101. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170584 by mesomodel on April 27, 2008 at 8:48 pm

Comment #170575 by funkymaniac2610

Sorry. The uncertainties were accounted for in the age estimates.

Please state how you would change the assumptions to get an answer different by 4.5 by. Also, please do so for all the other independent methods referenced so that they all come up with the same answer.

This paper was peer reviewed (as were the other references) and found to be scientifically valid. If you think there is an error in the paper or others, you should write your own paper and show how.

This paper has too many assumptions and presuppositions to be considered an effective scientific or methodical document.

What in particular?

Again - purely theoretical unsubstantiated by realistic fact

Evidence please?

Somebody give me something that is a reasonable argument

Say that while looking in the mirror.

102. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170566 by mesomodel on April 27, 2008 at 8:36 pm

Melissajoy,

mesomodel: All this scientific evidence of no global flood and the 4.5 billion years ago? Where are you getting all this from? How do you even know the sun had light 4.5 billion years ago? Were you there to see it?

Asking whether I was there to see something is not argument at all. You're going to have to do better than that if you'd like to continue this conversation. Are you familiar with the scientific evidence for the age of the Earth and for the age of the solar system? If not, then you need to educate yourself first. It is not my job to do it for you while debating at the same time. If you are not familiar with the scientific evidence, then you don't really have any business rejecting it in favor of god. Here's a bone for the age of the sun: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0204331
In that paper, you'll find lots of references to dating asteroids, Earth and so on. Once you've read these, please get back to me and tell me what specific items you reject and on what scientific grounds. You'll need to provide evidence to support your position.

I've actually watched documentaries on the Discovery Channel regarding the "scientific probability" of the global flood. And this is a very atheist channel that doesn't like to say good things about God or the Bible. That in itself, surprises me.

An "atheist channel"? What the hell does that mean? What "good things" did they say?

I don't think any of us have real evidence of anything.

Well, then this discussion really is over.

I have no concrete evidence that the earth is round. This could be a big deception told to me through science books and through tainted pictures from satellite imagery.

Really. Try flying around the Earth in any direction. It's certainly doesn't have edges, and one can measure the distance in any direction to confirm that the Earth is spheroidal.

But do I believe the earth is round? Of course. Why not? If I'm wrong, it has no eternal significance. But if I say there is no God and I'm wrong, that's gonna matter in the end.

What if there is a god and it turns out to be Allah or the flying spaghetti monster. You're fucked then aren't you?
Bzzzt. Thanks for playing.
Time of death: 7:20 PM.
Cause: Pascal's Wager

Irate: Your turn. Please say a few words for our dearly departed.

103. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169827 by mesomodel on April 26, 2008 at 10:50 pm

Comment #169805 by Roland_F

(sarcasm)
Wait, I thought the bicycles at the bottom of the canals in the Netherlands meant the water had parted and they had actually been ridden through the canals (but not by Egyptians). Are you telling me that the presence of bicycles in the canals only means that there are bicycles in the Netherlands? Damn! How could I have been so blind!
(/sarcasm)

104. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169815 by mesomodel on April 26, 2008 at 10:22 pm

I'm a planetary scientist, and I'm nearly blind in one eye. Hasn't stopped me, although I've only done observing on very rare occasions. In those situations, I wasn't hampered in the slightest. Thank you CCDs and goodbye photgraphic plates. In any case, most of the astronomers I know do more theory and modeling rather than observing. Observers are a rather small lot and it doesn't require good eyesight.

My experience is that the years of math, physics, and chemistry are the usual culprits in dissuading people from the physical sciences.

105. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169800 by mesomodel on April 26, 2008 at 8:48 pm

Melissajoy,

The Base Institute believes in the 40 day global flood, Noah, ark, two by two, etc.

Scientific Fact: There was no global flood.

How does this fact point to (your) god?

106. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169797 by mesomodel on April 26, 2008 at 8:41 pm

Melissajoy,

Not sure what your response will be to my Comment #169793, but let me get things started just to move things along. Why not start from the beginning. Genesis:

1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Scientific Fact:
Earth (and the other planets) are roughly 4.5 billion years old. They formed from a protoplanetary disk around our sun, primarily from accretion. The sun and the disk were the result of gravitational collapse of gas and dust that was produced from a supernova.

The sun was already present, providing light prior to the formation of the Earth, while Genesis states the Earth was created first, then god created light and darkness.

Also, early Earth was extremely hot. Molten actually. There was no water. So the spirit of god, if he existed, couldn't have moved over the waters.

That's just a couple of points where science contradicts the bible. If you think the science facts I have described point to god, then I'd like to know in what way. And, further, I'd like to know if you then reject the bible since science and scripture seem to be in glaring contradiction.

107. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169793 by mesomodel on April 26, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Melissajoy,

You'd be surprised how many regulars here have read the bible. I've read it a few times cover to cover, but I don't consider myself an expert. Others here could quote you chapter and verse without breaking a sweat.

Anyway...it appears that you believe the bible to be the "truth" of god. That is, you consider the bible to be inerrant. Am I correct in this? If so, then would it be true that if scientific fact were shown to contradict the bible then it could also be said that same scientific fact would not point to god?

What I'm getting at here is that we need to agree upon what it means to point to god, and not just any god, but your god. Is the bible a good yardstick for this in your eyes?

108. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169773 by mesomodel on April 26, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Txpiper:

Here's a question for you. Seeing as the flood hypothesis you posted here is nearly identical to the one you've posted at christianinformant.com, and seeing as how your hypothesis has been shown to be bunk, are you going to go back to christianinformant and set the record straight?

Edit: Or are you lying for Jesus? There. Back on topic.

109. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169768 by mesomodel on April 26, 2008 at 6:05 pm

In case anyone had any doubts about txpiper:

http://www.christianinformant.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1412;sa=showPosts

110. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169698 by mesomodel on April 26, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Melissajoy,

Again, I'm an ignorant American woman.

The good news is that ignorance is curable. The bad news is that it can be fatal. You seem to be an intelligent person. Pick up some books, take a few science, philosophy and logic courses at your local college, or even watch a few shows on the Discovery Channel or National Geographic. Learn about the world around you. Then, apply what you've learned and see if you can reconcile it with your god.

111. Soldier Sues Army, Saying His Atheism Led to Threats

Comment #169641 by mesomodel on April 26, 2008 at 1:02 pm

This is now on the front page of cnn.com. Sweet.

112. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169624 by mesomodel on April 26, 2008 at 12:21 pm

You also forgot anti-option 1 and 2: A flood is not required to preserve fossils. In other words, your option 1 and 2 are not valid, because they are based on a false premise.

113. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169519 by mesomodel on April 26, 2008 at 8:23 am

Comment #169514 by Steve Zara

Not to mention the intervening layers of ash between sedimentary layers (indicating volcanic eruptions), and layers of enhanced rare isotopes indicative of large impacts. There's also radioisotope dating of layers indicating the actual age of the layers. Let's also not forget the slight problem of where water for a global flood came from and where it went.

114. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168879 by mesomodel on April 25, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Comment #168873 by riandouglas

Please edit your comment and close the < strong >.

Thanks.

115. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168860 by mesomodel on April 25, 2008 at 12:09 pm

al,

He already dresses up in that funny costume when he waves that pointy thing about. Safari shorts and knee-highs aren't too far off.

And, more OT: Selleck went to my high school. *hangs head in shame*

116. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168845 by mesomodel on April 25, 2008 at 11:53 am

I think the big difference in giving is more related to the lack of a formal organization for atheists. If atheist organizations were as common as church groups, I don't think you'd see a big gap. Look at the charitable contributions of primarily secular nations (e.g., nordic countries). Conversely, I wonder how much charitable contributions there would be without organized churches? Would the religious be as charitable if there were no organized group dynamics?

And, as Anna points out, the charitable contributions of atheists is from the heart. There are no ulterior motives of trying to avoid damnation or trying to "save" the damned.

As an example, many years ago I organize a food drive at a very small, liberal, and secular university. We were in competition with other much larger universities and churches. We beat 'em all hands down. It just takes a little effort to herd cats. I can't say how many that contributed to our drive were atheists, but I can make a reasonable guess that it far outnumbered the typical percentage of 10-15% in the general public.

Finally, as in most of the points raised here, charitable contribution has no bearing whatsoever on whether god exists or whether evolution is fact. If one wants to argue that religion is good because it increases charity, then we should all also take a variety of drugs so that we can be deluded into happiness. For some, religion is the opiate. It's all drugs though.

117. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168830 by mesomodel on April 25, 2008 at 11:36 am

Every halloween I spend a couple of weeks trying to talk two friends into being T.C. and Rick, and of course a chubby man with a moustache to be Higgins.

Maybe you could fatten up epeeist.

epeeist: no offense, I hope. You've got the stache.

118. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168697 by mesomodel on April 25, 2008 at 9:46 am

Comment #168655 by Dr Benway

BTW I'm open to a cricket or other analogy of greater universality than American baseball. However given that most creationists are Americans, baseball will probably work.

I'd recommend the sport of foot-(in-the-mouth)-ball. Whether it is the norteamericano version can be left open for interpretation.

119. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168691 by mesomodel on April 25, 2008 at 9:41 am

Comment #168542 by Steve Zara

There really are people who can compartmentalise. They can say "this is the goddidit view of reality" and also "this is the rational view of reality". When they want to think rationally, they surpress the "goddidit" view.

Steve,

The example you gave from the God Delusion doesn't apply here. At least that's my take. Roberts demonstrates that ability to at least accept that the bible could be infallible through his statements. He at least recognizes the conflict between dogmatic faith and reality. Having conversations and debates with these folks can be worthwhile. But, having "conversations" with those that say the bible is true no matter what, is, I maintain, an exercise in futility.

P.S. I apologize for the late response. I was enjoying bagels and coffee at our weekly a.m. department science discussion.

120. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168521 by mesomodel on April 25, 2008 at 7:22 am

Comment #168439 by Steve Zara

This may sound odd, but I don't mind if they say "goddidit". What I object to is them saying that the entire scientific establishment is wrong based on their opinion of how science should work. I would much rather they said "sod science" and stuck to religion. I object them not being able to leave science to scientists, and those who accept science.

The "goddidit" is the final statement with the rejection of science and scientific method happening along the way. Radioisotope dating: Wrong. Evolution: wrong. Conspiracy against ID: absolutely. Geologic stratigraphy: wrong. Not only are they ignorant about science, they completely reject the scientific method. There certainly are variations on this theme. Our current resident troll seems to accept some science and reject others, but the infallibility of the bible and god's "truth" ultimately leads to "goddidit" even in the face of overwhelming evidence. As soon as there is a clash between religious dogma and evidence (and eventually there always is), dogma wins. That's why discussion is pointless.

121. Tyrannosaurus rex protein proves dinosaurs evolved into birds

Comment #168433 by mesomodel on April 25, 2008 at 6:27 am

I saw this in the "coming attractions" in Science yesterday. The first thing that came to mind was now I have an answer to those wondering what a T-Rex tastes like. Tastes like chicken!

122. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168429 by mesomodel on April 25, 2008 at 6:24 am

Comment #168412 by Steve Zara

I am afraid I am getting thoroughly fed up with creationists coming here and preaching "scientific" facts to us. I am beginning to realise (I am slow on the uptake) that it is a complete waste of time to discuss with anyone who says dogmatically "you are wrong, this is the way things are".

I gave up "arguing" with dogmatists a long time ago. I have a sister-in-law that's one of them. Pointless. No matter what you say, they'll say "goddidit", even when every bit of evidence to the contrary is staring them in the face.

123. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167723 by mesomodel on April 24, 2008 at 9:34 am

Comment #167694 by IDiot

However, after reading this blog, and being referred to as an "IDiot" I find your biased-ness (can't spell that, I know, I'm stupid) and offensive way of refering to anyone who doesn't agree with you repulsive.

I think you've misinterpreted the comments on this site. The term "IDiot" is typically reserved for those persons that provide no evidence to back up their claims, are unable to provide reasonable responses to questions, and generally revert to quoting biblical passages before leaving.

I do not group you into the IDiot crowd, as I don't know you. If you'd like to chat about ID, creationism, or evolution, I think you'll find very intelligent people here.

Let me throw out a couple of questions if your game:

(1) You seem to indicate that you believe in ID. On what basis do you make this claim? What evidence do you have supporting ID?

(2) Belief in ID generally requires the disbelief in evolution. On what basis do you reject evolution and natural selection? What evidence you have?

124. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165885 by mesomodel on April 22, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Chewmanfoo

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I chose the one less traveled by and that has made all the difference.

Not quite that easy. Have you seen "The Matrix"?
I choose the red pill. You've chosen the blue.
The roads are not the same.

125. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165860 by mesomodel on April 22, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Comment #165838 by HisOwn

Rather it was pointing out that in the scientific community, where all options and opinions should be able to be voiced and researched no matter how ridiculous, ID is constantly being suppressed.

This is just not true. On what basis do you make this statement? Because Ben Stein said so? As a practicing scientist, I can tell you that no options or opinions are suppressed. Modern science, especially in the U.S., is damn near the closest thing to a free market of ideas. Anyone, and I do mean anyone, not just scientists, can forward hypotheses. If they are supported by facts, they will survive. If they aren't supported by facts or if contradictory information comes to light, they will be rejected. IDers have put their ideas forward. The ideas have been evaluated through the *open* scientific process, and the ideas have failed. Miserably.

126. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165829 by mesomodel on April 22, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Comment #165824 by The Reverend Dark

Darwinism doesn't speak to artificial selection; You could more accurately blame Mendel

I think you could back even further, to the very earliest start of civilization when farmers and herders realized they could control the quality of their plants and animals through artificial selection. PZ discussed this in a recent article posted on RDnet.

Here's food for thought. If Darwin had died of scurvy early in the voyage, would Hitler and the Nazis have risen to power? Would the holocaust have occurred anyhow? While there's no way to rewind the clock and know for sure, I think the answer is yes and yes.

127. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165814 by mesomodel on April 22, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Comment #165801 by chewmanfoo

How can a person who accepts Evolution as the ultimate explanation for the origins of everything living---indeed as the only explanation for the love you feel for your daughter---fill that spiritual void? Is the longing for spirit a neuroses, plain and simple?

This has been addressed in previous threads from many angles, but I can understand how it would be difficult to find the appropriate responses in a sea of comments.

Let me give you my personal and abridged take on this:

1) I don't have a spiritual void. I suppose it's been filled by other things in my life, assuming that there was a latent void of some kind to begin with. Wife, kids, friends, and the wonders of the universe are just examples of what keeps me happy and in no need of religion. I get along perfectly fine. Maybe you'd find that you could fill your spiritual void in other ways if you tried.

2) You make the assumption that humans have a need or require spirituality or they are left with a void. This may be the case, but it may not be. Perhaps there is no void at all. Perhaps it can be filled in other ways. I think I support the idea that there is no need for religion to find meaning, purpose or happiness in life.

3) Even if there humans require a spiritual void to be filled, that has nothing to do with whether a god (or gods) exist. Santa Claus makes kids happy, but that doesn't mean he's real. No doubt, some do find comfort in religion. That can be good. But it doesn't mean that the religious beliefs are true.

4) It's possible that some atheists would like a god to exist; I'm not one of them. But, most if not all atheists put there feelings and desires aside and simply look at the facts. Whether we like it or not, there is no evidence for a god or god(s). Reason trumps faith. I accept evolution because it's reality. It's up to us humans to ensure that the truth of evolution is not used in immoral ways, just as most other science truths can be used for good or bad. And, just to nip in the bud, I'm not going to discuss whether morality requires god. That has also been discussed elsewhere. The answer is you don't need god to define morals.

128. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163701 by mesomodel on April 18, 2008 at 8:02 pm

I think it's about over, but Colorado Confidential is twittering from inside the debut of "Expelled".

http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/

129. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #163699 by mesomodel on April 18, 2008 at 7:57 pm

I'm sure he was just having a bad day.

130. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #163585 by mesomodel on April 18, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Santi,

I agree with you that IDers can play an important role in advancing science and our understanding. By questioning science, or even trying to prove hypotheses, propositions, and theories wrong, things can be learned.

Having said that, it seems to be the case that when IDers raise an objection, perhaps even a valid one, it has been refuted. Multiple times. But, instead of moving on, the same old arguments (e.g., irreducible complexity) are forwarded over and over again. So, rather than advancing science and understanding, ID becomes a distraction and net drag on the scientific process. If IDers would like to raise new objections (such as water vs. ice as you mentioned above) backed by evidence that's just great. I support that. Once debunked by credible and overwhelming evidence, however, the ID claims need to be dropped. But no. They keep pushing. And, if they can no longer get the attention of scientists, they take it to the masses via propaganda and try to do an end run around science in the arena of public opinion.

131. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163525 by mesomodel on April 18, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Comment #163517 by annabanana

Anna,

In case you didn't see my previous post on this. Penguins smell really, really bad. Really bad.
Bad. Yuck.

132. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #163499 by mesomodel on April 18, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Comment #163043 by Christopher Davis

mesomodel, I think you should give a pass for saying that "skeptics" should see the movie. I don't think ST meant 'people who are undecided' should see the movie. Skeptic is a common term used to describe people who use reason. logic, and evidence to guide their worldview.

Christopher,

Your definition of skeptic was what I had also originally assumed. I am indeed a skeptic under that definition, and I don't think skeptics (as defined above) need to see the movie.

I have evaluated the claims of ID and the claims of evolution, with skepticism/reason. I have found ID to lack credibility. I have found evolution to be supported by its claims via evidence.

Skeptics need not remain neutral or skeptical about everything once their skepticism has been satisfied with evidence and rational consideration. I'm not skeptical of gravity. I'm not skeptical of evolution. I'm pro-gravity. I'm pro-evolution. I'm anti-invsibile-rubberband-instead-of-gravity. And I'm anti-ID. That is not to say that I can't or won't change my mind about either should new evidence come to light.

If new evidence were to come to the forefront that supported ID and discredited evolution, I would reconsider my position. "Expelled" doesn't provide new evidence, it just rehashes the same old dribble. As such, I see no reason to see the movie and to contribute to the success and coffers of the propaganda machine.

I agree with Santi about free speech; I said this upfront in my first post on this topic. I also agree that there are topics in the movie that ought to be discussed. Indeed, the topics in the movie such as Darwinism leads to Holocaust are and have been discussed, ad nauseum. I, as a skeptic, don't need to see the movie to have any of these discussions. Or, stated differently, it's not like I won't or can't discuss these things just because I didn't see the movie. So, really, I agree with Santi's position on most things, except for the part that skeptics should see the movie.

Truce and peace.

133. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162965 by mesomodel on April 17, 2008 at 6:14 pm

Santi Tafarella,

Did you read the PZ article or just skim it? I'm not being sarcastic here. Clearly, one could use artificial selection to breed a "master race" (if I may use the term race loosely). After all, we are just animals, and we've being applying this technique for thousands of years, as PZ noted.

The dead horse question is whether Darwinism had anything to do with Nazi eugenics. Unless Mr. Stein or the producers have some new and never before seen evidence to provide (and I doubt that's the case), the answer to the question remains that there is no causality. If it were true that a relationship did exist, then we could suppose that the holocaust would have never come to pass had Darwin succumbed to scurvy before making his observations aboard the H.M.S. Beagle. Yeah, right.

In any case, even if Darwinism and natural selection were a driver for eugenics, it doesn't make evolution or the process of natural selection any less true or ID any more false.

At this point, I've said about all I have to say on this topic. I'm moving on. Thanks for the discussion.

134. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162936 by mesomodel on April 17, 2008 at 5:24 pm

You're saying that you are not a skeptic--but an ID-denier. In other words, for you the issue is closed, period.

No. What I'm saying is that every shred of evidence refutes ID. Therefore, I refuse to recognize it as a valid hypothesis. I am open to new evidence, but I'm not going to a movie to learn about it. Let's see it presented properly in the scientific arena.

the trailers for the film suggest a link between evolution and eugenics, accompanied by provocative fascist images.

This horse has been beaten so many times it should be sold as steak in Belgium. I don't need go to a movie to hear this BS argument. PZ has got it right here: http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2456,The-simple-falsehood-at-the-heart-of-Expelled,PZ-Myers-Pharyngula

As for discrimination, especially religious: I'm sure it happens. Probably more so at places like Bob Jones University. At *real* universities, at least the one's I've been at, there's lots of checks and balances to make sure it doesn't occur, and there are proper channels, including legal, for those who feel they've been unfairly treated.

135. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162834 by mesomodel on April 17, 2008 at 2:30 pm

I was trying to say that the skeptical community should see the film.

That wasn't clear. In your previous posts, you said we/I should go see the movie. As I stated, I'm not a skeptic. So, if you're changing your mind to suggest that skeptics, of which I am not one, should see the movie, then I'll let skeptics make that choice. However, if you continue to assert that I should see the movie, then I stick by my "flamboyant" defense.

isn't that ironic?

No.

I noticed, however, that in talking about environmental purchases that you fudged a bit--saying that you avoid products that do not cause "excessive pollution."

That's not a fudge. It's reality. Production causes pollution. There is no such thing as clean energy. When I eat, I shit. That's pollution. Respiration produces CO2. The best I can do is limit my footprint as reasonably as possible.

Maybe you disagree, but rhetoric in the public square is also a form of reasoning.

I do disagree to some degree. Rhetoric is only a form of reasoning when it is backed by reasonable assertions and facts. Again, I'm not asserting that the ID message should be suppressed or censored. But it is bullshit, and it should be identified as such. Just like the Earth is flat. I don't want to have a discourse about it, rhetoric or otherwise.

Also, let me again state why I am so strongly opposed to the message of this film. It is not made to educate. It is propaganda (as you seem to suggest as well) pure and simple. The point of the propaganda is to undermine the secular foundation of the U.S. and then move on to the rest of the world. It's trying to create an controversy where there is none. Once created, we'll have to teach the controversy, right?

Finally, let me say this. I find the tone of this discussion becoming a bit heated. Let's take it down a notch. I respect what you have to say, I just don't agree with it. I've kept my posts free of inflammatory adjectives and personally directed rhetorical comments. I ask for the same in return.

136. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162829 by mesomodel on April 17, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Not that it would actually happen, but IF there were a grand jury indictment of said bishops and priests, and IF the pope were providing safe harbor for the indicted for which arrest warrants were issued, couldn't and shouldn't the pope be arrested?

Does anyone know if there are arrest warrants out for any of the priests and bishops?

137. Teacher Expelled Over Religion

Comment #162806 by mesomodel on April 17, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Comment #162563 by scooternyc

I'm an atmospheric (and planetary) scientist. I run models, including global climate models.

Evidence, both observational and modelling, has led me to the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is real. I'm open to contradictory evidence. I haven't seen any that hold water. Yet. It could happen.

Also, you can download almost any of the global climate models you want. Feel free to browse the tens of thousands of lines of code. The models are open to scrutiny. You can even run them on your desktop!

I can't speak for Gore. Anyhow, he's not a scientist, so at best all he can do is pass along info that he's obtained elsewhere or from others. He's clearly made up his mind based on the information he's gathered, but I don't think he's capable of looking at the raw data and fully understanding its scientific implications. For that matter, very few people can fully understand the real depth of the data. That's why we have scientists.

There really is no longer a debate about global warming. There's a few hold outs, just like there's those that don't accept evolution (or gravity or a spheroidal Earth). However, I will say that global warming is NOT in the same league as evolution or gravitation. It *could* be wrong, just increasingly unlikely. Let the evidence continue to flow in. For now, as an atmospheric scientist, the evidence is overwhelming.

138. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162793 by mesomodel on April 17, 2008 at 1:21 pm

I do think that, in this instance, with a mass produced film in which fundamentalists will make or break its financial success, that skeptics should see it and think about it.

I'm not a skeptic on ID, nor am I a skeptic on the lie of academic conspiracy. I am an ID-denier. I also spend my life as an academic, I publish in scientific journals, and I peer-review others. My reviews are ALWAYS based on whether EVIDENCE supports the conclusions. It has nothing to do with the author. I've rejected papers by scientists considered leaders in my field. Likewise, I've accepted papers by those with no reputation whatsoever. This is the way science works.


I was part of the academy before going to a 100%
soft money research position, and I maintain strong ties and friendships with faculty colleagues in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology (including evolutionary biology), and a whole range of humanities. All of those folks, every single one, has the same ethics as I do when it comes to reviewing papers.

The whole notion that there is some sort of a conspiracy to silence IDiots is preposterous. It's insulting. And, it's an outright LIE. I won't contribute to it in any way. Not threepence.

There is nothing for a skeptic to think about here. They should be no more skeptical about evolution than gravitation. I wouldn't support a movie claiming that the law of gravity is wrong and there is instead a sky-fairy pulling mass closer together. (Unless of course, it was a Monty Python comedy, or similar, in which case I would gladly pay). And, I certainly wouldn't support an anti-gravitation film if the same faction was trying to undermine the proper teaching of the law of gravity in schools. Likewise, ID deserves no credibility. There is no debate here. There is no other side of the story. Unless you think that flat-Earthers deserve equal time to make their case, too. Bull.

And perhaps it makes a few good points that you might actually agree with--how do you know if you don't go see it?

If the IDiots have some valid points to make, let them make it in the appropriate scientific arena rather than appealing to the emotions and dogmatic indoctrination of the deluded masses.

Why the rigidity--and purity?

I reject bullshit outright. I will consider valid arguments and points of view on topics that are truly controversial (in a scientific sense). Let's see some EVIDENCE for ID. Then let's talk.

And how many times have you turned on the TV to watch a sensationalist news report?

Intentionally? Never. I despise that crap. I've got better things to do with my limited time.

Don't you sometimes buy a National Inquirer in a grocery line to get a take on the culture?

No. That's not culture. It's stupidity if you believe it. It's entertainment if you don't. And, no one is trying to assert the doctrine of the National Inquirer into public and international policy.

I suppose that you support numerous evils everyday, from child labor to environmental pollution, just by casually going around walmart and buying a few things.

I do my best to limit my footprint. If I find that particular companies are producing products using child labor or causing excessive pollution, I avoid those products.

And the IDers, however irritating, should not be compared to the KKK. Sorry, they just shouldn't.

While it may not be a perfect analogy, they very much can be compared. It's not like IDers are harmless little kittens playfully and harmlessly batting a ball of yarn. This is an active movement with the goal of undermining science, inserting religious dogma into the education system, and ultimately creating a theocracy.

139. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162770 by mesomodel on April 17, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Al,

< sarcasm >
Of course they teach evolution. Men evolved from god, in his image, and women evolved from mans' rib.

What I fail to understand is why there's so much trouble accepting the idea that life evolved over billions of years to produce humans. I mean, is it any less likely than evolving from a rib to a human in less than a day?

< /sarcasm >

140. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162762 by mesomodel on April 17, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Comment #162756 by Santi Tafarella

As for joining a kkk parade, no I would not. But I might watch one from the sidewalk, and then go home and blog a critique of what I saw.

You are suggesting we financially support the movie by seeing it in the name of free speech. So, let me be more specific. Would you help pay permit costs so that the KKK could have a public display?

There are some things, although legal and covered under free speech, that I will not support. I wouldn't even go to a KKK rally to blog about it later. If nobody showed up to watch, they wouldn't march. Likewise, the more money and the attention IDiots get for this movie, the more they will feel empowered--financially and psychologically.

141. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162760 by mesomodel on April 17, 2008 at 12:15 pm

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

I found this selection relevant, as it seems that the use is not a parody but more in the line of satire.

"In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.[15] the Supreme Court recognized parody as a fair use, even when done for profit. Roy Orbison's publisher, Acuff-Rose Music Inc., had sued 2 Live Crew in 1989 for their use of Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" in a mocking rap version with altered lyrics. The Supreme Court viewed 2 Live Crew's version as a ridiculing commentary on the earlier work, and ruled that when the parody was itself the product rather than used for mere advertising, commercial sale did not bar the defense. The Campbell court also distinguished parodies from satire, which they described as a broader social critique not intrinsically tied to ridicule of a specific work, and so not deserving of the same use exceptions as parody because the satirist's ideas are capable of expression without the use of the other particular work."

142. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162746 by mesomodel on April 17, 2008 at 11:47 am

al,

Kiwis sound fine. I like the fruit they lay, too.

143. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162739 by mesomodel on April 17, 2008 at 11:36 am

Steve, al-rawandi:

Ever smelled a flock of penguins? Think putrefied fish. Donkeys may not be cute, but I'd rather have a herd of them over even a few penguins.

144. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162725 by mesomodel on April 17, 2008 at 11:06 am

Tezcatlipoca:

I think it is rather inappropriate to post someone's home address, regardless of how you may feel about their position or opinions. It reminds me of the "hit lists" used by fundies to identify those that they feel do the devil's work (like family planning physicians). I don't like the IDiot stuff, either. I'm sure Rep. Storm has an office that one could find the address of without too much effort. Might you consider editing your post to reflect her professional contact info?

145. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162719 by mesomodel on April 17, 2008 at 10:53 am

And go see the film. And do so precisely for the reason that you want to support financially free speech. The film is not a "cancer" on the body politic--it is an expression of free speech. The world is not better when ideas are not put out there--it is worse.

I haven't heard anyone say that the movie shouldn't have been made or that it shouldn't be shown. I'm all for free speech.


Having said that, I still won't pay money to see the film. Ever. Anyone can make any POS artwork they want, but it doesn't mean I'm going to pay for it or even bother to look. There's lots of art out there that I just don't like, and in some cases detest. Let the artist keep making it (as long as they don't break the law, for example, copyright law). But, free speech also allows me NOT to support their art.

Free speech can be cancerous, especially when it spreads lies that propagate. That doesn't mean it should be quashed. Lies should be countered with an appropriate free speech response.

< EDIT >
Do you march with the KKK to celebrate and support free speech?

146. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162714 by mesomodel on April 17, 2008 at 10:39 am

al-rawandi:

I don't think Expelled qualifies as "Intellectual Property"....It is more like the broken lawn mower in your garage, the one you wished you were rid of, yet don't have the energy to take to the dump.

Craigslist. $1 OBO. Or, I'll pay you to take it off my hands.

147. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162708 by mesomodel on April 17, 2008 at 10:22 am

Comment #162706 by AllanW

That's my understanding as well. The free use clause allows for 30 sec of presentation in non-commercial endeavors. This clearly does not apply in this case.

148. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162707 by mesomodel on April 17, 2008 at 10:21 am

Comment #162701 by Santi Tafarella

This may be your opinion, but it's not the U.S. law.

Any time you play music under copyright (either recorded or live) in front of an audience you must obtain a performance license.
An additional neighboring rights license may also be required in some foreign countries.
A mechanical rights license is required to duplicate recorded copyright protected music.

Period.

149. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162640 by mesomodel on April 17, 2008 at 6:57 am

Comment #162606 by Sargeist

Check out "Parenting Beyond Belief", D. McGowan Ed. It has nice contributions from a variety of authors, including Dawkins, on exactly how to approach the subject of god with kids.

Personally, when it comes to flat Earths or god(s), I first ask my kids, "What do you think?". Then, I ask them to provide evidence with reason to back up their claims. Telling them the Earth is flat or that there is no god is dogmatic, although true. What I hope to teach them is to use their faculties to figure things out themselves, or at least evaluate evidence logically and rigorously.

150. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162291 by mesomodel on April 16, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Comment #162289 by Frankus1122

The (c) was probably just indicating the material presented was copyrighted by the presenter, rather than indicating some variant of a Ph.D.