Stuck Somewhere In The Middle

Monday, January 16, 2012 - A Day to Reflect

2012-01-16T16:39:00.000-06:00

Frederick Douglas spoke:

"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck."--from an Address at a Civil Rights meeting, 1883

Abraham Lincoln said:

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, cannot long retain it."-- letter to H.L. Pierce, April 6, 1859.

Martin Luther King, Jr. sang out:

"... And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"-- from his speech on the National Mall in Washington D.C., August 28, 1963.

Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream that many before him shared, but none so eloquently presented, so powerfully delivered, and so impassioned a nation as his "I Have a Dream" speech.You can find the text of the speech at the website for the U.S. Constitution Online. If you can read his words, listen to his speech, or watch him deliver it and be unmoved and unwilling to live up to that dream, you have no place on this planet or as part of humanity. We so often find petty reasons to behave poorly, but listen to Dr. King deliver this speech and dare to live up to the dream.

On "The Fabric of the Cosmos" on PBS

2011-11-11T11:09:00.001-06:00

This is a rough idea that came to mind as I watched "The Fabric of the Cosmos" on PBS. I haven't really fleshed out these thoughts into full paragraphs and haven't done any of the maths to fit the ideas to a framework.

Think of a Time Potential as driving the arrow of time in the direction we think of as forward.At the Start of the Universe there is the greatest Time Potential.

Think of the Fabric of Space as conducting time like a wire conducts electricity.

Two ideas,

the more space there is the more time can flow (time is space constrained)
there is a point where time can flow no faster (time is potential constrained)

Eventually the time potential degrades or is used up so that the maximum flow of time slows.As all this time flows the motion or expansion of space continues.

At beginning limited amount of space constrains flow of time so that motion of and in space has higher relative speed. As space expands to the point time can reach maximum flow the relative motion of and in space reaches a fairly constant lower speed. But, over vast stretches of space and time the strength of the time potential decreases and the relative speed of space increases again.

As an exercise draw a graph of time on the vertical axis and 3-space on the horizontal. The height of the time axis is constrained by the combination of the time potential and the maximum flow of time. At a high time potential but small space the height is low due to low conductivity of time. At a low time potential and vast space the height of time is again low due to the limited potential of time. At some "sweet spot" there is enough space to allow maximum flow and the time potential is still high so the time axis is tallest.

Now measure the motion in and of space on the horizontal axis and in time by this rate of time flow. Standing still will have the highest time value in the sweet spot and lower on the other graphs. Any motion in space will also reduce the time value as some of the motion vector is diverted to 3-space.

Looking at the graph of the expansion of the universe there will be high relative motion at the point where time is constrained by how fast time can flow and lower relative motion where time can flow the fastest. As we move deeper in forward time (the future) the time potential decreases so the relative motion of the expansion of space will be higher as time flows slower. The universe will accelerate its expansion relative to time.

Think of motion not as distance covered but the vector of motion. Within the universe we are constrained by the speed of light, which is constant relative to time. But the universe as a unit is not so constrained and the expansion will continue with it's vector and higher values relative to time as the time potential decreases. The total weight (mass and energy) of the universe may be constant, but the effect of gravity decreases with distance so the expansion isn't necessarily slowed by gravity.

Ideas to explore: Is time potential even across the universe or spotty so that some parts hold onto a greater potential and other parts lose potential quicker, that is, is the conductivity of time constant? Is the time potential the dark energy? So what is dark matter? What values do we use for the time vector relative do the 3-space vector?

Smart people have probably already thought about this and dismissed the ideas, but I don't know enough to know if this is just silly conjecture. I just wanted to make a record of these thoughts.

10 Answers to Jonathan Wells's "10 Questions"

2011-09-14T22:38:00.000-05:00

Quoted from the National Center for Science Education (October 17th, 2008):

Intelligent design creationist Jonathan Wells has written the insidious "Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution." These questions try to encourage students to doubt and distrust evolutionary theory.

Here are 10 brief answers to those questions. Please feel free to copy and distribute this document to teachers, students, parents, and others.

In the sections below, Wells's questions appear in italics.

Q: ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth — when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

A: The 1953 studies by Miller and Urey were the first to show that organic molecules could be produced from very simple precursors and inputs of energy. Their experimental apparatus made it possible to investigate the formation of organic compounds under a wide range of conditions. Numerous studies have been conducted since then with various combinations of chemicals thought to have existed on early Earth. Nearly all of these studies have produced some of the building blocks of life. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research. Evolutionary theory can work with just about any model of the origin of life on Earth. Therefore, how life originated is not strictly a question about evolution.

Q: DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor — thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

A: Wells is wrong: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all are post-Cambrian — aren't these "major groups"? We would recognize very few of the Cambrian organisms as "modern"; they are in fact at the roots of the tree of life, showing the earliest appearances of some key features of groups of animals — but not all features and not all groups. Researchers are linking these Cambrian groups using not only fossils but also data from developmental biology.

Q: HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry — a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

A: The same anatomical structure (such as a leg or an antenna) in two species may be similar because it was inherited from a common ancestor (homology) or because of similar adaptive pressure (convergence). Homology of structures across species is not assumed, but tested by the repeated comparison of numerous features that do or do not sort into successive clusters. Homology is used to test hypotheses of degrees of relatedness. Homology is not "evidence" for common ancestry: common ancestry is inferred based on many sources of information, and reinforced by the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity of anatomical structures.

Q: VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry — even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

A: Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently two species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development. Thus cows and rabbits — mammals — are more similar in their embryological development than either is to alligators. Cows and antelopes are more similar in their embryology than either is to rabbits, and so on. The union of evolution and developmental biology — "evo-devo" — is one of the most rapidly growing biological fields. "Faked" drawings are not relied upon: there has been plenty of research in developmental biology since Haeckel — and in fact, hardly any textbooks feature Haeckel's drawings, as claimed.

Q: ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds — even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

A: The notion of a "missing link" is an out-of-date misconception about how evolution works. Archaeopteryx (and other feathered fossils) shows how a branch of reptiles gradually acquired both the unique anatomy and flying adaptations found in all modern birds. It is a transitional fossil in that it shows both reptile ancestry and bird specializations. Wells's claim that "supposed ancestors" are younger than Archaeopteryx is false. These fossils are not ancestors but relatives of Archaeopteryx and, as everyone knows, your uncle can be younger than you!

Q: PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection — when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

A: These pictures are illustrations used to demonstrate a point — the advantage of protective coloration to reduce the danger of predation. The pictures are not the scientific evidence used to prove the point in the first place. Compare this illustration to the well-known re-enactments of the Battle of Gettysburg. Does the fact that these re-enactments are staged prove that the battle never happened? The peppered moth photos are the same sort of illustration, not scientific evidence for natural selection.

Q: DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection — even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

A: Textbooks present the finch data to illustrate natural selection: that populations change their physical features in response to changes in the environment. The finch studies carefully — exquisitely — documented how the physical features of an organism can affect its success in reproduction and survival, and that such changes can take place more quickly than was realized. That new species did not arise within the duration of the study hardly challenges evolution!

Q: MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution — even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

A: In the very few textbooks that discuss four-winged fruit flies, they are used as an illustration of how genes can reprogram parts of the body to produce novel structures, thus indeed providing "raw material" for evolution. This type of mutation produces new structures that become available for further experimentation and potential new uses. Even if not every mutation leads to a new evolutionary pathway, the flies are a vivid example of one way mutation can provide variation for natural selection to work on.

Q: HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident — when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

A: Drawings of humans and our ancestors illustrate the general outline of human ancestry, about which there is considerable agreement, even if new discoveries continually add to the complexity of the account. The notion that such drawings are used to "justify materialistic claims" is ludicrous and not borne out by an examination of textbook treatments of human evolution.

Q: EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact — even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

A: What does Wells mean by "Darwin's theory of evolution"? In the last century, some of what Darwin originally proposed has been augmented by more modern scientific understanding of inheritance (genetics), development, and other processes that affect evolution. What remains unchanged is that similarities and differences among living things on Earth over time and space display a pattern that is best explained by evolutionary theory. Wells's "10 Questions" fails to demonstrate a pattern of evolutionary biologists' "misrepresentations of the facts."

The Power in a Name: Atheist

2011-07-24T17:56:00.000-05:00

First, my apologizes for not getting to my second numbers in astronomy post. I will eventually. I have no excuses, only that I've been busy living life and blogging hasn't been a part of that.

I read an article recently about atheists coming out of the closet and why it's so difficult and rare. Add to that the recent set of articles complaining about people like me shying away from the skeptical and atheist communities (they call us tone trolls and worse). So, a confluence of reading brings me to a need to blog this.

The title atheist when presented in mixed company, in company of skeptics and non-skeptics, of theists and non-theists, and any number of similar sets is a door closer. I see the religious literally shut their ears to a person when they find out that person is an atheist. I already have a hard time being heard, I don't need to make things more difficult. So in my day-to-day living I don't use the title.

When people ask me which church I belong to I answer that I usually don't go to church and don't add that's it's because I am a non-believer. That last closes the door to further communications fast. More moderate people will still listen, but they aren't the powerful voting block that I'd like to convince need to be more accepting of secular issues, they already are. We do need to be able to talk to the fundamentalists and evangelicals about secular issues because they have money (you've heard about the Mega Churches I bet) and put people in power to run and ruin things (Texas Board of Education for example). Fortunately the courts have worked in our favor so far. Lately the Religious Right has been working on "fixing" that, too.

The Tea Party and Religious (often the very same people) need to hear our message and not automatically shut it out. There will still be those that don't listen, but I don't want to shut out those that will and who can then echo our message in our stead.

You won't see me at atheist or skeptical events and now you know why.

Americans Are Ghouls

2011-05-04T17:01:00.000-05:00

I've seen an enormous clatter on the web of people declaring President Obama must release the death images of Osama bin Laden otherwise they believe the President is lying to us. Here are my thoughts:

In this day of photo-shop image hacking, no image released to the media should be convincing evidence, either way. If Osama is dead, a picture of him dead does not change that. If he is not dead, a picture of him dead doesn't prove he is. We've seen pictures of Osama dead before - they were hoaxes. Someone even resent one of the hoax images as proof for this event.

Why does the public demand to see the images of the dead Osama bin Laden? Because we're ghouls. We like seeing the bad guy beaten up and killed (well, some of us - I'm not in a particular hurry to see such images). We certainly don't gain the high ground posting the images - the modern day equivalent to heads on spikes at the city gates to show the enemy we have no mercy.

Some say that Osama was killed years ago and President Obama has just trotted out the dead bin Laden to boost his ratings. If so, this is bad timing! Any ratings boost will last a week, maybe two. Certainly by the time of the elections in November of 2012 any gains from such a stunt would have long worn off. I seriously doubt any such stunt is in progress now.

I reserve judgement on this issue. I suspect President Obama is telling us the truth now for several reasons, not the least of which there would need to be a vast conspiracy of monumental proportions if this is a lie. If such a conspiracy is really in progress, it will break down shortly.

Finally, in the big picture of things, this is a small event. One man is dead that has caused Americans a great deal of pain. That pain will not cease now just because he's dead. There are others excited and willing to carry on his goals and will do so with out a doubt.

Finally, was Justice served? Maybe. If I were given a choice, I'd have said he should stand trial and spend years and months as a caged animal waiting for judgement and then finally spending the rest of his days confined to a small and dark corner somewhere to be forgotten and lost. Now he will be a martyr for his cause - a cause that revels in martyrs.

Now I don't believe in Heaven or Hell, so I neither take comfort that he is spending time in The Fire or spending his time with the promised 72 virgins. I don't take comfort in his death, though perhaps I take a small amount of satisfaction that there is one less in the world committed to doing evil. This isn't mission accomplished; this is milestone met. On to the next milestone as we've a long way before the mission is accomplished.

Astronomy Math

2011-03-12T21:04:00.001-06:00

As a beginning astronomer, you run into a lot of numbers and sometimes you have no clue what they mean. I intend to help remedy some of that.

Numbers in Astronomy range from astoundingly large to really very small. Ranging from Billions of Light Years to fractions of an arcsecond, it's no wonder people sometimes feel intimidated.

A light year is one example of measurement for distance that uses the speed of light as a ruler. I've often heard that Grace Murray Hopper had a bit of wire cut to length to represent a light nano-second (one of the really, really small numbers). That wire was thirty centimeters long, which is just under a foot long. One thousand of those make a light-microsecond. One thousand times the light-microsecond is the light-millisecond. Finally, one thousand times that is a light-second. That means that little bit of wire would have to be laid out end to end a billion times to create one light second. That's most of the way to the moon!

Another small measurement is the fraction of an arcsecond that telescopes like the Hubble Space Telescope can resolve as detail (really tiny fractions, too). As an example of how small an arcsecond is, picture the full moon in the sky (or hold your hand out at arm's length and observe the width of your thumb). That is about one half of a degree. That one half of a degree is thirty arcminutes and each arcminute is sixty arcseconds. So the width of the moon, or your thumb at arm's length, is eighteen hundred arcseconds across. The Hubble Space Telescope resolves things about 25 times smaller than that. That is very tiny indeed.

Look at it this way, my monitor has twelve hundred eighty pixels side to side and is thirty four centimeters wide. That's thirty eight pixels per centimeter. Your thumb might be about two centimeters wide, or about seventy six pixels across. Our handy thumb at arm's length is roughly a half a degree, so one degree of screen at arm’s length is about one hundred fifty pixels wide. Each pixel then is twenty to twenty five or so arcseconds across, depending on how close you sit to your monitor. One pixel is five hundred times larger than the fraction of an arcsecond resolution we mention before. Another way to say that is to see that fine a detail on your monitor, it would have to be magnified five hundred times, and probably more to really see it well.

That is enough of tiny. Let's scale up a little bit, the distance to the moon already mentioned is around a second and a half. The distance to the Sun is about five hundred seconds. This brings us to the Astronomical Unit: the AU. For most of the Solar System, objects are measured in their distance AU. Each AU, then, is about five hundred light seconds. A light hour is thirty six hundred light seconds and with a little math we see a light hour is a little over seven AU (thirty six hundred divided by five hundred).

I'm working my way up to the light year here, so hang on. Neptune, the furthest known major planet is right around thirty AU and about four and a quarter light hours from the sun. We haven't even made it a light day yet! To make it to a light day, you have to get twice the distance of the minor planet Sedna from the Sun which is about eighty six thousand, four hundred light seconds and so about one hundred seventy three AU.

Another six days out you are at one light week. Somewhere around forty or forty one light weeks out and you are probably getting into to the famous Oort cloud which will then take another forty weeks at the speed of light to get through (wow, huh?!). Somewhere twelve weeks into the Oort cloud we passed the light year! In Astronomical Units one light year is sixty three thousand, two hundred forty one - I think it's time to abandon the AU!

Another way to look at a light year is back to our original meters: ninety four hundred sixty trillion seven hundred thirty billion four hundred seventy two million five hundred eighty thousand eight hundred meters. That number, only one light year out is so large as to be meaningless for most of us. So we use light years and other large units (did someone mention parsecs?).

OK, since we mentioned the parsec, that is the measure of an object's movement due to parallax of one arcsecond (remember those?) by moving at a right angle by one AU. A little bit of trigonometry and you have a bit over three and a quarter light years. Alpha Centauri moves just over one arcsecond against the deep background sky when the earth moves one AU around in its orbit (a bit over eight weeks worth) which means it is a bit over one parsec away from the sun.

A few thoughts, then:

The moon is about a second and a half away at light speed.
The earth is by definition one AU from the sun - and that works out to just about five hundred light seconds.
Neptune at thirty AU is over four light hours.
Scaling up, the Oort cloud ranges from just under to well over one light year out from the sun and so is over two light years across.
Our nearest stellar companion is almost four light years away and the center of the Milky Way is twenty five or thirty thousand light years away.
Our neighbor the Andromeda Galaxy (I wonder what the inhabitants call it) is two million five hundred thousand light years away.
Looking at these numbers you can see why meters which are so handy around the house are quickly useless in astronomy.

Next time we'll talk about orbital mechanics and how astronomers know where things are and will be in the sky.

The Earth in Context

2011-03-09T16:04:00.002-06:00

Here is a video that helps put some thoughts in perspective (it's old, from 2007, I didn't make it, icecorescientist did):

Enjoy.

The Ten Commandments and US Law: Commandments Recap

2011-03-01T18:49:00.000-06:00

The Commandments Recap

Before I get into my recap, let me note that I’m not saying you shouldn’t follow the Ten Commandments. I suspect that if Christians actually did, they’d be better people. Jesus emphasized two of the Commandments:

1 – Love God. 2 – Love your neighbor, and said all the rest are built upon these two.

Christians need to understand they are not judge and jury and that many atheists and theists of other faiths are their neighbors. You can’t kill them all and let God sort them out. You have to Love them all and let God sort them out. Most of all, however, Christians need to know all Ten Commandments and to know which Commandments were never part of the US constitution and US Laws; that being the two Jesus claimed as the greatest of the Commandments. If the United States Constitution doesn’t recognize the most important two Commandments, then the list of ten cannot be said to be the foundation of the Constitution and US laws.

1^st Commandment

The first Commandment tells us to worship only the one true God. The constitution doesn’t care. This is the first and most important Commandment and US Law ignores it completely.

The US Constitution mentions religion twice, both times to say that the Congress and Federal Law cannot be used to control or support religion. The first note that no religious tests shall be required to hold office and the second that Congress may make no laws regarding the free exercise of religion. I add that that includes the exercising of no religion at all (is neither prohibited or promoted).

2^nd Commandment

This Commandment is about making idols to worship (whether of the One True God or false gods). US Law ignores this completely. Build idols to your heart’s content and US Law doesn’t care.

3^rd Commandment

This Commandment prohibits the misuse of the Lord’s Name. US Law doesn’t care how you use the Lord’s Name. There are 7 words it does care about – at least at the FCC. The Lord’s name isn’t one of them.

4^th Commandment

Remember the Sabbath. Remember the Alamo... I digress. US Law doesn’t care which days you rest and which you work.

5^th Commandment

Honor your parents; obey and love them. US Law? It doesn’t really care. Just don’t dump them on the side of the road or abuse them.

6^th Commandment

Don’t Murder. Damn straight! I did mention that this is a nearly universal truth in all philosophies and religions (I’m sure there are exceptions – there always are). So claiming the laws regarding this are based on Biblical Truth and Revelation are weak. In this regard, US Law owes more to the code Ur-Nammu than Moses (in fact, chances are good Moses, or his ghost writers, stole this from Ur-Nammu too).

7^th Commandment

Don’t cheat on your spouse – especially if you’re a woman (according to the ten Commandments) seems like a common sense law. But US Law apparently doesn’t care (and good thing too for politicians, considering how often the commit this sin).

8^th Commandment

Don’t be stealing, y’all! At first glance this might seem to be a relevant Commandment with regard to US Law. The thing is, so would the Code of Ur-Nammu. I might not have noted this before, but the Code of Ur-Nammu predates the books of Moses by almost a thousand years (and the actual writing down of those books by much more).

9^th Commandment

Lying is a sin. If you are testifying in court or for some official documentation purposes, that is perjury and against the law in the United States, too. Claiming the 9^th Commandment influenced US Law in this regard has no basis, however. It just makes good sense. Lying in general, however, is not against the law (imagine being forced to tell your children that their works of art are ugly because lying is against the law).

All religions consider lying a sin. Most governments punish lying to the government. There is even a punishment for it in the Code of Ur-Nammu. It’s older than the Bible.

10^th Commandment

Don’t covet your neighbor’s stuff. Unless you live in the United States because our economy seems to be based on it (just don’t steal your neighbor’s actual stuff). Obviously US Law really says nothing about the coveting part. Of course, covet has a complicated history of meaning, but US Law is pretty quiet on it generally.

References:

If you want to look at the Code of Ur-Nammu, look here:

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Sumer/ur_nammu_law.htm

It was probably written about 2100 B.C.E., and certainly before 2000 B.C.E.. The Ten Commandments were created around 1300 B.C.E. (according to Jewish tradition) and written down even later (perhaps starting as late as 900 B.C.E).

The Ten Commandments and US Law: 10th Commandment

2011-02-23T18:22:00.000-06:00

10^th Commandment

Quote from the Bible

17. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

My interpretation what it means

This Commandment is a little tricky to bring up to modern specifications. At the time of its writing men’s wives were their properties. The word covet is an odd word and I believe the meaning closest is jealousy with an intent to take. So it might be that the Commandment meant you must not desire to raid and steal from your neighbors.

How it relates to US Law

There are laws regarding conspiracy to commit crimes by a group of people, but this commandment doesn’t mention conspiracy – it addresses individuals. I’m not sure any US laws really reflect this commandment properly, and certainly nothing in the US Constitution does.

Commentary

At the founding of our nation this Commandment was nowhere in the decision process. They were concerned with protecting the People from tyranny, and the more common laws were drawn from, well, common law.

The next post will be a recap, so I’ll reserve further comment for the moment.

The Ten Commandments and US Law: 9th Commandment

2011-02-18T18:21:00.001-06:00

9^th Commandment

Quote from the Bible

16. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

My interpretation what it means

As a law, this meant that a person may not commit perjury. A lot of folks modify the Commandment to mean a person shall not lie anytime. Really, it was perjury, lying under oath. Don’t do it.

How it relates to US Law

Huh, look at that: We do have laws against lying under oath.

Commentary

How much the Ninth Commandment influenced our laws in this regard I’m not sure. Even atheistic regimes have or had laws against lying to the government. I highly doubt they used the Ten Commandments as a template. So this third of nine Commandments (so far) does have related laws in the US Constitution or the Federal Laws. There is precedence in other law systems as well, though. I might have to research this a bit more, but I’m leaning toward thinking this is a case of a stopped clock being right twice (thrice?) a day. We have one Commandment left. I wonder how well it will measure up. Six of the nine so far have not. Three are iffy.

The Ten Commandments and US Law: 8th Commandment

2011-02-13T16:17:00.000-06:00

8^th Commandment

Quote from the Bible

15. You shall not steal.

My interpretation what it means

Another tough one (or not): Don’t steal stuff.

How it relates to US Law

This Commandment does have counter parts within US Law. The Constitution is all about what the government can and cannot do, but there are plenty of Federal laws that deal with theft and other crimes. So yes, it is against the law to steal.

Commentary

Just like “don’t murder” this Commandment is mirrored in the vast majority of laws of all civilizations ever, at least in civilizations that have/had property. Just like “don’t murder” it is difficult to narrow down the influence to just the existence of the Ten Commandments. Giving the proponents the benefit of doubt, we have two laws that the Ten Commandments have an analogue of and six, to this point, that do not. We have two to go – I wonder how they measure up.

The Ten Commandments and US Law: 7th Commandment

2011-02-11T15:47:00.001-06:00

7^th Commandment

Quote from the Bible

14. You shall not commit adultery

My interpretation what it means

Um… it means you shall not commit adultery.

BUT! It really meant that a married or betrothed woman could not have sex with any man other than her husband. She was, after all, his property (at the time these particular passages were written). It didn’t actually apply to men as long as the woman wasn’t someone’s wife or bride to be.

How it relates to US Law

It doesn’t. While societal norms disapprove of adultery, there are no Federal laws that make it a crime. Essentially, the only time it’s a problem is when one party decides to use it as a reason for divorce.

Commentary

This Commandment does not form any part of the basis of the US Constitution or any of our Federal Laws. A great number of our greatest public figures throughout our history have been adulterers. It seems obvious the Seventh Commandment holds little sway in the day to day running of our country. The people that don’t commit adultery probably aren’t being good because the Bible tells them to, but rather because they love their spouse and don't want to hurt them, haven't been tempted enough, or some combination of the two. It isn’t looking good for the proponents of the Ten Commandments being the foundation of law in our land, is it?

The Ten Commandments and US Law: 6th Commandment

2011-02-04T00:14:00.000-06:00

6^th Commandment

Quote from the Bible

13. You shall not murder*. [or “kill”]

My interpretation what it means

The word murder, rather than kill, makes more sense for this commandment. It means you will not kill people illegally and implies there are legal reasons to kill people. War, punishments for certain crimes, self defense and a few other examples I’m sure I’m missing are examples of legal reasons. So, don’t kill people when it is against the law (God’s Law, specifically).

How it relates to US Law

An interesting thing about how this applies to US Law, as you no doubt know, it’s against the law here in the United States to commit murder. So it is plausible that the US laws took the Ten Commandments guidance for this.

Commentary

But…

So, there’s this problem with assuming that the “Thou shall not murder” is exclusively based upon the Ten Commandments of the Holy Bible. Virtually every society ever has had a proscription against murder. It’s more likely that this particular Commandment has to share credit for influence upon the United States Constitution with the laws of every other society our founding fathers knew of that existed prior to the writing of the Constitution.

The Code of Ur-Nammu has as much claim to be the foundation for the laws against murder in the United States as the Ten Commandments.

The Ten Commandments and US Law: 5th Commandment

2011-01-30T23:42:00.001-06:00

5^th Commandment

Quote from the Bible

12. Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

My interpretation what it means

Obey your parents. Respect your parents. Of course, by extension, obey your father in heaven.

How it relates to US Law

It doesn’t. Nothing in US Law tells you (once you’re an adult, anyway) that you must obey your parents, or even your god.

Commentary

Some parents really shouldn’t be obeyed, I supposed. Certainly there shouldn’t be a law requiring a child or adult to obey their parents; what if the parents are abusive people, or criminals, or worse… Christians! (I’m just kidding on that last).

Obviously, nothing in the Constitution or US Law is based on this, the Fifth, Commandment. We’re half way through the commandments and not one so far is a foundation of the United States or its laws.

The Ten Commandments and US Law: 4th Commandment

2011-01-23T12:07:00.002-06:00

4^th Commandment

Quote from the Bible

8. Remember the Sabbath day, and keep it holy.
9. Six days you shall labor and do all your work.
10. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work – you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.
11. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

My interpretation what it means

The message in this commandment is clear. God created the world in 6 days; creating all the stars, the sun and moon, the water and land, the plants and animals, and finally people in those six days. The seventh day (according to the Jewish tradition, if I have this correct, Friday at sun down through Saturday at sun down) was his day of rest. Because god rested on the seventh day, so then should humans and their working beasts (dogs, horses, oxen, and so on).

How it relates to US Law

It doesn’t. There are no laws that require people to rest on the seventh day. We do have laws that standardize what constitutes a work week, but these laws don’t mention not working the Sabbath.

Commentary

What is there to say? Nothing about the US Constitution or any of the national laws require citizens to rest on the seventh day, or any of the days. Many people work every day of the week (although probably not all in a row every week). You can go to a restaurant, shopping mall, watch television, listen to the radio, and do many things on any day of the week which means someone is working that day.

I have to say, if the foundation of this nation was the Ten Commandments we are off to a poor start.

The Ten Commandments and US Law: 3rd Commandment

2011-01-17T21:27:00.003-06:00

3^rd Commandment

Quote from the Bible

7. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

My interpretation what it means

This is more than about cursing. This is really about signing deals and swearing oaths (promises) that you don’t actually keep. You know the kind, “I swear to God it’s true!” or “I swear by God that it shall be done” type of oath, not that kind so many bleep on Radio and TV when someone curses (you shouldn’t do that either, but that isn’t breaking the third commandment). In the Third Commandment, God says don't break your promises which you made binding with the Name of the Lord.

A Christian marriage is an example of a contract sworn before God.

Don’t break those promises and oaths.

How it relates to US Law

It doesn’t! There isn’t anywhere in the US Constitution or US law that requires and oath before God to solemnize a contract. Contracts under US Law are solemnized before the US or State appointed officials, not priests (or other religious authorities).

Commentary

Under US Law, if you haven’t had your marriage certificate authenticated by the civil authorities, it is no more a marriage than two people living together. The state has recognized and allows people to choose who actually performs the ceremony, however. Just make sure it’s properly witnessed and filed with the civil authorities, too.

This commandment has nothing to do with US Law. Three down!

The Ten Commandments and US Law: 2nd Commandment

2011-01-09T20:02:00.007-06:00

2^nd Commandment

Quote from the Bible

4. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
6. but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation* of those who love me and keep my commandments. [or “to thousands”]

My interpretation what it means

This seems fairly straight forward. Don’t make idols to worship, neither of things in Heaven (presumably God or Angels, but also the stars and planets, clouds or whatever) nor of things of the earth (like people plants, animals, mountains, cars or homes) nor even things in the water (like fish, or sharks, or coral reefs or whatever). I’m going to guess that we shouldn’t make idols of things from the underworld either.

Just to show he means it, he notes that he will punish your kids and their kids and even their kids, if you don’t follow these commandments. And in case you do follow them, he’ll show his love even more so, unless they don’t follow the commandments. Then it’s back to punishment.

How it relates to US Law

It doesn’t. We have no laws about graven images of idols and the worship of such things. The same sections of the Constitution that apply to the first Commandment apply to the second.

Commentary

If your religion does require you to create an idol and worship it, that’s just fine under US Law (and in the Constitution). This commandment has nothing to do with US Law. That’s Two down!

The Ten Commandments and US Law: 1st Commandment

2011-01-05T19:06:00.001-06:00

1^st Commandment

Quote from the Bible

2. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
3. you shall have no other gods before* me. [or “besides”]

My interpretation what it means

These two verses set up the entirety of the faith. Of all the gods, only this Lord, God of Isreal, of Abraham, is to be worshipped. The wording implies in many places in the Bible that there may be other gods and supernatural beings of various sorts. Only this god, however, is the creator of all things (as described in Genesis) and only this god may be worshipped. Now, some take this a little further and assume he’s saying he’s the only god. For the sake of the rest of the commandments, we’ll allow that interpretation.

So, this means that the people Israel may only worship the god of Abraham.

How it relates to US Law

It doesn’t. There is nothing in US Law that says any of us must worship the god of Abraham. In fact, the highest law of the nation, the Constitution, says that the government of this nation may not tell us who or how to worship. There can be no test of religion as a condition of service in office.

Quoting from the Constitution: (Emphasis mine)

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Also:, and perhaps more familiar to my readers:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Commentary

The only mention of religion in the main proper of the Constitution is that it shall not be used as a qualification (or disqualification I should add) for office. The very first words of the very first Amendment tell us that Congress, the law making arm of the US Government, can make no laws that determine how people practice religion. I’d add "or how they don’t" – but that’s my addition and may be a touch controversial. Nowhere is it mentioned which god is The God. Very clearly, the 1^st Commandment is not a basis of US Law.

The Ten Commandments and US Law

2010-12-28T23:31:00.003-06:00

I hear a lot of theists claim that US Law is deeply based on the Ten Commandments. I want to examine that claim. To me the most obvious way to do that is to examine the Ten Commandments. Of course our first challenge is to determine which version to use. The choices are:

Exodus 20:2-17,
Exodus 34:12-26, and
Deuteronomy 5:6-21

Looking at these, I’m going to guess that the set at Exodus 20:2-17 is the one most people accept as THE Ten Commandments. I’ll need to chose a specific translation, too. For that I’m using my “The Harper Collins Study Bible.” I’ll take what I take to be a complete commandment as a unit, whether it is one verse or a few, and comment on what that particular Commandment means relative to US Law. In order to do that, I’ll set aside one post for each Commandment. This post is my overview.

The format for each of the observations will be in four parts:

Quote from the Bible
My interpretation what it means
How it relates to US Law
Commentary

Now, before I get into those, let me list the version that I will be using. The double dashes are paragraph breaks. For easier parsing I’m listing each verse on its own line:

Exodus 20 (starting from 1, to provide context)

1. Then God spoke all these words:

2. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;

3. you shall have no other gods before* me. [or “besides”]

4. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,

6. but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation* of those who love me and keep my commandments. [or “to thousands”]

7. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

8. Remember the Sabbath day, and keep it holy.

9. Six days you shall labor and do all your work.

10. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work – you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.

11. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

12. Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

13. You shall not murder*. [or “kill”]

14. You shall not commit adultery

15. You shall not steal.

16. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

17. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

(including 18-21 as I believe these also provide context)

18. When all the people witnessed the thunder and lightning, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking, they were afraid* and trembled and stood at a distance, [Sam Gk Syr Vg: MT “they saw”]

19. and said to Moses, “You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, or we will die.”

20. Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid; for God has come only to test you and to put the fear of him upon you so that you do not sin.”

21. Then the people stood at a distance, while Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was.

Hopefully, I managed that without serious typographical errors. In the next posts I will comment on each commandment as I understand them, their historical values and so on, and how they may or may not relate to US Law.

George Hrab on Christmas

2010-12-27T10:08:00.000-06:00

George is a critical thinker, skeptic, and atheist and he doesn't believe in Christmas, but loves it anyway. Here, let him tell you in his own words:

Can an Atheist Celebrate Christmas?

2010-12-23T19:10:00.001-06:00

Why are so many of my titles questions...? Just kidding.

First, let me point out that in the United States of America the day of December 25 is set aside as a Federal Holiday. That Holiday happens to be called Christmas. Now, the way Federal Holidays often work is that if the Holiday falls on a weekend, then the Feds celebrate on the previous or following week day (that is Friday or Monday). This year Christmas will be observed on Friday, December 24th, by the Government.

Now, because this day is set aside as a Federal Holiday by the Government, American atheists are by heritage of birth included in this day of observation. The whole country has the day off (sort of). It is a Federal Holiday and so while Christmas by definition began as a Christian Holiday, it has a secular meaning as well (in this case, a day off). Sadly, perhaps, I'll be working on December 24th anyway. Someone has to.

OK, that's one reason an atheist might observe Christmas in the United States. Could there be other reasons? Let's look at the legacy of the holiday and what it "means." (after the jump)

Many Christians rightly point out that Jesus is the reason for the holiday (they usually use the word Season, but that's stretching things a bit, I mean really, Jesus is the reason for winter?). In fact, hopefully, everyone recognizes that the first six characters "Christ" can have no other meaning. "Mas" as a suffix has a very specific meaning too, though that can be extended to secular events since it evolved from an Old English word for festivals or celebration. OK, that's a reason atheists might not observe Christmas. That seems contrary to my point. I publish that as a point to cede.

If that were the only thing Christmas Celebrates, it would not have become a National Holiday. Oh, and if you think the word Holiday, which stems from Holy Day, cannot be used for Secular purposes, think of Labor Day, Veterans Day, Presidents Day, Independence Day, or New Years Day. There are nine Federal holidays not associated with religious celebrations. Christmas being the exception that really is a Holy Day.

So what are we celebrating on Christmas Day? Well, I mean beside the Christ's brith (represented by the Nativity).

1) Gift Giving - Generosity of Spirit
2) Decorated Pine Trees - Proof that gods (well, Thor in the original case) don't exist
3) Caroling - Festive Songs
4) Feasting - Abundance
5) Peace and Goodwill toward Man
6) Brotherhood
7) Family

These seven items, and I'm sure you could think of more, don't seem to me to be limited to only Christians, or even only the religious. In fact, at many points in time, various sects of Christianity banned several of the features of our current Christmas Celebration.

Generosity is a common trait for atheists, despite what some in the media and blogosphere might think. The studies conducted might show that Christians give to charities more than atheists. But does that mean the atheists aren't giving? A very large number of atheists give their time, volunteering and doing - not just donating to charity. Atheists might tend to be wary of Christian charities, perhaps reducing the number of charitable choices. The image of an atheist as a Scrooge in wildly inaccurate. Atheists just don't expect to get brownie points in Heaven for giving and don't make a big show of doing so.

The bit about the decorated pine trees is a bit tongue in cheek on my part. Some time ago in Germany the Tree of Thor was cut down to prove a point. Somehow that evolved into the Christmas tradition of cutting down and decorating Christmas Trees. This particular tradition is only about 400 years old and really has nothing to do with anything in the bible or with the reason to celebrate Christmas. It's also notable that the use of plants and trees as a symbol of resurrection and rebirth predate Christianity.

Singing as a religious rite is also older than Christianity, and singing at a festival seems to be a tradition that began in the distant misty era before written history. Some religions even had their gods singing the universe into existence. Singing Christmas Carols is just another song at festival and cannot be considered a Christian only tradition. Not to mention many Christmas Carols are fairly secular.

Feasting also has a fairly long and wide history as a part and parcel of celebration, not just for religious events (which truth be told, religious hold somberness and fasting in higher regard). Feasting is a celebration of the plenty to come, the rebirth of the world in the coming spring, the end of the darkest days, and so on. The Solstice seems to bring out the hungry in people.

Peace and Goodwill? Surely you don't think these are strictly Christian Ideals. Yes there have been horrible atheists. There have been horrible Christians. Essentially, these were horrible humans and they happen. Atheists wish for a peaceful world as much as anyone else. Atheists wish for human rights for all, not just those that believe in our one special way.

Tell me if you think an atheist cannot celebrate brotherhood. It is the atheists that are more likely to believe we all came from a common ancestor with all life on this planet. Talk about brotherhood! We are all related, we are all brothers (and sisters and whatevers).

How about Family? Show me atheists that do not have any sort of familial lineage! A great number of philosophies around the world hold family in higher esteem than even Christians. Atheists however are more likely to extend the idea of family to those that also disagree with our philosophies.

Here's the thing. Many of the religious seem to enjoy painting atheists as some sort of clone of Mr. Spock, all logic and no humanity. The funny part is, the closest thing to a religion atheists have is Secular Humanism. It's all about humanity. It's all about our relationships and the high value placed on human life, human dignity and human rights. So, while the Religious Holiday of Christmas is truly a Christian thing, people need to realize there has become a secular holiday of Christmas (because that's what the government calls the holiday) that atheists also celebrate.

Atheists are humans, have feelings, laugh and cry. Atheists see beauty in a sunset and take joy in the birth of their children. They find wonder in the Universe and are awed by its grandeur. Atheists celebrate Christmas, at least the ones that were brought up with its traditions of excess and celebration.

Warming, Changing, Rising, whatever. It's no hoax.

2010-12-16T18:53:00.002-06:00

This little, or not so little, I suppose, comic deserves a look:

http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2010/12/climate-change.html

What is WebCam Astronomy?

2010-10-15T22:02:00.006-05:00

As the question probably suggests, WebCam Astronomy is capturing images of the sky using a web camera. A recent post to one of the groups I'm a member of has several samples of such work. In this case the results are all the more interesting because the images taken were done with a telescope that does not track the sky.

Many of you may be aware that most pictures of the night sky are taken with long exposures. If you know what, you may also be aware that the sky doesn't hold still for the camera - so telescopes that follow the sky are generally used.

In this particular case, the gentleman that took the images did so with a telescope that has no motors, no controls other than focus, and all around as basic a telescope as there is. This, reprinted with permission, is that image:

If this worked correctly, you can click the image to see it full sized. This image was taken with a basic, and apparently old, web camera.

If you're really paying attention, that is Jupiter and a few of its moons. Based on the name of the file, I'm assuming the image was taken on October 5, 2010 at 3:23 AM (OK, I asked - that is the time in Coordinated Universal Time).

I look forward to seeing more such images.

Don't Be A Dick - my second look

2010-08-24T22:15:00.000-05:00

I browsed more of the discussion at Phil's blog.

My only comment for everyone is that any group of people that won't take Pamela Gay or Kitty Mervine as they are and that makes them feel unwelcome is a group to which I don't not want to belong. I didn't actually tally the comments on the various sides of the issue, so this is off the cuff, but it appears a large bunch absolutely don't accept anyone as skeptical if they have any kind of faith in a deity of any sort.

That is a group I won't accept membership in.

Internet Meme: Skeptics Are Naturally Dicks

2010-08-23T04:31:00.000-05:00

If you've been following the latest internal feud between skeptics, you've seen Phil Plait's presentation "Don't Be a Dick (part 1)" (and two followups, part 2 and part 3).

I'm not going to rehash the arguments from either side. My choice here is a bit of snark.

I'm coining a new Internet Meme: Sand's Law:

Skeptics Are Naturally Dicks
No matter how cranky and dick-like a non-skeptic claims a skeptic has been there are real skeptics that are worse. You will also find that skeptics are so used to being dicks that they can't tell when they're doing it. But just in case, they will go on to argue that being a dick is necessary anyway.

You don't have to take my word for it, just read any forum or blog where skeptics post.

Ten Questions for Evolutionists.... answered

2010-07-31T00:46:00.001-05:00

The Kent Hovind blog, run by his son, Eric (I think), has a list of ten questions that I put in my hand at trying to answer. So far my comment hasn't posted, it may be too long, or just still awaiting moderation, or it may never show up. So, in that vein, I'm posting it here. Just follow the jump!

10 Questions to Ask Evolutionists:

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

Non sequitur. The Theory of Evolution and the creation of matter are separate lines of research. You might as well ask the milkman how many grains of sand are buried under the ice of Antarctica. Ask a big-bang-onist.

2. Where did matter come from?

Non sequitur. The Theory of Evolution and the creation of matter are separate lines of research. You might as well ask the banker how the weather on the moon Titan is today. Ask a big-bang-onist.

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

Non sequitur. The Theory of Evolution and the creation of matter are separate lines of research. You might as well ask the Nascar racer how the endocrine system works. Ask a big-bang-onist.

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Non sequitur. The Theory of Evolution and the creation of matter are separate lines of research. You might as well ask the infant in ICU how to make French Toast. Ask a big-bang-onist.

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

Non sequitur. The Theory of Evolution and the creation of matter are separate lines of research. You might as well ask the stuffed toy puppy on my daughters bed why 6:00 AM comes so early. Ask a big-bang-onist.

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

Almost not a non sequitur ... but the theory of evolution doesn't concern itself with the first life form, but with descent with modification. You might ask an A-biogenesis-onist.

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

Almost not a non sequitur ... but the theory of evolution doesn't concern itself with the first life form, but with descent with modification. You might ask an A-biogenesis-onist.

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

First understand that sexual reproduction and asexual reproduction are not mutually exclusive, and then note that asexual reproduction of an organism capable of sexual reproduction will create more organisms also so capable so that at any point after that, it is not problematic. It takes little imagination to understand something so simple.

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain the origin of reproduction?)

Perhaps it wasn't a driving force a few billion years ago and most organisms just split when the time was appropriate for them to reproduce. These creatures, plants and things had no nervous systems to "want" to do anything. You're anthropomorphizing too much. They performed whatever functions were necessary, at any given moment, in response to the appropriate external or internal stimuli. Over time, those species that were more prone to reproduce probably (though it's no sure thing) gain larger populations than those that were not - one measure of success. When the first cute couples of organisms were reproducing sexually the same dynamic would exist. Organisms more likely to reproduce more often will likely have the larger populations. Because of competition for resources, the populations that are larger will have more surviving offspring. With time, the creatures with the strongest drive to procreate dominate.

Now, after all the eons, life forms reproduce with great fecundity, often whether they “want to” or not.

The only way around making babies and still existing now is to live forever. Seems like reproduction has the edge over immortality on that.

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

The interesting thing about your analogy is that by recombining letters, even though all in English, I can create stories for children, stories about wizards, stories about scientists, stories about cowboys, stories about news paper editors, stories about silly high school teachers, stories about, well anything you can imagine. Also, they don't all have to be stories, they can be poems, songs, novels, novellas, documentaries, encyclopedias, scriptures, instructions, technical manuals, and any category of literature.

So, with the same few letters, we can have Shakespeare and Chaucer, Saint Paul and Richard Dawkins, and any style of document you can think of, and many more you can't.

Also, DNA isn't really an alphabet, although that is a popular analogy. It's a framework, and instruction set, and machine, and a machine reader, and a slew of other things as well. DNA is like a book that can read and write itself, repair itself, construct other books, consume and liberate energy, and build its own library in the same process.

Of your ten questions, seven are not proper questions for an evolutionist, and the remaining three are fairly simple.

Now, as for the first seven:

1. There likely has always been something. Of course, the problem with the word always is that it implies some sort of measure of time. Before (another word implying time) the instant that we call the big bang (perhaps it's really the big oomph) there would be no such thing as time as we know it. We also don't know what was, what existed, the instant the big bang began. It isn't a problem to admit we don't know something. It also isn't a problem to admit we might never know that something. That doesn't stop us from speculating and trying to find out. Scientists that study cosmology have a pretty good idea what the Universe was like only moments after the first instant. But you'll have to ask a cosmologist for a more detailed description and answer for number 1.

2. Same answer, essentially, as for number 1. Ask a cosmologist for the details, but likely there has always been a something that once the Universe got rolling eventually became matter.

3. This is a question of much debate, as far as I know. We might never know. But ask a cosmologist - they are the ones that study this question.

4. I would not call matter perfectly organized! You will have to state your question differently, I think. Ask a cosmologist, perhaps they'll understand what you mean and won't laugh at you for asking.

5. Perhaps you missed the bit about the early Universe being many millions of degrees - that's a tremendous amount of energy. It's still there now, too. There just isn’t nearly as much heat in any one spot.

6. I don't know. And that doesn't bother me. What I am sure of is that what we consider life now and what would have been successful when nothing else lived must be vastly different. There are a great many models proposed, but no one really knows when or where the first life happened. Likely, it had to happen for the "first" time many times before a successful unbroken chain that leads to us began.

7. Same answer, basically, as for number six. No one knows, no one can sit down and say "November 11th, 3,490,021,005 BCE the first life form sprang forth." What we do know is it must have because here we are. Those of us that can rightfully be considered evolutionists don't worry about this question specifically, we worry about how descent with modification works. We let the folks that study abiogenesis worry about that first day of life.

That wasn't so hard.

Draw Muhammad Day

2010-05-19T23:30:00.000-05:00

You say Islam is a religion of peace? Prove it.

Pharyngula Clone: Christopher Maloney is still a quack

2010-05-05T00:53:00.001-05:00

Funny, the blogging software suggested that headline when I started typing Pharyngula... so I went with it.

I'm responding to a post on the Pharyngula blog about Christopher Maloney still being a quack. Maloney put a post on his own web site warning about Pharyngula. In this post he manages to get many things wrong. This should not be surprising considering how much else he gets wrong. I'll direct you to his page so as to not infringe on his copyright. He starts:

Paragraph 1: The infamous PZ Myers asked those ...

PZ probably did make such a request to spread the message. The rest of the paragraph is woefully wrong. The freshman isn't a freshman. And the endless thread isn't the reason for the blogs popularity, it's a response to the popularity.

Technically, a clone site would only echo what PZ blogs. Most of these alleged clones offer other commentary too. However, agreeing with PZ is likely to occur for people who see the world as it really is and not how people like Maloney wish is were.

Paragraph 2: When PZ Myers was questioned, ...

The retraction was a correction since we discovered that we were wrong about who got the site pulled down. It didn't change our opinion that Maloney is a quack. Dr. Novella is perfectly capable of acting, and generally does act, without regard to PZ Myers' opinion. Strangely, as people who view the world as it really is and not some fantasy they wish to see, they often agree. It never ceases to amaze me how that works

Paragraph 3: As of early March, I seem to have been unspankable. ...

I'm not sure what Maloney means by unspankable. I haven't read that thread, so I'll leave it to Dr. Novella to defend his own honor.

Paragraph 4: The entire episode has left me with no respect for the skeptic ...

Considering the level of respect Maloney shows for reality in general, I suspect he never had any degree of respect for skeptics. I have to ask Maloney, what medical studies? I haven't seen any that provide a single shred of evidence that you are right and all of medical science is wrong. That they can so easily tear down the "studies" presented must tell you something about the quality of the studies. But then I forget, you don't see the real world, do you Maloney, you see the one you wish we lived in, where magic does work. You so quickly dismiss these skeptics whose ideas really are based on scientific inquiry yet seem to have no real understanding of science yourself.

Pat yourself on the back, you've convinced me... you're still a quack.

Some religions...

2010-04-22T01:17:00.000-05:00

I was thinking today, based on discussion of a new South Park episode. If a religion is unable to face criticism, that religion is unworthy of respect. If that religion, then, not getting respect begins to riot and cause bloodshed, then it not only does not deserve respect, it deserves derision. Any religion that attempts to outlaw criticism deserves the harshest of criticism.

I do not apologize for my attitude. I think my attitude is rational and carefully thought out. If your religion is a religion of peace, then be peaceful. If your religion is about love, then be loving. If your religion is about enlightenment, then be enlightened. Do not suffer the radicals that claim to share your faith gladly, but speak out against their actions.

I am a bright. I bring light. I am a candle in the dark. Please, join me in bringing enlightenment to a darkened world.

If you believe I have just insulted your religion, I probably have, or perhaps you are doing it wrong (see paragraph two above).

Peace, Love, and Understanding.

Did the Climate Scientists Do Anything Wrong?

2010-04-15T00:39:00.001-05:00

OK, my headline is a bit too general...

Did they falsify the data and manipulate it to make it say what it really doesn't? No.

Read THIS PDF Report by independent investigators.

They have four conclusions:
1) They saw no evidence of scientific malpractice.
2) They advise including real statisticians for analyzing the statistics
3) That certain governmental policies restricted access to the data, not the scientists
4) There are unresolved questions as to if the scientists could legally respond to the freedom of information requests and that it is more appropriate for the original collectors of the data to do so.

The report doesn't say there was nothing wrong - but rather that the scientists did not distort the data (at least not on purpose), and that there are many things left still unresolved.

The main point is that the impact to climate science is negligible. The world is getting warmer, and humans are a significant factor.

One Sky. One Earth

2010-04-06T09:20:00.000-05:00

I heard a nice quote in the Online Messier Marathon. This is Global Astronomy Month (April 2010) and we were all linked in a live video chat (well, our astronomer friend Gianluca Masi was on video, we observed and joined the text chat) running a Messier Marathon. I think we saw more than 100 of the objects - though I'm still waiting for the official count and photos.

Anyway, the statement was made that the marathon was proof that we all, the people of Earth, as there were representatives of a great many countries around the world, and certainly from every "corner" of the planet, share one Earth, under one sky. So that's my new catch phrase. "One Sky. One Earth." Fievel ("An American Tail) said it well.

And when the night wind starts to sing a lonesome lullaby
It helps to think we're sleeping underneath the same big sky

These are a snippet of the lyrics from "Somewhere Out There." He takes comfort that he and his lost friends share the same big sky. As do we all.

One Sky. One Earth.

Republican Party Jumps the Shark

2010-03-25T21:40:00.004-05:00

I need a twelve step program...

Here it is:

"Hello, everyone. I'm Sand's Spot, a blogger, and I'm... <breaks down>

<... regains composure...>

I'm a ... <breaks down again, begins sobbing>

I'm a republican."<sighs deeply and continues sobbing>

From the group: "Hi, Sandy."

OK, I should now admit, I'm a recovering Republican. I'm leaving the party because I believe the party has "Jumped the Shark" - here's my evidence:

Mainstream republican candidates are vowing to fight the just passed health care bill, calling it, in a blatant lie, a government take over of the US health care system. It is demonstrably and clearly not so.
A large number of Republicans say they believe the Christian man we call President is a Muslim. My WTF meter just exploded.
A surprising number of Republicans think this Constitutional Scholar, the one we elected democratically, is a Socialist. The real socialists are laughing now, they likely can't tell the difference between a Republican or a Democrat based on ideology (Democrats and Republicans are much closer ideologically than either is to any type of socialist.)
One quarter of all Republicans believe President Obama is the Anti-Christ. Never mind that there will never be such a person, and many worse men have applied for that position, President Obama is clearly no sort of Religious Icon, certainly not the Anti-Christ.
Almost half of all Republicans believe the birther argument that Obama can not be President because he was not born in the United States. When the state of Hawaii produced the document that state uses to document births, the birthers complain that it is not a certification of live birth. News to the birthers, I do not have a certificate of live birth either. They state I was born in doesn't issue them. Yet I am fully a United States Citizen with all the rights, including being POTUS (not that I have any desire for that job - I've seen the job and I don't want it).
An amazing number of official Republicans (that is, party officials) seem to be advocating violence or at the very least are allowing the advocating of violence.
The extreme racist overtones that are becoming apparent in the party rhetoric lately.

This is only the tip of the iceberg, too. So, that's it, I'm done (stick a fork in me?). I hereby renounce my affiliation with the Republican Party. In their race to the Right, they've left me, and many more like me, behind.

Now, a look at these points might remind my readers of the Tea Party talking points. The Republicans seem to have adopted them. I have no fondness for either group.

They are both racist, homophobic, anti-American, and insane groups of people. They likely hate me and what I stand for, and I must admit, I have no love for them.

Lying Via Poll - the Republicans

2010-03-01T17:52:00.001-06:00

So, I got a questionnaire from the Republican party. I was dumbstruck by the questions. There were a dozen or so questions and each could be essentially boiled down to:

Q: Do you agree with President Obama's plans to deconstruct the Constitution of the United States?
a) Sure, let's destroy the country
b) Not on your life
c) I don't know.

Now, the problem is: President Obama has no plans to dismantle the Constitution. On nearly every question, I could not honestly answer given the choice of answers. They left off the two I might prefer (depending on the question):

d) I agree with the President because he has a good idea, and he isn't going to destroy the country.
e) I disagree with the President, but he isn't destroying the country.

The questionnaire was so dishonest and evil incarnate that I had to rip it up and throw it away. The Republicans might wonder why they aren't getting as many contributions as they used to. This kind of dishonest stunt is part of their answer. They've left the middle and moderates behind in their quest to be as far right as the nuttiest of the nut-bags.

They also call the house a lot looking for donations, send dire warnings by email of the evil leftist take over underway, and generally bombard me with stupidity.

No - I won't donate to any Republican candidate, not until (or if) the party swings back far enough left to include the middle.
No - I don't believe any of the dire warnings the Republicans send out, they are obvious in their dishonesty and might as well have been written by Fox News (and is the greater reason I've left the party).
Finally, no, I don't plan to vote along Republican party lines anytime soon.

I have a hard time seeing myself voting for the left wing - but at the moment I'll lean toward the left just to avoid the overt religiosity, willful ignorance, and anti-intelligence of the right.

This brings me to the problem I see with the two extremes as they view moderates:

I might be middle of the road and a moderate, but I am not a fence sitter. I do have opinions on the issues and am not waiting for one side or the other to provide a convincing argument for me to join their side. Until the Republican Overton Window returns to reality, I will continue to vote against the Republican agenda.

This Guy Gets IT

2010-02-26T01:04:00.000-06:00

I ran across a post today that makes me feel a little better. This guy gets it. Well, he confuses Independents with Centrists. Centrists might be independents, Republicans, Democrats, or something else. And Independents might be Right Wings, Left Wing, or Centrists. But all his arguments about those of us in the middle ring true, despite the misplaced Independent label.

Go have a read:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/24/avlon.independent.voters/index.html

Attack of the Naturopaths

2010-02-18T21:41:00.002-06:00

First, and for the record, a Naturopath is not a medical doctor - they are not physicians. Don't let any Naturopathic Doctors tell you otherwise. They practice an extremely low end medicine that barely counts as medicine. What they practice is very similar to how doctors practiced in, oh say, the 1800s. We've learned a little bit about the human body since then. A lot in fact.

If you followed the story of my previous post, you heard about Michael Hawkins and how his web site was shut down by Christopher Maloney. It turns out it wasn't by Maloney. It was still because of him, though. Andreas Moritz had WordPress shut down Michael Hawkins web page. He sent a note to WordPress supposedly proving Maloney is a doctor (Maloney is licensed by the state of Maine as a Naturopathic Doctor). The problem is, the term doctor as heard by the general populace implies a medical doctor, an MD and all the training and science implied therein. What Maloney is required to do, when presenting himself as a doctor is to make clear he is a Doctor of Naturopathy - which is little more than folk medicine. This is barely better than being a lay-person, in my book.

A little investigation reveals that Moritz is an even bigger quack than Maloney. He is truly a dangerous person. Following his advice is not advised. He also seems to enjoy threatening people into submission and retreat. Rich people can do that to those of us with modest incomes. The problem here, is that he claims saying that Maloney isn't a doctor is libel. It's true in the broad sense of the term doctor. In this case, a narrower definition of doctor must apply. We are not talking doctors of mathematics or chemistry. We are talking about medical doctors - people we rely on to give us good advice for our health. Maloney is not such a doctor. Neither is Moritz, for that matter. Don't trust either of them. Always, ALWAYS, get a second opinion from a real medical doctor for anything they advise.

Christopher Maloney is a quack

2010-02-18T08:49:00.002-06:00

[Update: Turns out it wasn't Maloney, but another quack that shut down Hawkins' WordPress page]

I want to point you to Pharyngula, the blog by PZ Myers.

Apparently a doctor of Naturopathy,
Maloney is full of baloney.
Michael Hawkins criticized the doc
A quack with a head shaped like a block
So Maloney called WordPress,
A blogging host we could call worthless,

To shut down young Hawkins blog
Because his opinion makes his arteries clog
Now we skeptics will spread the word
"Maloney is a quack, and give Wordpress the bird."

Abortion is Legal

2010-02-12T22:10:00.000-06:00

In most cases, it is also morally valid.

Yeah, I said it.

I've been thinking about this because of recent anti-abortion activities, like the trial of Scott Roeder, like the commercial in the Superbowl, and other things. I've done my research, soul searching, and thinking. I have some things to say.

I do have issues with late term abortions as a class. I would hope that decision would not be put off until that point and then carried through. That said, I am pro-choice. I have more to say, too.

I've studied the arguments by the anti-abortionists. Their arguments are largely religious and have no place in a secular discourse.

What I mean is that their religion and mine are not the same, the only common ground is secular law and philosophy. What is moral and right in their religion (such as killing your neighbor to steal, I mean acquire their (promised) land), is not moral and right in mine. The laws that your god prescribes are not the laws I must abide. The laws of the United States say abortion is legal. While that doesn't make it moral, it does protect the women seeking abortion from prosecution.

When I say the arguments are against abortion are religious, I have a few observations about that and about the religion people pushing their agendas. They are evil (just like Scott Roeder).

Taking away the choice of abortion by definition relegates women to second class status (men don't face carrying a bowling ball in their belly and passing it to the world through their vagina at the end, so don't need the choice to abort).
Forcing a woman to carry the fetus to term will sometimes catastrophically affect her career and other life choices.
The anti-abortionists claim that the woman could always give the child up for adoption. Meanwhile, roughly a year of the woman's life is gone, her body will never be the same.
They generally equate all abortions to the late term abortion, as if humans acquire a soul at conception.

From these observations, I realize that the religious do not think of women as human, at least not fully. They consider women as property, chattel, possessions of men. They should walk two steps behind, obey and worship the men in their lives, shut up and walk barefoot through the world, faces covered in veils, bearing as many children as possible. Yes, I honestly believe the religious of the world see women this way, even if they no longer say so out loud (actually some of them do still say so out loud).

Here's some further thoughts, the majority of conception ends in spontaneous abortion, perhaps more than 60 percent of conceptions end before week twelve, naturally. By comparison, induced abortion ends perhaps 20 to 25 percent of conceptions. Nature (some might say god) leads by a large margin.

Getting an abortion is already a difficult choice. The religious want to make it an impossible choice. They apparently prefer the days of the back-alley abortion. The rate of abortion hasn't really increased since it became legal in the USA, it just became safer (and more widely reported - you don't typically report doing something illegal, do you).

Final thought, these same people that oppose abortion typically also oppose contraception. Still don't believe the religious consider women less than human? People wonder why I abandoned Christianity - this is one reason.

Darwin Day

2010-02-11T21:46:00.000-06:00

And now, a message from our sponsor....

OK, not really. But I do want to wish everyone a great, wonderful, intellectually stimulating, Darwin Day.

Cheers!

So, Science is a Pot Luck Dinner...

2010-02-08T14:46:00.001-06:00

PZ Myers recently blogged about a dialog, if you can call it that, with a creationist in Belfast on his trip to Ireland. PZ's main point is that science isn't about excluding creationism, but that creationists aren't bringing anything to science. The Creationists are self excluding.

That brought to my mind an analogy. Surprisingly (ha ha) it involves food.

Think of science as a pot luck dinner. I'll call the participants of the dinner Pot Luckists. All the Pot Luckists bring their own dish to share with the rest of the attendants. Each dish is a specialty of that Pot Luckist and they've spent quite a bit of time and effort making sure it's tasty and nutritious. The only requirement to attend the dinner is that you bring your own dish to the buffet to share with everyone else.

Now, the creationists show up. They have a really pretty box which they say has their dish in it. On the outside of the box is a list of the benefits of their dish, the nutrition values, the health benefits, and so on. They explain for hours how great their dish is and how everyone ought to eat of it. When it comes time to eat, however, they refuse to actually open the box so the rest can see what they brought. In fact, while they eat from all the other dishes (dishes from computer science, weather sciences, medical sciences, energy science, agricultural science, etc.) they don't offer anything of their own. They claim, in fact, that bits and pieces of these other dishes were actually prepared by them and given to the other participants so they could prepare their dishes.

Every time the ingredients for the other dishes are checked they turn out to be fully separate offerings and not from the creationist preparations, or perhaps are incidental at best. Meanwhile, the box the creationists brought still sits unopened. When the other participants ask to see the contents, the creationists exclaim loudly that they will not be excluded, that no one can keep them from opening their box and sharing it with the world. The other participants look on perplexed since that is exactly what they ask, that the creationists open their box and share the contents. Each offer to help open the box is rebuffed with yet more exclamations that they will not be prevented from presenting their dish and that the other participants are all in collusion to prevent them from opening their box.

Pretty soon, the other participants begin to suspect that the box, after all, is empty. The creationists continue shouting that the Pot Luckists are all out to prevent the creationists from sharing their dish at the table. They begin to announce that they will introduce legislation to have every school lunch program include, at full cost to the school system, the empty boxes on every school child's plate so that the school children can see that the Pot Luckers aren't the only ones that have food. Except the boxes can't be opened.

Now, go back and change Pot Luckists with scientists. Change the School Lunch program with the science curriculum and dishes for actual science results.

Science offers real mental nutrition. Creationists just have their empty box, er, I mean book.

Mayor of Las Vegas Needs Thicker Skin

2010-02-03T18:45:00.000-06:00

President Obama has at least twice used Las Vegas as an example of where people often wastefully spend, or even gamble, their money. The context he used was in how the executives from the companies recently bailed out on the back of the tax payers checkbook ought not be wastefully spending that money. He made reference of Las Vegas as a place where such an activity takes place.

The mayor of Las Vegas strenuously objected to Las Vegas being used as such an example.

I've got news for the mayor. That is how many of the people of the United States, perhaps most, view Las Vegas. Many of the people I know, when planning a visit to said city, call it "Lost Wages." So, the home of the Quickie Wedding (and quickies of many sorts, I'm sure), of cheesy lounge acts, mass quantities of money lost to gambling, liquor, sex, and entertainments of various sorts, has a reputation that lends itself to such comparisons. No amount of protest by the mayor can change that. It is what it is.

What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.

Perhaps, not anymore.

Mike Adams Might be a Liar

2010-01-30T21:25:00.002-06:00

Mike Adams , aka Health Ranger posted, what in my opinion is, an absurd rant on his blog.

I'm going to disect his rant so you can see just how absurd he, or at least his rant is.

Quoting from his "NaturalNews"

In the world of medicine, "skeptics" claim to be the sole protectors of intellectual truth.

Not true. However, we sometimes feel that way. Mike Adams makes this fraudulent claim because he doesn't like that some skeptics are calling him out as a fraud. We have evidence on our side that what he is dishing out is false. I don't know whether he knows that his health advice is often bad. But it is.

Everyone who disagrees with them is just a quack, they insist.

Not true. Only the purveyors of known misinformation are quacks. The evidence is readily available, so there is no excuse for Mike Adams to not know much of what he touts is useless and sometimes even harmful. He apparently chooses to not believe the evidence before him.

Briefly stated, "skeptics" are in favor of vaccines, mammograms, pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy.

True, actually. Vaccines, mammograms, many pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy have proven effective. Not all pharmaceuticals are good, and all courses of medication should be considered carefully before use. That said, the positive effects from the use of many vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and chemotherapy far outweigh the negative effects.

They are opponents of nutritional supplements, herbal medicine, chiropractic care, massage therapy, energy medicine, homeopathy, prayer and therapeutic touch.

Partially true. Nutritional supplements have a valid place in the diets for many people. Herbal medicine that has proven effective is called medicine. Chiropractic, massage therapy, energy medicine, homeopathy, prayer, and therapeutic touch, however, have not proven effective, and in some cases may be harmful. Here's the thing, there is no such thing as energy therapy. There is a sham treatment that the quacks that practice it call energy therapy. Homeopathy has absolutely no evidence that it's any more effective than taking sugar as medicine. Chiropractic has very limited useful applications, and prayer is just silly and doesn't work at all, and the people that know they are being prayed for may actually do worse. Message does have a use, but not for the curing of disease. Therapeutic touch is just as silly as prayer.

More after the break

But there's much more that you need to know about "skeptics."

He is apparently setting you up for more lies.

As you'll see below, they themselves admit they have no consciousness and that there is no such thing as a soul, a spirit or a higher power.

The bit about there being no soul, spirit or higher power is sometimes true. Many skeptics are atheists and really do hold such opinions. However, not having a conscience or consciousness is obviously hyperbole, or perhaps he is outright lying, I can't tell. Skeptics are every bit as conscious as any person, and certainly have as good a moral conscience as anyone. We don't rely on an imaginary deity to provide our moral compass but have actually developed one the same way as everyone else: from our parents, our friends, and our society. There is no god, so there can be no god given morals. Even the religious do not have god given morals - they are derived from the laws of men, from interactions with other people - families and friends, teachers and such.

There is no life after death.

True. We do not believe there is life after death. This one, precious life is all we get. It's one time around and that's it. We better get it right this time around, there is no second chance.

In fact, there's not much life in life when you're a skeptic.

Not true. Every second is precious when you realize those seconds are the only ones you'll ever get. Once you've wasted your life and you die, then you could say there isn't much life in the afterlife.

What skeptics really believe

Here he is apparently setting you up for more lies.

I thought it would be interesting to find out exactly what "skeptics" actually believe, so I did a little research and pulled this information from various "skeptic" websites.

Actually, what he is about to present appears to have been made up entirely from his own mind, from whole cloth and without reference to any real skeptical websites.

What I found will make you crack up laughing so hard that your abs will be sore for a week.

You should be warned that he has misrepresented the skeptical positions that follow, so any laughter or derision should be directed at Mr. Adams.

Take a look...

Actually, this is good advice, but don't look only at what he writes, take a real look at real skeptical websites. Be prepared, however, for many, nothing is sacred, and that will include your god.

• Skeptics believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective (even if they've never been tested),

Not true. Not in the least. Yes, many vaccines are safe. However, any claim that we uncritically accept all vaccines as safe must be a bald face lie. We accept those that have been proven safe. The others we demand they be tested and proven safe before general use.

that ALL people should be vaccinated, even against their will,

Not true. No person should be vaccinated against their will. If they work in positions where they may infect vulnerable people (such as me), however, then I suggest they rethink their career choice. Also, not every person can safely receive vaccinations. These people quite obviously should not receive vaccinations. The CDC has explicit guidelines about this and they give several examples of who should not receive various vaccinations.

and that there is NO LIMIT to the number of vaccines a person can be safely given.

Not true. Not even Dr. Offit has said such a thing. However, the implication that our current schedule of vaccinations is close to any kind of risky level is false. The current schedule for all vaccinations a person would receive in their entire lifetimes does not present even as much exposure to risk as an infant receives in a day or two of crawling around on a scrupulously clean floor. What a vaccine does is target very specific and dangerous diseases to build the human immune systems defenses against. The vast majority of what that infant meets in their day to day play on the floor is benign, and much of what isn't, even an infant can deal with. Vaccines provide protection against diseases that have been proven to cause harm. But the idea that skeptics think that the human could receive unlimited exposure is ludicrous - and likely a lie.

So injecting all children with, for example, 900 vaccines all at the same time is believed to be perfectly safe and "good for your health."

Not true. No skeptic I know holds such beliefs.

• Skeptics believe that fluoride chemicals derived from the scrubbers of coal-fired power plants are really good for human health.

Do you know where that malicious chemical, di-hydrogen monoxide, that you come in to daily contact comes from? The original source of the fluoride is nearly irrelevant as by the time it's put in your drinking water and tooth paste, it has been purified and controlled so that all previous exposures are moot.

They're so good, in fact, that they should be dumped into the water supply so that everyone is forced to drink those chemicals, regardless of their current level of exposure to fluoride from other sources.

Actually, very careful studies have been done to understand just what levels are appropriate. The levels are amazingly tiny. They are intended to provide the bare minimum necessary to provide benefit. Anyone telling you otherwise likely has a wide range of phony health products they wish to sell you that are even more harmful. But they try to scare you about what "big science" is doing so that they seem reasonable in comparison. They are not.

• Skeptics believe that many six-month-old infants need antidepressant drugs.

He's going to have to dredge up references for this - I don't believe that for a minute. There is no reason to give antidepressants to infants. He's likely lying about this. Very likely.

In fact, they believe that people of all ages can be safely given an unlimited number of drugs all at the same time: Antidepressants, cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs, diabetes drugs, anti-anxiety drugs, sleeping drugs and more -- simultaneously!

Absolute malarkey. No sane person, no rational person, no scientifically based person, would hold such an opinion! He has to be so lying about this that I'm surprised his heart didn't explode. Any competent doctor will want to know all of the drugs you are taking so that they can avoid prescribing more than you can safely have administered, and avoid any that are contradictory. In fact, anyone that reads that claim by Mr. Adams should see that on the face of it this cannot be true. He must be lying.

• Skeptics believe that the human body has no ability to defend itself against invading microorganism and that the only things that can save people from viral infections are vaccines.

Either Mike Adams has no clue about how vaccines work or he is lying his pants off. The way a vaccine works is by triggering that very human immune system Mr. Adams claims we don't believe exists into building an immunity. The point of the vaccine is to protect those with a weak immune system (like me), the very young, and the very old. Also, many of the diseases we are protecting against are devastating even when they don't kill you. Polio is horrible. Measles, Mumps, and Rubella can have dire effects as well. We vaccinate against these because they have a long and well documented history of causing misery. Any claims that the healthy have nothing to fear is a bald falsehood.

• Skeptics believe that pregnancy is a disease and childbirth is a medical crisis.

Not true. Well, for some women, pregnancy and childbirth can be dangerous - there are many well documented cases in most family trees of family members dying in childbirth. However, pregnancy is an essential part of being human, of maintaining the species. We just think it's safer if someone competent is involved to protect both the woman and the fetus.

(They are opponents of natural childbirth.)

Not true. However, we do believe that assisted childbirth and even surgical delivery are valid options if they become necessary.

• Skeptics do not believe in hypnosis.

Hypnosis is a well documented state of heightened suggestibility. However, it is nothing more than that.

This is especially hilarious since they are all prime examples of people who are easily hypnotized by mainstream influences.

I bet Mr. Adams has no references to prove this. In fact, I'd suggest that he is the more susceptible. We recognize mainstream influences for what they are and the effects they have on us. What is truly sad is how many people fall for Mr. Adams health claims with no proof or evidence to back them up. They take the claims entirely on faith. That is pure hypnosis.

• Skeptics believe that there is no such thing as human consciousness.

Not true. Many skeptics don't believe in free will - but that is not a uniform opinion. Define what you consider human consciousness and I'll tell you if I believe that definition. I'll tell you what I consider it. Human consciousness is the ability of a human to consider their actions, to consider the consequences, the knowledge that we will one day die, and in the case of a skeptic, that once we are dead, we are done. Consciousness is that part of our mind that processes our options and supplies our choices. We very much believe in human consciousness and wish more humans would use theirs.

They do not believe in the mind;

Not true. However, we do not believe in duality. We believe that the mind is an emergent property of and stems from the human brain.

only in the physical brain.

Not true. that would be like believing in only the CPU and not the software.

In fact, skeptics believe that they themselves are mindless automatons who have no free will,

Not true. At least not for all skeptics. In fact, the worst case, they consider themselves (and you) mindful automatons, and that free will is an illusion. That is hardly a universal belief. I believe it is true there are a great many things we don't have control over in our lives. I cannot choose to live without food, for example. Why then, would it be hard to believe that there are some mental responses we do not have control over. If I push you out of a perfectly good airplane at 6000 feet and you've never sky dived before, there is a very, very high likelihood you will let out a scream - and you'll have no control over that. There are other things, like what will I wear today, where you do have a choice, but how do you make that choice? How do you know that given that exact moment all over again you could make a different choice with all else being the same. That is what those skeptics that do not believe we have free will mean. However, I don't think all skeptics are on board with that.

no soul

True. Many skeptics, though I'm sure there are some that might disagree, do not believe in the soul. What proof do you have that you have one? Why can't what ever it is you attribute to your soul actually be your mind. Because that's where I attribute any such things that I suspect people consider soul.

and no consciousness whatsoever.

Not true, as I've already noted.

• Skeptics believe that DEAD foods have exactly the same nutritional properties as LIVING foods (hilarious!).

Um, how do you classify a dead food? Very much all food that arrives on my table is dead by the time it gets there. Even the vegetables, usually. I prefer mine raw. Should I eat the plants while they are still on the stalk, then? That is the only time I'd consider them still alive. Yes, I know, I'm carrying this a bit too far, I know perfectly well what he really means. And if he believes in supplements, then he believes in dead food. Period. How do you think they make the supplements.

• Skeptics believe that pesticides on the crops are safe,

True to a degree. However, we also admit that there are consequences to using pesticides. The idea is to use only as much of something as needed and no more. Western farming is amazing in its ability to produce crops because of pesticide. That doesn't mean there aren't downsides, too. This isn't a black and white, one side is absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong issue. There is most definitely a space between. If you want to feed the teaming billions of people on this planet, you're going to have to deal with pesticides. Or die of starvation.

genetically modified foods are safe,

The GM foods that have been tested and proven safe, yes; the others, no. We do not prejudge our science, but actually wait for the results. In this case, for most GM foods, the results are in, and the foods are as safe as the non-GM foods. Also, just as a side note, humans have been engineering their food for centuries. Only now can we do so with accuracy and precision.

and that any chemical food additive approved by the FDA is also safe.

True. Here's the funny thing, the FDA says they are safe, for the most part, because the additives have not been shown to be unsafe. However, we reserve the right to change our minds should we find evidence to prove otherwise. You'll note that the FDA has prevented things it considers unsafe from being labeled safe. And as a side note, most health supplements such as those pushed by Mr. Adams have bypassed FDA approval and are sold regardless. I'd be worried about that if I were you. They aren't safe just because they are natural, or have you never heard of natural poisons.

There is no advantage to buying organic food, they claim.

There is mixed science on this. Many organic foods have absolutely no additional nutritional benefits compared to foods that are grown any other way. They also tend to be more expensive and therefore harder for the poor to afford, and also require more land and more resources to produce (that is, they are less green - irony, that).

• Skeptics believe that water has no role in human health other than basic hydration.

Not true. At least, not the way he means it. Hydration is life. Without hydration, you have no life. Nearly every process in the body requires water.

Water is inert, they say, and the water your toilet is identical to water from a natural spring (assuming the chemical composition is the same, anyway).

Not true. Water is far from inert. It is THE universal solvent. That is light-eons away from inert. However, a pure sample of H20 is a pure sample of H20 regardless where it came from. But!!! The water in a natural spring and the water in your toilet are far from pure. Therefore, at that point, they are far from identical. And... I should note, most water around the world that finds itself in a toilet likely started out in a spring, and the water in spring may have passed through a toilet or two during it's existence.

• Skeptics believe that all the phytochemicals and nutrients found in ALL plants are inert,

Not true. Mr. Adams would have to be functionally brain dead to honestly believe any skeptic believes that. They only conclusion I can draw is he is purposely lying. There can be no web site from any skeptic anywhere in the world that he could hold up as representative of skeptics in general to make such a statement. It must be a lie, a purposeful lie.

having absolutely no benefit whatsoever for human health. (The ignorance of this intellectual position is breathtaking...)

Not true. Mr. Adams' intellectual position is breathtaking if he expects anyone to believe this. What manner of dishonesty can have come over Mr. Adams to make such a claim.

In summary, for the vast majority of Mr. Adams claims there can be no way he "did a little research and pulled this information from various "skeptic" websites". I can only conclude the entire rant was a lie, fabricated expressly for painting skeptics in a libelous light, to slander and purposely malign skeptics with malicious intent.

Global Warming and a Very Cold Winter

2010-01-26T13:00:00.000-06:00

Americans are amazingly provincial. They give aid to a small neighboring country and the citizens complain about needing for help to start at home. But that's a post for another day, perhaps.

Today, I have to complain that Americans are amazingly provincial because all they can see, with their blinders carefully in place, is that they're having a horribly cold winter. Meanwhile, the southern hemisphere is having an unusually warm summer. The various technologies that measure the mean global temperature all seem to agree about 2009. It was a very warm year - tied for second warmest on record. Even as cold as some of the winters in the last decade were, over all the last decade was the warmest on record and the years in the decade were all in the top of warmest on record, even if they weren't all the warmest ever (2005, however, does get that recognition).

The story is explained here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/2009-temperatures-by-jim-hansen/

Yes, Americans are suffering a very cold winter. The world is suffering a very warm January over all. The glaciers are still melting, the oceans are still rising, and the climate is still getting warmer. So pull those fingers out of your ears, stop shouting "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU." Even though most of the worst effects will happen after you are dead, you need to take responsibility now, because the later we wait, the more expensive and the more jobs will be lost trying to fix the problem.

Do you treat the cut on your foot while it's still small, or wait until the gangrene has set in and you have to amputate? Your choice.

Fed Up With Denial

2010-01-19T21:49:00.002-06:00

The denialists are having a field day with the recent spate of gaffs by climate scientists. Even though there aren't any, they are perceived as such. I believe, at this point, it is politically impossible to effect meaningful change. The denialists win by default. The stupid rule the day.

If you haven't seen it, there is a report that the glaciers in the Himalayas are not actually going to be completely melted by 2035. Never mind that the original speculation was for 2350 and likely got mangled in translation. The mangled version is what made its way to the IPCC report. So, to the discredit of the IPCC, and spilling over to climate scientists everywhere, and piling on top of the climate-gate stolen emails, the denialists claim victory.

It appears likely that the public that matters (those in the US which use approximately 5 times as much energy per capita as the average of the rest of the world, there are worse offenders and they are also denialists) now are turning against support for doing something about AGW.

So, perhaps Carl Sagan's conjecture about the difficulty of a civilization such as ours surviving this stage of development is insurmountable is accurate. Perhaps future generations of humanity are doomed to live squalid little lives because our generation in its selfishness used up all the fossil fuels before finding replacements, because we destroyed our climate so that growing crops that sustain our populations cannot be done, and because we created such religious divides that no common ground is possible.

It makes me ashamed to see the degree of our selfishness. We tout our greatness and largess of heart when we give aid to countries like Haiti after their massive earthquake, or the tsunami that hit Indonesia, but really, we are quite selfish - we can't let the rest of the world have our standard of living (the energy resources of the world wouldn't be sufficient anyway), and yet we refuse to live more reasonable lives.

Response to "Atheistic Style"

2009-11-26T17:10:00.004-06:00

Here I am responding to Atheistic Style on Conservapedia.

Conservapedia is the play toy of Andy Schlafly.[1] Note that the atheists I know hold a naturalistic worldview and generally accept the findings of science. Quite often in his article Andy makes claims about what atheists believe or how they act where the argument seems more likely to apply to scientists. I do not intend to equate atheists with scientists or the other way around, however, when the argument Andy presents relates to science, I will use scientists as the examples for my response.

More after the break:

He starts:

There is a style common to many atheists, including:

a refusal to recognize how democracy, first practiced in pre-Christ Greece, relies on Christianity, and how no atheistic culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting democracy

I would ask which examples of democracy which rely on Christianity he would offer up as examples of lasting democracies. The United States is still quite young as nations go, and early in its existence the leaders of the fledgling nation provided assurances to the rest of the world that the United States is not a Christian Nation. [2]

a refusal to credit the role played by faith in great contributions of many people, such as Isaac Newton

Since when do atheists refuse to acknowledge the religiosity of Isaac Newton? It is quite well documented that Isaac Newton was very religious and no one denies it.[3] He had several other odd beliefs, should we show case these as well? He was an alchemist, too, and probably died a virgin.[4][5] None of which takes away from his mathematical and physics genius. The same is true for the genius of Galileo, Mozart, or Beethoven.

a general disbelief of unseen and unquantifiable concepts, such as love, intrinsic beauty and fidelity a belief that atheists are somehow smarter than those having faith, downplaying contributions by Christians

I know of no atheists that disbelieve in love, intrinsic beauty or fidelity. Did you know that atheists are as faithful to their spouses as Christians?[6] Did you know there are atheist artists?[7]

a belief that humans are smarter today than 100, 1,000 or 6,000 years ago

No atheists I know hold such a belief. In fact, the evidence shows that the first fully modern humans of 100,000 to 60,000 (possibly earlier) years ago were as intelligent as humans are now.[8] The advantage we have today is a database of knowledge unavailable to those ancient peoples.

a view that most of science is known and understood, in contrast to Isaac Newton's view that little is understood

Again, I know of no atheists who have such a belief, that most of science is known and understood. Most atheists, and scientists, are excited by the knowledge that we are at the very beginning of understanding the universe and that there is so much more to know.[9] The one thing scientists do not do is to insert God where our understanding is lacking (and obviously, an atheist would never insert gods anywhere). We have discovered over time that these gaps eventually fill in and that the role of a creator god becomes less and less.

a focus on materialism, and a devotion to relativism in many forms a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life

A focus on materialism and relativism do not in any way lead to a generally pessimistic, worthless or depressing view of life. Which atheist authors have you been reading, Andy? The atheists I read zero in on just how precious our lives are, how indescribably beautiful and valuable all of life is. Atheists do have a realistic world-view and so do acknowledge there are dangers and challenges we have not yet overcome, but the vast majority believes we are capable of doing so.[9]

among scientists, an unshakeable faith in never-detected gravitons, dark matter, black holes, super strings and life in outer space

This unshakable faith you speak of has been known to turn on a dime and go the other way the moment the evidence shows it is wrong (when has theology willingly done so rather than be dragged kicking and screaming into the new understanding?).[10]

Scientists have experiments they hope will detect gravitons and thus validate certain portions of modern theory. No faith required. And should the experiments show no such things exist, the modern theories will be replaced by better theories that do not require gravitons to explain gravity. You call this unshakable?[11]

Scientists use dark matter (and dark energy) to explain a current lack of knowledge (hence the use of the term dark) about certain aspects of the universe. They believe dark energy and matter must exist because our measurements of space and time tell us it must. A great many scientists are working to explain the measurements of the universe without resorting to dark matter and dark energy. Currently, however, we expect to find that dark matter and energy are reality. You call this unshakable?[12]

Super string can't rightly even be called a theory. It's more a conjecture. You call this unshakable?[13]

You obviously need a lesson in what the word unshakable means. You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Regarding life in outer space... What the people that talk about exobiology mean is that the foundations for life are so obvious and likely that if there exist other earths in space, then the likelihood of other life is very high.[14] This is far from a sure thing, but it is as likely as finding living microbes in Antarctica or at the bottom of the Challenger Deep.[15][16]

belief in the Nobel Prize, universities, newspapers and magazines as oracles of truths

I don't think I understand your point. The Nobel Prize is given out for achievements in various fields. The award neither changes the truth or validity of the achievement, nor our acceptance or denial of the same.

University is where we send our children to prepare for their careers. Do you deny the educational value of the seminary? Of Law schools? Of any other higher institutions of learning? If you do so, then you are a fool, especially given your history of participation in the system.

However, as a fount of truth, we harbor no illusions as to the ability of Universities to be wrong. We hardly hold newspapers and magazines to be sources of truth. We know all too well how often they get the science wrong. Only a very few magazines are accepted as authoritative sources, and even then, we take any individual article as provisional.

overreliance on hearsay, a perception (often wrong) of what most people think, and a dependance on often outdated texts.

You are going to have to provide examples. Real scientists are working from the latest and most current data they can. Reliance on 2000 year old texts is left to historians and theologians. This is not a dig at historians or theologians, but a comment that science is forward looking and cannot rely on old knowledge that does not provide insight or foundational value.

an insistence on censoring prayer from the classroom[1]

Your example is not of censoring of prayer. It is an example of the theocracy forcing non-believers to participate in ritual and prayer. That you see this as anything else is a powerful example of your bias against non-theists.

A rejection of the teleological view of history that Mankind is increasingly moviing towards an absolute perfect state thanks to Christianity.

Please provide an example of your absolute perfect state emerging as a result of Christianity. If you mean that Christians are creating tensions in the world that will eventually result in complete and total annihilation of the human race (and most other animals and plant species) resulting in nirvana, then perhaps you are correct. (This is as close to pessimism as I will go, I expect that reality will eventually prevail and people will realize the farce that is organized religion.) If you mean that every person in the world will worship your god, you have a twisted sense of perfection.

Follow this link to better understand Andy: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:About

Before you ask why I don't just go to his conservapedia and correct it wiki style, the link above will explain why. No liberal bias will be tolerated. Now, I don't consider myself liberal, however Andy will, and thus nothing I add will be tolerated (meaning it will be deleted as soon as I post it, no doubt).

For a group that cries about being censored so much (so why do we hear their rants so often if they are being censored), they are certainly willing to censor anyone with whom they disagree.

References:
1. user:Aschlfaly - Conservapedia
2. Avalon Project - The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816
Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796
3. Isaac Newton's Life
4. No. 967: Isaac Newton: Alchemist
5. The Straight Dope: Was Isaac Newton A Virgin
6. Epiphenom: Religion and marital infidelity
7. List of nontheists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
8. Discovery Health :: HealthDay :: Music Had Charms to Soothe Prehistoric Man
9. Carl Sagan "Can We Know the Universe?" 1979
10. Nick Sagan Online: Barack Obama for President
11. Do gravitons exist? - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum
12. Martin White: Dark Matter
13. Higgs, Dark Matter and Supersymmetry: what the LHC will tell us « Not Even Wrong
14. Ames Exobiology
15. Antarctic Microbes Colonize under Mars-like Conditions
16. Life Is Found Thriving at Ocean's Deepest Point

H1N1

2009-11-17T12:40:00.003-06:00

Let's not give anyone anymore vaccines. Rather, let's return to the days of polio, wide-spread mumps, measles, and whooping cough. It is so obvious this is what so many Americans want. I mean, if Health-Care workers in New York think it is wiser to risk getting the flu and giving it to the people they care for than to risk not getting sick, who are we to argue.

If the flu vaccine causes this much concern we obviously shouldn't use any more serious vaccines either. We should also give up medicines, too. Big Pharma is behind aspirin and penicillin as well as vaccines.

Finally, we must abandon all surgeries too. Doctors make money from such activities and we should all be suspicious of anyone that makes money from anything.

These are the conclusions l come to following the "logic" of the Anti-vaxers.

Carl Sagan

2009-11-07T15:39:00.001-06:00

Today is the 75th anniversary of Dr. Sagan's birth. We fans of his are celebrating his life today. Thinking about what he taught us, how he influence us, and writing these thoughts in our blogs.

I first discovered Carl Sagan in the PBS television series "Cosmos." "Cosmos" woke up a spirit in me that still lives, a spirit of awe at the universe, of discovery, of learning. This is the closest I've ever been to a real religious experience; realizing we are, all of us, Star Stuff.

I now have that television series on DVD. I watch it now and again when I need to reconnect to that feeling. It's wonderful. I have the book that went along with the show, too - also wonderful.

I include in my essential library several of his books. "A Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" leads this list, followed quickly by "Cosmos," "The Varieties of Scientific Experience" and the fictional novel, "Contact." I have several more I need: "A Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space," "Billions & Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium," "The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence," and "Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science."

I watched Carl on the "Tonight Show" with Johnny Carson. Carl had an easy way of talking to people, about anything, but especially about science. How could anyone listen to him and not be influenced? He made science real, interesting, and fun.

I never met him personally, but I miss him dearly.

The Blank Page

2009-11-04T20:33:00.001-06:00

Unwritten
Potential
Endless
Unblemished
Unbroken

Still unwritten

The Bright Movement

2009-10-30T22:08:00.004-05:00

I call myself a Bright. So what does that mean.

It's like calling yourself Gay. It's a way to redirect the way people perceive an oppressed subgroup. Unless you live in a cave, and even then, you know that Gay refers to homosexual people. Brights is like that, except we are Humanists.

We do have a web page you can visit for a detailed look at us: http://www.the-brights.net/

If you don't want to jump to that page, let me briefly summarize here:

A Bright is a person:

with a naturalistic worldview
whose worldview is free of supernatural bits
whose ethics and morality derive from our naturalistic worldview

My bullet points are very nearly identical to those on the link above. The organization of Brights have goals, which I directly copied from the link above - to:

Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.

So now you know what a Bright is.

Obama and The Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-10T15:21:00.001-05:00

President Obama just won the Nobel Peace Prize and pundits on both sides are falling all over themselves either cheering or booing as loudly and obnoxiously as they can. Americans can sure be an appalling lot.

From the middle ground, I feel there is merit for either argument, he hasn't earned it yet and yes he has. But neither argument is very compelling.

The prize committee has every right to choose the individual they deem best, and so they have. The rest of us should congratulate the President and urge him to fulfill the promises that landed him the award.

It's happened, it's done, now get over it. All you all.