tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63400312101381479952023-11-15T08:12:31.846-08:00Spinoza's BicycleBikes, Food, Beer, and the Philosophy Between.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-46069525877784698922012-01-11T19:03:00.000-08:002012-01-11T19:07:10.204-08:00Skepticism is good, skepticism is wise.In my former religious life, I never gave a second thought to the fact that there were authorities who were always correct. I almost feel physically ill at the thought that I used to believe that somehow, someone could <i>always </i>be right.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But this is not the case in the skeptical and scientific community. The most beautiful things in life are getting your ass handed to you and having the maturity and intellectual capacity to admit your fault. From the beginning, I have defended Ben Radford and his role in the skeptical community. Not only was he a resource for my short lived on-campus freethought group, he is a hell of a paranormal investigator. I do think he was wrong on some issues, but that doesn't mean he is some sexist piece of shit. It doesn't take much to see how reactionary our community gets, and I really think that a lot of the criticism aimed at Radford was due to characterizations. Yes, it is important to address societal problems regarding gender conformity. Yes, sexism should be shot down immediately. Yet, we have to keep in mind that we interpret information in ways that accomodate our worldview- that is Ben Radford was made out to be a piece of shit when there wasn't a whole bunch out there that pointed to misogyny. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/rileygate_lessons_learned/">He has responded to the mini shitstorm that was RileyGate with some valid points. </a> </div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-90507628689133400092012-01-03T21:10:00.000-08:002012-01-03T21:10:42.521-08:00Immortality, suckas!Whabam! The year is 2006, and you are in THE FUTURE. You notice that there are people commuting to work on jet-powered back packs. Whizzing over head are flying motorcars! This is the world of the future- streamlined, optimized, and shiny.<br />
<br />
But did we mention the people piloting those automobiles were 300 hundred years old?<br />
<br />
Immortality has captivated (wo)man's mind since, well, we came up with shit like an immortal soul. We don't deal particularly well with death and the extinguish of our essential being. It disturbs us.<br />
<br />
In less than a century, we have done something incredible- we have raised the average lifespan by thirty years. This is no small feat. Science has given us marvelous things, but one may argue the greatest being....fat babies. The strongest correlation that we have to longevity in life is birth weight. <a href="http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=3">Look at these pretty data</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oH3In6fnea4/TwPbDtZW8hI/AAAAAAAAADo/l-OTljOxkW8/s1600/c_1_3_2_1_eng.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oH3In6fnea4/TwPbDtZW8hI/AAAAAAAAADo/l-OTljOxkW8/s1600/c_1_3_2_1_eng.png" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
If you follow <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14576961">this link </a>you get some good explanation. Basically, what we see is that as birth weights became higher, so did life span. This is due to prenatal development- higher birth weight babies had optimal development. However there is a limit that we seem to be reaching. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
It appears to be something we want in moderation. Ultra high birth weight babies also suffer the same fate as their under weight friends- an earlier death. They are at risk for obesity and cardiovascular disease. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The reason we were able to drastically add 30 years in under a century is because we were able to engineer food for mom. Better nutrition and prenatal care means ideal conditions for a baby's development. The Haber- Bosch method may be the single greatest contribution to our longevity- and one of the single greatest inventions of all time. Want to know why you aren't starving right now, with a 7 billion other people on the planet? Yeah thank <a href="http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/haberbosch.html">these motherfuckers</a>. Half of the protein in your body was synthesized from nitrogen fixed using their method. Good stuff...</div>
<br />
So back to immortality. It seems as we are approaching the upper limits of our longevity. Because as we grow older, we don't just face the problem of nutrition, but also chronic disease. Up until now in human history, our increasing life span can be accredited to better accumulation of resources. Our ancestors lived short, hard lives but didn't batter cancer in old age. This is the problem we face next- engineering our bodies so that they do not age.<br />
<br />
Though this guy is pretty out there, and most of the scientific community rejects his 'answers', <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html">Aubrey de Grey</a> raises many key problems in the race to live forever.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-15153634414851362562012-01-03T09:03:00.000-08:002012-01-03T17:30:48.289-08:00Of Gorillas and MenThe mountain gorilla found in Rwanda is the largest of the great apes (save for a few Americans). A silver back male often weighs in the range of 450 pounds of brute muscle. Amazing creatures these- strength of ten men, but also the most peaceful of us great apes. So why are we talking about them? Because there are roughly 790 of these mountain gorillas in existence today. Hunted by their cousins for meat and fur, their numbers dropped dramatically in less than a century.<br />
<br />
And this is where we get relevant- not only was there a shift in populations of the mountain gorilla, but also a complete change in their social behavior. One of the most amazing observations in the social science realm was that of the familial structure changes of this primate. When these primates were being hunted, their mating strategy was mainly one male with two to three females each bearing one or two children over the course of a lifetime. The group they existed in would have been for territorial protection and allocations of resources- the individuals acted with everyone's interest though they still pretty much left each other alone.<br />
<br />
Yet there was a change after their slaughter- their mating strategy wasn't ensuring a future for their species. So what happened? The gorilla went from pairings to troops. A dominant silver back would take on 4-6 females and have any where between 2 and 6 children with each. The gorilla understood that they were dying out. So they made a change, which brings us to the topic of the day: Why can't humans save our own asses? Why do we resist change in social behavior?<br />
<br />
Social sciences have a lot to say here- such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Social_biases">biases that we learn from psychology</a>. System justification, false-consensus effect, and in- group biases are especially frustrating when we look at the world at large. These three illusions dictate the perception of every single person on the planet. They make us believe that others think and are in agreement with us. It makes us give preferential treatment to those like us. But worst of all they cement the status quo and inhibit social change.<br />
<br />
In a world of seven billion people, this is dangerous. We hold not just false, but demonstrably inaccurate notions of what a solution is. As individuals we cannot fully and comprehensively asses how <i>proper fucked</i> we are. I am not talking about a New World Order or the Illuminati. I am talking about tangible threats to our ways of life. In a world of seven billion people, we can no longer drive SUVs out of convenience.<br />
<br />
We can no longer stigmatize our women who decide to use birth control or obtain an abortion. Rather, we lend them support for realizing that it is <strong>wrong</strong> to add unnecessary burden to a world with 7 billion people. Our social awareness must shift- not only so we don't vilify women, but so we don't dig ourselves deeper.<br />
<br />
We improve our situation by reevaluating our social structure- by shifting our values and needs. Though someone might not explicitly say 'I hate clean air' or 'I love human suffering'; by their actions alone can we deduce the amount of fuck they give. We cannot continue a cycle of ignorance and fall victim to tradition.<br />
<br />
Politics and clergy kill. Our populations are not sustainable, yet human suffering is encouraged when proper reproductive care is denied to millions. Something as simple as a rubber film to cover your meat bits is denied due to archaic mind sets that sex must be punished. This contributes to human suffering and is reprehensible.<br />
<br />
Tradition tells us that we must consume, that we must have offspring that consumes and that that offspring passes off more tarnished world to the next generation. There is a better way. Only by awareness and education can we solve these problems. Only through critical thinking and reasoning can we prepare a solution. The world is too small to run from our problems, it is high time we act.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-24306924254565672172012-01-02T21:55:00.000-08:002012-01-02T21:55:10.456-08:00Thus Spake Radford!Old White Men, you make me embarrassed to become you!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/rebecca_and_riley_tempest_in_a_dolls_tea_party/">Here </a> is his response to what may become known as Rileygate. (Yeah I hate that too). Ben is a wonderful local skeptic and has done great things for CFI. I have read most of what he writes and would consider myself a huge fan. For paranormal investigation there is none better. I <i>think</i> he has faltered here a teeny bit. There isn't really much that I can say that hasn't been said, other than his response isn't too tight. He may be right about Rebecca calling him out on some irrelevant stuff, but over all, there may be some tracks to cover.<br />
<br />
Holy fuck this is going to blow up.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-33463786218932646172011-12-15T21:26:00.000-08:002011-12-15T21:26:20.947-08:00The horseman has gone forth.Damn it. <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/12/In-Memoriam-Christopher-Hitchens-19492011">We lost another good one</a>. And he will be missed. I, along with countless others, pay homage to his ability to so thoroughly dissect that which he did not agree. So instrumental was his voice in my deconversion that I still quote him from time to time.<br />
<br />
Hitch, you have helped so many out there who didn't know there was a word for what they believed. Thank you.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-70565313754208235122011-11-09T16:50:00.000-08:002011-11-09T16:50:34.966-08:00Implications of Drug Testing on Welfare RecipientsSo this is a continuation of a discussion I was having on FB with someone.<br />
<br />
Basically, I addressed the debate on a financial level. There seems to be sentiment that welfare recipients are cretins who rape their children while high on crack that they bought with Uncle Sam's money. I showed this to be a myth- that welfare recipients have a rate of drug use that is consistent (if not a little teeny bit lower than) general population in the US. <br />
<br />
I pointed out that it would be fucking ridiculous to drug test every welfare recipient when:<br />
<br />
- Roughly 2% of people on welfare use drugs<br />
- There is no infrastructure in place to do the amount of frequent testing required <br />
-The fact that marijuana offenders are SOL when it comes to testing (its a harmless drug that stays in your system much longer than 'hard' drugs).<br />
<br />
It would just be financially stupid to waste resources that could be allocated to helping those in need. In fact, Florida already tested those waters. And it didn't look good. <br />
<br />
So why else would I object to drug testing for welfare recipients? Because of the <strong>ethics</strong> behind it.<br />
<br />
You, right now, are living in an age of profound human capability- unseen before in history. We have more wealth and resources than ever before, but they are arranged in a manner that those who need it most have the hardest time accessing it. As a liberal secualar Humanist, I believe that there are man- made solutions to man- made problems. Welfare is one of those solutions (albeit it weak, at best) to the problem of poverty, which must be addressed. So let's get to the meat of it:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Let's pretend that I am a Federal or State entity with the purpose of serving a needy population. You come to me for help. Because of this social contract we have with you being a citizen that contributes to my existance, I, in turn, contribute to your well-being. I <strong>cannot</strong> deny your request for assistance based on your skin color, religion, sexual prefence, and *gasp* your decision to use drugs. You are a citizen and it is my duty to help you. It would be wrong to deny you because my only function is to recognize need and address it regardless of your disposition.</blockquote>It is unethical to deny someone in need help on the basis that they have may have an illegal drug in their system. They have a need and that need is independent of whether they are brown, transgendered, Buddhist, or a user of drugs (note:I'm not saying equating drug use to these groups).<br />
<br />
TL;DNR if my purpose is to help <em>everyone </em>who needs it, it is unethical to deny <em>anyone</em> who needs it. <br />
<br />
<b><br />
</b>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-50928995529052851302011-10-25T08:42:00.000-07:002011-10-25T08:42:11.522-07:00Attention International Readers!I have noticed more international traffic as of late. (I'm looking at you Malaysia). There have been some Brasileiros and Kiwis in there as well. <br />
<br />
I think it would be great if you introduced yourself in the comments section or drop me an <a href="mailto:bertdog10@gmail.com">email</a>.<br />
<br />
Thanks!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-60627078664825220992011-10-14T17:59:00.000-07:002011-10-14T18:00:32.966-07:00For my two greatest friends.<blockquote><span class="body" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">"A pair of powerful spectacles has sometimes sufficed to cure a person in love.</span> " </blockquote><blockquote> -Nietzsche </blockquote>Tomorrow at four o'clock, two beautiful people will be taken off of the market. Though, science hasn't yet produced a lens so fined-tuned as to find flaws in this couple.<br />
<br />
Those who know, know. Ben and Krista are some of the brightest and most pleasant people to be around. (Seriously, I don't do well in the company of others, this is a <b>huge</b> compliment.) I couldn't think of two better people to be trapped in an elevator with. And tomorrow is their big day.<br />
<br />
So I raise a toast to thee, intrepid lovers. A toast via blogger. I would wish you happiness, but I know you have found it. I would gift you fulfillment, if it wasn't inanimate. In the (relatively) short time that we have known each other, I have felt a very strong connection to both of you. It is uncommon for me to meet two uncommon people so perfectly matched for each other. I'd say that it is a blessing but, well, you know...<br />
<br />
From sharing yogurt to sharing evenings, there has been much that you two have taught me about life. From the moment I met you two, I have felt welcomed in your presence, and I thank you. You may not read this for a few days, I understand (though I cannot imagine why you aren't giving <i>me</i> full attention <i>t</i>-21 hours from your wedding). But nonetheless, I hope you receive this heartfelt message: I love both of you and am not only happy to see the both of you getting married, but honored to be even a small part of your life. Here is to a wonderful union, with the occasional visit from your favorite <strike>band</strike> minor.<br />
<br />
With love and scorn for Krista,<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ixqt2Z1Eddo/TpjalkJ3pJI/AAAAAAAAAC8/U98aQNZ7lGI/s1600/Mylove.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ixqt2Z1Eddo/TpjalkJ3pJI/AAAAAAAAAC8/U98aQNZ7lGI/s320/Mylove.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
-MichaelAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-35046650628773977152011-09-14T12:30:00.000-07:002011-09-14T12:30:36.142-07:00If we are going to move on.So I have read everything you wrote. Every last word. I don't even know what to make of it.<br />
<br />
Gus-<br />
<br />
I don't need you trailing around, and making excuses how science is a business and you won't be published.<br />
<br />
I need you to familiarize yourself with what we are talking about. Because, simply put, you don't get it.<br />
<br />
You say claim that there are these holes, that the 'real' evidence is falling through this. You claim that RID is faulty- yet you cannot show why. You have anecdotes. Give me your numbers.<br />
<br />
You start making accusations and going on tangents because you don't know the material. If you were to take a test on any of this, you'd get a big fat F. And that isn't because there is some conspiracy- it is because you didn't do your homework.<br />
<br />
My obsession with Ph.D's? With experts? I don't really have one; I just like to point you in the direction where the foremost knowledgeable people in the field are and what they have to say. This is the wonderful thing about science- something that your religion can never do; an amateur can enter the arena with the hard facts and sound research and over turn the field. Literally.<br />
<br />
Why haven't Ken Ham or Kent Hovind done this? Is it because of a conspiracy? Or is it because they don't do their homework? Why doesn't the Discovery Institute do actual research?<br />
<br />
My obsession with peer-reviewed work? This is what is accepted as science. This isn't just some people saying "Hey, lets print out what we have to say and sell it or distribute it on the street." This is people going through a rigorous process of having their worked checked by other experts. These colleagues shoot holes and pick flaws in everything from data to methodology. This isn't just a few people self publishing. This is science.<br />
<br />
So when I ask you to publish this knowledge that only you seem to have, I am being a smart-ass. It serves the purpose of calling your bluff.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, I don't want to engage with you if you don't know the subject. Don't pretend. I will give it to you- study it. Then come back with something thought-out to say. Not just rhetoric and talking points that your pastor gives you. I want thoughtful criticism.<br />
<br />
We'll start with this single link. It is one of the best resources on the web to date. It looks like it was created in the stone age- because it was forged when the internet was still new. It cites everything it claims, so you too can look at the research done behind it.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html">http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html</a><br />
<br />
I really won't respond to you unless you put forth something thoughtful. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but in reality, I have no good reason to share my time with you if you won't be intellectually honest with me and anyone who reads this. I am giving you a level playing field and you are digging holes in it.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-82622793013058580052011-09-12T09:28:00.000-07:002011-09-12T09:28:10.064-07:00What I need.Haven't touched the blog in three days! Busy, busy, busy!<br />
<br />
<br />
So in light of some recent<a href="http://spinozasbicycle.blogspot.com/2011/09/im-back-and-this-is-for-you.html"> activity</a>, I have come to the conclusion that the people I am engaging in are not attempting to communicate on the same level. We aren't speaking the same language. <br />
<br />
So this is what I need:<br />
<br />
<strong>Serious discussion</strong>. The phrase "claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" has never held more weight. I don't want to read through paragraphs of anectdotes and claims of why the scientific community is profit driven hence ID is not allowed. I don't want conspiracy theory. If you have something to say. Back it up with the numbers and the evidence. <br />
<br />
<strong>Do Not:</strong><br />
<br />
<strong>-</strong>Go on tangents about totally unrelated topics. (What keeps you from raping children if there is no god).<br />
<br />
- Start praying for me. (I appreciate your thought behind it, but do it behind closed doors, as your book says)<br />
<br />
-Shift what is being discussed immediately to religion. <strong>Note: </strong>I do not use biology to deconvert you. I don't say "Hey look, evolution, therefore no god." If you want to make the argument against evolution, bring up something that you feel cannot be explained by the existing body of knowledge.<br />
<br />
- Cherry pick science. Do not dismiss things that you disagree with and latch on to that which can lend you support.<br />
<br />
-This one is important- do <strong>not</strong> bring the masons into it. Really. It makes you look like the kind of person rational people don't want to talk to.<br />
<br />
<strong>Do</strong><br />
<br />
<strong>-</strong>Support your claims. Cite evidence. Really, out of your paragraphs of text- I have nothing to address. Why? Because these are claims you pull out of nowhere. You cannot just claim something counter to me without citing it. That doesn't interest me. Really, if you have a point to make throw it in my face. Show me how your position is what is accepted as reality. Do <strong>not</strong> say that the establishment is against you. I will just say to go make a tinfoil hat.<br />
<br />
-Stay on topic.<br />
<br />
-Ask questions. Seriously, outline them! I would like to help answer something that you may have a question about. At the very least I can point you to the way of resources.<br />
<br />
- Keep in mind that I was a Christian for nearly two decades. I really really know your material. I also really really know the material of young earth creationists. I do. I have read and heard it all. There is nothing compelling they have to offer.<br />
<br />
<br />
That is all that comes to mind for now. I will add more as I see fit.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-91603784507402479192011-09-09T14:29:00.000-07:002011-09-09T14:29:30.243-07:00Oh, dear.Mississppi. Look at <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/09/09/mississippi.personhood/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn">you</a>. You should be ashamed. <br />
<br />
In the words of Ayn Rand- the bitch all the libertarians love:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate apotential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.</blockquote> - Ayn Rand (someone I don't quote often)<br />
<br />
The majority cannot simply decide on this when the majority haven't even the most basic understanding of fetal development. <br />
<br />
People, please stop asking my why I want to move out of this country.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-48104001577960896242011-09-09T09:17:00.000-07:002011-09-09T09:17:16.320-07:00I'm back, and this is for you.After a tumultous week, (one that doesn't need much explaining) I am back. This is for my pal, Gus Gus. <br />
<br />
Gus left me some <a href="http://spinozasbicycle.blogspot.com/2011/08/for-my-virtual-friend-gus.html">comments</a>:<br />
<br />
I really don't need to address them. They stand on their own. You scored an own goal, Gus Gus. You don't make sense, you are trying to put things together that you really don't understand- and it shows. <br />
<br />
Here is the problem; don't take a smug position and pretend that you have knowledge that the scientific community doesn't. Don't pretend like you are the first person to think of these things. Because you look like a giant tool when somebody presents a thorough refutation to everything you have to say. People can tell you are being dishonest.<br />
<br />
You are also being arrogant. That isn't cool- because when you take that position, people really can tell that you are <strong>not</strong> concerned with evidence. You are concerned with assertion of your own world view.<br />
<br />
Your undelying argument is that we cannot know how old the earth is- you use this strategy to undermine the sciences of biology and geology; and by extension, physics. The supreme irony is that you communicated this by using a machine that is built on the science you claim is flawed. You do realize this, right? <br />
<br />
I am sure you know that by saying RID is wrong, you are saying that our understanding of quantum mechanics is wrong. <br />
<br />
<blockquote><div aptureproxy="102">Additionally, quantum mechanics, when combined with statistical mechanics, provides the foundation for solid-state and semiconductor physics. Modern quantum mechanics was developed in the mid-1920’s, and the transistor and laser followed approximately a generation later. There would be no computer hard drives, magnetic resonance imaging, light emitting diodes, cell phones, laptop computers or iPods without quantum mechanics.</div></blockquote> -Scientific American, Semptember 2011<br />
<br />
This isn't religion, Gus. You cannot pick and choose what science you accept and what you throw out. You cannot sit there and tell me that RID, something that is supported by vast mountains of evidence, is wrong <strong>by typing on a machine built on the understanding of quantum mechanics.</strong><br />
<br />
<div aptureproxy="102">But don't take my word for it. Let's ask experts in the field.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometeric-dating-does-work">http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometeric-dating-does-work</a><br />
<br />
If you find something wrong with this, do something about it. This is how science works. We love to prove our colleagues wrong. Go publish your work. Do it now. I am waiting. I am waiting for you to present your hard work and upturn the scientific community.<br />
<br />
What's that? You won't? Is it because every scientist on earth is part of a grand scheme to stomp on your worldview and suppress the truth? Am I being arrogant? Hell yeah I am. Because, unlike you, I am have no need to assert. Here are the facts. Here is the evidence. Here is sound support. Note: I am not talking out of my ass. I am not trying to understand things I have no business dabbling in. I have what the experts agree on.<br />
<br />
It must be really easy to believe a conspiracy theory when reality is your enemy. Gus, I like you. I just implore you to think a little harder next time. </div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-87790026072136691642011-09-02T14:15:00.000-07:002011-09-02T14:27:03.793-07:00For Yung'N<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 14px;">Background:<br />
<br />
I wrote a piece <a href="http://spinozasbicycle.blogspot.com/2011/08/on-why-i-lost-my-belief-in-god-and.html">for Dale</a>, posted it on Yung'N's wall, and a little conversation ensued. Yung'N asked me a few questions and I said I would respond. Here is his message to me on FB:</span><br />
</span><br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px;">I got you, yes please explain to me how the first cells got "here" because that is all I wanted to know. Where did they or it come from? How did it create itself from nothing? Why? Why did they need to evolve if there was no reason to (no need for survival of the fittest then, etc)? How did something non-living evolve to living? And how come we haven't ever seen a non-living thing become alive? Just a few random thoughts.</span></span></span></blockquote><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So this is what I will set out to do with this post. I will address:<br />
<br />
1. How the first cells 'got here' and how they were able to self assemble.<br />
<br />
2. Why haven't we seen anything non-living become alive?/ How did we make the jump from non-living to living?</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> 2b. How did the first cells evolve?<br />
<br />
So let's begin!</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
<br />
There are really great, though technical, pieces that really answer what you're asking <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/">here</a> and <a href="http://www.onelife.com/evolve/cellev.html">here.</a> However, I really want to break it down in to terms that are much easier to understand.<br />
<br />
<b>1. How the first cells 'got here' and how they were able to self assemble.</b><br />
<br />
Think back 3.8 billion years ago. (I know, my memory is a little hazy too.) Think of what earth looked like- I represent it like we tend to represent other rocky planets; dead and lifeless. Except earth had slightly more water than our neighbors. There was also little or no oxygen in the atmosphere. And this is key- the formation of cells directly relates to properties of water and how molecules interact in the absence of oxygen. Organic molecules are "reduced" meaning (I am over simplifying greatly) that they are able to grab free electrons and able to bond to each other.<br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This means that over time, organic molecules could bond together forming larger and larger molecules. This also means that, a phospholipid bi-layer could form. And what is a phospholipid bilayer? This:<br />
<br />
<img height="252" src="http://www2.fz-juelich.de/ibi/ibi-1/datapool/page/28/Figure1-500.jpg" width="320" /><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So why is this important? Well simply put- this is the 'skin' of the cell known as the <b>plasma membrane. </b><br />
<br />
And there we have it; little tiny things that are somewhat similar to bubbles. Because of the properties of the bilayer- liquid H20 is able to freely move in and out. These were the first proto-cells.<br />
<br />
I am leaving this here. That is how a cell can arise purely through environment under the right conditions. All three of your questions blend into each other, so the remainder of this answer will be in the next part.<br />
<br />
2a.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Why haven't we seen anything non-living become alive?</b></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>/ How did we make the jump from non-living to living?</b></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;"> 2b. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;"><b>How did the first cells evolve</b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>2a. </b>Quick answer: Because we do not yet have the resources available to mimic the right necessary for life in a laboratory. (We can create the building blocks of life; we can even animate cells. We just aren't too sure if these were the conditions present when the earth was still young.)<br />
<br />
<b> </b>Making the jump from non-living to living is going to be hard to explain, because, put simply-right now we cannot be 100% certain how this occurred. However, that doesn't mean we don't have some damn solid ideas that are evidence- based. There are some factors that make it next to impossible (at least right now, September 2011) to recreate the conditions that were present on a young (750 million year old) earth.<br />
<br />
To quote Darwin on the matter:</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; line-height: 19px;">(sic) the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". (Darwin) went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.</span></span></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> [taken from wikipedia]<br />
<br />
This in mind, here are some of the models that we have created to explain what evidence we do have. I invite you to read them, play around a little. Again, they are highly technical, so some engagement is required.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models</a><br />
<br />
This link deals with abiogenesis, which is the origin of life (Remember- this is different than speciation via evolution. The key difference here is that two completely different things are trying to be explained. We are still working on abiogenesis, with some amazing work being done in my home state, by the way!) However, we do know how single celled prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes. I think this is what you meant by the "how did the first cells evolve."<br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>2b. </b>The evidence we have that we (Eukaryota) evolved from prokaryota is very significant- and very plentiful. In fact, the evidence is inside of each of your cells. We all know that we have our own, unique DNA- but what many people don't know is that we also carry an ancient (and unrelated to our own) DNA. This 'other' genetic material is found in the mitochondria, one of the tiny organelles in our cells that generates energy to do cellular work.<br />
<br />
So why do we carry a second genome? Well this <a href="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/endosymbiosis_03">link</a>, explains it far better than I can. Essentially, through <b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory">endosymbiosis</a>, </b>a large organism munched a smaller one, but it was more beneficial for the both cells that the smaller one wasn't digested. For example, the smaller cell's waste could give the larger cell more nourishment than simply digesting it.<br />
<br />
This is evidence because we know that at a point in evolutionary history, two cells were able to form an become a larger organism. There existed a two- celled organism, where previously only one was possible.<br />
<br />
<b>Discussion:</b><br />
I really hope you read this, and engage with it. But don't think I hold all the answers- do your own research, ask <i>experts</i>. Look at credentials. If someone is telling you something, make sure they have the evidence to back it up. Make sure they have spent more time in a lab and not in the pulpit. I am not an expert. I do not have my PhD. But I can support what I claim by citing the work of experts.<br />
<br />
Secondly; science does not have the answer to everything- yet. We still have to work out abiogenesis, and replicate processes by which life arose, in the lab. <i>However, </i>this does not mean that you can just say "Ha! You can't answer that, therefore <i>my</i> idea on the origin of life is correct." It means that we still do not know. It means that if you want to be correct, that goddidit, you still have a load of work to do to support your claim. You still have to gather evidence- and pointing a passage in Genesis is not evidence. You have to show the actual mechanism that your god used. Because without that, your claim is just as worthless as every other creation myth on the planet.<br />
<br />
________________________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
References:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5824/542.3.short">http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5824/542.3.short</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.infoplease.com/cig/biology/eukaryote-evolution.html">http://www.infoplease.com/cig/biology/eukaryote-evolution.html</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/256/5057/622.short">http://www.sciencemag.org/content/256/5057/622.short</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/x648g3r871311921/">http://www.springerlink.com/content/x648g3r871311921/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/283/5407/1476.short">http://www.sciencemag.org/content/283/5407/1476.short</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-74662938389792090432011-09-01T17:55:00.000-07:002011-09-02T14:27:29.401-07:00Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo; On Eternity.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As child, I distinctly remember the fear that was harbored and implanted into my mind on Sunday mornings. I can still hear our priest proclaiming that hell is a very real place and a very real threat to nonbelievers.<br />
<br />
The Bible is very clear as to what will happen to unbelievers. I promised to write this entry today for someone who's mother is a Buddhist, and obviously, not a believer in Christianity. This person told me, sincerely, that he is worried about the future of his mother's soul; that she will be damned.<br />
</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
There are a list of things that the best theologians cannot make work- the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil">problem of evil</a> is the main one (this goes for all religions, not Christianity in specific.) However, a glaring problem with Christianity is the conflict of an all loving god and eternal damnation. This sums it up nicely:<br />
</span><br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I read about an Eskimo hunter who asked the local missionary priest, 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?' 'No,' said the priest, 'not if you did not know.' 'Then why,' asked the Eskimo earnestly, 'did you tell me?'</span></span><br />
<div style="color: #333333; margin-bottom: 11px; margin-top: 11px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">- Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, 1974</span></span></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Or, more formally;<br />
<br />
1. An all-loving, all- wise, all- powerful, god exists.<br />
<br />
2. Hell, an eternal damnation of incomprehensible pain and suffering exists.<br />
<br />
3. This all-loving god sends unbelievers to this damnation.<br />
<br />
<br />
As a child, I wrestled with this. How could people I know and be subjected to this because they weren't sincere enough? Who could possibly answer this question?<br />
<br />
Well as it turns out, I wasn't satisfied with what were considered answers. Any thinking person can conclude that these answers are complete bullshit:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/hell.html">http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/hell.html</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.newchristian.org.uk/helldefended.html">http://www.newchristian.org.uk/helldefended.html</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.comereason.org/exst_god/exs020.asp">http://www.comereason.org/exst_god/exs020.asp</a><br />
<br />
I came to the conclusion that an all- loving god and the existence of hell are mutually exclusive. A god that allows ethical people to burn in hell for the simple reason they do not believe is the most evil and unjust idea that has ever been spread. This god is worse than Hitler. This god causes eternal suffering for something so trivial as non-belief. If this being exists, it is a monster- a tyrant; unworthy of devotion. I came to the conclusion that the idea of a Christian god is self-defeating; I lost my belief partially due to this. But what if you still believe in that god? What if you are worried about your loved ones?<br />
<br />
This is probably the best response I have ever read on the subject:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.judeochristianity.com/hell.htm">http://www.judeochristianity.com/hell.htm</a><br />
<br />
Spoiler alert: The answer is "I don't know." And he is honest. You simply do not know. You cannot know. Postulating what will happen to you when in front of the <a href="http://www.latinoreview.com/images/user/he-man-400ds0702.jpg">master of the universe</a> is just absurd. <b>In order to resolve any fear that you have for your mother, you will have to generate beliefs that are not part of the Christian teaching.</b> You will have to develop your own ways of thinking- and chances are they will separate you from the <i>majority</i> of Christian thought.<br />
<br />
So let's talk about what we, as humans know, and why I find comfort in death:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness">Knowing</a> what we know about the brain and <a href="http://www.consciousness-brain.org/">consciousness</a>, I release myself from the fear that priests and preachers have levied upon mankind for centuries. Knowledge of the universe is liberating- it teaches us not to fear. Epicurus famously proclaimed:<br />
</span><br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Death is nothing to us. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; line-height: 19px;"> When we exist death is not, and when death exists we are not. All sensation and consciousness ends with death and therefore in death there is neither pleasure nor pain. The fear of death arises from the belief that in death there is awareness."</span></span></blockquote>Our minds and consciousness are the result of the arrangement of our brains. It is an emergent property of the chemistry that makes us up. When we die, our awareness goes too. We had no recollection of 'pre-birth'. I am willing to bet that we will not survive this lifetime. <br />
<br />
For the believer, this is hard to handle; that all we have is a few good decades. But, Dale, this is the truth. We live and we die. This means that emphasis must be taken from the afterlife and placed on this life we currently have- for that is all we have. Love your mother, show her compassion. The worst thing you can do to her is use what little time she may have left and try to convert her.<br />
<br />
Mortality is something we all face, and religion eases us into thinking that we are immortal- that a part of us will carry on. It is discomforting to know that I will never see my grandparents, friends, or relatives again. But the best thing that has ever happened to me was realize that the beauty and importance that is our mortal life.<br />
<br />
I am sorry if I couldn't provide any answers to you. I really just wanted to give you perspective on how these problems and dilemmas can be worked out from a non-Christian worldview. I hope all goes well with you and your mom.<br />
<br />
-Michael<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
<br />
</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-42471109370028077212011-09-01T16:41:00.000-07:002011-09-02T14:27:58.080-07:00Some basic terminology and background.This is the second half from my reply to <a href="http://spinozasbicycle.blogspot.com/2011/08/on-why-i-lost-my-belief-in-god-and.html">Dale.</a> This way, nobody has to go through the first part of my beliefs.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px;"><b>Theory: </b>The scientific meaning of this word is not the same as the colloquial or lay man's definition. In science a theory is a complete body of knowledge. A theory becomes a theory when all <i>available</i> evidence suggests that it is probably the case. If a single piece of evidence comes up, the theory must either be refined or thrown out.<br />
<br />
A scientific theory does two things:<br />
<br />
i. Accounts for and explains all available evidence.<br />
ii. Makes predictions as to what we can expect to find in the related field.<br />
</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
<br />
<b>Peer-reviewed publishing-</b> This is the process by which new knowledge is added to the scientific consensus. A scientist does an experiment, builds a conclusion and goes to other experts in the field. Regardless of whether or not the other experts agree, they poke holes in the research. The pull in every which way to ensure that his or her findings are indeed accurate. There are extremely high standards that must be met when things are accepted as science.<br />
<br />
So now we have that out of the way.<br />
<br />
The 'evolution' part of the 'theory of evolution' is also tricky for some people****. Evolution is <i>observed</i>. It happens. We have known that it happens since before Darwin. What he contributed was the <i>mechanisms</i> behind the observation. The theory, as a body of knowledge, explains the observation (which is the data) through natural selection, sexual selection, punctuated equilibrium, drift, etc. So when we refer to the theory of evolution, we are referring to the knowledge that describes the process of how organisms evolve.<br />
<br />
<b>****Evolution does not deal with the origin of life on earth; that field of study is <i>abiogenesis.</i></b><br />
<br />
There are <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=+evolution&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C32&as_ylo=&as_vis=0" style="color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">millions of peer reviewed </a> articles that support evolution. <i>Millions</i>. The theory is one of the most solidified that we have. (For many in depth examples, with citations click <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/" style="color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">here</a>.)<br />
<br />
So why don't I buy into creationism?<br />
<br />
1. <b>It does not explain anything or tell us anything about the natural world</b>. With science you gather all the facts, the evidence, and you make a conclusion. With creationism/ intelligent design, you start out with your conclusion and then announce all contradicting facts are wrong. For example; If God made us in present form, why do we have complete fossil records for the evolution of modern species? Why do humans share 95% of DNA with chimpanzees? Why does all the evidence indicate common ancestry?<br />
<br />
There are no pieces of evidence that point us in the direction that life on earth was designed in the modern form. Creationism/ ID merely <b>asserts</b> that something is the case without doing the research to back it up.<br />
<br />
With real science, you are constantly trying to overturn the accepted theory with every experiment you create; you are <i style="font-weight: bold;">testing</i> it. You want to blow a hole in it. Creationists, on the other hand, frantically try to protect their brittle impostor of science; they never try to disprove themselves. They say they have the evidence; but nothing is stopping them from publishing their findings in scientific journals and overthrowing modern biology.<br />
<br />
<br />
2. <b>It makes no predictions. </b>(Remember a theory not only explains what we have, but it tells us what we should expect to find.) The reason our live spans have increased so much is because of modern medicine, which is based on evolutionary theory. Darwin wasn't able to see things on the molecular/ cellular level, but he predicted that there would be molecules of inheritance. With the discovery of DNA in the mid 20th century, we know exactly what the molecules of inheritance are, and how they work.<br />
<br />
Intelligent design doesn't have that. There are no predictions made by this idea. It cannot tell us what we expect to find. It cannot tell us how to treat disease. But germ theory (based off of the theory of evolution) can. It cannot tell us what would happen if we tampered with a specific gene; because it denies that these structures are what shapes us, physically.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-20044053052085401572011-08-31T14:15:00.000-07:002011-09-02T14:26:34.939-07:00For Dale.Well this is the theme of my blog; educating people on science and writing about bad, and ineffective thinking.<br />
<br />
This post is for Dale. I think he would like for me to address a few things:<br />
<br />
1. Why I lost my belief in a god.<br />
<br />
2. Creation 'science'.<br />
<br />
So let's begin! Yay!<br />
<br />
1. Why I lost my belief.<br />
<br />
I was raised in a very Catholic family, with strong ties to our local church. I was your typical True Believer (TM). It was my duty to live the life god assigned through scripture. I did. For many years I did. <br />
<br />
Why am I an atheist?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Quick answer: No evidence for any deity. There is no cosmic signature, no suspension of physical laws that scream "Look at me! I am right here!" We learn more and more about our universe every day- this means that the gaps in which this tiny god can live grow smaller and smaller. I have said this repeatedly; there is no one reason why I lack a belief in any given version of a personal god. It is a house of cards; while one reason may cause it to tumble- you are still left with a pile of incoherent babble. I see all religions as this, it isn't just Christianity, I simply target that because that is what is trying to stifle my country of any progress. If the time comes where Hinduism does the same here, I will be just as vocal.<br />
<br />
2. Creation 'science' or: Why I don't have to watch a fifty part youtube series of a pastor talking about stuff he doesn't really understand.<br />
<br />
So let's start here with some background info and key terms:<br />
<br />
<b>Theory: </b>The scientific meaning of this word is not the same as the colloquial or lay man's definition. In science a theory is a complete body of knowledge. A theory becomes a theory when all <i>available</i> evidence suggests that it is probably the case. If a single piece of evidence comes up, the theory must either be refined or thrown out.<br />
<br />
A scientific theory does two things:<br />
<br />
i. Accounts for and explains all available evidence.<br />
ii. Makes predictions as to what we can expect to find in the related field.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Peer-reviewed publishing-</b> This is the process by which new knowledge is added to the scientific consensus. A scientist does an experiment, builds a conclusion and goes to other experts in the field. Regardless of whether or not the other experts agree, they poke holes in the research. The pull in every which way to ensure that his or her findings are indeed accurate. There are extremely high standards that must be met when things are accepted as science.<br />
<br />
So now we have that out of the way.<br />
<br />
The 'evolution' part of the 'theory of evolution' is also tricky for some people****. Evolution is <i>observed</i>. It happens. We have known that it happens since before Darwin. What he contributed was the <i>mechanisms</i> behind the observation. The theory, as a body of knowledge, explains the observation (which is the data) through natural selection, sexual selection, punctuated equilibrium, drift, etc. So when we refer to the theory of evolution, we are referring to the knowledge that describes the process of how organisms evolve.<br />
<br />
<b>****Evolution does not deal with the origin of life on earth; that field of study is <i>abiogenesis.</i></b><br />
<br />
There are <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=+evolution&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C32&as_ylo=&as_vis=0">millions of peer reviewed </a> articles that support evolution. <i>Millions</i>. The theory is one of the most solidified that we have. (For many in depth examples, with citations click <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/">here</a>.)<br />
<br />
So why don't I buy into creationism?<br />
<br />
1. <b>It does not explain anything or tell us anything about the natural world</b>. With science you gather all the facts, the evidence, and you make a conclusion. With creationism/ intelligent design, you start out with your conclusion and then announce all contradicting facts are wrong. For example; If God made us in present form, why do we have complete fossil records for the evolution of modern species? Why do humans share 95% of DNA with chimpanzees? Why does all the evidence indicate common ancestry?<br />
<br />
There are no pieces of evidence that point us in the direction that life on earth was designed in the modern form. Creationism/ ID merely <b>asserts</b> that something is the case without doing the research to back it up. <br />
<br />
With real science, you are constantly trying to overturn the accepted theory with every experiment you create; you are <i style="font-weight: bold;">testing</i> it. You want to blow a hole in it. Creationists, on the other hand, frantically try to protect their brittle impostor of science; they never try to disprove themselves. They say they have the evidence; but nothing is stopping them from publishing their findings in scientific journals and overthrowing modern biology.<br />
<br />
<br />
2. <b>It makes no predictions. </b>(Remember a theory not only explains what we have, but it tells us what we should expect to find.) The reason our live spans have increased so much is because of modern medicine, which is based on evolutionary theory. Darwin wasn't able to see things on the molecular/ cellular level, but he predicted that there would be molecules of inheritance. With the discovery of DNA in the mid 20th century, we know exactly what the molecules of inheritance are, and how they work.<br />
<br />
Intelligent design doesn't have that. There are no predictions made by this idea. It cannot tell us what we expect to find. It cannot tell us how to treat disease. But germ theory (based off of the theory of evolution) can. It cannot tell us what would happen if we tampered with a specific gene; because it denies that these structures are what shapes us, physically.<br />
<br />
<br />
So that is all, I know it is long, I am sorry. But I really hope you read it, and think about it. There are many wonderful resources on the web. All you have to do is Google "how evolution works" or "examples of evolution". And keep in mind, I am in no way an expert. I have the ability to change my mind in accordance to evidence, but like I said, the intelligent design team better get a move on.<br />
<br />
<br />
-Michael<br />
<br />
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-89278179080649140742011-08-30T22:10:00.000-07:002011-09-02T14:25:47.890-07:00For my (virtual) friend, Gus.Sorry to get this out so late, I have been pretty tied down lately with Chemistry (argh!). Also, my faithful chariot took a dump (yay, Ford engineering!) So with no further adieu, I present to you this quick blurb as to why I like Gus. (Last name withheld for his anonymity).<br />
<br />
Recently, I have been scouring the internet to find places that no skeptic has gone before. Most 'public' forums make you register and await moderation from an admin. I couldn't get in with my stated beliefs- and I didn't want to lie. Little did I know that right under my nose there was a wealth of people who held the beliefs I so desperately wanted to study (non-academically, of course.)<br />
<br />
Some of the beliefs held by this group, to the best of my understanding, are as follows:<br />
<br />
- Belief that the Illuminati/ Freemasons/ Unknowns are secretly controlling society and more specifically, the music industry.<br />
<br />
- These same Illuminati not only control; but they worship Satan/Lucifer and persecute Christians.<br />
<br />
- Rhianna is harboring the anti-Christ in fetal form.<br />
<br />
- <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haarp">HAARP</a> is controlling weather; causing catastrophes such as hurricanes and even earthquakes. (Yes, you read this correctly.)<br />
<br />
-Anchor proteins; therefore god.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
So that was the back ground...<br />
<br />
Now, you may be asking yourself, "why would you like someone who believes all this nonsense that has absolutely no merit or basis in reality?" And this is what I would tell you:<br />
<br />
People who lack any curiosity and desire to understand the world, simply do not get my respect. Gus isn't the typical young earth creationist- he displays some intellectual curiosity, and that is wonderful! He doesn't shut off from debate or condemn other thoughts (though, the same can be said about Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, so I guess it isn't <i>that</i> praiseworthy).<br />
<br />
He doesn't see all science as opposition to his beliefs, he even said something along the lines of "science is a way to familiarize yourself with God's creation." He only rejects out of hand what contradicts him, that is:<br />
<br />
1. Geological dating ( or any other dating that shows the earth is much older than what the Bible says it is)<br />
<br />
2. Evolution. (What creationist doesn't?)<br />
<br />
Even so, he doesn't necessarily lose points with me. Why? Because *gasp* I used to believe the same thing. I used the think that goddidit. I used to think that the Christian god came along and made humans in their human form. Then something wonderful happened, I learned biology. I am, in no way shape or form, an expert. But the biology taught me many, many things and one of them is <a href="http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/evolution4.htm">how</a> evolution <a href="http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html">works</a>. I explained it all to Gus, gave him the evidence, the solid foundations, the terminology, examples, and so on. But he still concluded that there still wasn't enough evidence. He denies 'that the theory even exists'.<br />
<br />
He doesn't accept any of the countless data points that support the theory.<br />
<br />
So I have decided not to debate him. I actually now want to study his schemas and heuristics (since I am now studying cognition and resistance schematic change.)<br />
<br />
So this is for you Gus, I wrote this all out for you. I only want one thing in return;<br />
<br />
I acknowledge that you <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=evolution%2C+speciation&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C32&as_ylo=&as_vis=1">don't</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent">view</a> <a href="http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm">any</a> of the <a href="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46">piles</a> of <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html">evidence</a> in <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/">favor</a> of evolution as valid. So let's forget about it. I am asking this assuming that nothing is known about the world.<br />
<br />
I simply want you to answer these honestly. I am not 'calling you out' or anything. I just want to know your thought process. So let's throw both of our beliefs out of the window. Do not assume existence of God. And do not presume evolution is true, either.<br />
<br />
1. How would you explain variation of life on earth?<br />
<br />
2. What would you conclude about our biologic similarities to the other great apes? How could you explain the similarities in structures, genetics, and metabolic pathways?<br />
<br />
BONUS QUESTION:<br />
<br />
Now back to our beliefs, you can believe in god, I can have evolution:<br />
<br />
How does your model account for the #2 Human Chromosome? <br />
<br />
Background: Genetically speaking, this chromosome was the result of the fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes, (complete with structures that would not be needed if it was <i>created</i> as a single, unified chromosome.<br />
<br />
Thanks Gus, I hope to hear from you! Take your time if needed!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-76896640783552932562011-08-28T23:43:00.000-07:002011-08-29T15:51:23.546-07:00Observations on an [un]enlightened society.<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://1.gvt0.com/vi/r6w2M50_Xdk/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/r6w2M50_Xdk&fs=1&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r6w2M50_Xdk&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object><br />
<br />
We sat on a bench watching lightning hit about ten miles off. The rain had stopped fifteen minutes earlier and the air was still and crisp- a most welcomed time in the desert. The night was dark with the only illumination coming from the park lights and the warm city glow on the horizon. If you have never witnessed a desert thunderstorm, I highly recommend making a pilgrimage during the 'wet' seasons.<br />
<br />
The power of each electrical disruption is belittling. Each strike sends waves of energy at Mach speeds for miles around. Booming with impact, thunder settles through the valley, disturbing freshly gathered dew on window panes and making parents<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56gdg2ntfwM"> hush their little ones to sleep</a>. These violent interactions captivated our ancestors for thousand upon thousands of years. These storms erect our most primitive fears; the fears of the unknown. Before you read on, watch this wonderfully cogent video. (EDIT: Video is embedded above, stupid Blogger interface.)<br />
<br />
This, my dearest reader(s), is the topic of tonight's blog: how science calms the fearful giant, and how individuals must be scientifically literate if they want to be respected members of our society.<br />
<br />
I remember first reading Carl Sagan's<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World"> <i>Demon Haunted World,</i></a> and feeling enlightened, and hopeful, and genuinely optimistic about the capabilities we, as humans, can rise to. Sagan's book is a much more lucid, and in- depth work than what I could ever hope to write here, so I recommend reading or re reading his book. But he has some really great points that I want to touch on- back to the thunderstorm.<br />
<br />
Lauren and I (Bert Dog too) sat talking for a few minutes about the misery that shadows the lives of billions on this planet. We talked about how life must genuinely suck when living in ignorance of the workings of our universe.<br />
<br />
In your mind you may draw caricatures of frantic people, full of fear, living on edge, ready to fire off at the next site of lightning. You may think that in today's society, these people do not exist. But it is a sad reality that in our modern age, in our rapid streams of knowledge, we have people still decomposing at the depths of willful ignorance- and it is ruining the water supply for the rest of us.<br />
<br />
The modern world is a progressive place. If you want to not only stay afloat, but prosper, then you must also have a knowledge of the world we live in. Reading just a few bits of information no longer cuts it. You must be scientifically literate in order to be respected.<br />
<br />
In our modern age we have people undeserving of respect and I, as a member of society who has expectations of progress, must publicly denounce. The people that I denounce are those that are in strict opposition to science. These are those most willfully ignorant and academically dishonest people around. These are the people jumping in fear at the sight of a lightning bolt.<br />
<br />
When you don't understand how the world works, you are misled to believe many heaps of bullshit. As I have encountered with this <a href="http://www.facebook.com/thisisyungntv">group of people.</a> I admit, I have given them a fair share of 'trololling', but in all fairness it is just too easy. You see, these people have forfeited any critical capacity of thought, and accept any idea as true, based on who told them.<br />
<br />
Here is a list of some of the absurdities I have encountered:<br />
<br />
- Illuminati run the world. (obviously). But it doesn't just stop at that- more specifically they run the record companies. And control music. But only crappy hip-hop, apparently. The illuminati also really, really, hate Christians. See: Christian <a href="http://richarddawkins.net/videos/623636-david-barton-s-revistionist-history-liars-for-jesus">persecution complex</a> and <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/">Christian History Revision</a>.<br />
<br />
- So I have already mentioned these people are Billboard Top 40 hip-hop enthusiasts who are also Christian enthusiasts. But they are also, you guessed it, young earth creationists. The most flagrantly misinformed people of the world- and also the loudest. So yes, this means they deny any science contradictory to their claims (see: any piece of science every published.) <br />
<br />
-Government is using mind control via chemtrails and the HAARP project. (This I will touch on later.)<br />
<br />
-The government/ Illuminati are using HAARP to create massive weather storms as well as trigger the recent earthquake and hurricanes on the east coast.<br />
<br />
-Ancient peoples (Mayans, Egyptians, et al.,) Had far superior technology and knowledge than we do today.<br />
<br />
I am not making this stuff up. Go. See. Now. <a href="http://www.facebook.com/thisisyungntv">http://www.facebook.com/thisisyungntv</a><br />
<br />
These people are the living, breathing, corporeal counterparts to that caricature in your head. When handed a diagram to build a heating unit, they throw the plans on the fire in their cave to stay warm. They refuse to learn. And this is why they cannot be respected members of our society.<br />
<br />
I asked in particular how <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haarp">HAARP</a> can be used to manipulate weather patterns and disrupt fault lines. My response ranged from 'its obvious' to 'they use volts to shoot in the atmosphere.' I searched an searched from an answer from them and couldn't get it. (If any of you are reading this, I still challenge you to prove me wrong. Show me the mechanisms by which weather can be manipulated using HAARP.)<br />
<br />
This is why critical thinking is important. If these people had it, they would know what auroral means and what HAARP does. They would know that radio frequency cannot magically produce 'volts' (as on commenter claimed). They would know that the radio frequency used will only temporarily excite high atmospheric ions, which will immediately return to a low energy state after stimulation. They would also know we do not even have enough human resources needed to create the amount of energy needed to create or disrupt weather patterns. But fuck that shit. They cannot even grasp that HAARP deals with the outer-most limits of our atmosphere- the ionosphere (which is ever changing and oh-so-mutable). They don't have a fucking clue that weather DOES NOT GENERATE THERE.<br />
<br />
Now I'm pissed the fuck off. Look up troposphere. Read about it. What the fuck does the Wiki have to say?<br />
<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> Most weather phenomena occur in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #0645ad; text-decoration: none;" title="Troposphere">troposphere</a>, just below the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #0645ad; text-decoration: none;" title="Stratosphere">stratosphere</a>.</span></blockquote>God damn it. Read people. Think. So how does a low energy stimulation of the top layer of the atmosphere produce weather change in the lower most part? Hint: It doesn't. It cannot. It will not. HAARP can only produce the amount of energy equivalent to sun shining on an area the size of a football field for about fifteen minutes. You could boil some water with that.<br />
<br />
Though I don't respect the ideas of these people, I don't think that they are second rate or second class. Their beliefs certainly are, yet at the end of the day, they are my fellow humans. Wrong as they may be, they are still our neighbors. And this is why I interact with them- because the wonderful thing about facts, and science, and knowledge, is that everyone can learn it.<br />
<br />
So society, ask yourself: Do you want your neighbor clutching tightly to pearls of deception? Or would you rather have them understand the basal workings of the universe- not experts, mind you, but have at the very least knowledge of how the significant things work?<br />
<br />
FYI my future blog posts will be debunking the shit they believe. Gives me something to do in between coursework and labs. Oh yeah almost forgot:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-B8DKNnWDiTQ/Tls07Bmmb2I/AAAAAAAAACg/mcEiK8wLZ7k/s1600/science.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="248" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-B8DKNnWDiTQ/Tls07Bmmb2I/AAAAAAAAACg/mcEiK8wLZ7k/s320/science.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<br />
[Edit: Ignore the many typos, this was done at 2 am.)<br />
<br />
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-31121964449516361162011-08-20T11:49:00.000-07:002011-08-20T12:12:09.908-07:00Rant: Legal Systems, Failing Grades, and Why Rick Perry Shouldn't Become the POTUSI'll be the first to admit my knowledge of the U.S. Justice system is sub par (to say the least). I know the basic tenets- but when it comes down to it, I get confused on ruling, procedures, and technicalities. I do not go onto public forums and act as an armchair lawyer, because my ass will be handed to me.<br />
<br />
This being said, I do understand the law and what can violate the Constitution. I understand that lines may be blurred and rulings can become very subjective (see: WBC and Free Speech). However, though this may not be my field of study, yet I can spot injustice (for the most part.)<br />
<br />
Let us explore a little scenario:<br />
<br />
Yesterday the <a href="http://www.wm3.org/CaseIntroduction/Page/BRIEF-OVERVIEW">West Memphis 3</a> were <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-08-19-west-memphis-3_n.htm">freed</a>, for the most part. (Again, I have some confusions as the implications of the Alford plea). So this is well and good, and justice has (partially, and quite minimally) been served. I can agree with it- or not. I can pretend that my 'expertise' in the matters predicted that this would eventually be the outcome for the WM 3. So let's pretend, though, that I am convinced of my abilities as an armchair lawyer. Just by watching CNN or Fox, I can predict the outcome of cases. Let's say that I am so confident, that I decide to run for county judge.<br />
<br />
We can easily see that my knowledge (in all its limitations) does not qualify me as a respectable candidate. I am sure, come election time, voters would want to see my qualifications to be a judge. The voters have standards and these offices have requisites that must be met.<br />
<br />
So what does this have to do with <a href="http://southfield.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/top-ten-things-rick-perry-should-apologize-for-so-farcampaign-has-just-begun.aspx?googleid=293316">Rick Perry</a>? I'll make the ties later- but first some background on this asshat.<br />
<br />
Rick Perry is the governor of Texas, and is responsible for the <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/25/cameron_todd_willingham_rick_perry">death of an innocent man. </a> Dick Perry is also (in case you have been in a cave, with bitchin' WiFi) a serious contender for the GOP presidential nomination. Like me, Rick Perry does not have a law degree. Shocking, I know. However where we differ is that I am 100% confident I would run this country into the ground if I were elected; because I do not have the back ground that is a required minimum of someone who is to take position as POTUS. Neither does Perry. Take a look at his grades as an undergraduate at Texas A&M.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5ylfyi2ioFg/Tk9mAlcH4QI/AAAAAAAAACc/b1EJYnBe8vw/s1600/perry_transcript.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5ylfyi2ioFg/Tk9mAlcH4QI/AAAAAAAAACc/b1EJYnBe8vw/s320/perry_transcript.jpeg" width="239" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">O faithful readers, I beseech ye, in all thine wisdom to gloss thy eyes of fortitude into the abyss that is Rick Perry's transcripts. Tell me, what stands out to you?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Is it the 'D' in economics? Or maybe the 'C' in American History? Maybe it is that 1.97 GPA. I know outside of academia, grades generally don't mean squat. However, Perry's work ethics shine through in this case, and it is evident that he is a person that does not care (in many meaning of the phrase.)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">So now let's draw some parallels between my hypothetical candidacy for a judge and Perry's very real run for POTUS.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">1. The candidate is not <i>minimally </i>qualified for the position.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Rick Perry is <b>not</b> a qualified candidate and it isn't merely based on his grades. A pile of shit is residue every time this man opens his mouth. However, this is something that shouldn't be overlooked. He lacks the basic competence that goes with this job. How will he dictate the Fed without a proper understanding of economics? How will he make sound choices when being pridefully ignorant of history? How will he decipher bullshit if it is given to him? </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">2. Well I really just wanted to focus on the first item.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I cannot dole out enough contempt for the arrogance that is Rick Perry. This man is not only confident in himself to fill the role as president, but also feels he is the <b>best</b> person for the job. Our country is hurting, and D's in economic policy aren't going to help us. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">But Rick Perry doesn't stop <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html">there.</a> He is actively trying to undo decades of rights fought for by women, minorities, and the GLBTQ community. Rick Perry thinks the Constitution will become his 'Welcome' mat. Rick Perry thinks that he will shuffle legal systems, congressional powers, and eliminate checks and balances.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Fuck you, Rick Perry.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">/endrant</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-79902677090058732382011-06-21T18:52:00.000-07:002011-06-21T19:02:13.455-07:00Oooh... Climate Denial!This will be relatively short- I have to go study middle Rio Grande ecology before it gets too late. For anybody who wants to know what I'll be doing- this trip may consist of me feeding M&Ms to ants and using my flawless turkey call to try and communicate with cranes and geese.<br />
<br />
So I <a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sure">present you this.</a> What we have here is something exceedingly common, and something that I have <a href="http://spinozasbicycle.blogspot.com/2011/06/fightin-words-i-tells-ya.html">recently talked about</a>. We have a decrease amongst those who accept the current climate change as man- made. As such, there has also been a increase in those who believe that there is <b>not</b> consensus as to the cause of the global warming within the scientific community (especially climate and geologic-based sciences).<br />
<br />
Why do we have this negative trend of (un) acceptance? We see that there has been a<a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/climate_change"> shift </a>from complete denial that the world's climate is changing, to the attitude that we are not to blame. The leading counter- argument is thus: We don't know enough about CO2 levels to conclude that it is playing a part in the green house effect.<br />
<br />
Never mind that since 1861 we have known about the <a href="http://www.jstor.org/pss/108724">absorption of long wave radiation by CO2</a>. Forget <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-do-we-know-co2-is-causing-warming.html">mountains of evidence</a> we have staring not only us, but future generations of stubborn assholes in the face. Never mind that we have numbers <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6809/abs/408184a0.html">screaming</a> at us, telling us that green house gases do <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v344/n6266/abs/344529a0.html">in fact have an effect</a> on global warming.<br />
<br />
We live in a free country. We don't have anyone dictating what we believe, nor what information we have access to. So when I see someone actively denying global climate change, and our role in it, I see a fool. To deny the work of so many hard working scientists, is to be not only willfully ignorant, but arrogant to the highest degree. Dunning- Kruger. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect">Look it up</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--VjxC9JKVRk/TgFK2ko6tuI/AAAAAAAAACM/_CgMp5j3nU4/s1600/mudderert.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--VjxC9JKVRk/TgFK2ko6tuI/AAAAAAAAACM/_CgMp5j3nU4/s1600/mudderert.jpeg" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>Edit: <a href="http://humon.deviantart.com/art/Mother-Gaia-207388674">Source</a> </i></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-22328276707514550272011-06-19T20:57:00.000-07:002011-06-19T20:59:54.611-07:00Female Priests in the RCC.Well, <a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/06/12/137102746/women-priests-defy-the-church-at-the-altar?ft=1&f=1016">kind of</a>.<br />
<blockquote><div style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.85em; line-height: 1.45em; margin-bottom: 1.25em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">In 2002, seven women were secretly ordained as priests by two Roman Catholic bishops in Germany. After their ordination, a kind of domino effect ensued.</div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.85em; line-height: 1.45em; margin-bottom: 1.25em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">Those seven women went on to ordain other women, and a movement to ordain female priests all around the world was born. <strong></strong>The movement, named Roman Catholic Womenpriests, says more than a hundred women have been ordained since 2002, and two-thirds of them are in the U.S.</div></blockquote><i>Women?! In <b>my</b> patriarchal society?! Call my lawyers!</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
I know this is a lot to take in, but bear with me. The original bishop who ordained these women, in my best educated guess, contradicted <a href="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201sbs.asp">Catholic Dogma</a>. (This link is vile, click on it if you must, see for yourself.)<br />
<br />
Surely, this will be resolved by the RCC by simply dismissing the female priests and nullifying the matter. But it does raise many interesting questions, such as: Why do these women pursue a doctrine that has no interest in equality? <i>Note: I am not arguing about the existence of a god here. I am not saying they should just leave their faith altogether</i>. I want to know why they don't simply switch teams, like so many others do. Even mainline Protestants allow women folk to dress up and talk to Jesus.<br />
<br />
The RCC cannot defend this one.<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Certain.aspects of the sacraments may change over time, such as the language of the liturgy or the manner in which penance is received. However, male-only ordination is something that has never changed, nor can it ever be changed. The Church’s attitude may appear archaic, but it is one of fidelity to a universal tradition in both the East and the West, extending throughout the history of the Church.</span></blockquote><br />
It comes down to this: Na na na na, I have a penis. You don't.<br />
<br />
Seriously, these are the people that have a monopoly on morality. Got that, ladies?<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote><div style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.85em; line-height: 1.45em; margin-bottom: 1.25em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><br />
</div></blockquote>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-81574417923883609262011-06-18T22:10:00.000-07:002011-06-18T22:21:08.387-07:00Fightin' words I tells ya!You haven't heard too much from me over the past two months- and for good reason. I solidified my cocoon, and had an extended time of introspection; yes, Lauren put me in timeout to think about what I had done. Alas, I am back, pouring what little I have to offer into the Blogosphere. Let us begin.<br />
<div><br />
</div><div>If you don't have the time to read this, just go get a bit of foil and chew on it- this will essential produce the same sensation. </div><div><br />
</div><div>Our topic of the day: <i><b>Scare Words!</b></i></div><div><i><b><br />
</b></i></div><div>Think back to grade school, circa October 29th. You are ten years old and just got back from your fifteenth recess of the day. You are sipping high fructose grape drink when the teacher assigns you your last bit of work before the three day Halloween weekend. You must write a <i>scaaary </i>story, and the key is to use descriptive words, or "scare words", to captivate your 4th grade audience.</div><div><br />
</div><div> <b>Bam!</b> </div><div><br />
</div><div>The corn sugar rushes through your veins; pupils dilated, you shake as you formulate a plan to produce the most bitchin' Halloween story any Fourth grader has ever written. You look over at your classmates; ghosts, headless horsemen, zombies. Your immature sebaceous glands make pathetic attempts to sweat. You glance up at your teacher, Mr. Flynn, casually reading <i><a href="http://www.worldmag.com/">World Magazine</a>, </i>when it hits you. It is obvious what you must do- and that is start off with a bang.</div><div><br />
</div><div>You bring the tip of your refillable pencil to the paper. </div><div><br />
</div><div><i>The full moon lit the entire graveyard- but in the shadows lurked a...</i></div><div><i><br />
</i></div><div>You shake with frenzy and anticipation, knowing Mr. Flynn will be scared shitless.</div><div><br />
</div><div><i>h...</i></div><div><i><br />
</i></div><div>Your mind is racing but you focus on bringing it home.</div><div><br />
</div><div><i>om...</i></div><div><i><br />
</i></div><div>You lean over and whisper in your best friends ear, she replies with the information you need.</div><div><br />
</div><div><i>osexual. </i></div><div><i><br />
</i></div><div><i>That's right a gay man, and he is talking to a secularist about abortion rights!</i></div><div><i><br />
</i></div><div>Ok, so I jest. Obviously not <b>all </b>people reading a conservative Christian publication will get spooked over queers and godless liberals, but many do. In fact, so much so that since Joseph McCarthy screamed "Communists!", Republicans have built a campaign model around fear. </div><div><br />
</div><div>Guess what? <a href="http://people-press.org/2011/06/02/republican-candidates-stir-little-enthusiasm/">It works</a>. The Pew Research center has data that supports the notion that if you are an atheist you are still unelectable. Tough news if you are gay as well. Brown? Things are looking up, but you're still fucked. This is what rhetoric does. It strips a significant portion of people from their ability to think critically about who runs their country.</div><div><br />
</div><div>I cannot understand the rationality that goes into supporting a party of bigots. If you are a woman, poor, Hispanic, Hindu, gay, or any other minority, I hate to say it, but you are stigmatized by the Right. If you are a minority you are not viewed as an equal and your life is intrinsically less valuable. But the Republicans are able to manipulate and scare and create tension within minorities. The Mexicans are worried about the Muslims who are worried about the queers- and we are all competing while the GOP laughs and spews more propaganda, further continuing this cycle. </div><div><br />
</div><div><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/18/republican.conference.wrap/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn">Recently, the GOP took on Obama </a></div><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich labeled Obama a "national secular European socialist."</span></blockquote>You read correctly; this is how bad it has become- they are trying to scare their base by using words that are not scary. Our government is secular. Deal with it. Socialism has been in practice in the United States since the first rail road tracks were regulated and made public. Deal with it.<br />
<br />
Newt <i>"The Fucking cancer of society"</i> Gingrich is unjustified with his scare tactic. He negatively marks secularity as if that isn't a Constitutional cornerstone that separates us from being a theocracy of any kind. Honestly, why even throw 'European' in there? Most of them are doing better than us, so his point just becomes muddy. But what really irks me is that he, along with many others, still conflate socialism with communo-fascism. And that is wrong.<br />
<br />
That is all for the night. At this point I am just rambling. Good night, y'all.<br />
<div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-78974665479368220352011-04-10T17:16:00.000-07:002011-04-10T17:31:45.711-07:00Thoughts for the day.In the immortal words of John Lennon-<br />
<blockquote>Half of what I say is meaningless; but I say it just to reach you.</blockquote>And that is for you my dearest reader(s). As the winds tear across the desert, whipping sand and chapping lips, I have become contemplative. Sadly, my mind can only reach focus for what seems like only a microsecond. It seems as if my brain is too tired to churn up anything interesting- much less present you with any creative material. I haven't felt like playing guitar, talking to friends, riding my bike, or studying. I feel like rationalizing. And as I sit here, listening to the harmonica solo in The Beatles' "Little Child" I can't help but try and make understanding of the world around me.<br />
<br />
Last night I had a friend over, and was once again reminded about the varieties of human experience. I believe that in daily life we take for granted the complexities of human relationships; whether they be human-human, human- nature, or human-thought/beliefs. I wanted to become a psychologist because I wanted a firmer understanding of behavior, thought, and the underlying processes of those dyadic interactions. I wanted to understand how we process the world; yet I now wonder if the world we exist in is unprocessable? (I am 99.8% confident that I made that word up.)<br />
<br />
Take a look around, what do you see? Do you see the workings of a finely tuned universe, whirling harmoniously and glorifying its' own necessity in creation? If so, how I envy your naiveté. This thought is antiquated- stuck between the realm of ignorance and make-believe. We do not live in the best of all possible worlds, we live in a universe in which there is no direct cosmic predetermination, and the human condition is purely a result of our own doing. We do not owe our triumphs and failures to gods on mountaintops; the course of our lives are not divinely shaped.<br />
<br />
We live in a mad universe that is much too queer for any individual to completely comprehend. The vastness, the intricacies, and the subtleties lead cautious men to yield pursuit of knowledge for mere assertion of creation. Yet we do not live in cautious times, the moments we live in are imperative.<br />
<br />
Staring into to the abysmal universe and surrendering all false notion is a noble task. To simply turn your back on this great wonder and dismiss it as creation does a disservice, not only to the natural world, but to humankind itself. Scientist painstakingly study every dark corner, firmly evacuating the demons and replacing them with beacons of light. Perhaps the most demon haunted realm exists not in the cosmos, but in our own mind.<br />
<br />
To quote Bertrand Russell:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #19110a; line-height: 20px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">What we need is not the will to believe, but the will to find out</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">.</span></span></blockquote>What old Bertrand is talking about, is the underlying motivation for science. Through a scientific lens, humanity can better understand the intricacies that underly our existence. We can discover solutions to the very problems that undermine us. The idea that a benevolent God is watching and intervening strips all meaning off of our current situation. This gives us satisfaction with ignorance, and negates our motivation to understand and our push to become better.<br />
<br />
From chaos, every living thing, every bit of matter, has sprung into existence and evolved. There is no cosmic dictator, no supreme judge that vanquishes evil. We assign our own meaning to life. To have a mind rely on a benevolent supreme being to explain every situation in the universe is to cede all will to explore the universe. To say that a supernatural being will return and 'fix' things is a surrender of all culpability in the matter.<br />
<br />
My understanding is thus:<br />
<br />
We are our own measures of judgement. There is no passing the buck. I see murder and rape and genocide. These are incompatible with the existence of a just and loving god, we are solely accountable for this. I see the height of human progress and the depths of human ignorance; one corresponds to Russell's will, and the other to the forfeit of thought in lieu of a deity. These are my thoughts, indeed.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-20663110242732621792011-04-06T19:17:00.000-07:002011-04-06T19:17:16.701-07:00The Trophy Wife (to be) has something to say!<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: yellow;">This is a guest post written by one of my lovely friends, enjoy, also note that names were redacted for privacy. VF= Vegetarian Friend, TF= Trophy Wife. Yes, they are eloped.</span><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: yellow;"></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">Now, onto less tuna related topics and onto more “exciting” things, such as Laundry. As you may or may not know, I adore doing laundry—this will hopefully be the beginning and end of my domestic “to-do” list as Trophy Wife.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My favorite part is all the laundry accessories! (you may think I'm joking here, but seriously, I'm not) I have wash bags to extend the life of my clothing, three different laundry detergents for different types of clothing, bleach, fabric softener and of course bounce sheets (look at all that free advertising!). This may seem excessive...and it is. But, this is what really gets me going.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I told V.F.™ that a w/d was the only deal breaker in the scheme of searching for a place—that’s right, bitches, we’re living in sin before getting married—a bathroom was negotiable, laundry room was <i>not</i>. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">With all this background information, you can understand my horror (horror!!) when the crazy new landlord said that the washer water was used to water the plants in the yard (grey water) and I would be <i>forced</i> (<b>forced!!</b>) to buy biodegradable detergent and my days of using bleach and fabric softener were over. Note here that I care a lot about water (like a crazy water nazi), but that's how much I care about my fabric softener! I still am devastated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is nothing better than air-drying clothes (see?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I care about the environment!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just in different ways) with the subtle scent of Downy filling the house. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">V.F.™ already uses that hippie shit, but I guarantee that it will in no way clean my clothes as well as Tide and Downy. I might have to start going to a dreaded Laundromat just to clean my clothes the way I want to!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This new crazy landlord is cramping my style and now I’ll be all static-y in my not entirely clean clothes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I fully intend to wash my clothes as much as possible while still at my old place, killing the environment one Downy cap-full at a time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">I suppose I have bigger things to concern myself over at the moment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You know, like research papers, work, planning the fucking wedding or ending world hunger.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">On a side note, if I truly want to be a Trophy Wife and not actually intelligent at all, I need to dumb down my understanding of the world and how society truly works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You know, pretend I was raised a pageant queen or in North Carolina or something. For now, though, I’ll just have to wave elbow-elbow-wrist-wrist my laundry accessories goodbye.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: yellow;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: yellow;"><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Garamond, serif;"><br />
</span></div></span></div></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6340031210138147995.post-58885815137287476382011-04-05T21:50:00.000-07:002011-04-05T21:50:51.691-07:00Will blog for money.That is in fact what I am doing.<br />
<br />
Your beloved narrator/ moral compass/ voice in your head, has been reduced to a statistic today. That's right, as of today, I no longer am a civil (indentured) servant. Say what you will about my work ethic; I know there will be slander enveloping all ensuing conversation.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"I heard he was fired, such a bad work ethic, lazy fuck."</blockquote><blockquote>"He was fired for accidentally the whole office!"</blockquote><blockquote>"I heard he inserted <span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black;">PENIS</span><span></span> into <span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black;">VAGINA</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;">. "</span></blockquote><blockquote>"What I heard was that there was serious internal ethical problems within his department. On various occasions he tried to blow a whistle but was diverted and told to keep silent; a true hero of his league." ***</blockquote><br />
*** One of these is (exaggeratedly) true. To put all false notions to rest; I was not fired. (Yes I was).<br />
<br />
Now that all this is transparent, I would like to take some time to inform you, my beloved reader, about some things I have learned over the course of my federal employment.<br />
<br />
*Spoiler alert- anecdotes ahead*<br />
<br />
1. If you are a student employee with a federal agency, you have no rights or provisions to protect your employed state. It says so in the handbook and is made clear every day. They may fire you at any time, without warning, and without cause. The only protection you have is against discrimination based on gender (lol, as if they care), race, religion (but not lack thereof), et al.<br />
<br />
2. I have learned that if you aren't happy- change that. This goes for all things, especially your employer. If you don't like it, opt out. I wish I would have fully understood this the first day at work. I knew this when I saw that there was literally a departmental club designed for a small group to dick around and label it 'team building.' Fuck. You. Guys. I am sorry that I wasn't a part of you ego- boosting clique because I wasn't 21 and couldn't go to bars.<br />
<br />
When did I realize I wasn't comfortable in that setting?<br />
<br />
- Maybe it was when a naked co worker, brandished with a broken wine glass, threw my end table out of my hotel room because I refused to sleep with her.<br />
<br />
- Maybe it was when I realized that I was nothing more than a pawn, doing personal tasks for my bosses and having everyone throw their mundane work at me. But that's alright, I'm just the student. I don't work and attend school full time to earn a degree in something a little more complicated than faxing invoices and adding numbers. I'm sorry that all the math you glorified accountants needed was taught to you in elementary school.<br />
<br />
- Maybe it was when I was alone, in the presence of an individual with known PTSD (amongst other psychosis) who drew a gun. Hey it's alright, I didn't report this. He's my friend, right? I was just trying to help the guy.<br />
<br />
- Maybe it was when I had to administer first aide to my friend who went into a clonic seizure on two separate occasions while people just watched. I was helped by two other staff, and one other jackass who tried separating me from my friend so he could 'pray the demons out'. I am not making this up.<br />
<br />
-Maybe I was made uncomfortable by the innumerable times that I was made to feel incapable because of my sex, and most importantly, my age. Maybe it was also because I did not partake in your thinly veiled religious activity this winter. You know I am not religious. Why the hell did you decorate my cubicle with shit I hate?<br />
<br />
<br />
This has been, yet another rant. Thanks to anyone who may have read this. If you have some work related B.S. to get off your chest, feel free to do so in the comments. Oh, and throw an extra five spot to the panhandler on the corner, it could be me. Peace y'all.<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote> </blockquote><blockquote> </blockquote>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06509970813546817512noreply@blogger.com6