ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, September 09, 2013

The collapsing charade of "global warming"

Never, ever, let the science fetishists forget that they staked the reputation of modern science on the "established science fact" of global warming.  Keep that in mind every time they bring up science to justify evolution by natural selection or any other quasi-scientific dogma, especially in light of the fact that they were not only wrong about the elimination of Arctic ice, but spectacularly wrong.
A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent. The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013. Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back. Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading....

The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has ‘paused’ since the beginning of 1997 – an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.
Astonishing, isn't it, that I, and the other skeptics, have been proven right yet again, despite the scientific consensus of all those scientists with their fancy academic credentials.  Thus proving, once again, that the material value of those credentials is somewhat less than an equivalent weight in toilet paper.

How is that possible? Because you don't have to know a damn thing about the climate to know when corrupt human beings are putting forth falsehoods in order to justify claiming more money and power on their own behalf.

Labels: ,

152 Comments:

Anonymous BluntForceTrauma September 09, 2013 1:06 PM  

"Because you don't have to know a damn thing about the climate to know when corrupt human beings are putting forth falsehoods in order to justify claiming more money and power on their own behalf."

Vox earns his pay, yet again. Why is this so hard for the rest of the world to understand?

Anonymous Will Best September 09, 2013 1:09 PM  

That is because skeptics do not worship the Nature Goddess and thus are able to look at the evidence as they find it rather than slanting it to fit a narrative.

Rest not though, I am sure there is still untold billions of taxpayer money for alarmist, and even religions that are thoroughly discredited will retain followers.

Blogger IM2L844 September 09, 2013 1:22 PM  

I don't expect to see any backpedaling in the media anytime soon. They could be sailing the equator in a parka before they'd stop trying to denigrate the not rabbits for their non-rabbity ambageses.

Blogger Crowhill September 09, 2013 1:22 PM  

Yes, this has been very amusing. As a geology guy, I think of climate over much longer stretches of time, and I try to remind people that the earth has been much warmer and much colder, and that there have been times when the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was many times higher than it is now.

Vox -- I recall lots of times that scientist-ish types have "staked the reputation of modern science on the 'established science fact' of global warming," but I didn't have the sense to save the links. Do you have references?

Blogger Monsignor Scott Rassbach September 09, 2013 1:23 PM  

Last year they were still talking about it: "Arctic ice melting at 'amazing' speed, scientists find"

Anonymous joe doakes September 09, 2013 1:25 PM  

This can't be right. Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann sued Mark Steyn and The National Review for slander. The judge ruled that global warming is an established scientific fact. It's res judicata. All that remains is to decide whether they acted with actual malice and the amount of damages.

It's not only settled science, it's settled law!

Anonymous bob k. mando September 09, 2013 1:26 PM  

really Vox, i don't understand why you fixate this way on AGW theory ...

really Vox, i don't understand why you fixate this way on joooooos ...

really Vox, i don't understand why you fixate this way on the surveillance state ...

really Vox, i don't understand why you fixate this way on the NFL ...

really Vox, i don't understand why you fixate this way on soccer practice ( okay, that one may have an explanation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1tzr0n_Usk )

really Vox, i don't understand why you fixate this way on PZ Meyers ...

really Vox, i don't understand why you fixate this way on McRapey ...


really Vox, is it one of the attributes of an 'Internet Superintelligence' that you can 'fixate' on 500 gazillion different things at the same time?

Anonymous Porky September 09, 2013 1:30 PM  

You'd think they'd be happy about their success in stopping global warming. Shouldn't Al Gore throw a party or something?

Anonymous TJ September 09, 2013 1:37 PM  

"Keep that in mind every time they bring up science to justify evolution by natural selection"

Funny thing is at least the climatologists can mathematically model the earth's system to a very limited degree. Albeit they gave way too much sensitivity to C02 and with positive feedback to further their politics.

Do the evolutionists even have that much physics and math behind their claims? Or is all they have only good stories?

Anonymous jack September 09, 2013 1:37 PM  

OK. Should not Mark Steyn and company now counter sue Mann and company and judge for damages, defame of character, etc. etc.

Maybe Vox could recco an attorney or three; I feel sure they could find the time from the upcoming pillage and assault of the SFWA to take care of a little problem like frivolous lawsuit and judicial misconduct. Maybe even a really close look at this judge's background, bank accounts, country club buds, etc.

Anonymous Salt September 09, 2013 1:38 PM  

We find that climate science scepticism is not limited to the scientifically illiterate (per Hoffman, 2011a), but well ensconced within this group of professional experts with scientific training – who work as leaders or advisors to management in governmental, non-governmental, and corporate organizations.

The science "true Scotsman" fetishists shall not be denied.


Anonymous bob k. mando September 09, 2013 1:39 PM  

Crowhill September 09, 2013 1:22 PM
Vox -- I recall lots of times that scientist-ish types have "staked the reputation of modern science on the 'established science fact' of global warming," but I didn't have the sense to save the links. Do you have references?



i'm sure you can dig up a bunch of stuff by trawling the archives at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
or
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

Anonymous Will Best September 09, 2013 1:41 PM  

You'd think they'd be happy about their success in stopping global warming. Shouldn't Al Gore throw a party or something?

Yes well the way they fixed rising CO2 nations in developed countries was to destroy their economies and increase natural gas usage through improvements in brown energy. Think of all the billions more they could have stolen from the taxpayer and consumer if only we would have listened to them.

Anonymous MarkP September 09, 2013 1:42 PM  

"The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday... [revealed] that global warming has ‘paused’ since the beginning of 1997...."

Laughable. The Mail on Sunday 11 months ago finally got around to reporting already-well-known facts that were easily accessible for years. The real story is how media bias made them complicit in the wholesale lie of AGW. Had the media even halfway attempted to be objective about the matter the whole scandal would have fallen flat shortly after the initial IPCC release.

Alas....

It sure looks good on them.

Blogger Jordan179 September 09, 2013 1:44 PM  

Begs the question, Vox. If you don't believe in "evolution by natural selection," what theory for the appearance and development of species do you put in its place? Genesis doesn't work: the Earth's too old, and both faunal assemblages and species have turned over too many times to be fit into the pattern of a single Deluge. So what does happen -- does God periodically strike species down and create new ones ex nihilo to take their places?

Anonymous Anonymous September 09, 2013 1:45 PM  

As they lose the utility of credential-ism to silence debate, they will have to find something else to mask the animus they harbor. Remember when the mask slipped a bit? No Pressure

Anonymous Stephen J. September 09, 2013 1:46 PM  

"Because you don't have to know a damn thing about the climate to know when corrupt human beings are putting forth falsehoods in order to justify claiming more money and power on their own behalf."

I remember the exact moment my own opinion tipped firmly over into the "skeptic" side of the issue: it was when one of the University of East Anglia Climate Unit scientists, I think it may have been Phil Jones, apparently said to someone requesting a look at his data and model formulae: "Why should I provide you this data, when your stated goal is to try to find something wrong with it?"

Ummm... Because THAT IS WHAT SCIENCE IS?!?!?! Continual re-checking of observed data and calculations for errors so as to verify replicability?!

A scientist does not refuse to share data unless he has an economic or political stake in the outcome. Period. Paragraph. Nothing else hit me quite so hard as realizing what that single refusal meant.

Anonymous Will Best September 09, 2013 1:50 PM  

OK. Should not Mark Steyn and company now counter sue Mann and company and judge for damages, defame of character, etc. etc.

About the only way to get even with a judge would be to shoot them since they are granted absolute immunity for everything they do in their court room.

I am actually kind of surprised there aren't more judge killings than have taken place. Particularly men who lose BS custody battles.

Anonymous bob k. mando September 09, 2013 1:56 PM  

Jordan179 September 09, 2013 1:44 PM
Begs the question, Vox. If you don't believe in "evolution by natural selection," what theory for the appearance and development of species do you put in its place?




note that Jordan179 would rather 'believe' a story he knows to be false than to actually admit that he just doesn't know.

Anonymous YIH September 09, 2013 1:57 PM  

I saw this over at Mangan's. Now it's 'global cooling' again.
What else is coming back from the mid 70's?.
AMC Pacers? Disco? Bell bottoms? *shudder*

Anonymous Noah B. September 09, 2013 1:57 PM  

We're saved! Obama has saved the planet!

Anonymous VD September 09, 2013 2:00 PM  

Begs the question, Vox.

It does nothing of the sort. But as a general rule, I don't simply accept a fairy tale explanation when it is entirely obvious that no one knows. As it happens, the time frames are still far too short for evolution by natural selection.

Anonymous Molon Rouge September 09, 2013 2:01 PM  

"really Vox, is it one of the attributes of an 'Internet Superintelligence' that you can 'fixate' on 500 gazillion different things at the same time?"

I believe that VD and all of us fixate on this crap as we have a sense of what is correct and proper in the world. We are tired of the shysters and idiots robbing us of happiness and peace. Not to mention picking our pockets.

A pox on the climate scientists, Al Gores, RFK jr, Weiners, Obamas, Jesse Jackson, Sharptons, Obamas, Scalzis, that SF black girl, Clintons, Kerrys, Bushes and the list goes on and on,,,Sighs!

Blogger RobertT September 09, 2013 2:02 PM  

i don't think it's money and power. I think it's social standing. I think their social standing is so low, they'll do anything to raise it, including lie and obfuscate. Being a college instructor is like being a doctor. Everyone thinks they're dorks.

Anonymous bob k. mando September 09, 2013 2:06 PM  

as to old hurricane season forecasts, those actually seem to be archived on wikipedia. just step back through the hurricane season articles season by season:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Atlantic_hurricane_season


1998 is the first season i can find that would qualify as below average for the forecast:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Season_outlooks

funny thing is, they were wrong about that. 1998 was slightly above average in storm activity.

Anonymous Will Best September 09, 2013 2:07 PM  

So what does happen -- does God periodically strike species down and create new ones ex nihilo to take their places?

I can create illusions that my children can not explain. Not saying that is what is going on, but its hubris to presuppose we have everything figured out. Particularly in light of how often we are wrong about things.

Anonymous bob k. mando September 09, 2013 2:10 PM  

Molon Rouge September 09, 2013 2:01 PM
I believe that VD and all of us fixate on this crap




i say, that's a joke, son.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwnwbG9YLE

'fixate' in this sense means to preoccupy or obsess over something TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHER THINGS.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fixate?s=t

to " 'fixate' on 500 gazillion different things at the same time" is a contradiction in terms.

Anonymous Anonymous September 09, 2013 2:12 PM  

Those poor yacht owners...

- Sloop

Anonymous righteous gobbler September 09, 2013 2:13 PM  

"You'd think that they'd would be happy about their success in stopping global warming."

If, by some incredible happenstance, there emerged indisputable proof that there is no such thing as man-made climate change; instead of breathing a long sigh of relief, the warmie elite would only find some other catastrophe-in-the-making that they could use to tyrannize the masses.

The non-elete true believers would take to leaping to their deaths from one of their beloved trees.

Anonymous BluntForceTrauma September 09, 2013 2:17 PM  

Quoting Will Best @ 1:09pm: "... and even religions that are thoroughly discredited will retain followers."

How true. Mormonism and Scientology come to mind.

And, of course, Climage Changeology is a religion to some.

Anonymous bob k. mando September 09, 2013 2:18 PM  

also, while the Atlantic looks quiet this year, the 2013 Pacific season was forecasted to be 'below average' and actually looks to be shaping up to be above average:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Pacific_hurricane_season

they are currently lacking any major storms which usually average ~4 but the smaller storms have already almost reached the yearly averages and the season doesn't end until Nov 30.

Anonymous Krul September 09, 2013 2:23 PM  

Re: Jordan179,

FYI, you're misusing the phrase "begs the question. "Begging the question" is actually a particular logical fallacy.

The wording for your sentiment would be "raises the question".

Anonymous Anonymous September 09, 2013 2:24 PM  

"...and the season doesn't end until Nov 30."

Relax. Storms occur. Now those poor folk in AK:

http://ak-wx.blogspot.de/2013/08/record-cold-in-northern-interior.html

- Sloop

Blogger wrf3 September 09, 2013 2:25 PM  

Crowhill wrote: there have been times when the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was many times higher than it is now.

When? NASA has a graph that shows CO2 concentration for the past 650,000 years. Now, one could argue that 80 ppm is probably within the margin of error for measurements in the past but, still, when was it "many times higher"?

Blogger wrf3 September 09, 2013 2:27 PM  

Jordan179 asked: If you don't believe in "evolution by natural selection," what theory for the appearance and development of species do you put in its place?

He doesn't have to provide one, any more than a defense attorney has to prove who committed a crime. All he has to do is to show his client didn't do it.

Anonymous Mike M. September 09, 2013 2:33 PM  

Remember, the twits pushing the Global Warming Hoax now were pushing the New Ice Age scare thirty years ago. And their solution was the same in both cases - extensive control of the economy by the government.

Personally, I think they're right. There is a crisis. But the solution is the humane euthanasia of liberals. After all, what do liberals produce that is useful?

Anonymous Eric C September 09, 2013 2:34 PM  

Thank you, Krul.

Anonymous Gen. Kong September 09, 2013 2:35 PM  

The source of AGW's power is not logic or rationality. Like feminism - which is even more discredited (if that's possible) - its power is driven by some sort of emotional, even religious, appeal. Feminism should have been laughed off the stage when Gloria Steinem made her "one free grope" appeal on behalf of Beelzebubba. It's not only still here but even spreading into places like Japan and Korea where it had no previous foothold. They're now allowing wymyn into combat units in the military as the remaining Christians are purged from the ranks. Likewise, AGW should have been laughed off the stage and cast upon the trash-heap of history when decades' worth of fraudulent concocted data was exposed. Yet, here we are four years later and AGW is still treated as gospel as broadcast by the Ministry of Truth 24 x 7 x 365. Both are like the liquid-metal assassin in the movie Terminator III: You can blow them to pieces, but they always somehow manage to reconstitute themselves and attack again. Appeals to logic and rational analysis do not work very effectively against leftist-utopian ideologies.

Anonymous Anonymous September 09, 2013 2:37 PM  

This is a very strombolian issue...

- Sloop

Anonymous kh123 September 09, 2013 2:37 PM  

"and both faunal assemblages and species have turned over too many times to be fit into the pattern of a single Deluge."

Are these turnovers finalized. In other words, are we sure that none of the contemporaries of one strata will ever show up in another overlying or underlying boundary or layer.

Anonymous Anonymous September 09, 2013 2:41 PM  

"But the solution is the humane euthanasia of liberals."

Nope, drop them off in Detroit.

- Sloop

Anonymous bob k. mando September 09, 2013 2:42 PM  

Anonymous September 09, 2013 2:37 PM
This is a very strombolian issue... - Sloop



dude, relax. you should buy a boat.
http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/I_Should_Buy_A_Boat.jpg



Blogger James Dixon September 09, 2013 2:43 PM  

> How is that possible?

Well, when you find that in order to get their results, they had to claim that the Medieval Warm Period never existed, it gets really easy.

> ...and I try to remind people that the earth has been much warmer and much colder, and that there have been times when the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was many times higher than it is now.

Exactly.

> Genesis doesn't work: the Earth's too old

Really? Exactly how old does Genesis say the Earth is? Enquiring minds want to know.

Anonymous Anonymous September 09, 2013 2:44 PM  

bob k. mando September 09, 2013 2:42 PM

Got me a boat. My cat likes it. So does pussy. Talking about the volcano.

- Sloop

Anonymous Noah B. September 09, 2013 2:46 PM  

"both are like the liquid-metal assassin in the movie Terminator III..."

Kong... hate to break it to you, but that was Terminator II. Terminator III had the semi-hot blonde with the lesbian haircut who had the built in flamethrower.

Anonymous NateM September 09, 2013 2:46 PM  

Winter is Coming

Blogger James Dixon September 09, 2013 2:48 PM  

> When? NASA has a graph that shows CO2 concentration for the past 650,000 years.

I thought current estimates for the Earth's age were in the 4 billion year range? That leaves a rather large time frame not covered.

Blogger RobertT September 09, 2013 2:51 PM  

i don't think it's money and power. I think it's social standing. I think their social standing is so low, they'll do anything to raise it, including lie and obfuscate. Being a college instructor is like being a doctor. Everyone thinks they're dorks.

Anonymous bob k. mando September 09, 2013 3:00 PM  

James Dixon September 09, 2013 2:48 PM
That leaves a rather large time frame not covered.




*pssst*

wrf3 isn't used to thinking in geologic time scales.

Anonymous Gen. Kong September 09, 2013 3:02 PM  

Kong... hate to break it to you, but that was Terminator II. Terminator III had the semi-hot blonde with the lesbian haircut who had the built in flamethrower.

Me bad. You're correct, it was II.

Anonymous Rex Little September 09, 2013 3:07 PM  

Now it's 'global cooling' again.
What else is coming back from the mid 70's?


Ah, someone else who remembers what the "climate scientists" were beating the drums about back then. You may also recall that the proposed remedies were pretty much the same as for warming: use less energy, pollute less, let Big Brother control the economy.

Blogger James Dixon September 09, 2013 3:07 PM  

> ...wrf3 isn't used to thinking in geologic time scales.

Apparently not. :) In any case, a quick Google search reveals some best guess answers here.

Anonymous DT September 09, 2013 3:10 PM  

Thus proving, once again, that the material value of those credentials is somewhat less than an equivalent weight in toilet paper.

Definitely less. Ever wipe your butt with a degree? Toilet paper is much softer.

Though college degrees are great for starting fires.

How is that possible? Because you don't have to know a damn thing about the climate to know when corrupt human beings are putting forth falsehoods in order to justify claiming more money and power on their own behalf.

If only the voting public could figure this out.

Anonymous DT September 09, 2013 3:12 PM  

"But the solution is the humane euthanasia of liberals."

Nope, drop them off in Detroit.


Distinction without difference. They would never survive.

Blogger Revelation Means Hope September 09, 2013 3:14 PM  

The easy way to parse the motives of people:
What are the effects of their proposed solution?
Who benefits from the controls needed to put this into place?
Who or what is punished by accepting their solution?

I think agree and amplify should have been applied to the AGW debate.

Anonymous DonReynolds September 09, 2013 3:17 PM  

It is worse than that, Vox. If you will recall.... Albert Gore and his followers insisted not only that the world was warming, but that the actions of MAN were causing it. (Not sure when that part dropped out of the conversation.) But surely, they said, if only MAN will moderate his discharge of "greenhouse" vapors... specifically by eliminating the use of fossil fuels....then the EARTH would return to normal! Never mind the sun, it is too far away, WE will restore the climates of the world by eliminating the burning of coal, and oil, and those awful cow farts.... and the GLOBAL WARMING will slow. We will all be saved after all.

Oh yeah, and anyone who denies that MAN causes the global warming (and the MEGA DEATH) is worse than a Holocaust Denier. Ooooo!

Anonymous stevev September 09, 2013 3:18 PM  

I am a AGW skeptic, but I, also, still want to see what data were used to back up the statement "CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was many times higher than it is now".
Ice cores? Sedimentary cores? Deep seafloor cores?
Maybe even just a suggestion as to where I might start my own inquiry?

Blogger Jordan179 September 09, 2013 3:21 PM  

Four and a half billion years is "too short" for evolution by means of natural selection?

If that's true, then there's some other sort of evolutionary (*) process going on either in addition to or instead of evolution by natural selection. Which is certainly possible ...

... consider that evolution is an emergent process, just like the emergent processes of a brain. One daring speculation is that the process itself may be intelligent, and may somehow be trying to increase the diversity and extent of the ecosystems composing itself.

But we have to go on the basis of the known, and Darwininan natural selection is the base of knowledge from which we may build to greater heights, just as Darwin built on the discoveries of Lyell regarding the sucession of strata and on the discoveries of Humboldt regarding the link between ecosystems and climatic environments. You're trying to tear down Darwinian natural selection without putting something better in its place.

A good analogy here is between the Ptolemaic, Copernican, Newtonian and Einsteinian models of planetary motion. Copernicus did not claim that the observations of Ptolemaic astronomers were false, what he did was to show that they better fitted a heliocentric than a geocentric system. Newton did not seek to upset heliocentrism, but rather to explain how it was best explained by Laws of Gravity. And Einstein did not refute Newton, he showed that additional laws applied which under most circumstances were very subtle but under extreme circumstances could be easily-confirmed by direct observation.

Darwin was almost certainly wrong about many things, but not because he was completely wrong -- there's too much evidence for evolution for that to be possible. He was wrong because he was theorizing at a time when the biochemistry and much of the natural history of life on Earth was but poorly understood, and the theories which replace him will be (and are being) those which propose new evolutionary principles based upon these new observations.


===
(*)
"Evolution" is "change over time," which must be the case unless we assume a faked fossil and geological record. So whether "evolution" happens or not is not really the question, it's been known since around 1800 that it does. The question is: what's driving the change? That is the central question of biology for the last two centuries.

Anonymous Carlotta September 09, 2013 3:24 PM  

@ James Dixion
Dontcha know?
The earth is 7654332234556778889998765543333456677889876554433334567865432 years old.
And next year it will be twice that.

Blogger Markku September 09, 2013 3:25 PM  

The Russians were predicting global cooling for a long time, and they put their money where their mouth was - they bought oil and gas fields based on the assumption that they'll be a lot more valuable when the cooling starts in earnest.

And it looks like they have Europe by the balls now.

Anonymous DT September 09, 2013 3:27 PM  

I am a AGW skeptic, but I, also, still want to see what data were used to back up the statement "CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was many times higher than it is now".

Here's one study. I can't say whether it's reliable or not. http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2003-069.html

Anonymous DT September 09, 2013 3:28 PM  

Screwed up the link: http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2003-069.html

Anonymous The Deuce September 09, 2013 3:29 PM  

"...consider that evolution is an emergent process, just like the emergent processes of a brain."

"Emergence" is nothing more than a philosophical weasel-word, trotted out for things that cannot logically be explained within a materialistic framework (such as rational faculties and consciousness), to provide the illusion of having accounted for them. You might as well say "magic" or "woo."

Blogger Jordan179 September 09, 2013 3:30 PM  

Doing the math, Genesis if taken LITERALLY says that the Earth is somewhere between 5000 years to 7000 years (with the estimates converging on around 6000 years) old. It also says that there were five prehuman "days" of Creation, gets the faunal order wrong in at least one case, and that there was one Deluge (which might have caused some extinctions if not every "kind" of animal made it onto the Ark).

The problem is that the physical evidence clearly shows an Earth around 4.5 billion years old embedded in a Universe around 13.5 billion years old, and upon which there have been repeated appearance and disappearances of species, both as isolated events and in mass extinctions and radiations of varying sizes and extents. This is what's meant by "evolution" -- Darwinian natural selection is simply the most widely accepted theory as to the causes of these changes.

There are various alternative versions of evolution, including some Old Earth Creationist ones (which boil down to "God makes species appear and disappear according to His design"). Other varieties are Lamarckian ("Species try to evolve"), and progressive (not as in "left-wing" but as in "Species are moved by elan vital to evolve.") I'm personally-inclined toward gene-centered biased-random punctuated equilibrium, for reasons I'll gladly discuss if anyone's interested.

Anonymous bob k. mando September 09, 2013 3:31 PM  

DT September 09, 2013 3:12 PM
Distinction without difference. They would never survive.




distinction WITH a difference. there's nothing humane about death by Detroit.




Jordan179 September 09, 2013 3:21 PM
One daring speculation is that the process itself may be intelligent



*facepalm*

Atheism is daringly speculated to be the God of the gaps

Blogger Jordan179 September 09, 2013 3:33 PM  

No, "emergence" is not a "weasel-word." It describes a process which arises from chaotic interactions so complex that the most tractable means of computing its result is by actually letting the process run: in other words the result "emerges" from the process. An example of an emergent process is the functioning of a sufficiently-large organic neural network -- you may know in general what a cat might do, but the best way to figure out what any particular cat will do is to watch it and see what it does.

Anonymous Noah B. September 09, 2013 3:35 PM  

"Maybe even just a suggestion as to where I might start my own inquiry?"

Maybe here.

Anonymous Supernaut September 09, 2013 3:36 PM  

No matter what anyone says, there is no historical/geological record of global man made changes in the climate.

However, don't let the shenanigans of the AGW shucksters make us ignore the very real record of climate change and put it all in the same boat of ideas that must be ridiculed, disputed and ignored.

The climate record shows a very real and somewhat predictable cycle of ice ages interspersed with short warm periods.

"Global Cooling" in the future is certainly inevitable.

Don't consider it in the same realm of fantastic dishonesty as the AGW scam. Another ice age will certainly occur in the future...the only real question is when.

Blogger Jordan179 September 09, 2013 3:40 PM  

No, Bob -- intelligence in the evolutionary process itself is not the same thing as having an immaterial God unknowable save by faith-based assertion doing the job. And I wasn't seriously arguing that it was true, either: I was simply pointing out that, even if you're right that 4.5 billion years isn't enough time for the observed amount of evolution given the KNOWN evolutionary processes (and I'm not conceding that you are right about this, that one obvious alternative is that there are unknown evolutionary processes working.

For instance, if we were having this conversation c. 1875, you might (correctly) point out to me that "blending" should dilute out all evolutionary advances, given the known laws of biology. But in 1875 it was not known that inheritance actually occurs in discrete units (Darwin speculated that it did but had no proof of this). New biological laws -- the laws of genetics -- were discovered, solving the problem.

Note that even in strict Creationism there would be a form of "evolution" -- the evolution of the ideas in the Mind of God. Things have observably changed on Earth over time -- that is a fact unavoidable to anyone who studies the fossil and geological records, not an issue in question. The questions are "How have they changed? And why?

Anonymous Daniel September 09, 2013 3:42 PM  

I don't expect to see any backpedaling in the media anytime soon.

Why should they? Scientific consensus is that global cooling is upon us. Global cooling has always been upon us, as indicated by the climate science of the 1960s and 1970s. The fact that there was a brief and insignificant outlier period in the 1990s when some scientists proposed an interesting, but fundamentally flawed, theory of so-called "global warming" does not detract from the fact that the general consensus has always indicated that we are currently in a state of global cooling.

It is caused by a lack of greenhouse gas, due to pollution. It causes something known technically as an "ozone plug." Due to the gross incompetence and capitalistic terrorism of supercorporations like GE, we are all going to die by freezing if we don't buy more twisty lightbulbs.

Scientific consensus! It's the new bank bailout!

Blogger Jordan179 September 09, 2013 3:42 PM  

And getting back to the original topic, here's my most recent blog post on the possibilities of, and solutions to possible anthropogenic climate changes.

http://jordan179.livejournal.com/278480.html

You will notice that I don't agree with the mainstream on the necessary truth of AGW, and also that the solutions I propose to climate change in general are very much non-Green.

Anonymous Josh September 09, 2013 3:44 PM  

OT:

This is bad news for men, but an obvious logical conclusion of feminism.

Legal experts like Kevin Noble Maillard of Syracuse University speculate that a woman’s missed opportunities to have a baby during a marriage could be viewed as a form of “sacrifice” for which she should be compensated (in much the same way that a woman who put her husband through law school could expect to be compensated if he divorced her just before he reaped the financial rewards of the degree). And it helps rectify one of life’s greatest biological injustices: that men but not women can typically start a family well into middle age and beyond.

Blogger Jordan179 September 09, 2013 3:44 PM  

Here's a clickable link to my post, sorry ...

On Climate Change Problems and Solutions

Blogger Jordan179 September 09, 2013 3:44 PM  

Oh, and comments are always welcome :)

Blogger tz September 09, 2013 3:45 PM  

First, Volok has a discussion about a study where liberalism makes you innumerate

@Jordan179 - that is like saying "God created" (serially) really means evolution. Evolution normally is directed - toward greater complexity. And there has to be a mechanism introducing much more complex things rather quickly (abiogenesis, cambrian explosion, complex organs like the eye, Archeopteryx has feathers, not something half-scale and half feather).

If Darwin merely proposed what was derivable from the data there would be no controversy. But he went further with a hypothesis that could not be seen nor proved. And which modern biology contradicts with each new discovery.

(I noted few are looking for what might be good science, I suggested maybe some Nebulae are actually intelligent organisms but take centuries to utter one syllable, yet can build their equivalent of "pentium chips" (they have to wait a billion cycles for a single word from us) and send them to planets like ours).

So you demonstrate the worst of your side. Changing definitions - "Evolution is by Natural Selection" or merely "change over time" directed or not directed, gradual or sudden. Not merely a nerf ball but a fog or mist that the argument becomes when we pull out our rulers, calipers, and micrometers and insist on measuring and testing.

There is NO evidence for any known force that can create complexity except for HUMAN intelligence. We can speculate on the nature of some other intelligence - diffuse (pantheistic) or singular ("God"), moral or amoral, but the only known thing in the universe that can create complex, ENGINEERED objects is an intelligent engineer. We see engineering, large amounts of not just change, but design, complexity, directed change. Not just adjustments to environmental stress, but things completely new.

Could these happen randomly? Perhaps, but not with the DNA/RNA/Ribosome/Protein mechanism which is the basis of our biology, no more than graphic chips arise when lava from volcanoes cool. Or more specifically, they could happen randomly, but only over a period of a zeta-year. You are free to do the calculation yourself. It is not so hard that anyone with a 700 SAT score couldn't do it. Maybe even 600. Rate of mutation, number of beneficial, number of simultaneous mutations, (or in the case of abiogenesis, the number of just right - literally, all dextro or levo - molecules that have to come together to ignite life - but the simplest archebacteria is too complex to have arisen except by luck such that three lottery jackpots would come up with the same numbers).

Blogger Doom September 09, 2013 3:48 PM  

"Thus proving, once again, that the material value of those credentials is somewhat less than an equivalent weight in toilet paper."

Uhrm, depends on my mood. Sometimes I like my wipage a little... rough! Bleh... it's as close as I get to "kinky" these days.

Anonymous DT September 09, 2013 3:49 PM  

Four and a half billion years is "too short" for evolution by means of natural selection?

Considering that just getting life started randomly would be a roughly 1 in 10^450 event, yes. By a few hundred orders of magnitude.

Want to talk about the odds of randomly producing a genome as complex as a modern mammal's and how long that would take? (Hint: Earth is too young by a few million orders of magnitude.)

... consider that evolution is an emergent process, just like the emergent processes of a brain.

A process* which we cannot observe nor replicate in a laboratory, and which is precluded by the Second Law of Thermodynamics**, is emergent? How do you figure that one?

* I specifically mean the idea that genomes can gain information randomly, which is the core of TENS. Various expressions of preexisting information or the loss of information do not count as valid examples even though they may improve survivability or create a "different species" by our definitions.

** SLoT as it applies to information, not energy. The same law governs both.

But we have to go on the basis of the known, and Darwininan natural selection is the base of knowledge from which we may build to greater heights,

You can't reach 'greater heights' from a falsehood.

You're trying to tear down Darwinian natural selection without putting something better in its place.

He doesn't have to put something better in its place. The scientific method does not state that a theory is true if no better substitute can be found. Making predictions that contradict observations of the real world is sufficient for falsification.

For example: Darwinian evolution predicts (demands in fact) that information will randomly, spontaneously arise in genomes. Every observation we have made confirms that this never happens in our universe. Theory falsified.

Blogger Markku September 09, 2013 3:53 PM  

The scientific method does not state that a theory is true if no better substitute can be found.

Yes, due to methodological naturalism, science doesn't even TRY to answer the question "what is the most likely explanation for X?" Rather, it answers the question "among the perfectly naturalistic answers, what is the most likely explanation for X?". It doesn't matter if the answer is preposterously unlikely, like you'd need a trillion times longer time span to get to even 0.0000001% probability. If that is the most likely one, then science has done its job.

Anonymous Krul September 09, 2013 3:55 PM  

What's this? A chance meeting between fanatics of rival factions?

*Raises opera glasses*

This should be entertaining...

Blogger tz September 09, 2013 3:56 PM  

@Jordan179 And getting back to the original topic, here's my most recent blog post on the possibilities of, and solutions to possible anthropogenic climate changes.

Are you going to take chemotherapy, or even Laetrile, before you are positively and accurately diagnosed with cancer?

Anonymous Red Comet September 09, 2013 3:58 PM  

I thought current estimates for the Earth's age were in the 4 billion year range? That leaves a rather large time frame not covered.

Yeah, and for some reason correlation does not imply causation until we start looking at hockey stick graphs.

Anonymous Anonymous September 09, 2013 3:58 PM  

@NateM

Winter is coming.

Dang, you beat me to it!

Blogger tz September 09, 2013 4:00 PM  

@Jordan173 The problem is that the physical evidence clearly shows an Earth around 4.5 billion years old embedded in a Universe around 13.5 billion years old,

Each of which is built upon extrapolations of assumptions.

Can you show an experiment I can do that will accurately tell me the age of the earth? Geophysicists note that dating KNOWN lava flows - where someone was there to get the rock say they are 100k or often far older. If just cooled basalt is a million years old, then 6000 might be the age of the earth. There are mixed rocks, and each of the radioactive decay series give different results. We have no knowledge of weather or hydrology back very far, but erosion as geochronometer either assumes an absurd steady-state or is just noise. They were expecting 12 feet or so of dust on the moon given the amount and rate - hey, maybe Nate has a point.

Blogger Crowhill September 09, 2013 4:02 PM  

wrf3

Look at the graph labeled Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide on this page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

Also, "In Our Time" did an interesting show recently on ice ages, which you might listen to.


Blogger tz September 09, 2013 4:02 PM  

In Narnia, maybe the White Witch induced "Nuclear Winter" (remember Sagan on that - or have we forgotten). Maybe twice. C. S. Lewis predated this by decades.

Anonymous Russell September 09, 2013 4:04 PM  

I don't expect to see any backpedaling in the media anytime soon.

Why? We've always been at war with Eurasia. I just listened to the news from Minitruth, they've confirmed we've always been at war with Eastasia.

Blogger Markku September 09, 2013 4:06 PM  

I just listened to the news from Minitruth, they've confirmed we've always been at war with Eastasia.

Minitrue.

Re-read 1984 as penance.

Blogger tz September 09, 2013 4:08 PM  

VD Thus proving, once again, that the material value of those credentials is somewhat less than an equivalent weight in toilet paper.

Is it still on the roll or "used"?

I've actually used the description of "Oh, you have that paper in a frame on the wall - I guess it is useful when you nothing else to wipe your ass with".

Some scientists have noted the problem of arctic ice might be well sooted to anthropogenic effects.

Anonymous Haven't i always been right? September 09, 2013 4:12 PM  

Yeah, and for some reason correlation does not imply causation until we start looking at hockey stick graphs.

AND, hockey sticks weren't even invent 4 Billion years ago!! So take that Alphonso Gore!!!

Anonymous The Deuce September 09, 2013 4:14 PM  

No, "emergence" is not a "weasel-word." It describes a process which arises from chaotic interactions so complex that the most tractable means of computing its result is by actually letting the process run: in other words the result "emerges" from the process. An example of an emergent process is the functioning of a sufficiently-large organic neural network -- you may know in general what a cat might do, but the best way to figure out what any particular cat will do is to watch it and see what it does.

Yeah, I'm very much familiar with the definition that's usually given. You see, the reason I know it's a weasel word is precisely because I've seen folks like you trot it out so many times, just like this. Your cat example is a perfect illustration. A common-sense person might suspect that cats are conscious, and question whether their conscious awareness may have something to do with their behavior, and not just the complex working of mechanistic laws, but the emergentist just papers over that by saying it "emerges" from "complexity." The emergentist hasn't actually made a mechanical cat brain that behaves like a cat, of course, and never will, nor has he even really offered up an argument, but that's the whole point of it!

It's a non-explanation. It's nothing more than an attempt to do an end-run around intractable philosophical problems. Can't give a logically coherent explanation for how consciousness is possible given a materialistic, mechanistic account of the world? The ability of the human mind to grasp universals got you down? No need to explain it! Heck, you don't even need to show that it's logically possible! Just say that it's an "emergent process" and leave it at that!

For added flair, you can postulate that there might be "higher-order emergent laws" that take effect under certain complex conditions, if people rudely notice that merely invoking complexity in combination with known mechanistic laws doesn't solve logical problems. You don't actually need to show that the "emergent process" is a result of these "emergent laws," or even that they exist. You just have to say that it's "conceivable" that it happens that way! After all, the whole point of saying that something is "emergent" is to say that it's sooooooooo complex that, however it happens, you couldn't possibly grasp it or describe it, and hence you don't have to!

All the fun of explaining things, none of the hard work or accountability!

For fun, you can take anything an emergentist writes on the matter, and replace "emerge" with "come from somehow." The meaning doesn't change, but the illusion of explanation is nicely punctured.

Anonymous Russell September 09, 2013 4:20 PM  

Minitrue.

Doubleplus ungood, reporting to Miniluv right now.

1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

Blogger Jordan179 September 09, 2013 4:24 PM  

Cats are conscious, but this consciousness emerges from the substrate of their mechanical, biochemical and electrical brains. This has been (rather horribly) repeatedly demonstrated through animal experimentation (including on the subspecies felis silvestris domesticus itself, which rather nauseates me because I'm a confirmed cat lover).

Cat behavior comes from cat consciousness, and cat consciousness comes from cat brains (and the various sensors and effectors connected to their brains, such as their big beautiful eyes, lovely dirigible ears, and neat swift paws and twisty tails -- did I mention I'm a confirmed cat lover?). The Behaviorists,such as Skinner, were dead wrong to ignore the issue of consciousness.

You're living in a very bad time to deny the reality of the link between physical brains amd mental processes, because we've developed the technology to directly chart the specific patterns of neural train excitation that accompany particular thoughts and actions. I suspect that your knowledge of the scientific state of the art is a decade or more behind the times.

For fun, you can take anything an emergentist writes on the matter, and replace "emerge" with "come from somehow."

We know how "emergent properties" can "emerge," in many cases after the fact we can trace the chains of causation in considerable detail. The reason why the property is described as "emergent" is that the most tractable way to predict what will happen is to either run the process, or a sufficiently detailed simulation of the process, itself.

Anonymous Anonagain September 09, 2013 4:27 PM  

An example of an emergent process is the functioning of a sufficiently-large organic neural network -- you may know in general what a cat might do, but the best way to figure out what any particular cat will do is to watch it and see what it does.

But WHY does a cat do what a cat does? There is always a reason.

Blogger Jordan179 September 09, 2013 4:28 PM  

tz said:

Are you going to take chemotherapy, or even Laetrile, before you are positively and accurately diagnosed with cancer?

No.

As I said in my post,

My best guess based on my reading is that we are in a period of anthropogenic global warming, which is bucking a larger trend of our descent into another ice age -- if humans had never developed civilization, the glaciers would probably be growing right now, with a push toward maximum glaciation within (say) 2-5 millennia. The two strong counter-trends make it very easy for catastrophe points to develop, at which there could be (by climatological standards) sudden warming or cooling episodes. ...

Also, since we're facing unpredictable climate changes (possibly "chaotic" in the formal mathematical sense) with plenty of potential catastrophic change points, we need to be able to actively manage the climate.


Did you actually read the post? I'm not a believer in the necessity of anthropogenic global warming being real, I merely think that it's likely, and I'm well aware of the larger long-term trend toward another glaciation.

Anonymous p-dawg September 09, 2013 4:30 PM  

@Jrodan173: "The problem is that the physical evidence clearly shows an Earth around 4.5 billion years old embedded in a Universe around 13.5 billion years old"

Clearly shows, eh? So, you were there millions of years ago, right? No, you know people who were there and you have their eyewitness testimony. Wait, you have dating methods which have proven themselves accurate over millions of years of use. No, that's not it. Those don't exist. Hmm. I think you mean that millions and billions of years clearly happened because without the hand-waving of "millions and billions of years", your theory has no chance of being correct. How many millions of years would it take before a hurricane in a junkyard built a working 747? How many millions of years before the rocks in my driveway form themselves into a statue of me?

Anonymous George of the Hole September 09, 2013 4:32 PM  

Four and a half billion years is "too short" for evolution by means of natural selection?

Forget evolution. How about abiogenesis?

There's only about a 200M year window for this gigantic molten rock in space to cool down and turn into a big DNA factory.

What do you suppose is the over/under on that one?







Anonymous DT September 09, 2013 4:33 PM  

I just listened to the news from Minitruth, they've confirmed we've always been at war with Eastasia.

I think you meant to say it was always cooling in Eastasia.

Or was it we've always been at war with Syria?

I just can't keep track any more...

Blogger Jordan179 September 09, 2013 4:35 PM  

The complexity of life on Earth did not arise by mere "randomness." I agree that this would take trillions of times longer than the known age of the Universe.

It arose by biased and heritable randomness. Biased, meaning that any patterns better at survival and reproduction tended to constitute an increasing percentage of the next generation; and heritable, meaning that their offspring tended to be better in the exact same ways.

It's the difference between rolling three dice once and trying to get an "18", and rolling them repeatedly, but only re-rolling the dice which happen to not come up as a "6." The first method will generate you one "18" per 216 rolls; the second should generate your 18 in a couple dozen or so rolls (I'm not enough of a statistician to give you the exact figure).

In other words, Darwinian evolution works by Munchkin Character Creation rules :)

Blogger Jordan179 September 09, 2013 4:37 PM  

As evolutionary biologists well know, we haven't yet figured out how life chemically evolves from non-life. So if you're making a "God of the Gaps" argument, there's a gap for you.

Though we're learning more and more about abiogenisis every decade, and I suspect that your God will be squeezed out of that particular gap within a human lifetime from now.

Blogger James Dixon September 09, 2013 4:37 PM  

> Maybe even just a suggestion as to where I might start my own inquiry?

I provided a link above.

> ...if taken LITERALLY ...

OK. Thanks for answering the question. It's obviously one possible interpretation.

Blogger Jordan179 September 09, 2013 4:47 PM  

DT said:

He doesn't have to put something better in its place. The scientific method does not state that a theory is true if no better substitute can be found. Making predictions that contradict observations of the real world is sufficient for falsification.

No ... the scientific method means that you pick the best theory out of the alternatives, and run with it until you find a better one. A single false prediction does not falsify a theory, since observational techniques are far from perfect. What falsifies a theory is a lower rate or accurate predictions than a rival theory.

Furthermore, falsifying part of a theory does not mean falsifying all of a theory. A strict interpretation of Newtonian gravity, without factoring in friction, would dictate that feathers fall as fast as cannonballs. They of course don't, in atmosphere. This doesn't mean Newtonian gravity is false, it means that additional things (specifically, air resistance) happen to be true.

The theory usually proposed as an alternative to evolution by means of natural selection among heritable variation -- namely, Genesis Creationism -- makes far fewer accurate predictions than does Darwinian evolution. So, "disproving" Darwinian evolution would mean moving to some other theory, which would not be Genesis Creationism and thus would leave you unsatisfied.

For that matter, in the trivial sense of Darwinian evolution being an incomplete statement of evolutionary processes, it's already been disproven. Repeatedly. We now know that the Earth's history is full of far greater catastrophes than was believed to be the case by mid-19th century geologists (hence, it's not uniform), that heredity proceeds through genetics (utterly unknown to Darwin) and we have strong reasons to believe that evolution does not so much happen to species as to isolated subgroups of species, with shakeups in the fauna occurring only when catastrophes occur (punctuated equilibrium), and further that the real action is a matter of gene frequencies and the compatibility of gene constellations (selfish genetic theory).

So Darwinian evolution has been "disproven." Happy? Of course not, because what we've learned gets us even farther away from Genesis Creationism.

Blogger Jordan179 September 09, 2013 4:50 PM  

P-Dawg said:

Wait, you have dating methods which have proven themselves accurate over millions of years of use. No, that's not it. Those don't exist.

Actually, they are quite accurate by comparison with the lengths of time being measured (Which is to say that, for a date 100 million years ago, you may get error bars of around 5-10 million years, for a billion years ago, 50-100, and so forth). The reason we know that the dates are accurate is because they different dating techniques CONVERGE on roughly the same dates.

How many millions of years would it take before a hurricane in a junkyard built a working 747? How many millions of years before the rocks in my driveway form themselves into a statue of me?

Longer than the Universe has been in existence. However, the two methods you propose are neither biased nor heritable forms of randomness, while biological evolution is both biased and heritable. If you don't understand what that means, read some books.

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter September 09, 2013 4:58 PM  

"The Russians were predicting global cooling for a long time, and they put their money where their mouth was - they bought oil and gas fields based on the assumption that they'll be a lot more valuable when the cooling starts in earnest.

And it looks like they have Europe by the balls now."

I think you are correct and I suspect that the desire to bomb Syria are to provoke Russia into loosening its grip or somehow screw ups its advantage.

Anonymous Preston September 09, 2013 5:00 PM  

There were indeed times on Earth when CO2 concentration was much higher, and those correspond to periods when the Earth was much warmer.

Blogger James Dixon September 09, 2013 5:00 PM  

> No ... the scientific method means that you pick the best theory out of the alternatives, and run with it until you find a better one.

That isn't any version of the scientific method I've ever encountered. :)

Blogger tz September 09, 2013 5:02 PM  

Also, since we're facing unpredictable climate changes (possibly "chaotic" in the formal mathematical sense) with plenty of potential catastrophic change points, we need to be able to actively manage the climate.

If we can "control" the climate, we can do it separately from CO2, or more properly, we can just turn whatever dial on the magic climate machine (The Kid's show Liddsville had a "Weather Bureau" which was a chest of drawers you could open to get what weather you wanted).

Yet if Climate is chaotic, there are two fails. First, changing the climate at X also changes Y. Do we warm Kansas to make more Wheat at the expense of freezing Iowa corn? Or do we use it as a weapon? Or can we predict the dozens of unpredictable (chaotic) effects happening over the globe in order to accomplish the effect we want. Second, if it is "chaotic" it means it isn't stable. Small changes in the inputs will change things greatly elsewhere and they can't be computed. So we would not be able to change climate as long as it is chaotic. It might also be useful to mitigate the tides, but the Moon isn't easily moved, and that is not a chaotic system.

It's the difference between rolling three dice once and trying to get an "18", and rolling them repeatedly, but only re-rolling the dice which happen to not come up as a "6."

That doesn't help, so I would suggest you do the math. First, it doesn't help as one-third of an adaptation which is in itself useless means that ALL the dice get rerolled. And remember negative mutations die. If beneficial mutations are one-in-a-million but deadly or damaging ones are one-in-a-thousand, you are more likely to die on your re-rolls. Second, it doesn't help with abiogenesis where there is no inheritance - you need a fully functioning system which is capable of being inherited before you can talk about rolling one dice. The thousands of base-pairs of the first archebacteria require all the dice to be rolled at the same time - AS WELL AS HAVING THE PROTEINS THEY CODE FOR ALREADY THERE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEM. There is no mechanism to decode protein back into base-pairs of R/DNA.

The comic book radioactive whatever giving you some superpower mutation is myth, but it is also such for any organism. Dogs might develop wings but won't short of a lot of engineering. And I would rather keep the chihuahuas at ankle level.

Also the Sun has changed its output over those 4.5 billion years, but our planet seems to have some air-conditioning (as well as avoiding solar flares sufficient to kill us all). Water was liquid over a large portion all this time. So from primordial soup to man, it has to have been capable of sustaining life.

Blogger tz September 09, 2013 5:04 PM  

@Preston There were indeed times on Earth when CO2 concentration was much higher, and those correspond to periods when the Earth was much warmer.

Yet there is evidence that warming CAUSES CO2 increase, not the other way around.

Blogger tz September 09, 2013 5:16 PM  

Actually, they are quite accurate by comparison with the lengths of time being measured (Which is to say that, for a date 100 million years ago, you may get error bars of around 5-10 million years, for a billion years ago, 50-100, and so forth). The reason we know that the dates are accurate is because they different dating techniques CONVERGE on roughly the same dates.

Except when they diverge. From everything I've read, they calibrate one from the other and make adjustments. They converge not because they return the same results, but because generally they use the assumed fossil record and/or a master geochronometer (often arbitrarily chosen) and then assume that the other geochronometers should return the same. If the Uranium decay series and the Potassium-Argon decay series disagree, they throw out the one that doesn't show the fossils to be where they think they should be. If something appears too far off they throw that one out and keep looking until they find one that agrees.

You need an unbiased, objective measure to start. Something with a date you aren't calculating with assumptions as to process. I know of no such.

Another problem with radioactive decay series is we know there are cosmic rays, novas, and such, but not if or how they might affect those. And we assume that the rates don't change (although we only have 200 years of measurement - a freeze frame on something that is alleged to be 16 billion years old, and the earth is at the 3/4 point - If I did any engineering with such measurements of a dynamic system I'd be rightly derided).

I can say properly that I don't know how old the earth and the universe is. Older than 6000 years, but going much beyond a few million creates extrapolation problems. The noise, assumptions, biases, and the rest makes any figure speculative. A guess, not a measurement. Like measuring when an apple was 1cm above the floor, and when it hit the floor, and then calculating when it was in the Oort cloud.

Anonymous p-dawg September 09, 2013 5:19 PM  

@Jordan179: "Actually, they are quite accurate by comparison with the lengths of time being measured (Which is to say that, for a date 100 million years ago, you may get error bars of around 5-10 million years, for a billion years ago, 50-100, and so forth). The reason we know that the dates are accurate is because they different dating techniques CONVERGE on roughly the same dates."

What is the proof (okay, I know that's impossible to provide - I'll settle for "evidence") that there has been even 1 million years? Not "several differing methods", either. Specifics, please.

Anonymous Jeffrey September 09, 2013 5:24 PM  

TheDeuce, it seems that emergence is not a synonym for "we don't know how it happens but given enough complexity, x happens anyhow because it just has to, for there is no other way in a naturalistic view of nature". Neuroscientists have figured it out from input organs, processing, memory and then output in both cat brains and emulations of cat brains. We have after all had a long understanding of simple motor reflexes, such as the stretch reflex. This is more of the same, just more complex.

(Of course why such emerges points to teleology in nature.)

Anonymous Jeffrey September 09, 2013 5:38 PM  

"It arose by biased and heritable randomness."

From another discussion I've been following on Ed Feser's blog, According to David Bohm, there can be no proof of randomness. Whatever the observational evidence, one can always produce a deterministic model that accounts for it. Bohm's work is in Quantum Mechanics but the same principle should apply here.

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Caltech Geological and Planetary Sciences September 09, 2013 5:45 PM  

I've worked on these climate models. A lot of them are bullshit.


I don't think the general public gets how incredibly complicated a lot of these models are. Even the simplest ones usually have 10...12...25 variables to keep track of. All they see is the end result on CNN or ABC. Some colorful line or bar graphs on the news and perhaps a time-lapse shot of the entire Earth changing, narrated by Morgan Freeman or James Earl Jones on the History Channel.

Even the simple CO2 models are unwieldy and hard to deal with.

Calculus is easy. Even stupid graphing calculators given to high school students can do it. These models are hard. Even supercomputers have difficulty. Hopefully quantum computers might solve the bottleneck problem.

It's very easy to make a mistake calculating something, or put in some faulty data. Slight changes in initial conditions can lead to catastrophically misleading models due to the chaos effect.

Then once you have model, you have all the scientists running off in one direction like lemmings "improving" or "fleshing out" the model. They were assuming the original kernel was correct to begin with.


They can't even do meteorology right, and you want them to accurately predict climate like that? Yeaaaaaaaaaah.

The science is settled! You are fucking retarded!

Blogger Revelation Means Hope September 09, 2013 6:07 PM  

" No ... the scientific method means that you pick the best theory out of the alternatives, and run with it until you find a better one."

Hahaha! That's a good joke, son.

Oh, you must have meant in the "scientific field" of biology. The hard sciences don't operate that way.

In my home field of biochem/molecular biology, it has been amusing over the last 25 years to watch the continuing stacking of epicycles and handwaving as we learn more and more about microbiology.

They are so, so, so determined to ensure that they never have to acknowledge that their fundamental hypothesis that a Creator God doesn't exist is in fact incorrect, that they have begun to make a laughingstock of themselves.

Anonymous DT September 09, 2013 6:50 PM  

It arose by biased and heritable randomness.

You think natural selection makes it feasible?

Any move up the evolutionary ladder would involve multiple related mutations in a genome. And they would have to occur simultaneously or in the right order so as to not kill the host.

Do you know the odds of just four sequential related mutations occurring in a genome? 1 in 10^28.

Care to guess how rapidly that number skyrockets when you have to have a lot more then four before natural selection has a new feature to select for?

Your dice analogy just illustrates that you have no grasp of the numbers involved. You're not rolling 3 dice, keeping the 6's, and re-rolling the rest until you get 18. No, you're trying to hit 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 with one roll of 1,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 dice. If you hit the jackpot, you get to keep that jackpot and roll again for another. But you have to keep doing it until your winnings add up to a 1 with 3,000,000 zeros after it. (Sorry, you'll just have to imagine that one. I'm not that fast of a typist.)

And you can't just hit that magic final tally once. You have to hit it for every single Genus on the planet. Sure, once you've gotten started you get to branch off to each super jackpot attempt starting off with some earlier winnings borrowed from another attempt. But you still have to hit the super jackpot what...a few hundred thousand times to produce something reasonably close to what we observe on Earth?

And you have to start and complete the vast majority of those super jackpot attempts in the time frame of the Cambrian explosion.

If you honestly believe this is how life formed in our universe then you are either mathematically illiterate, or biased beyond any reasoning.

Blogger Phoenician September 09, 2013 6:55 PM  

Astonishing, isn't it, that I, and the other skeptics, have been proven right yet again, despite the scientific consensus of all those scientists with their fancy academic credentials. A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.

Now, here’s what was happening last year:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/arctic-sea-ice-extent-reaches-record-shattering-minimum/2012/09/19/fe373130-027d-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html

"On Sunday, by an area about the size of Texas, Arctic sea ice extent shrunk below the previous record low established September 18, 2007.

The National Snow and Ice Center (NSIDC) today reports the sea ice extent bottomed out at 1.32 million square miles, about 293,000 square miles below the prior 2007 record. Arctic sea ice extent has been monitored by satellite since 1979.

“This year’s minimum is 18% below 2007 and 49% below the 1979 to 2000 average,” NSIDC wrote in its release on the minimum, noting these numbers are preliminary.”


So, Dipshit, let’s try to run the numbers, shall we?

2012 record low: 1.32 million square miles
1979-2000 average coverage: ~2.59 million square miles
2013 coverage from your report: ~2.11 million square miles

So what you’re misreporting is a rebound from a previous breathtaking low, but not to the extent of coming anywhere near the average coverage of the last third of last century.

Pwned again, Dipshit.

Anonymous DT September 09, 2013 7:03 PM  

No ... the scientific method means that you pick the best theory out of the alternatives, and run with it until you find a better one.

Congratulations on confirming that you would flunk any legitimate high school science course in the nation.

Furthermore, falsifying part of a theory does not mean falsifying all of a theory.

No one has claimed otherwise.

The theory usually proposed as an alternative to evolution by means of natural selection among heritable variation -- namely, Genesis Creationism -- makes far fewer accurate predictions than does Darwinian evolution.

I doubt you've ever seriously researched and quantified the predictions and outcomes from either. But it's irrelevant any way since the core of Darwinism violates one of the most well established laws of physics. Once again, no substitute is required to falsify an existing theory.

So, "disproving" Darwinian evolution would mean moving to some other theory, which would not be Genesis Creationism and thus would leave you unsatisfied.

Well gosh, we can't leave you unsatisfied, can we? Guess you'll just have to keep on believing in a fairy tale.

...and we have strong reasons to believe that evolution does not so much happen to species as to isolated subgroups of species, with shakeups in the fauna occurring only when catastrophes occur (punctuated equilibrium),...

Translation: the fossil record seems to be missing the millions of transitional forms Darwinists expected to find.

So I'm supposed to believe that information bearing mutations...which should never happen in the entire universe as vast and old as it is...actually happen in small groups and rapid spurts? As opposed to believing the far more likely scenario that some intelligence outside this universe engineered the information?

I'll go with the odds on that one.

Anonymous DT September 09, 2013 7:16 PM  

The reason we know that the dates are accurate is because they different dating techniques CONVERGE on roughly the same dates.

No they don't. Most of the methods of evaluating Earth's age fall far short of the age suggested by radiometric dating.

I'm not sure which side (old vs. young Earth) I agree with. Gerald Schroeder presents a compelling argument for interpreting Genesis and creation in a manner that is consistent with evolutionary time scales.

But I'm also familiar with the young Earth arguments and the many Earth age estimates produced over the past couple of centuries. The scientific community seized upon the method which yielded the oldest dates because that gave them the most time for evolution. Not because it was necessarily the most accurate or reliable.

There are also instances where two seemingly reliable dating methods yield radically different results.

How many millions of years would it take before a hurricane in a junkyard built a working 747? How many millions of years before the rocks in my driveway form themselves into a statue of me?

Longer than the Universe has been in existence. However, the two methods you propose are neither biased nor heritable forms of randomness, while biological evolution is both biased and heritable. If you don't understand what that means, read some books.


You would get a 747 from a hurricane before getting a new feature from random mutations for natural selection to choose for inheritance.

Anonymous Joseph P. Martino September 09, 2013 7:37 PM  

I have never accepted either random mutation followed by natural selection as the complete explanation for living forms, nor have I ever accepted the idea of global warming, let alone anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

HOWEVER, I do not see that the failure of the latter is justification for asserting the failure of the former. The two must be decided individually.

I do agree, however, that the scientific establishment (American Association for the Advancement of Science, the journal SCIENCE, and the journal NATURE) has harmed the credibility of all science by its continued insistence on AGW, long after that hypothesis was clearly falsified.

Anonymous Anonymous September 09, 2013 7:47 PM  

Phoenician September 09, 2013 6:55 PM

Then there's this:


SCIENCE WEDNESDAY -- May 1, 2013 at 5:34 PM EDT
The Antarctic's Ice Paradox

By: Rebecca Jacobson
It's no secret that the ice sheet is melting in Greenland. Last year, the Arctic ice cap shrunk to a record low, with only 24 percent of the Arctic Ocean covered by ice, a 50 percent drop from its 1979-2000 summer average. At the height of the 2012 summer, Greenland had experienced melting across 90 percent of its surface. For a journalist, it's an easy story to tell: temperatures climb, the ice shrinks.

But at the opposite end of the world, in Antarctica, the picture isn't quite as clear. Satellite images from 2012 showed that Antarctic sea ice reached its highest levels extent on record, evidence skeptics often point to as proof that climate change isn't happening. And for years, the East Antarctic ice sheet, which covers the majority of the continent, appeared to be stable or perhaps even gaining mass.
---

Global warming for half the world!

- Levantine Jones


Blogger Unknown September 09, 2013 8:19 PM  

Anyone know about the study of deep sea temperatures continually warming? http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/25/1768601/in-hot-water-global-warming-has-accelerated-in-past-15-years-new-study-of-oceans-confirms/

Anonymous Sir_Chancealot September 09, 2013 8:30 PM  

I would like to know how these evolutionists deal with the following facts:
1a) Leg bone of a T-Rex was unfossilized.
1b) Said leg bone contained red blood cells.
1c) Proteins and DNA break down after about 10,000 years.

2) Nuclear decay rates are NOT steady, they vary. See Purdue University's patent on solar flare warnings from the changes in decay rates. (I.e., right before a solar flare starts up, nuclear decay changes)

3) Volcanic rock taken from Mt. St. Helens eruption, submitted to labs ALWAYS show "millions and millions" of years of age when not told the true location of where they came from. Let the "testers" know where it came from, and they magically know it's not millions of years old.

4) Triceratops horn that contains bone cells.

I have a book called "Forbidden Archaeology". It reads like a damn collegiate textbook. It contains 828 pages (44 additional pages of bibliography, and that doesn't include foot notes) of more archeological findings that should not exist in the strata they were found.

Evolution, scientifically speaking, is a farce. Is it more likely that the dinosaurs were making ancient artifacts (gold chain, a small bell, to name two) that sank in the biomass that became coal beds, or is it more likely that the dating of the rocks above the coal is incorrect?

These evolutionists don't want truth, they want to believe pretty little lies, so that they can continue to deny God.

Anonymous TheExpat September 09, 2013 8:53 PM  

I've actually used the description of "Oh, you have that paper in a frame on the wall - I guess it is useful when you nothing else to wipe your ass with".

In case of emergency, break glass?

Anonymous Obvious September 09, 2013 10:06 PM  

You know for a super genius, you're really not good at paying attention to what stuff actually means.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2013/09/09/with-climate-journalism-like-this-who-needs-fiction/#.Ui5-cD_3P5n

Anonymous DT September 09, 2013 10:21 PM  

Is it more likely that the dinosaurs were making ancient artifacts (gold chain, a small bell, to name two) that sank in the biomass that became coal beds, or is it more likely that the dating of the rocks above the coal is incorrect?

Obviously the dinosaurs were making ancient artifacts because the science is settled. Consensus!

Anonymous DT September 09, 2013 10:26 PM  

You know for a super genius, you're really not good at paying attention to what stuff actually means.

Neither is the author of that article who cherry picked both his ice and his global temperature graphs.

Blogger James Dixon September 09, 2013 10:28 PM  

> Anyone know about the study of deep sea temperatures continually warming?

If you have an ~20 year period of above average temperatures, where would you expect the excess heat to wind up? In the atmosphere, in the land masses, or in the oceans? The build up in the oceans is an most likely an artifact of past high temperatures, not an indication of continuing ones.

Anonymous scoobius dubious September 09, 2013 10:43 PM  

I remember back when I was a college kid, there were still a lot of these people around (Lawdy, I even fucked some of them) who thought that Marxism was "scientific" and "irrefutable". I used to have to go out into the hallway to laugh about it. Now we have "scientific" claims about "global warming" and "white privilege" with no serious discussion (or actually serious repression) of what the sub-structural politics are. (Isn't it funny how certain people can always be counted upon to gravitate to the same opinions, regardless what the disparate evidence is? Isn't that a species of evidence in its own right, of some other thing?)

Sadly, I'm running out of hallways in which to laugh.

The guy who wrote "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" turns out to have been right.



Anonymous Toby Temple September 10, 2013 12:10 AM  

"Winter is Coming."

Let Winter come to the tropics!!

Anonymous Jack Amok September 10, 2013 2:46 AM  

[AGW's] power is driven by some sort of emotional, even religious, appeal.

It's really funny how much AGW looks like a bastardized, ersatz Christianity. Prophets (Algore, Michael Mann), scriptures (the Hockey Stick graph), an idyllic paradise (pre-industrial Earth) we've been cast out of through our own folly, sin (carbon footprint) that must be atoned for through both real (drive crappy little death-trap cars) and symbolic (recylcing) sacrifices...

Speaking of religion:

Genesis doesn't work: the Earth's too old

The same people who claim the Bible is just a bunch of fairy tales also claim the fairy tales have to be taken LITERALLY. Really hilarious. It's all made up stuff, except the part where it says how long it took God to create the Earth. When that says seven days*, it means 168 hours and not a nanosecond more or less, and if the calculations say 6000 years, well, then it's 6,000 years and no more.

(BTW, just how long is a day to God, anyway?)

Seems these neo-athiests are trying to go Alinsky one step further. Not only do you hold the other side to their own rules, you hold them to your selective interpretation of their rules.

Yeeesh. Look, I'm an agnostic, I don't know if the cosmology in the Bible is a bunch of fairy tales or the closest approximation human minds could understand of God's work. But either way, it's not constrained by such literal interpretations, and people who try to claim it is just look like complete juvenile idiots.

* yes, yes, six days, and rest on the seventh, but I've been in Engineering too long to ignore vacation days in the product schedule.

Anonymous p-dawg September 10, 2013 6:26 AM  

Hmm, no one valiantly defending the claim of "millions of years" with actual, repeatable, scientific evidence. I'd say I'm shocked, but I don't like to lie. It sure does suck realizing that you've been believing a lie without thinking all your life, but ignoring it once it's been pointed out to you - that takes a lot of faith.

Anonymous George of the Vibrant Jungle September 10, 2013 8:37 AM  

It seems increasingly obvious that heredity is not divisible below the operon level. This also means that any type of evolution can also not exist below and/or within operons. Micro-evolution can mix and match different operons, but macro-evolution can never create them in the first place, because complexity proves otherwise. So how were operons created? Logically they could never have evolved, and macro-evolution could never have been a viable process. Thus they were created. What process created them? It certainly wasn't evolution, because macro-evolution is tautological bunk. Whoever discovers the real process will change the scientific paradigm forever. And what created the as-yet undetermined process that created operons? God.

Blogger James Dixon September 10, 2013 9:02 AM  

> ...* yes, yes, six days, and rest on the seventh, but I've been in Engineering too long to ignore vacation days in the product schedule.

Well, there's your problem, don't you know. Us poor engineers can obviously never hope to aspire to the true greatness of "scientists".

Anonymous Preston September 10, 2013 9:37 AM  

@tz Yet there is evidence that warming CAUSES CO2 increase, not the other way around.

There is evidence of both. Ample evidence, dating back to John Tyndall's work.

Anonymous Susan September 10, 2013 10:51 AM  

Kong & Noah B. You are technically both right about the metal Terminator assassins. They were both metal, but because movie makers need novelties, the third assassin could shape shift without going metal because she was a new and improved model. But the watcher still knew she was metal.

I was blessed with a life long cynicism of the weatherman, due to the fact that even as a child I observed they did not know how to predict weather correctly. At that point, corruption did not enter the equation for me.

Anonymous Jack Amok September 10, 2013 11:41 AM  

Well, there's your problem, don't you know. Us poor engineers can obviously never hope to aspire to the true greatness of "scientists".

Because our work is subject to testing outside our control. The bridge stands up or the bridge falls down.

With these modern science-ishts (they don't deserve the same name as Faraday, Newton, Ohm, Fahrenheit, etc., and their work is only science-ish), the last thing they want is someone outside their control looking critically at their work.

Anonymous Supernaut September 10, 2013 5:18 PM  

Anyone know about the study of deep sea temperatures continually warming?

One of the signs of the commencement of another ice age is increased volcanic activity...many volcanoes awaken from dormancy and a few thought extinct, start rumbling back to life.

There are more volcanoes under the ocean than above it. Increased underwater vulcanism = rising deep water temperatures.

http://iceagenow.info/category/volcanoes-leading-us-into-an-ice-age/submarine-volcanoes-more-important-than-we-realize/

Anonymous Anonymous September 11, 2013 12:39 AM  

Global warming is one of those things where I think certain people CLAIM to believe in it, but actually do not. Their real agenda is to use the supposed (but nonexistent) threat of global warming, as a justification for their REAL agenda, which is lowering the lifestyle of most human beings (except for themselves).

The reason I think this is because the actions of the politicians who babble about 'Global Warming' are not 100% consistent with an actual desire to reduce CO2 or other pollution, but ARE 100% consistent with a desire to reduce the lifestyle of most people other than themselves. Occam's razor dictates that the simplest explanation for this contradiction is that their real desire is, in fact, not to reduce pollution, but merely to reduce the lifestyle of other people.

Anonymous Anonymous September 11, 2013 12:46 AM  

**If, by some incredible happenstance, there emerged indisputable proof that there is no such thing as man-made climate change; instead of breathing a long sigh of relief, the warmie elite would only find some other catastrophe-in-the-making that they could use to tyrannize the masses.**

How about Nul Delta G? (no change in gravity)? That was a group of nut jobs in the books Pallas and Ceres who, upset over the fact that importation of metals and other materials from the asteroids was making the average person too wealthy, claimed that the importation of such materials was going to cause some horrible disaster by increasing the mass and gravity of the Earth 'too much'.

Anonymous Anonymous September 11, 2013 1:05 AM  

tz wrote:
**There is NO evidence for any known force that can create complexity except for HUMAN intelligence.**

Then how the devil did Snowflake Bentley get his pictures of complex snowflakes? And how did I roll 5 - sixes in a Yahtzee game, once?

Anonymous Anonymous September 11, 2013 1:09 AM  

tz wrote: **Could these happen randomly? Perhaps, but not with the DNA/RNA/Ribosome/Protein mechanism which is the basis of our biology, no more than graphic chips arise when lava from volcanoes cool. Or more specifically, they could happen randomly, but only over a period of a zeta-year.**

You're deliberately omitting three very important factors in evolution, that of reproduction, that of inheritance, and that of selection. If lava blobs could make copies of themselves, and there was a selective force for those that were most like graphic chips, you'd end up with graphic chips more quickly than you might think.

Anonymous Anonymous September 11, 2013 1:19 AM  

George wrote: **And what created the as-yet undetermined process that created operons? God.**

Umm, basically your logic here is: We don't know what created operons. Therefore, the answer is whatever some savage bronze age tribemen claimed it was, and a very specific group of savage bronze age tribesmen at that.

Sorry, you're missing several logical steps and any evidence to make that huge leap from the premise to the conclusion.

Anonymous Anonymous September 11, 2013 1:26 AM  

Jack Amok wrote:**The same people who claim the Bible is just a bunch of fairy tales also claim the fairy tales have to be taken LITERALLY. Really hilarious.**

Well, there's a lot of things like that. Such as people who use, as a justification for hating homosexuals, or sex in general, that they are just obeying the bible. Yet they conveniently handwave away other parts of the bible, such as the parts demanding that infants and children be killed due to the crimes and nationality of their parents, or the parts demanding that women be confined during their periods and that anyone who accidentally touches them during that time must immediately wash their clothes and take a bath.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 11, 2013 1:51 AM  

Well, there's a lot of things like that. Such as people who use, as a justification for hating homosexuals, or sex in general, that they are just obeying the bible. Yet they conveniently handwave away other parts of the bible, such as the parts demanding that infants and children be killed due to the crimes and nationality of their parents, or the parts demanding that women be confined during their periods and that anyone who accidentally touches them during that time must immediately wash their clothes and take a bath.

Morgan. Repeating the same mistakes so many times does not change them. They are still mistakes.

FYI just for you, Ann:

Homosexuality is still condemned in the NT. It is still called an abomination.

The slaughter of the Midianites ended after the Midianites were slaughtered. The command to slaughter them ended as well. The same goes for the command on building the Ark of Covenant. It ended when the Ark was completed.

The hygienic laws of ANE Israel is for ANE Israel. But one cannot deny the logic behind separating an unclean person from the clean ones and avoid contact with the unclean. It is basically an early practice of quarantine.

Anonymous Ann Morgan September 11, 2013 6:05 PM  

Toby wrote: **Homosexuality is still condemned in the NT. It is still called an abomination.**

The slaughter of the Midianites ended after the Midianites were slaughtered. The command to slaughter them ended as well. The same goes for the command on building the Ark of Covenant. It ended when the Ark was completed.

The hygienic laws of ANE Israel is for ANE Israel. But one cannot deny the logic behind separating an unclean person from the clean ones and avoid contact with the unclean. It is basically an early practice of quarantine.**

In other words, you are handwaving away the fact that God commanded the deaths of children and infants by claiming that applied only to the Midianites (and I note you have entirely failed to explain how the Midianite children and infants were morally worse than other children and infants).

You've also failed to address the command to kill children because their parents are prostitutes. Prostitution hasn't been eliminated like the Midianites have. How are you handwaving that one away, pray tell?

And you're handwaving away the laws regarding menstruating women with even less justification, as well as a good dose of idiocy, since menstruating women do not cause disease, therefore do not need to be 'quarantined'. And I don't see where in the bible is says the laws about menstruating women are only for the 'ANE Israelites'.

I'm curious, what do you think this says about whatever it is you call 'God' that he approves, at least at times, of infanticide and rape (he commanded the Israelites to enslave and rape the virgin Midianite women, after killing the infants and children), but has a permanent problem with homosexuality?

My thought is this: Unless you are demonstrably obeying ALL of the bible (rather than handwaving most of it away), you can't truthfully use the bible as a justification for condemning homosexuals. What's more likely is that you simply personally dislike homosexuals, and are using the bible as a post-facto justification for putting a veneer of holiness on a type of hatred you would be inclined to feel anyways.

Here's another question: What would you think of the mentality of someone who sat down in front of their TV to watch a Sunday night movie... on a Thursday. When the Sunday night movie was not on (on a Thursday) they had a temper tantrum, blamed the television, and smashed it to bits?

Anonymous Ann Morgan September 11, 2013 6:09 PM  

Toby wrote: **Homosexuality is still condemned in the NT. It is still called an abomination.**

I'm also dubious over this one. Chapter and verse, from the NT, please?

Anonymous Toby Temple September 12, 2013 2:34 AM  

I'm also dubious over this one. Chapter and verse, from the NT, please?

Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error

In other words, you are handwaving away the fact that God commanded the deaths of children and infants by claiming that applied only to the Midianites (and I note you have entirely failed to explain how the Midianite children and infants were morally worse than other children and infants).

No, you moron. How the hell is it handwaving when I SPELL OUT TO YOU that the command that should be carried out on the Midianites no longer apply today?

You've also failed to address the command to kill children because their parents are prostitutes. Prostitution hasn't been eliminated like the Midianites have. How are you handwaving that one away, pray tell?

Really? Chapter and verse that says the children of the Midianites should be killed because the parents were prostitutes?

And you're handwaving away the laws regarding menstruating women with even less justification, as well as a good dose of idiocy, since menstruating women do not cause disease, therefore do not need to be 'quarantined'.

Less justification is irrelevant. A justification was provided. Menstruating women were considered "unclean" in ANE Israel.

And I don't see where in the bible is says the laws about menstruating women are only for the 'ANE Israelites'.

The same thing that you cannot find in the bible the term 'hospital' and 'quarantine 'in the Bible. Therefore, if we follow your logic, hospitals and quarantine are unbiblical. Because you are stupid.

My thought is this: Unless you are demonstrably obeying ALL of the bible (rather than handwaving most of it away), you can't truthfully use the bible as a justification for condemning homosexuals. What's more likely is that you simply personally dislike homosexuals, and are using the bible as a post-facto justification for putting a veneer of holiness on a type of hatred you would be inclined to feel anyways.

That is because you are stupid. Obey all the Bible? Try to reconcile that with Christianity's faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and the Judaism still waiting for the Messianic Period. Reconcile Judaism's need to sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins to Christianity's sacrifice in the cross by Jesus Christ for all sins.

Should we also start building another Ark of the Covenant and a huge boat today since these commands are readily found in the Bible?

Anonymous Toby Temple September 12, 2013 2:40 AM  

Here's another set of verses, in the NT:

1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,[b] liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound[c] doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God

Anonymous Anonymous September 12, 2013 2:57 AM  

**No, you moron. How the hell is it handwaving when I SPELL OUT TO YOU that the command that should be carried out on the Midianites no longer apply today?**

Why not? Other than your not wanting it to?

**Less justification is irrelevant. A justification was provided. Menstruating women were considered "unclean" in ANE Israel.**

If the laws about menstruating women being unclean only apply to ANE Israel, then how can you be certain that the laws about homosexuality being an 'abomination' did not apply only to ANE Israel? Other than your wanting things to be that way?

**Really? Chapter and verse that says the children of the Midianites should be killed because the parents were prostitutes?**

I didn't say the children of Midianites were killed because their parents were prostitutes. I said that the bible said that the children of prostitutes should be killed.

**That is because you are stupid. Obey all the Bible?**

In other words, you admit to cherrypicking only what you prefer from the bible, and handwaving away the rest, while hypocritically claiming 'obeying the bible' as a justification for hating people that you are inclined to hate anyways.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 12, 2013 7:10 AM  

In other words, you admit to cherrypicking only what you prefer from the bible, and handwaving away the rest, while hypocritically claiming 'obeying the bible' as a justification for hating people that you are inclined to hate anyways.

Reading comprehension fail much, aren't you moron?

Provide a rationalization as to why I should be doing what Noah did just because the command is written in the Bible.

Just that one. Rationalize it. Justify why I should obey the command to create a huge boat.

I'll wait.

Why not? Other than your not wanting it to?

~facepalm~

Show me a Midianite.

If the laws about menstruating women being unclean only apply to ANE Israel, then how can you be certain that the laws about homosexuality being an 'abomination' did not apply only to ANE Israel? Other than your wanting things to be that way?

NT verses showing homosexuality is still considered a sin. While nothing, absolutely nothing, from Christ or the apostles repeating the hygienic law on menstruating women. The apostles are not even commanding other Christians in their time to be circumcised. But we both know(I assume) that circumcision is part of the Jewish laws

Try to explain that, moron.

I said that the bible said that the children of prostitutes should be killed.

Verse, chapter?

Anonymous Eric Ashley September 12, 2013 2:40 PM  

Ann, you do not understand what complexity is in this discussion. Read Dembski on Specified Complexity.

As to Jordan's statement that Science is going with the best theory you have....I don't know how to make a warp drive, yet. But I have a theory that if you take an Evolutionist, cover him in wax, stick a candle wick in his hair, and tie him to the top of a VW Beatle, and light him, it will result in a warp drive.

And if you disagree, you hate Science.

As to the extreme dice rolling needed to get evo working, its worse. Genetic Entrophy or the Gene Casino. "Step right up, place a bet of your genes passed on to your descendants....that's right, you could win a Second Eyelid; Odds are 1 to 10 to the 1,000,000."

What happens friends, if you go to Metropolis, home of Superman, Illinois, and gamble your life savings at the odds above?

The only thing stopping Humanity from collapsinginto total Genetic Entropy, aka the Creature at the End of Time in HG Wells, the Time Machine, is we can only bet about 300 genes per life. But yeah, in about seventy generations, the average human is going to be half as competent as the average now.

IOW, someone like Phoenecian, would be an Internet supergenius in the Year Of Our Lord 5000.

Also, the Oort Cloud is pure fudge factor, and there are mega structures in the Universe that would have to be far older than the Big Bang allows for *second pt. J.P. Hogan, Skewering the Sacred Cow and winner of many SF awards.

Carlotta, Hovind pointed out the ever increasing ages of the Universe or Earth....said that the Universe has been growing 11 million years older per year....

Anonymous Eric Ashley September 12, 2013 2:54 PM  

And I do use the Junkyard and the jet plane argument here. The Great Junkyard where salvage teams operate trying to snatch up fully formed air planes while dodging tornadoes is in Tornado Alley.

www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/eric-ashley/darwins-world-a-comedy-of-religion/ebook/product-17566276.html

Anonymous Mojo.Rhythm September 16, 2013 12:46 AM  

Vox Day, once again, displays his stunning and appalling ignorance:

http://skepticalscience.com/arctic-sea-ice-delusions-mail-on-sunday-telegraph.html

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts