Belief
The short answer is yes, and Eli has known quite a few of them, but choice of field makes a difference. It is sort of like believers in quantum mechanics, if you get too close to the epistemology your head explodes.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
The short answer is yes, and Eli has known quite a few of them, but choice of field makes a difference. It is sort of like believers in quantum mechanics, if you get too close to the epistemology your head explodes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
59 comments:
Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.
How about this position. Creationism should not be taught in schools and evolution should be presented as a theory.
Surely there are mysteries in nature that neither explanation is able to answer.
How about this: teach creationism (all the major ones such as Judeo-Christian, Islam, Hindu, and those of the first nations) in social studies and in science teach evolution both as an observed fact and a theory, which it is.
Doug
Pascal?
Arrgh!
Can we please get away from saying evolution is "just a theory" as opposed to a fact! It really shows your ignorance and bias when you say that.
A math theory (or therom) can be proven within the constraints of math.
A physical or scientific theory is a description of a natural process with sufficient supportable facts and/or analyses that are testable and capable of being changed.
Is Netwon's Theory of Gravity and less "factual" now that Einstein's General Relativity Theory has been defined?
Arrgh!
Stuart W.
Netwon's Theory of Gravity:
Ya know that apple?
Remember Whom it was who dropped that apple.
(Yes, if He'd been going by the Book, he would have dropped a sparrow, but they were all laden at that moment and the apple was ripe)
Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.
@Stuart W
Newton's theory of gravity is singular and testable.
The fossil record is incomplete, all transitional fossils must be found. And I would say you are ignorant and biased for believing its complete.
Stuart, if you were to hypothesize that no ducks exist which are the color blue, you would have to test every single duck in the world. However, based on your logic above, you would say "well I have found thousands of ducks and none of them are blue, so the theory is now fact."
Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.
@Stuart W
Additionally, probability theory indicates that a single cell coming into existence by chance is as likely as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and forming a Boeing 747. -paraphrase of Sir Fred Hoyle.
"The fossil record is incomplete, all transitional fossils must be found."
they're not Pokemon. or are you still dropping rocks, in the hope of finding one that doesn't obey Newton?
"And I would say you are ignorant and biased for believing its complete."
where did Stuart say it was complete?
"Surely there are mysteries in nature that neither explanation is able to answer."
evolution doesn't explain everything, creationism doesn't explain anything, therefore both are equally valid, and Goddidit?
that's a nice one: a complete failure at calculating probabilities, understanding the problem space, and a a straw-man argument (biologists don't argue that complex structures spring into being instantaneously).
If (s)he can really compartmentalize, I suppose a creationist can function as a scientist.
on the other hand, lumpus appears to be incompetent in all departments.
probability theory indicates that a single cell coming into existence by chance is as likely as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and forming a Boeing 747.
Well, since the cell didn't 'come into existence by chance' but rather evolved through a long sequence of physical, chemical and biological events that we can only fathom through the use of science, then I don't think I'll lose too much sleep over your rant here.
Chances are, you aren't particularly smart and haven't read much of the literature on the subject anyways that would make it worth my while to discuss it with you anyways.
and now that I followed the link, I see coby allows for quite a bit of room in what is a 'creationist'. Which makes it extremely easy for the answer to be 'yes'.
If you include in 'creationists' people who accept whatever we can learn about the origins of the universe using physics and observation, while also assuming that God exists and had something to do with it, then I think you've described some fair fraction of scientists.
Lumpus opines...
"Newton's theory of gravity is singular and testable."
then follows up with:
"if you were to hypothesize that no ducks exist which are the color blue, you would have to test every single duck in the world."
Sure. All you have to do is make sure that every apple, everywhere, for all time, falls to the ground. Otherwise, you can't be sure that the theory is correct. Right?
Danger Mouse
I must state forcibly that anyone who signs up to the Cornwall Alliance cannot make any comment on environmental subjects or climate issues.
To go against the Cornwall alliance position requires them to effectively renounce their faith and their God. You cannot expect that to happen.
this is brought out by these 2 statements
1.We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
...
WHAT WE DENY
1.We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming
Other scientific subject - perhaps?
PS some imortant signees:
Dr. Roy W. Spencer (Principal Research Scientist in Climatology, University of Alabama, Huntsville,
Dr. Joseph D’Aleo (Executive Director and Certified Meteorologist, Icecap
Dr. David Legates (Associate Professor of Climatology, University of Delaware
Dr. Ross McKitrick (Associate Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada,
Dr. Cornelis van Kooten (Professor of Economics and Research Chair in Environmental Studies and Climate, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, Expert Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
Dr. Kenneth W. Chilton (Founder and Emeritus Director, Institute for the Study of Economics and the Environment, Lindenwood College);
So Wumpus is a creationist as well as an AGW denier. Who could have guessed that one?
We can't find all the transitional fossils, Wumpus, because *every* form is transitional, including us. And the conditions that lead to successful fossilisation are... extremely fortuitous, to say the least.
forget lumpus; his incompetence is not interesting.
Getting back to the group at hand: this declaration might explain much. It perhaps explains why these types can speak of magical natural cycles without putting forth any coherent or consistent physical mechanism. They don't have to. It's driven by divine intervention.
Abiogenesis is not part of Evolution. Evolution is the study about the way living things change.
Which, lumpy, is a polite way of wondering if you're dead.
Lumpus Stupidtooth: " -paraphrase of Sir Fred Hoyle."
who was wrong.
carrot eater said:
If you include in 'creationists' people who accept whatever we can learn about the origins of the universe using physics and observation, while also assuming that God exists and had something to do with it, then I think you've described some fair fraction of scientists.
Dunno, carrot eater, I think you're giving Spencer, McKitrick, et. al. way to much intellectual credit there. According to what their statements say, they think that no matter how much we pollute the biosphere, that their magical sky fairy will somehow kiss it and make it better.
> as likely as a tornado sweeping
> through a junkyard and forming
> a Boeing 747.
Nobody's got a video of that on Youtube yet?
This might be interesting:
http://www.slideshare.net/mmnet/identifying-mmorpg-bots-a-traffic-analysis-approach
Surprised nobody's mentioned the Cornwall Alliance pronouncing environmentalists are the literal Antichrist. Yes, they really have.
The person who posted the risible tornado/747 analogy should watch this video. It's quite good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
Read Eugene Koonin's "The Logic of Chance" right through to the appendicies.
Damn good molecular biology applied to evolution.
Steve - I wasn't giving Spencer et al that credit there. I was simply commenting on the wide definition that coby appeared to be using for the term 'creationist', independently of whatever flavour of creationist Spencer is.
That reminds me of this silly comment by an allegedly very clever man:
"John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, is also a self-declared Christian. He thinks the very fact that human beings can do science is evidence for God.
"If the atheists are right the mind that does science... is the end product of a mindless unguided process.
"Now, if you knew your computer was the product of a mindless unguided process, you wouldn't trust it.
"So, to me atheism undermines the rationality I need to do science.""
The point that he, and lots of creationists miss, is that gravity is guidance; the reactivity of carbon is guidance, protein folding due to H bonding is guidance.
Thus the creationists simply don't understand how things work.
carrot eater said...
Steve - I wasn't giving Spencer et al that credit there. I was simply commenting on the wide definition that coby appeared to be using for the term 'creationist', independently of whatever flavour of creationist Spencer is.
Fair enough, I took you up wrong on that. And funnily enough, every time I see something published concerning Spencer's creationist leanings, I'm always parsing it to see if I can pin him down as a YEC. So far, I haven't found anything to indicate that he is a YEC. Makes sense, though. The cognitive dissonance ability required for a YEC to also be a scientist of the Earth-based disciplines would be super-human (though I'm not sure if cognitive dissonance can be measured in quantifiable units :-)
!.
Now I understand.
In the beginning was the Cadbury. But seeeing it preterite, the Lord chucked it into the darkness upon the face of the waters, a it became the fish-louse upon Leviathan that is called Lumpus.
Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.
Okay well I would like one of the self proclaimed evolution experts here to explain to me how whales evolved from a land dwelling hoofed mammal, because I think that's completely wrong. How did the land dwelling mammal shed it's pelvis? Also, I want somebody to explain the punctuated equilibria theory. Why do we need this theory?
Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.
Personally, it seems to me that carbonazis identify with more creationist principles than skeptics. For example, many of you here like to say that co2 is the highest its been in a million years...it's still lower than its been in the last 600 million..and your defense is to basically say that doesn't count.
@Carrot Eater
I am surprised you find some of my positions on this issue to be unreasonable. Witness the double standard at this site. Roy Spencer is an idiot creationist because he believes in God. Compare to Ray Pierre Humbert in the last post. A completely unobjective left wing hack who called coal Satan's Rock.
At this rate, the next post will be telling us about how Caerbannog is the reincarnation of some prophet.
Alien intervention Dr. Cadbury.
It happens all the time.
Eli spoke about "exploding heads".
For the uncultured among the Rabbet's Readership, that is an erudite reference to the 1981 sci-fi/horror movie Scanners, whose special effects include the iconic exploding heads. Scanners was nominated for an award for "Best Special Effects". Scanners grossed (yuck!) $14M at the box office, and has been followed by two sequels and two spin-offs.
Although it's been over 30 years since Scanners came out, I'm still scraping the brains off the soles of my shoes...
Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.
@steve metzler
so I've noticed you're another one of these people that is peddling your own opinions as facts. Firstly, quit lying and don't use the word pollution. Your talking about co2, not pollution and the fact is, we're never going to hit levels anywhere near what the dinosaurs experienced. Global warming is a hoax because your arguing that something that has already happened...can't happen again.
owned son, just owned.
Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.
@a_ray_indoctrinated_true_believer
Fred Hoyle was wrong because I said so! Good one again! Your an excellent candidate for advanced placement, from the 4th grade up to the 6th!
"Now, if you knew your computer was the product of a mindless unguided process, you wouldn't trust it."
well, i don't particularly trust it anyway. but the professor is apparently unaware of how commonplace evolutionary algorithms are in computing these days.
in fact, given how horrendously complicated modern VLSI devices are getting, i'd be surprised if the likes of Intel weren't already investigating their applications (if they're not already using them).
"Firstly, quit lying and don't use the word pollution. Your talking about co2, not pollution..."
"Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change."
* Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis. Bloom et al (2010).
* Grassland Responses to Global Environmental Changes Suppressed by Elevated CO2. (Shaw 2007)
* Photosynthetic inhibition after long-term exposure to elevated levels of carbon dioxide.
(DeLucia 1985)
* Insects Take A Bigger Bite Out Of Plants In A Higher Carbon Dioxide World.
* Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations
* Temperature dependence of growth, development, and photosynthesis in maize under elevated CO2 (PDF)
* Nitrate assimilation in plant shoots depends on photorespiration
* Grassland Responses to Global Environmental Changes Suppressed by Elevated CO2
"I think that's completely wrong."
tough: reality doesn't give a shit what you think. sorry.
"How did the land dwelling mammal shed it's pelvis?"
whales still have pelvises, you ignorant twat. look, there are even pictures: http://bergenmuseum.uib.no/fagsider/osteologi/hvaler/e_bekken.htm
(incidentally, you should probably avoid bringing up cetacean evolution, given it contains several nice examples of evolution predicting the morphology of transitional forms well before any fossils were found.)
BTW lumpy
It is "you're", not "your"
Stuart W.
Hath not the lumpus seen a whale rot ?
Aboout twenty feet aft of the rostrum, there be pelviv bones.
There is always business in great waters , and if he will slither over to the Arabian Seashore he may inspect four species of transitional fossils connecting his forebear Lumpus Grampus Grandpa, with the on and offshore forms of whale-sized carnivore
Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.
@ligne and russell
Okay, so where is the transitional fossil between the 2 forms? Oh wait, that's right Ligne, such evidence does not exist in reality, guess that's tough for you. Unless you 2 are alleging that the pelvis between the land form and the whale is the same? You still have to answer the problem of how the land dwelling mammal shed its pelvis without crushing its reproductive organs.
Creationism does come up in the Cornwall Alliance's "A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and
Protection of the Poor", page 15:
"While there is evidence that sea level was once much higher than it now is, that evidence is best interpreted in light of the flood of Noah’s day—a never-to-be repeated, cataclysmic judgment of God that would have been followed by a sudden ice age (accompanied by much reduced sea level as water was stored in vast ice sheets on land) as the atmosphere lost its high water vapor content and so cooled rapidly, and then a gradual recovery as temperatures rose and water vapor rose to approximately its concentration (accompanied by a gradual sea level rise to present levels as the continental glaciers melted and ocean waters expanded as they warmed)."
Noah's Flood (and some very unique atmospheric physics) is part of their "scientific" worldview. Spencer claims we don't know what caused the ice ages and refuses to speculate, and I think we know why after reading the above. It's not something he can come out and admit openly, yet he can compromise by pretending we don't know. This is something touches on Spencer's area of work.
Robert Murphy
oh, Jesus wept. i was going to snark about how every transitional fossil makes evolution *less* solid (because subsequently there are *two* missing links) but i didn't want Cadbury complaining i was straw-manning his argument. turns out he really is that fucking stupid.
just you watch, though he'll be cracking the "oh ho ho"s any moment now...
"Unless you 2 are alleging that the pelvis between the land form and the whale is the same?"
they're clearly not the same, and that's kinda the point.
as the animals spent ever less time on land, the lower limbs are used ever less for walking, and so they will gradually become ever less developed. since they're no longer required for survival -- at least in their original form -- resources are more usefully spent elsewhere.
that's what scientists predicted would be observed, even as far back as the 18th century. then lo and behold, over the decades specimens turn up showing that very effect, at the right points in the fossil record. science in action, fuckers!
seriously, vestigiality is the sort of stuff even primary school kids are supposed to understand about evolution. are you really that stupid?
"You still have to answer the problem of how the land dwelling mammal shed its pelvis without crushing its reproductive organs."
you....you realise that this happened over the course of millions of years, and not to one single individual? please tell me you understand at least that.
And its probably happening again ask the seals and sea lions.
That last one was me.
Doug
According to Spooky "Roy Spencer is an idiot creationist because he believes in God."
According to a factual reading of what is being written here "Roy Spencer is an idiot creationist because he signs declarations of faith that just bluntly state that God will not cause climate change that is bad for humans, and hence therefore thus climate change cannot be bad period."
Marco
Being Part the First:-
thefordprefect said at 23/10/12 3:44 PM:
"I must state forcibly that anyone who signs up to the Cornwall Alliance cannot make any comment on environmental subjects or climate issues.
To go against the Cornwall alliance position requires them to effectively renounce their faith and their God. You cannot expect that to happen."
It fascinates me to see the intellectual partitioning and the eschewing of logical thinking that afflicts Creationists.
I was raised in a fundamentalist Protestant household, but by age five I'd cottoned on to the process of evolution. Until just before my teens I was OK with the idea of Creation as a metaphor for the development of the universe and of life, but the more I saw Creationists abuse both truth and logic (whether intentionally or through self-delusion) the more disinclined I became to accept any religiousness at all.
Take this paragraph quoted by thefordprefect:
"We believe [1] Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power [2] and sustained by His faithful providence [3] —are robust, resilient, self-regulating [4], and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing [5], and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural [6] cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."
[1] Based on what evidence?
[2] Again, based on what evidence?
[3] Yet again, based on what evidence?
[4] Scientifically recognised and explained.
[5] Naturally - in fact, intellectually redundant - given that humans evolved on this planet. And more appropriate would be to say that humans are "suited" to "flourish" in the environment in which they evolved and to which they are thus adapted.
[6] Recent warming is not natural.
No evidence, poor logic, demonstrable untruth. The Cornwall Alliance is one of self-deluding intellectual macrame.
Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.
Being Part the Second:-
Worse is the nonsense in the paragraph "WHAT WE DENY":
"We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable [1] products of chance [2], and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule [3] changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large [4] nor abnormally rapid [5]. There is no convincing scientific evidence [6] that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous[7] global warming."
[1] Science explicity recognises resilience and stability in the biosphere. There are sub-disciplines in ecology that study exactly this. Absent human influence and stochastic, planetary-scale disasters such as global vulcanisms asteroid strikes or local supernovæ, the overall shape of the living community ticks along quite nicely thank you. However humans are manipulating parameters to rival climatic forcings on a scale akin to the influence of erupting mega-volcanoes, plummenting asteroids or Milankovitch cycles, on top of strip mining the planet's biological resources. In terms of continued human (and many other species') existence, biological resilience and stability is not that great.
[2] Evolution is not a "product of chance". It is a product of the confluence of many interacting laws of physics, and it is driven by one of the most fundamental laws of them all - entropy. There's certainly randomness involved, but randomness is different to chance. That the Cornwall Alliance signatories don't understand the difference is an indictment of their scientific understanding.
[3] The changes in atmospheric chemistry interact with other forcings to plunge the planet into glacial maxima, or to completely melt the poles. That apparently "minuscule" amounts of carbon dioxide can mediate such changes simply demonstrates the sensitivity of the climate system. Human considerations of what constitutes "minuscule" or otherwise are entirely irrelevant to the changes wrought by varying concentrations of atmospheric chemistry. The fact that ozone consitutes "only" 0.6 parts per million (compared with the almost 400 ppm carbon dioxide) of the atmosphere and yet effectively stops the sun's ultraviolet light from reaching the surface and sterilising the planet shows that concentration and effect do not operate in a narrow order-of-magnitude range. The idea of "minuscule" in the context of a 'greenhouse' gas is purely a relative term and complete a strawman.
[4] In terms of the temperature range to which humans and especially human civilisation are adapted, the current temperature change in train is extremely large, and potentially devastating.
[5] The rate at which temperature is changing is comparable to some of the most profound climatic shifts in the history of the planet, and if sustained will be comparable to some of the changes that presaged some of the greatest extinction events on the planet - and no, this does not include Noah's flood.
[6] There's a whole truck-load of scientific evidence that indicates that the warming that is currently being caused by humans will be very dangerous if sustained, and indeed will be dangerous as it continues into the next century even if we were to stop emitting today.
[7] If causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, detroying global and probably regional human civilisation, and instigating the extinction of 30% or more of species (especially of 'higher' species) is not "dangerous", only then can this statement be regarded as possible valid.
God spare me from proselytising scientists.
Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.
"We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable"
If they specifically state the are denying something is it then OK to call them deniers?
AnonySpilopsyllus
Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd. said:
so I've noticed you're another one of these people that is peddling your own opinions as facts. Firstly, quit lying and don't use the word pollution. Your talking about co2, not pollution and the fact is, we're never going to hit levels anywhere near what the dinosaurs experienced. Global warming is a hoax because your arguing that something that has already happened...can't happen again.
Were the dinosaurs an agrarian civilisation depending on a just-so-right climate in order to feed 7 billion of their ilk? No? I thought not. Therefore what the climate was like millions of ya does not apply to our current situation.
owned son, just owned.
Hardly. You couldn't pwn a goldfish if it let you.
Good grief, lumpus reveals himself to be one of those with a full on case of DKE, all of which explains much...
...or is he doing performance art to illustrate a position in response to the question in the OP?
FWIW, my money is on "turns out he really is that fucking stupid."
Snaggletooth: "I would like one of the self proclaimed evolution experts here to explain to me how whales evolved from a land dwelling hoofed mammal, because I think that's completely wrong. How did the land dwelling mammal shed it's pelvis?"
Darwin: "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." Darwin anticipated Kruger and Dunning by 122 years!
I'll never understand how a person like Lump can be so proud of his(?) ignorance. Is it a religious thing, Lump?
Mal Adapted
Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.
Obviously nobody is going to change their mind. I am asking a single, nuanced question about evolution, I didn't throw out the entire theory and I didn't say the earth is 30,000 years old.
I can't even get anyone here to acknowledge the missing transitional fossils or explain why the punctuated equilibria theory exists.
"I can't even get anyone here to acknowledge the missing transitional fossils or explain why the punctuated equilibria theory exists. "
1 . I hereby acknowledge that paleontologists have been unable to obtain funding and permits to excavate the Earth's crust in its entirety, and that most of said crust is under water.
2. It exists to explain the data so far obtained.
3. There are no transitional fossils anteceding Lumpus spookytoothys because trolls are mythical creatures and Cerberus ate the holotype along with its homework.
Dear Mr Dr Professor Rabbit,
I apologize that it has been quite some time since last I corresponded. The legal issues surrounding the New Year's Eve incident (which again, none of us could have forseen and which are decidedly NOT related in any way to the tax evasion charges) have taken more time than they really rightfully should in a fair society.
Anyway, and I am very glad to hear of the various news that you bring, such as the continued presence of twits, and the fact that someone who believes the earth to be 6222 years old, give or take, can in fact be a good scientist.
Speaking of which, I thought I would update you on some of the research findings that our Institute For Advanced Research in Important Things has been engaged in over the past year, as these may prove informative to you and your readers:
http://researchinprogress.tumblr.com/
Please give my regards to the Mrs, and be well.
"I am asking a single, nuanced question about evolution,"
yeah, i'm not sure that regurgitating inane Answers in Genesis talking points really counts as "nuanced", in any meaningful sense of the word. it's nuanced in the same way as landmine-enabled trepanation.
though now i wonder who it is i'm arguing with. we're expected to believe that this "Lumpus Spookytooth" character is a real person, yet we've not been presented with evidence of every one of his ancestors.
as long as these ancestors are missing, his existence is mere hypothesis.
sorry, my last post was just needlessly silly.
i'll blame it on the rather fragile mental state i'm in right now: i knocked my biro onto the floor, but failed to measure how fast it fell. now we have this missing evidence, i'm not even sure if gravity holds true any more.
What the finance industry can do with carbon contracts, just like they can do with all sorts of other commodities that protec5ed from scrutiny, by regulation; these bets are not, really NOT, no, not at all, no way, gambling.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/23/163473122/ask-a-banker-derivatives-gambling-and-getting-around-regulation
By the way, as per the spreadsheet @ Fakery 2, The James Partnership is #83, having gotten $8K, $258K, and $340K in 2008-2010 ... from DONORS TRUST, the outfit mentioned on Frontline's climate of Doubt.
That's how the money get to Cornwall; from the most recent Form 990, Calvin Beissner is the biggest recipient.
H/T Connor Gibson.
Post a Comment