.

       
  4. mitchethekid

    August 10, 2013 at 1:28 pm

    I like movies. And books. It pisses me off that I will die before the human story does as well as my understanding of how the universe works. Did you ever see AI? Very disturbing, as was Vanilla Sky. And I have lucid dreams. Like Castaneda’s Don Juan. Look for the hand!

     
    • rustybrown2012

      August 10, 2013 at 2:03 pm

      Are you familiar with the simulation argument? I find it compelling, plausible (not to say I believe in it). This Times article is a good layman rundown:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html

       
      • rustybrown2012

        August 10, 2013 at 9:13 pm

        I can’t believe nobody’s picking up on the simulation argument. Mitch, I thought this was right up your alley. Smoke a joint, read the article, it’s worth it.

         
      • kmg

        August 11, 2013 at 5:02 am

        My life was built on a TRS-80.

         
  5. mitchethekid

    August 10, 2013 at 2:43 pm

    What’s simulation? A replication? A phony? A duplicate? Inquiring minds want to know. Going back into the garage now.

     
  6. rustybrown2012

    August 10, 2013 at 8:22 pm

    BTW, anybody catch amazona’s latest pedantic, evading, dissembling rants with norma (my new hero) at bfv? What a diseased, monstrous cunt. She’s like a vampire – she can’t survive for two seconds held to the sunlight of truth and fact. bfv moderators enable her to survive.

     
    • bardolf2

      August 10, 2013 at 9:23 pm

      strange that the moderators allowed kneepadder in that thread while teabagger would be deleted

       
      • rustybrown2012

        August 10, 2013 at 9:30 pm

        I don’t view norma’s posts as “kneepadding”; but one man’s knee padder is another man’s blow job… or something.

         
      • bardolf2

        August 10, 2013 at 10:53 pm

        The word fellatio is still on the B4V page so maybe the moderators aren’t too bad.

         
      • watsonthethird

        August 10, 2013 at 11:02 pm

        You mean I’ve been falling down on the job of capturing deleting comments at B4V? lol

         
  7. rustybrown2012

    August 10, 2013 at 10:24 pm

    Very germane to this discussion, a submission by Steven Pinker:

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-humanities#

     
    • bardolf2

      August 10, 2013 at 11:00 pm

      I liked the essay above precisely because it emphasized the need for more science in policy, of course Pinker could himself be more scientific

      http://www.survivalinternational.org/news/9251

      Survival International has launched a vigorous rebuttal of Harvard ‘evolutionary psychologist’ Steven Pinker’s claim that tribal people are more violent than state societies.

      In articles published this week in US journal Truthout, and the UK-based OpenDemocracy, Survival International’s Director Stephen Corry accuses Pinker – once named by Time magazine as one of the world’s 100 most influential people – of ‘claiming scientific support for what is mere opinion by falsely charging contemporary tribal peoples with more or less unremitting villainy.’

      I’ve read Pinker widely, you’re never sure which of his interesting, plausible ideas have any scientific underpinning.

       
    • mitchethekid

      August 11, 2013 at 9:48 pm

      Have you read 1491? One thing that stood out for me was how repulsed native american’s were about the lack of personal hygene the English and the French had. Or rather, hadn’t! It said some of them never bathed in their life, hence the saying don’t through the baby out with the bath water. Bathing the baby was last and the water filthy.

       
  8. GMB

    August 11, 2013 at 3:21 am

    Very interesting discussion. To be honest, I am glad I did not participate in in it. Not because I don’t have my own thoughts on the subject, you can learn so much when just sit back and listen.

    Intelligent Design. I keep looking for this line in my Bible “And on the sixth day God Intelligently designed man”

    LOL

    Does anyone have a Bible that says that?

    Enjoy your DOOOOMMMM!!!

     
    • GMB

      August 11, 2013 at 3:54 am

      Why are all my comments going into moderation? 😦

       
  9. mitchethekid

    August 11, 2013 at 4:55 am

    Maybe Cluster can figure out the moderation thing, I certainly don’t. Although I did find out that Neo made a post here that Cluster deleted. At first I was reptilian and wanted to challenge him, but then I evolved, flip flopped and decided to use psychology instead. Automatically ban his ISP address. Maybe he will turn into the Rumplestiltskin I have accused him of being.
    Sorry for my weird conversations yesterday. I have just reached what many consider a landmark birthday and to be honest, for the first time in my life I’m having a bit of struggle wrapping my head around it. As a result, my medication was adjusted!

     
    • GMB

      August 11, 2013 at 5:48 am

      Being moderated is not a big deal. Just wondering why it is happening.

      As far as banning anyone. I just don’t know. I’ll let the powers that be decide on that. Maybe if you explain to Neo the rules and he agrees to abide by them, you should let him post here. The Bible teaches that we should not forgive just seven times, not just 70 times but forgive every time any real or perceived injustice. Is that so bad?

      Weird conversation? I have no idea what you are talking about. In this thread? I would say don’t worry about it, weird is the new normal. Can’t you a non-conformist just like everyone else. 🙂

      Happy Birthday! What ever milestone you reached, it is just another step on your journey through life.

       
      • mitchethekid

        August 11, 2013 at 7:42 am

        Thanks for your understanding. It’s important for me to make a good impression and sometimes I get a bit concerned over what I say.

         
      • 02casper

        August 11, 2013 at 2:36 pm

        GMB,
        I would be ok with Neo if he agreed to treat others on this blog with respect. His constant name calling and nastiness makes it impossible to have a decent conversation with him. Still if he were willing to change I would be ok with him. I don’t hold grudges.

         
      • watsonthethird

        August 11, 2013 at 6:53 pm

        There are currently 21 posts by neo in moderation. And that doesn’t count his earlier attempts that were rejected. None of them addresses anything of substance. It’s just a series of childish, nasty comments — the kind of stuff a 15-year old thinks is funny, having just learned about bad words. The only value in allowing his comments to be posted would be to allow him to show his true colors.

         
  10. mitchethekid

    August 11, 2013 at 7:40 am

    The problem with him, is that he is rancid. I think he’s a white supremacist and I know he is a birther, as do you. There are very few rules here. I leave that part to Cluster but one thing I will not tolerate is someone who’s sole purpose in life is to brag, make fun of others, exhibit far far right wing extremism all the while remaining uneducated,defensive and impervious to any facts that refute the bile that oozes out of his very being. He’s a mucus excreting slug with a lot of personality disorders. Not long ago I came across a blog that has the same opinion of him (and others) from B4V. They did some research on him and posted his name, the city he lives in and this little tidbit. He likes women to urinate on him. And advertizes for these services. I know myself well enough that if he posted here I couldn’t resist the impulse to let him have it and that’s what he wants. I think the better action is to prevent it before anything happens. It’s good for me, for all of us and it will make him really pissed off. If so, he could save it in a jar and pour it in his mouth.

     
    • GMB

      August 11, 2013 at 8:58 am

      As I said, I’ll leave that to the powers that be.

      However you still face the threat of sock puppets. Ware the puppets!! LOL

      Maybe someday I’ll compile a list of the “moderators” known and suspected smelly socks. 😛

       
    • 02casper

      August 11, 2013 at 2:45 pm

      “mitchethekid
      August 11, 2013 at 7:40 am

      The problem with him, is that he is rancid.”

      He’s rancid because he is allowed to be rancid. If B4V followed it’s own rules, he would have been banned years ago. Of course that goes for Amazona too.

       
      • GMB

        August 11, 2013 at 4:08 pm

        “Of course that goes for Amazona too.” Uhhhhmmmm, lunatic is running the asylum.

        Nuff said

        Happy day.

         
      • mitchethekid

        August 11, 2013 at 4:37 pm

        No shit. Duh! No disrespect intended. Just an affirmation of truth. I yrs past he was Former Marine and before that Kahn. I have a great memory.

         
      • casper

        August 11, 2013 at 6:29 pm

        GMB
        August 11, 2013 at 6:01 pm
        “Let go of your anger. Call a truce, a cease fire. You will feel better about yourself when you do. That my friend, I can guarantee. My wife told me the other day that since I quit B4V she has notice that I am smiling more.”

        I’m enjoying this blog much more than the other. Lots of disagreement, none of the anger. It’s nice to see people post something without them being belittled. I’m enjoying all the sides of the conversations.

         
      • GMB

        August 11, 2013 at 7:27 pm

        ” It’s nice to see people post something without them being belittled.”

        Yeah, that sums it up very well.

         
  11. mitchethekid

    August 11, 2013 at 9:28 am

    I’m a big fan of socks. My favorite article of clothing to put on. All I own are white and argyles. Oh, and one pair sold black. For depressing times.

     
  12. mitchethekid

    August 11, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    Casper, how could you possibly be OK with Neo? Respect is a foreign concept for him. He’s like a geyser and I don’t want anything to do with him. He’s a complete asshole who likes to be pissed on. Don’t bring him up again. Thank you. 🙂

     
    • casper

      August 11, 2013 at 3:41 pm

      Mitche,
      I’m not ok with him, at least not the way he is on B4V. I’m just not afraid to debate him in a different venue and I won’t bring him up again.

      BTW, all of my socks are white or black.

       
  13. Smelly Sock Puppet

    August 11, 2013 at 6:05 pm

    Just testing to see if my smelly sock still works.

    😛

     
  14. GMB

    August 11, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    🙂

    Ewwwww don’t touch the smelly sock!!!

     
  15. watsonthethird

    August 11, 2013 at 7:19 pm

    Just moving my comment above down…

    There are currently 21 posts by neo in moderation. And that doesn’t count his earlier attempts that were rejected. None of them addresses anything of substance. It’s just a series of childish, nasty comments — the kind of stuff a 15-year old thinks is funny, having just learned about bad words. The only value in allowing his comments to be posted would be to allow him to show his true colors.

     
  16. mitchethekid

    August 11, 2013 at 8:07 pm

    Watson, we know his true colors. There is no point in engaging him. I do find it interesting though that he hasn’t gone on a tirade about us on B4V. But in keeping with the theme and purpose of this new adventure, and the topic of discussion as well, lets evolve. Not quite our class dear, as the aristocrats would say. If we continue to gossip about B4V, it will only add to their bloated, out of proportion sense of self. Like the old saying, if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound? Ignoring them. I can’t tell you all how much your compliments mean to me and Cluster. We are really glad that you like the tone, the topics and the dialog. All we need now is more respondents.

     
    • 02casper

      August 11, 2013 at 8:19 pm

      Mitche,
      “We are really glad that you like the tone, the topics and the dialog. All we need now is more respondents.”

      I might help find you a few of those. I never pointed anyone towards the other blog because of the hate. If this blog continues in the direction it’s going i will recommend it to both my liberal and conservative friends.

       
      • mitchethekid

        August 11, 2013 at 8:22 pm

        Thanks! That’s the entire point.

         
  17. bardolf2

    August 11, 2013 at 8:21 pm

    I might be weird but I always thought of Neo as more of the cranky Archie Bunker type than a deep down nasty person, You have to admit his sense of humor is much bigger than his fellow travelers. Of course, I have a quirky uncle who was in Vietnam and he always worried that his stuff could be taken away in a moments notice if not fiercely protected. (When his wife divorced him all the important things were taken, he just didn’t think that it would be lawyers taking his stuff).

     
    • 02casper

      August 11, 2013 at 8:58 pm

      “bardolf2
      August 11, 2013 at 8:21 pm

      I might be weird but I always thought of Neo as more of the cranky Archie Bunker type than a deep down nasty person, You have to admit his sense of humor is much bigger than his fellow travelers”

      I could handle his crankiness if he didn’t feel it was his duty to attack anyone who disagreed with him (except Ama, who scares him).

       
      • bardolf2

        August 11, 2013 at 9:08 pm

        Ama doesn’t scare him. He just doesn’t want to be moderated out of existence!

         
      • GMB

        August 13, 2013 at 2:15 am

        “Ama doesn’t scare him. He just doesn’t want to be moderated out of existence!”

        Well since somebody else said it, that right there is the root of the problem. Which ever blogger that thought giving that woman moderator privileges was a good idea, should be taken out flogged.

         
  18. mitchethekid

    August 11, 2013 at 8:42 pm

    The character Archie Bunker had a good heart. It was a breakthrough show lampooning so many social stereotypes. To many to mention. The person who refers to himself as Neocon 1 is a nasty, vile racist with a gun fetish. He’s a big man hiding behind a key board, bragging about himself. The irony is that B4V envisions themselves as being this grand purveyor of insight, intelligence and all things conservative. Yet they allow a cartoon of what the public regards as a typical right wing conservative. He does the cause no favors. I think I’m a reasonably sophisticated person. I enjoy comedy very much. This guy is not funny. He’s immature and uncreative. He is, as I’ve said, a rancid soul who has emotional issues. Vietnam vet or not. He’s not special, he just didn’t die there.

     
    • 02casper

      August 11, 2013 at 9:01 pm

      Neo is scared. By gays, libs, blacks, hispanics, and anyone else that’s different than him. I feel sorry for him.

       
      • GMB

        August 11, 2013 at 9:12 pm

        “Neo is scared. By gays, libs, blacks, hispanics, and anyone else that’s different than him. I feel sorry for him.”

        I would have to disagree with that. The problem being is this. He is not here to give his input on the subject. I will tell anyone who wants to privately. Can you add a email for the blog? A hotmail or gmail or whatever? As for my part, you can give my email to any of the posters here.

        I have got all the silverware hidden.

        😛

         
      • bardolf2

        August 11, 2013 at 9:13 pm

        Nope. He loves George Zimmerman and Allan West.

         
      • GMB

        August 11, 2013 at 9:33 pm

        Neo has also expressed admiration for Tim Scott and barak o’rubio before he went all rino.

        Tell ya right now folks, unless you have been shot at day in day out for months at a time, there is no way to understand. It can and does strange things to peoples thought process.
        I know it most certainly did me.

        I don’t have all the right words for it. Just imagine a constant fear and adrenaline rush that just keeps going at the same time, that lasts for what seems forever.

        Schadenfreude und Lebensmüde um gleichen Zeit.

         
  19. GMB

    August 11, 2013 at 9:19 pm

    As far as evolution goes.

    I call it the Church of Scienciness.

    1) It looks like science
    2) It smells like science
    3) To the layman it appears to BE science; but
    4) When faced with actual scientific scrutiny, it falls apart like tissue paper in the rain.

    Now some paleontologist are pushing back the appearance of mammals by 200 million years.

    Hey guys lets date the rocks by the age of the fossils in them. Hey guys lets date the fossils by the age of the rocks and if anyone dare disagree with our “theory” lets call them a poophead.

    Be nice, have fun, and let your worries be gone.

     
  20. mitchethekid

    August 11, 2013 at 9:30 pm

    Yeah but radio carbon dating is a reliable, accurate measurement of time. I know you’ve heard of Albert. And the bomb. Elements decay at a predictable rate.

     
    • GMB

      August 11, 2013 at 9:49 pm

      Albert? Yeah I have heard of Fat Albert, I do believe it was some kind of cartoon.

      As far as radio carbon dating it has many flaws.

      “PROBLEMS WITH RADIOCARBON DATING

      With any radiometric dating scheme certain assumptions must be made. The first assumption made is that carbon 14 has always been produced and had the same concentration in the atmosphere. This assumption is more important the older the carbon sample is. After 10,000 years there are no absolute calibration points such as tree rings. Another assumption is that radioactive decay rates stay the same and have always been what we measure them now to be. We have only been able to measure radioactive decay rates within the last hundred years. What is the effect of decay rates or of carbon 14 generation by a supernova. Such questions still remain incompletely answered.

      One thing that is agreed upon is that if a material is claimed to be 30 million years old there should be no carbon 14 atoms left. No matter how old the carbon material is science labs almost always find some carbon 14. This problem has been studied at great length and the radiocarbon journal is filled with articles on the subject. Old carbon containing materials such as coal and marble (calcium carbonate) and diamonds have been studied: These materials were from alleged multi-million year old formations and are supposed to be that old. When one carbon dates these materials they always find some carbon 14 present. How can this be? There are several possibilities as outlined below. They are the following.

      Carbon 14 from the surrounding environment have been introduced into the sample. This could happen from ground water washing in or bacteria invading a sample. A hard non porous carbon material such as diamond, hard coal, or amber would make this unlikely and can be ruled out for those materials.
      The carbon 14 lab has used materials in its processing that contain carbon 14. Perhaps the sample holder had some carbon in it.
      Contamination during sample preparation. This is something all labs are aware of and make great efforts to avoid this problem.
      Error due to the machine performing and measuring results. This is not likely given the extreme care given to these many experiments by numerous people over a span of 50 years.
      Nuclear synthesis of carbon 14 in situ during the experiment. This has been ruled out by experts.
      Nuclear synthesis of carbon 14 in the coal or marble itself while laying in the ground for alleged millions of years. This has been ruled out by experts as well.
      Nuclear synthesis of ordinary carbon to carbon 14 while the material is in situ. In other words could the carbon material while buried, frozen or whatever be lying next to or exposed to a strong radioactive material that bombarded the carbon atoms and turned some of them into carbon 14 from carbon 16.
      There actually is carbon 14 in the sample being tested and the dating scheme that claims the material is 100 million years old is itself badly flawed and needs to be reexamined. The carbon 14 testing method does give a more correct and more reliable age than any other method known.”

      They said it better than I can.

      I am not trying to convert anyone into a Born Again Christian. What I am pointing out is that those who believe in evolution are just worshiping at the alter of a different kind of religion.

      I don’t need any scientific proof that God exists. My faith tells me that. The evolutionists, in my opinion, are trying to use what can not be described as anything other than junk science to prove that God does not exist.

       
      • mitchethekid

        August 12, 2013 at 7:49 am

        Well, it certainly is not “junk” science. Junk science is wearing magnets and believing that astronomy and Tarot Cards are accurate. I am of the opinion that the only “proof” of the existence of god is by dying. The problem then becomes there is no more “you”, no more ego having an experience, no more self-awareness. One definition of faith is the willful suspension of critical thinking. You seem to conflate that those who accept and understand evolution as a mechanism with not only being atheistic, but with almost a hostile intent to “prove” god is non existent. Have you ever considered that his “existence” is by not existing at all? Is not being a state of being? Herein lie several problems. One, why is god referred to as a “he”? That’s a construct of human language. Two, we are limited in our ability to express our selves, the world and ultimately the entire universe by language. How can you describe something that there are no words for? Somethings (are they even a “they” or a “thing”) are beyond the descriptive ability of language to convey.
        I’m enclosing a quote with the link below. I have read Jaynes and not only was it facinating, but it confirmed what I had thought about for many years.

        “Jaynes’ definition of consciousness is synonymous with what philosophers call “meta-consciousness” or “meta-awareness” i.e. awareness of awareness, thoughts about thinking, desires about desires, beliefs about beliefs. This form of reflection is also distinct from the kinds of “deliberations” seen in other higher animals such as crows insofar as it is dependent on linguistic cognition.
        Jaynes wrote that ancient humans before roughly 1000BC were not reflectively meta-conscious and operated by means of automatic, nonconscious habit-schemas. Instead of having meta-consciousness, these humans were constituted by what Jaynes calls the “bicameral mind”. For bicameral humans, when habit did not suffice to handle novel stimuli and stress rose at the moment of decision, neural activity in the “dominant” (left) hemisphere was modulated by auditory verbal hallucinations originating in the so-called “silent” (right) hemisphere (particularly the right temporal cortex), which were heard as the voice of a chieftain or god and immediately obeyed.
        Jaynes wrote, “[For bicameral humans], volition came as a voice that was in the nature of a neurological command, in which the command and the action were not separated, in which to hear was to obey.”[1] Jaynes argued that the change from bicamerality to consciousness (linguistic meta-cognition) occurred over a period of ten centuries beginning around 1000 BC. The selection pressure for Jaynesian consciousness as a means for cognitive control is due, in part, to chaotic social disorganizations and the development of new methods of behavioral control such as writing.”
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes
        I look forward to your response.

         
    • bardolf2

      August 11, 2013 at 10:29 pm

      Mitchethekid agrees with the number 1 ranked physics department in the country!

      http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/isotopes/lifetime.html

      Here is a strange thing about their explanation. The Methuselah particle has a chance of living 280 more years so why can’t all the alien particles live 280 years? Are their lives independent or dependent of one another? Does a particle ‘know’ its neighbors have decayed or how long it has been alive?

      Granted that the explanation is for a layperson, but should e.g. a high school physics teacher know more deeply what is really going on?

       
      • mitchethekid

        August 12, 2013 at 7:58 am

        What physicists do you admire? Have you ever read The Dancing Wu Li Masters?

         
      • bardolf2

        August 12, 2013 at 10:48 am

        Physicists I admire would be a long long list.

        Gibbs of course is the greatest American physicist ever and I’m a big admirer. I also like Feynman, Millikan and Ed Witten is a genius who unfortunately works on string theory. The actual greatest physicist of all time is of course Maxwell and his equations describing EM phenomena. I admire non-Americans Newton, Einstein, Pauli, Schrodinger, Marie Curie and a host of others.

        Now a simpler version of my question. If the half-life of some substance is 1000 years and one starts with 16 particles how many will there be left after 1 year? If they all survive the 1 year the particles won’t have any memory and so what’s to keep them from not decaying for another year and so on and so on.

         
      • mitchethekid

        August 12, 2013 at 2:38 pm

        Don’t look! It’s Schrodinger’s cat.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 12, 2013 at 10:51 am

        “The Methuselah particle has a chance of living 280 more years so why can’t all the alien particles live 280 years? Are their lives independent or dependent of one another? Does a particle ‘know’ its neighbors have decayed or how long it has been alive?”

        …The particles do not know anything about their neighbors, their lives are independent from one another. What this is saying is that all of the particles have the same CHANCE of living 280 years, but there is a rate of decay which will reliably and randomly destroy particles at the rate of their known half life (that’s why ALL of them can’t live 280 yrs.).

         
      • bardolf2

        August 12, 2013 at 1:18 pm

        rustybrown2012

        There is a 1/16 chance the Methuselah particle lives 280 years. The decay rates of the particles are independent identically distributed (i.i.d) random variables. So there is a (1/16)*(1/16)….*(1/16) > 0 chance they ALL live 280 years.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 12, 2013 at 1:37 pm

        Sorry, I’m not following your math and I don’t understand your point.

        My last reply was directed to your specific questions, and I think it answered them.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 12, 2013 at 1:43 pm

        “If the half-life of some substance is 1000 years and one starts with 16 particles how many will there be left after 1 year? If they all survive the 1 year the particles won’t have any memory and so what’s to keep them from not decaying for another year and so on and so on.”

        What does memory have to do with the physical decay of elements?

         
      • bardolf2

        August 12, 2013 at 2:01 pm

        Decaying particles have no ‘memory’ is the point. They don’t know they haven’t decayed which is why a Methuselah particle has the same likelihood as any other particle of surviving 280 years.

        The decay time for each individual particle has no ‘idea’ if another particle has decayed and no memory of its own lifetime. If the chance particleA survives 280 years is 1/16 and the chance particleB survives 280 years is 1/16 and they are independent then there is a 1/256=1/16*1/16 chance they both survive 280 years. It’s like flipping two biased coins.

        It might be unlikely that all the particles survive 280 years, but it is possible. An essentially random phenomena which needs to be explained statistically has been turned into a deterministic phenomena.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 12, 2013 at 2:37 pm

        Then we agree…

         
      • bardolf2

        August 12, 2013 at 3:13 pm

        rusty

        We agree, a statement like (that’s why ALL of them can’t live 280 yrs.) is shorthand for it’s really unlikely they ALL live 280 years. The shorthand isn’t a problem in physics, it is a problem when high school biology teachers use it, then random -> deterministic gives rise to nonsense.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 12, 2013 at 3:38 pm

        bard,

        As we get into the weeds I’m having trouble following your train of thought. Perhaps it would be helpful if you used grammatically correct sentences and not:

        “The shorthand isn’t a problem in physics, it is a problem when high school biology teachers use it, then random -> deterministic gives rise to nonsense.”

        …I confess I don’t know what that means.

        But I can tell you that my statement “that’s why ALL of them can’t live 280 years” is not shorthand for anything, it’s a DIRECT response to your SPECIFIC question (quoting you):

        “The Methuselah particle has a chance of living 280 more years so (my emphasis) why can’t all the alien particles live 280 years?

        …do you not remember asking that?

         
      • bardolf2

        August 12, 2013 at 7:44 pm

        rusty

        the original mitchethekid’s statement that “Elements decay at a predictable rate” isn’t true, what is true is that the statistical behavior of a group of elements is predictable

        A fair coin is not predictable, but if you flip it enough the odds will be astronomically small that you get either less than 49% or greater than 51% heads.

        My question: “The Methuselah particle has a chance of living 280 more years so why can’t all the alien particles live 280 years?” is along these lines.

        The answer to the question is “They could ALL live 280 years, but the odds of that happening would be small.” In fact I included the calculation for exactly how small the chances are that they live more than 280 years.

        I’m new to the blog and already feeling pedantic! I was trying to separate out some of the confusion around carbon dating and probably added to it.

        I ask the moderators forgiveness!!

         
      • mitchethekid

        August 12, 2013 at 8:57 pm

        You’re forgiven my child.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 12, 2013 at 8:26 pm

        B.

        I’m new here too but, yeah, that’s a mite pedantic!

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 12, 2013 at 8:33 pm

        Just gotta say this for self-awareness purposes, but if you’re parsing shit like this:

        “the original mitchethekid’s statement that “Elements decay at a predictable rate” isn’t true, what is true is that the statistical behavior of a group of elements is predictable”

        …you’re displaying asshole behavior. Just sayin’

         
      • bardolf2

        August 13, 2013 at 12:38 am

        “you’re displaying asshole behavior. Just sayin’ ” rusty

        I plead B4V overdose.

         
    • kmg

      August 12, 2013 at 5:07 am

      Carbon 14 only dates material up to 58,000-65,000 years old with a 1%-2% margin of error. Anything older than that does not have enough Carbon 14 atoms remaining to accurately measure. Any detectable Carbon 14 atoms would have to have come from outside contaminants.

      An analogy to this is electromagnetic energy. EM originates from the source at the speed of light and disperses according to the inverse square law. As the distance from the transmitter gets further, the total amount of energy is spread over a greater distance. At some point the energy has dispersed so much that it is no longer detectable. If you are receiving an EM signal from a distant star, you can determine the distance using this principle. If you detect a signal from a star, but the strength of the signal says it is 100 light years away when all of your other means of measurement says it is 100 million light years away, there has to be an interfering signal at the same wavelength contaminating your measurement.

      This is a normal tactic of Creationists. They will take a minor issue with a theory that has no bearing on the theory’s overall validity and blow it up to huge proportions, claiming that it debunks the entire theory.

       
      • GMB

        August 12, 2013 at 6:49 am

        “This is a normal tactic of Creationists. They will take a minor issue with a theory that has no bearing on the theory’s overall validity and blow it up to huge proportions, claiming that it debunks the entire theory”

        Oh no not at all. Evolution is a nice “theory” and that is all it is. However it is being passed off as scientific truth by those in the science community who have a political agenda.

        You are more than free to believe in the theory. You are more than free to ignore all the minor issues that evolutionist already ignore. This makes no difference to me. You do not have to believe in Creation.

        In the end however, evolution is just another system of beliefs. It is just another religion.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 12, 2013 at 11:24 am

        GMB,

        It’s helpful when you bring up specific criticisms of evolution because they can be easily debunked, but when quoting an authority, please provide a link. That way we can judge the veracity of the source. Without a link, I’ll assume the quoted text is straight from a creationist website, as I’m fairly certain is the case above.

        Concerning doubts about C-14 dating: well, it’s true that C-14 dating is not reliable for dating things older than 50,000 years or so, that’s why it is rarely used in paleontology. The preferred method is to use various isotope series. There are many different ones, and the cool thing about them is that they can be CROSS-TESTED for accuracy. What do these independent cross-tests indicate? That the earth is billions of years old and fossils are as old as all the major scientific bodies say they are. Nifty, huh?

        http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

        Do you have refutations for these facts, or is there another specific criticism of evolution you would like to address?

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 12, 2013 at 11:29 am

        Oh, and like Mitch said, please fill us in on the vast global conspiracy that compels all the world’s greatest scientists to a political agenda.

         
      • kmg

        August 12, 2013 at 4:10 pm

        Rusty,

        It did come from an unabashedly Creationist web site: http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm.

        Here is a quote from them, “Creation science is a belief system just as is Evolutionary Science. As scientists we believe that a supreme being created the universe and life.”

        Their mantra is “Test the fossils, not the rocks!”

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 12, 2013 at 4:21 pm

        Thanks K,

        Wow. Check out their “Dinosaurs in history” section. Now, go wash your eyeballs with soap!

         
      • kmg

        August 12, 2013 at 4:32 pm

        GMB,

        I’m not sure you are clear on the definitions of science and religion. One is supported by empirical testing, observations, and data. The other is based solely on faith. I know which one of those definitions evolution falls under, but you seem to believe it falls under the other.

        If Creationism is just as valid as evolution, provide the studies and experiments attempting to prove Creationism.

         
      • kmg

        August 12, 2013 at 6:47 pm

        Check out their “Dinosaurs in history” section.

        At least they don’t have modern humans riding the dinosaurs like the Creation Museum.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 12, 2013 at 8:48 pm

        I would actually love to see the Creationist Museum. I have some relatives, college professors, who live in Kentucky and I implore them to visit, but they won’t do it. For my part, I would love to imbibe in some sweet Kentucky bourbon and ride some dinos!

         
  21. mitchethekid

    August 12, 2013 at 8:02 am

    Please clarify the political agenda the scientific community has and who is included in this “community”
    And everything starts out a theory, even gravity. I’m sure you agree that gravity is, well, is!

     
  22. mitchethekid

    August 12, 2013 at 5:27 pm

    Where did god come from? The god particle?

     
    • rustybrown2012

      August 12, 2013 at 5:45 pm

      No, from the shadow on the wall in your childhood bedroom. From there, and your parents.

       
  23. mitchethekid

    August 12, 2013 at 9:11 pm

    How about this physics fans. Get it? Fans, physics.. I remember reading something that started “in the future” blah blah blah and it was an article that essentially said that all paved roads would be removed and underneath the surface would be these magnetic accelerators that propelled vehicles that hovered a few inches, or maybe feet above the ground. On the surface would be nothing but grass and flowers. And probably weeds as well, but I thought it was a very cool concept.
    http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/hyperloop-revealed-rapid-transit-air-cushioned-tube-6C10902051

     
    • bardolf2

      August 13, 2013 at 12:43 am

      pretty cool

       
  24. GMB

    August 13, 2013 at 2:05 am

    “If Creationism is just as valid as evolution, provide the studies and experiments attempting to prove Creationism.”

    kmg,

    I think you misunderstand me. That’s ok because I do not think in English. I grew up speaking a dialect of German. Pennsilfaanisch or as a good lot of us, just call it the mother tounge. Sometimes my translations do not reflect exactly what is meant. The problem is with me and not anyone else.

    I do not deny that evolution is a scientific based theory. I do net deny that Creationism is a religious belief. I am not arguing that Creationism is scientifically based. It is faith based. Those who try to argue that it is, are misguided, in my opinion.

    What I do question is what evolutionists claim to be “proof” of their research. It is so full of every synonym of”possible”. Anything and everything makes evolution “possible” However proof that will stand up to scientific method is sorely lacking.

    The devotion of evolutionist to their theory is no more, no less, than my devotion to my faith. If you believe in something that you can not prove, you are practicing a religion.

    Thus the church of scienceiness.

     
    • kmg

      August 13, 2013 at 4:52 am

      GMB,

      Perhaps the issue is my poor choice of the word “prove.” There are no proofs in science, and no scientific theory is ever proven. Instead, there is evidence either supporting or refuting the theory. The evidence is gathered through experimentation and observation and used to refine the theory. as for evolution, there are 150 years of scientific experiments and observations that support the initial theory and have been used to refine it to the point where it just as valid as gravity, relativity, or orbital mechanics. Using your terminology, that if you believe in something you cannot prove you are practicing a religion, means that all of science is a religion. I don’t accept that definition.

      If I let go of a ball, I believe it will fall to the ground. Does that make gravity a religion? If I put enough pressure on and/or lower the temperature of a gas, it will turn into a liquid. Does that make thermodynamics a religion? Neither of these actions are proof of the theories; they are observable evidence of their validity. The same holds true for evolution.

      I have yet to see a credible attempt to refute evolutionary theory that did not come from a religious group trying to substitute it with Creationism. Based on observable evidence, scientists are constantly modifying evolutionary theory and making it stronger in the process, but no one has refuted it. When someone claims they have, as the people from your dinosaurs walked with man site have, it is easy to find the find the flaws in their “evidence.”

       
    • mitchethekid

      August 13, 2013 at 7:29 am

      Very interesting point, GMB. I think a relative question to be asked is why? Why do some to choose to have religious faith be the basis of their world view? I think there is a correlation between those who intentionally seek out reasons to deny the plausibility of evolution in order to bolster their faith (and defend it vociferously, some times to the point of lunacy) those who deny that human activity impacts the environment, particular when it comes to climate change and yet those tend to be the same people who anthropomorphize a concept of god. Have you ever explored just why the hierarchy of god pretty much mirrors human families? Or why drawings of god look like an angry. long haired grandpa? Unless,of course you are Buddhist or Hindu. And even the the drawings of the physical manifestation of their gods have human like qualities.

      The exploitation of a faith based world view began in the late ’60s with Richard Nixon, Roger Ailes and Lee Atwater. Out of politeness and respect, I will refrain from describing exactly to who this cynical tactic appealed, but now the Republican Party is reaping what they have sown. Agree or not, there is open hostility within movement conservatives to refute pretty much all science. In 2005 Chris Mooney wrote The Republican War on Science. Look no further than members of congress, home-school and pretty much the entire state of Louisiana. Although I am of the opinion that simplicity is easier, it certainly isn’t as fascinating as thinking critically. I think fundamentalism, no matter the subject is dangerous. Combine this with fanaticism and you have a bomb. Figuratively speaking of course. Unless you decide to blow up an abortion clinic or fly airliners into tall buildings.
      There is a correlation between authoritarianism and religiosity, causal or not. Alarmingly, there are a group of people in our country who would just love to impose a Christian version of Taliban-ism, Dominionists . Even the root word is hostile. Dominate. I realize this strain, this species if you will, applies to less than the majority of the faith community but the growing acceptance as normal of these snake handling ideas and the eye spinning conspiracy theory industry should concern all rational, reasonable people. Religious or not.
      The other day I was going off on a tangent about the nature of language. I got a real kick when you said that sometimes things get lost in translation. And not the movie. With that in mind I’ll repost my previous comment.

      “Jaynes’ definition of consciousness is synonymous with what philosophers call “meta-consciousness” or “meta-awareness” i.e. awareness of awareness, thoughts about thinking, desires about desires, beliefs about beliefs. This form of reflection is also distinct from the kinds of “deliberations” seen in other higher animals such as crows insofar as it is dependent on linguistic cognition.
      Jaynes wrote that ancient humans before roughly 1000BC were not reflectively meta-conscious and operated by means of automatic, nonconscious habit-schemas. Instead of having meta-consciousness, these humans were constituted by what Jaynes calls the “bicameral mind”. For bicameral humans, when habit did not suffice to handle novel stimuli and stress rose at the moment of decision, neural activity in the “dominant” (left) hemisphere was modulated by auditory verbal hallucinations originating in the so-called “silent” (right) hemisphere (particularly the right temporal cortex), which were heard as the voice of a chieftain or god and immediately obeyed.
      Jaynes wrote, “[For bicameral humans], volition came as a voice that was in the nature of a neurological command, in which the command and the action were not separated, in which to hear was to obey.”[1] Jaynes argued that the change from bicamerality to consciousness (linguistic meta-cognition) occurred over a period of ten centuries beginning around 1000 BC. The selection pressure for Jaynesian consciousness as a means for cognitive control is due, in part, to chaotic social disorganizations and the development of new methods of behavioral control such as writing.”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes

       
  25. GMB

    August 13, 2013 at 5:16 am

    Bad analogy the ball is. Gravity is not a theory. It can be tested, it can be observed, and it can be duplicated. The same with your gas analogy.

    What you can not do with evolution is observe, test, or duplicate. That is why it remains just a theory.

    “but no one has refuted it.”

    Just how does anyone go about refuting something that is just a theory? I will use this analogy. I keep in contact with another person that used to post at B4V quite a lot. Now both us have this theory that the “moderator” and another poster who has a long line of user names to their credit are one and the same person. We have no proof of this except circumstantial evidence. Bottom line, we have no real proof. How does one go about refuting something that can not be proven?

    What I have been trying to do is point out the inconsistencies of the evolutionary theory to those who believe that it is indeed a fact.

     
    • rustybrown2012

      August 13, 2013 at 9:40 am

      GMB,

      “The devotion of evolutionist to their theory is no more, no less, than my devotion to my faith. If you believe in something that you can not prove, you are practicing a religion.”

      Ridiculous.There is abundant evidence for evolution, so much so that every legitimate scientist on earth accepts the theory as fact. There is zero evidence for your faith-based beliefs. So you should be able to see that they are completely different things.

      “Just how does anyone go about refuting something that is just a theory?”

      Easy. As I’ve said before, evolution is eminently falsifiable. Fossils could be in the wrong place, genetics could contradict the theory, as could biodiversity, embryology, and on and on. I feel I’m repeating myself. Are you not paying attention, or are you not able to understand the information being presented to you?

      Let me put it this way: the theory of evolution is true because there are many conclusive converging lines of evidence that support the theory, so much so that it is perverse to deny it. If you disbelieve in evolution, you must have a problem with this evidence. So you should be able elucidate your misgivings with specifics. You attempted to do this with a critique of C-14 dating and were shown to be wrong. Please provide other specific doubts and I will school you on those as well. It is not enough to say things like “it’s just a theory”, “it’s unproven”, “it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does in god”, etc. – those are meaningless bromides that don’t contribute to the debate.

       
      • mitchethekid

        August 13, 2013 at 10:03 am

        What do you think of Jaynes hypothesis?

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 13, 2013 at 1:43 pm

        I was unfamiliar with Jaynes hypothesis but just read a bit about it. It’s interesting – I don’t really know what to think about it. It’s certainly far from settled science but seems to have some scientific evidence (and some great scientific minds) supporting it. It’s particularly impressive to me that in the almost 40 years since it’s publication scientific advances seem to support the hypothesis. Maybe I’ll have stronger opinions as I digest more information on it.

         
    • kmg

      August 13, 2013 at 4:05 pm

      GMB,

      The problem here is that you are using the layman’s definition of the word “theory” rather than the scientific definition. A scientific theory is supported by evidence and is testable, falsifiable, and observable. Evolution has been tested and observed thousands of times without being falsified, meaning the underlying theory has not been shown to be false. Evolution is observed through the fossil records, it is tested through experiments with organisms that have short life spans (such as fruit flies or bacteria), and those experiments have been duplicated and confirmed. Over the last 150 years, those tests and observations have only served to refine the theory, making it even stronger. Evolutionary theory is at the point where the evidence supporting it is overwhelming and irrefutable.

      Gravity is a scientific theory, as is thermodynamics, as is wave propagation. I can’t see gravity, but I can test and observe the effects of gravity. I can’t see radio waves, but I can use the principles developed through observation and testing to determine their properties and use them for a large number of purposes. We can’t see that an electromagnetic wave has an electric field and a magnetic field that ore orthogonal to each other, but understanding wave propagation theory is critical to our communications.

      When radio waves were discovered, testing and observation determined that electromagnetic energy traveled in a wave-like manner. As we understood more about wave propagation, we learned that we could use higher frequencies with shorter wavelengths to convey more information. As we moved up the spectrum, we found that at some point electromagnetic energy stops acting like a wave and begins acting like a particle. Did we say at that point that wave propagation theory had been falsified? No, we tested and observed, finding that the wavelengths become so short, they actually become like particles.

      As rusty said, evolutionary theory is falsifiable, but not one single person has provided any evidence that the theory is invalid. If you are going to argue against evolution being a valid scientific theory, you need to use the correct scientific definitions of words.

       
  26. GMB

    August 13, 2013 at 5:25 am

    “I have yet to see a credible attempt to refute evolutionary theory that did not come from a religious group trying to substitute it with Creationism.”

    That is true for some Christian fundamentalist. I am not one of them. Nor are any of my coreligionists that I have been associated with.

     
    • mitchethekid

      August 13, 2013 at 7:36 am

      I’m still getting the hang of WordPress. See above.

       
  27. GMB

    August 14, 2013 at 4:13 am

    Thanks for the offer of schooling me Rusty but I do believe I’ll pass. Once evolutionist get past all, mights, could be, possibles, suggestions, indications, or whatever synonym you choose, evolution will remain just a theory. A theory with all the necessary excuses on why it can not be proven.

     
    • kmg

      August 14, 2013 at 5:54 am

      I’ll recommend a book for you, if you are interested. Only a Theory by Kenneth Miller.

       
  28. mitchethekid

    August 14, 2013 at 7:01 am

    This is interesting as well.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
    Then there is this, controlled evolution.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding
    I don’t think any of us evolutionists (hahaha) are trying to belittle your chosen faith. Rather, I think we are using the scientific method to explain why we understand evolution as fact. Even though science emerged from religion, throughout history there has been a conflict between the observable, the testable and the falsifiable and a more; shall we say, less inquisitive desire to understand the world. Personally, I am not trying to convince you to accept the factuality of evolution. No offense but there’s no point and I don’t see an epiphany in your future. But if I can speak for the 3 of us here, I think we are explaining why we do. I think what sticks in the craw of “people of science” is the fanatical reaction some of the more extreme elements have in the face of scientific facts. Wholesale, reflexive rejection and dismissive attitudes towards not just evolution, but global climate change as well. And when challenged the distillation of the logic they use to both defend and explain their position is “god did it”. That is the biggest cop out in the world. It’s an affirmation of a refusal to accept personal responsibility and an admittance of being close minded and impervious to conflicting information. There is no correlation between being scientific and being an atheist. It’s good though, to learn you are not a creationist.
    So there!
    As an aside, I took you up on your contact by email offer. Maybe you don’t care to respond or it’s in your spam. Twice.

     
    • Cluster

      August 14, 2013 at 7:37 am

      …..shall we say, less inquisitive desire to understand the world

      I don’t completely agree with that. I think many of the practitioners of Buddhism, Zen, Shinto, Christianity etc., have been very inquisitive. Not every one of Faith dismisses science, it’s just that science doesn’t answer everything, as GMB points out, and I think you can consider those people of Faith to be more inquisitive to search beyond science and our limited understanding to comprehend the mysteries that surround us

       
      • rustybrown2012

        August 14, 2013 at 10:28 am

        Sorry guys, I’m screaming bullshit to this. Cluster, while it may be true certain people of faith don’t reject science and have genuine, open inquisitiveness (a minority, in my opinion), GMB is not one of them, so stop with the false equivalencies. And GMB is hardly an outlier; we have far too many ignorant, religious fools in this country who would like to drag us back to a previous century.

        Mitch, sorry, but you don’t speak for me. When the religious want to teach my children that humans rode dinosaurs, that’s an enormous problem that should not be glossed over. Those people SHOULD be ridiculed and in a just world, viewed as so laughably stupid and gullible there would be no way they could serve in public office. As it stands, the opposite is true: it’s practically a requirement to display your faith in some type of sky god to reach higher office and we find fundamentalist nut bags all over Washington while an open atheist, no matter how brilliant, accomplished or good-hearted, can’t be elected dog-catcher. I find this state of affairs deeply offensive.

        On a side note, you’re dead wrong about there being no correlation between scientists and atheism, there is a very strong one:

        “Scientists and in particular eminent scientists are mostly atheists, perhaps the only demographic in the West in which this occurs.[3][4]”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

        And how did you get the notion that GMB is not a creationist, by his referencing a creationist website for “evidence”? Your definitions are a bit more fluid than my own.

        Look, GMB has lost this debate because he is unwilling to present any evidence to make his case. In adult debate, you can’t just say something like “is not true”, or “it’s not proven” and be unwilling to provide a shred of evidence to back up those claims. That means you lose. Example: I can tell you that I don’t believe in astrology. I think it’s unproven and untrue. If an astrologer should then ask WHY I disbelieve, I could provide SOLID REASONS and EVIDENCE for my skepticism. If he should provide evidence for the veracity of astrology, I could rip it to shreds with factual counter arguments. THAT’S what GMB should do, and that’s exactly what he can’t do, because he’s full of shit.

        As far as respecting faith and religions go, I don’t think believing in bizarre fairy tales is worthy of respect. I’ll reserve my respect for people’s character and actions. However, I can ACCEPT that others are faithful and have absolutely no problem with it, possibly even admire it in a way until they try to denigrate settled science for their own childish, selfish ends and/or try to claim science supports their ludicrous superstitions. Why are the faithful so fuckin’ insecure anyway? They claim an inside understanding to the mysteries of the universe – you would think that would be enough and they would leave things that don’t concern them, like science, alone. But it’s not enough because deep down they know they’e empty, they know they’re full of shit and want to shovel the shit down our throats so they can feel better about themselves.

        Here’s The Rusty model of a religious person:

        “I believe there is a God. God is very important to me and fulfills me. I have no inherent problems with accepted science because of my faith; I’ll accept or deny science on it’s own merits, thanks. I don’t have any empirical evidence for my faith or indeed, any rational reasons for having it (Philosophy aside, which I enjoy – speculation on universal truth and the divine is rewarding), but I feel it deeply, personally, and for that reason it is true for me.”

        Now THAT I can get behind.

         
      • mitchethekid

        August 14, 2013 at 12:10 pm

        OK Rusty, here’s how the cow ate the cabbage. I am trying my best to be friendly, welcoming and diplomatic to everyone. This is a difficult task because these conversations about people occur in public. Blogs are an interesting social phenomena and with going off on a tangent, up until a week or so ago GMB had a very very low opinion of me. To be frank, he despised me.
        Because we (and it is a collaboration) want this blog to succeed, we are making every effort to be a good hosts. I said a few days or weeks ago, that this should be like a party. But if someone crashes it, then I say lets be mushroom cloud laying mother fuckers. All of us, as charter members! But in GMB’s defense, he has publicly noted his appreciation for the welcome here, he has as much as admitted that I am not a one dimensional repository of the cartoon image he had of me and he to is tired of the fanatical lunacy, negativity and hypocrisy which is luxuriated in with the pitifully small crowd at B4V. We’ve been on line less than a month and we’re gaining partiers everyday. Them? Not so much. The irony is, that B4V is responsible for the creation of this blog. Keep in mind it is the work of both me and Cluster, who was once one of my on line arch nemesis’s. Part of the reason I posted on B4V since the inception in 2003 was because I can’t tolerate not only what they think, but also the how and the why. I liked to taunt them and they have zero tolerance for dissent. They’re Jim Jones and David Koresh with less members and no death wishes. Yet!
        GMB said he was not a creationist. I take him at his word.
        I am on exactly the same page as you in everything you wrote. (The exception that the majority of degree holding scientist are atheists but what ever. Maybe so, I have no truck one way or another.) One of the problems I have personally is that I become infuriated when some bible thumping, know nothing snake handler tries to get in my face or undermine; through willful ignorance and stupidity, that evolution is an illusion created by the devil and that yes, $arah Paylins’ ancestors rode on the backs of T-Rexs’ with little teeny tiny saddles made from Araucarioxylons’. I have always wondered, how did they get a bit in the mouth of an 6.5 metric ton eating machine with a brain the size of a pea?
        Do you know? Or maybe we should call her.
        On a more serious note with fundamentalism in mind, how about this guy? http://www.frankschaeffer.net/crazyforgod.html

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 14, 2013 at 10:50 am

        …though i suppose I would then find someone else at the cocktail party to talk with!

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 14, 2013 at 12:55 pm

        Mitch,

        Your desire for common ground is admirable in the abstract, but I fear it might be blinding you to the ACTUAL thoughts and ideas being expressed on your own blog. In my recollection, GMB never said he wasn’t a creationist, as you claim. What he said was he doesn’t rely on creationist dogma to refute the fact of evolution. He then goes on to doubt the veracity of carbon dating (a distinctly creationist activity) and links to an unabashedly creationist website to support his bogus claims. He also insists that creationism should be taught to our schoolchildren alongside the theory of evolution to “let them make up their own minds”. Speaking of cows and cabbages and barnyard things, are you familiar with the phrase “if it walks like a duck…”?

        You know what? I think you might try judging GMB by his own words written on your own blog rather than bending over backwards to be an accommodationist.

         
      • mitchethekid

        August 14, 2013 at 1:47 pm

        Well then, you have my permission to be the mushroom cloud laying motherfucker. GMB is a big boy, and he is here isn’t he? And he’s not been hostile. I’ve had my go arounds with not just GMB, but all of the what-ever-they-are at B4V. And to his credit, he has agreed about their tone. That’s how bad it is. And he was a long time regular!
        I suppose you are right, I am trying to be accommodating but with your intelligence I’m sure you can appreciate my social skills and good manners. Unless of course, you have Aspergers. Which I doubt. We have read each others responses for long enough now that you know what I am capable of.
        Attack away, I know at some point I to will as well, but what Cluster and I are trying to avoid is a cage match, gladiator like atmosphere. I fully understand that after discussing these types of issues with fanatical fundamentalists who refuse to even consider what we are trying to point out, that sooner or later you want to go the closet, get out your best Tony Soprano Louisville Slugger and before you split their skull open (so they can’t breed anymore) you kneecap them. Fortunately, even though I get infuriated sometimes, I have control over my impulses!

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 14, 2013 at 1:17 pm

        Bottom line, the ridiculous should be ridiculed. If GMB doesn’t want his offensive opinions on evolution mocked, he should keep his trap shut. BTW, he was the one who brought up the theory of evolution in the first place, back in the Gipper post.

         
      • mitchethekid

        August 14, 2013 at 4:51 pm

        I think it was KMG, hence the title of the topic. But whatever, I’m going to entertain you all with my John Boehner immitation.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 14, 2013 at 2:06 pm

        “sooner or later you want to go the closet, get out your best Tony Soprano Louisville Slugger and before you split their skull open (so they can’t breed anymore) you kneecap them. Fortunately, even though I get infuriated sometimes, I have control over my impulses!”

        Well, you’re a more prudent man than me, I’m half Sicilian after all.

        I get you. I was just sensing a sort of accommodationist tendency of “well, although you’re feeding me undiluted bullshit, I guess we can agree that our views are different and therefore both worthy of respect” – I don’t buy it. GMB was IMPLORED to present some evidence for his case, he failed, and continues to utter his ignorant bromides like he has some authority on the subject. He may be a prince in other areas, but on this issue he is a clown, Let’s not pretend otherwise.

        Sorry GMB, prove me wrong.

         
      • kmg

        August 14, 2013 at 6:23 pm

        It was either Cluster or GMB that brought up evolution in the other thread. I recommended a thread be started just on evolution. I can now proudly claim to have been the instigator for the longest thread on the blog. 🙂 (We’ll see how long I can hold the title.)

        I have it side with mitchie’s position on tone. I’ve been engaging GMB on the topic and I agree that he hasn’t done anything to show creationism is a valid scientific theory or that evolution is a religion. That being said, it is pointless and counter-productive to insult and belittle a debate opponent, even if you think their ideas are completely wrong. If you ask them to support their position they can choose to do it or not. If they don’t, perhaps the debate you did have will cause your opponent to question their beliefs and seek out answers that may change their mind. Or the information they find may serve to reinforce their beliefs. Either way, they sought out knowledge so it is a win-win.

        Deriding and insulting a debate opponent has the opposite effect. It just pisses the person off and makes them dig in their heels. They will never seek out information that may make them question their beliefs. Instead they will just reject it out of hand.

        GMB and I fundamentally disagree on the topic of evolution vs. creationism and that’s okay. It doesn’t make me despise him and attack him personally. We’ll have other areas where we’ll agree and both challenge someone else’s beliefs. He may even change my mind on some things, which has been known to happen when I’m presented with a strong, logical argument.

        (It ain’t happening on evolution, though. I know I’m right on this topic.)

         
      • mitchethekid

        August 14, 2013 at 8:23 pm

        Feel free to call me Mitch. Or as my grandmother called me when I set her backyard on fire, (looking for a shortcut to what was buried underneath it,) MitchAl. Never forgot that for some reason.
        I’m on your side. I value intelligence and I too know I’m right about evolution in particular, and a scientific understanding of the world in general. But like the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t untangle a disarrayed mind. One full of knots and holes and all kinds of convolutions. Me? I like Dylan’s version of tangled. Tangled up in Blue.

         
  29. mitchethekid

    August 14, 2013 at 10:08 am

    But that’s not the argument. (I was trying to be polite. Maybe parental would be a better choice.) The argument is over this either or proposal. Some people who believe in a human like god reject the very concept of evolution. And just why is this? Because it challenges the notion. I would say there are far more flaws in creationism than in evolution. But reasonable people can and in fact do find agreement with both pov. In fact, if I remember correctly, the Vatican came out and “endorsed” evolution.

     
  30. mitchethekid

    August 16, 2013 at 6:38 am

     
 
%d bloggers like this: