Comments by mesomodel

51. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179678 by mesomodel on May 13, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Hehe...sorry. I've been to intently focused on some stuff today. I need to lighten up. :-)

52. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179671 by mesomodel on May 13, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Let's actually try to fund alternative and new energy research and see if we can't make progress. Fusion will always be 5 years away unless we stop paying it lip service. Same with other energy sources.

53. 85% of Americans Want a Presidential Debate on Science

Comment #179568 by mesomodel on May 13, 2008 at 12:04 pm

The candidate on the left is for science. The candidate on the right is against science. Let the debate begin...

Not a very well-titled article. Kind of like the "war on terror". We need to outlaw scary movies! I think "war on terrorism" is probably more accurate.

Seriously:
The candidates couldn't have a debate about science topics, as they have, at best, the most shallow understanding of science. In fact, I would venture to guess they are actually not even wrong on many topics. In any case, the article really suggests that 85% want a policy debate, not a science debate. Yes, global warming and energy have roots in science, but I don't think the public wants to hear the candidates debate about whether anthropogenic global warming is real or whether we have an energy problem. What the public wants to hear is what, if anything, we are going to do about it. They want to hear a debate of how to balance expenditures within NSF, NASA, and NIH, for example, against military, education, and other social programs.

Now, an actual discussion by the candidates about global warming would be interesting if they actually had an understanding of climate dynamics, but I suggest it would only reveal their utter ignorance. Kind of like me having a debate about the social structure of the Mongolian empire in the early 13th century, of which I know absolutely nothing about.

54. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179455 by mesomodel on May 13, 2008 at 9:13 am

I'm actually very in favor of nuclear power generation. However, replacing a substantial amount of carbon-based power generation with nukes will require a substantial increase in uranium mining. Besides being a dirty process (which can be made cleaner if you're willing to pay for it), here's a list of countries with known large uranium deposits:

Canada, Australia, Russia, Niger, Namibia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, South Africa.

With the exception of the first two countries, I wouldn't consider the countries highly stable. The U.S. will still need to import the energy source. And, like oil, uranium is not a renewable energy source. When the cheap stuff is removed, the price will rise, and the U.S. will be have its kahunas in the hands of quasi-rogue states in Africa and the Asia. That may take 50 years or more, but it will happen.

We need a very long-term energy plan. Transition to nuclear can help, but ultimately we need something like a cold fusion reactor. Increased solar cell and battery storage capabilities could also help in the short term. If the energy input required to produce hydrogen could be greatly improved then fuel cells might also be a possibility.

Certainly, cutting energy use is helpful regardless of the energy source. Cutting automobile use of gasoline by 30-50% would have a much greater effect than praying. My calculations actually show conservation to be infinitely more effective.

55. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #179107 by mesomodel on May 12, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Comment #179104 by Goldy

Is there any point?

No. Probably not. The discussion with Txpiper generally goes like this:

1) He posts some standard cut'n'paste YEC stuff on dinosaur dating, floods, or evolution, and he appears to know ahead of time what our responses are going to be.

2) We post the responses he was anticipating (e.g., responses from talkorgins), and ask for specific evidence and/or alternative theories that refute our claims.

3) He either changes the subject, responds with a statement of personal incredulity, or tries to discredit (unsuccessfully) one small piece of evidence amid a sea of overwhelming science presented in hundreds if not thousands of peer-review papers. In the later situation, he eventually gives up and just changes the subject or resorts to a statement of personal incredulity.

For example, in the flood thread, txpiper was presented with mountains of evidence showing that many many layers of sediment can be emplaced over long periods of time, and that there is no need for a global flood. Indeed, the dating of layers, fossils with the layers, and many other data reveal that the layers are in direct contradiction to his flood hypothesis. After arguing about dating, geology, and sedimentation, he eventually states again that he just can't believe such large expanses of sediment could have occurred without a flood. And then on to a different topic.

What amazes me about txpiper and so many others, is that they think they somehow have the single and unique ability to spot the obvious flaw in a theory. This is in spite of the fact that these theories have gone through the peer review process and are constantly being examined by those with far more expertise and knowledge. Furthermore, the points they raise are not even original. So, really, they're just parroting back YEC arguments that have been rejected many times over. I can only imagine the thought process: "Maybe if I forward this lame argument again, it will work this time."

This leads to the following question: What is txpiper trying to accomplish? Since he is not forwarding any original arguments, and since he doesn't really seem to be interested in the answers, methinks more and more he is a troll.

56. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #179061 by mesomodel on May 12, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Rev. Dark,

It looks like laughing boy is quiet for the moment, but I did scoot back over and look at the evolution thread over on the site. He used the same arguments; this time out he chose the wrong audience.

He used the same sediment b.s., too. This is why I kept asking him over a week ago, after receiving the pummeling on geology that he did, if he would go over to christianinformant and set the record straight about flooding. Instead, he changed the topic.

57. Rover instrument to sniff out life on Mars

Comment #177659 by mesomodel on May 9, 2008 at 12:41 pm

AtheistAspy,

So keep focusing on the big problems, at least where saving lives is concerned. Also, you could fund research if there is a reasonable expectation that doing so fulfills long-term priorities. I need to see how exactly that's the case with NASA.

Much of our modern society benefits from the basic space technology developed by NASA. Has the investment in NASA in the past been worth it? What about satellites and the all the things supported by that technology? Communications? GPS? Internet? Monitoring of our environment? Weather prediction? Here's some NASA stuff actually saving lives: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

I don't have data to support this, but I'm willing to bet that the return on investment with NASA has been a net positive. That is, for every dollar invested, there is in excess of one dollar in benefit generated.

The arts are even more useless.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I happen to think the arts serve a great purpose. I also like public television. The arts provide enjoyment and they stimulate the mind. Maybe you just haven't been to the proper performances.

You seem to be utilitarian. Can you see the benefit, any at all, in activities and experiences whose only benefit is stimulation of the mind, lightning of the spirit, flexing of the emotions, or instigation of good belly laugh?

I need to see some empirical data. It also depends on the kinds of "benefits" being talked about. If it means military technology, for example, then I see little reason to support it.

I highly recommend "American Theocracy" by Kevin Phillips. He provides mountains of empirical data (overkill actually) that shows how countries have benefited socially and economically (not just militarily) by investment in exploration, and then how overextension in war brought them to ruin. Kind of like the U.S. is doing now. As you might guess from the title, it weaves the concept of religion into the mix. Admittedly, it's a very over-the-top investigation of empires, exploration, economies, social well being, religion and war. But, even if you accept only 25% of it, it still makes my point about the importance of exploration.

But as long as we're over there, we could at least give the troops body armor and support.

No complaint here. If we're going to send our kids over there, we ought to give them the best.

There's no reason why the U.S. always has to be ontop

That's true. The U.S. doesn't have to be on top. But, then you also have to accept the consequences. Do you think it would be good for China to dominate space? I can imagine a few downsides to this.

Lastly, I question the premise that more technology is necessarily a good thing. Psychological studies show that we are no happier than generations of 50 years ago.

Let's think about the reverse experiment. Take away technology and see how happy we are. I'm grateful for the technology we have today. I can think of many instances where I would have been profoundly unhappy if it were not for today's technology. Actually, I'd probably be dead. Multiple times.

The Amish are rather utilitarian. I think they're generally happy. But, the ones that are dead because of their lack of technology can't really complain now can they?

I think that technology and consumer goods get way too hyped where they don't improve our lives (e.g., electric razors, color television, video games, etc.) but ignored where they can (e.g., health care).

I agree with you on some of these. I gave up my electric razor a long time ago. I found a plain razor to do a much better job. But, I do think television has improved our lives. It's the backbone of mass communication. It brings the reality of the world to your doorstep. Refrigeration is another very useful and recent technology. Water filters. Etc.

58. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177641 by mesomodel on May 9, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Txpiper:

No, I don't accept the explanations for where all the sediments came from. Some of the formations are phenomenally large, covering thousands of square miles. Something besides tsunamis and typhoons had to be involved.

Mars has large expanses of sedimentary formations including those seen at Terra Meridiani where the MER rover opportunity is located. The northern and southern polar layered deposits are another example covering many thousands of square miles at thicknesses of kilometers. Was there also a biblical flood on Mars? And if so, were there sinners on Mars that also needed to get wiped out?

There are many, many, many non-biblical ways of generating expansive and thick sedimentary deposits.

59. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177241 by mesomodel on May 8, 2008 at 8:06 pm

Comment #177185 by txpiper

"Mesomodel
Not to mention the intervening layers of ash between sedimentary layers (indicating volcanic eruptions),"

I don't really see the relevance of this.

Well, if all the layers were laid down at the same time from a great flood, and the great flood covered the surface of the Earth, then how would you have an intervening layer of ash?

"and layers of enhanced rare isotopes indicative of large impacts."

Are you talking about the KT boundary or something else?

It's one example, and has the same issues as intervening layers of ash.

"There's also radioisotope dating of layers indicating the actual age of the layers."

This is an common belief, but an incorrect one. Sedimentary rock cannot be dated by RM techniques.

On this we agree. Sedimentary layers cannot be dated directly with radiometric techniques. But not all layers are sedimentary. There's plenty of igneous layers.

"Let's also not forget the slight problem of where water for a global flood came from and where it went."

I don't have time to go into all that. You would have to accept notations in the Genesis record in order to accept the explanation, and I feel sure you would not.

You are correct, because Genesis is not evidence.

I'm really just interested in pointing out that there are incomprehensible amounts of sedimentary materials loaded with countless billions of fossils. That, in my mind, is an enormous anomaly that is better explained by a catastrophic flood than the establishment idea of local events happening over millions of years. I don't believe that because it is simply, to me, not believable, though I'm happy to consider your explanations as to why you think it is.

Argument from personal incredulity. Just because you can't believe doesn't make it any less true.
I find quantum mechanics to be very unusual and I find it hard to believe, but I do accept quantum mechanics, because of the evidence. You've been provided with plenty of actual evidence showing how all this could come to pass over billions not just millions of years.

I also don't believe in a great flood, because I haven't been presented with any evidence to suggest it's true. Furthermore, I have been presented with lots of evidence that explains what we do see. I therefore reject your hypothesis.

Would you care to provide some actual evidence that: 1) supports your contention of a biblical flood; 2) Doesn't contradict other evidence; and 3) refutes the theory (and I mean theory in the scientific sense) of how fossils and geologic strata are emplaced?

60. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176940 by mesomodel on May 8, 2008 at 11:17 am

Txpiper: The flood?

See Comment #170744 by riandouglas for a recap of where we left off.

61. Citing Faith, Bush Defends War Actions

Comment #176936 by mesomodel on May 8, 2008 at 11:12 am

Comment #176933 by Incredulous

Well, I guess he feels it is good to replace one unhealthy addiction with another.

There's an old Cheech 'n Chong skit that goes something like this:

"I used to be all messed up on drugs. Then I met the lord. Now I'm all messed up on the lord."

62. Rover instrument to sniff out life on Mars

Comment #176903 by mesomodel on May 8, 2008 at 10:08 am

Comment #176423 by AtheistAspy

considering our other problems (e.g., debt, healthcare, Iraq, etc.), public funding for space exploration is a waste of money.

I run into this reasoning quite often. It's very true that there are lots of problems. We sure could use the money to fix them. Here's the problem: There will always be problems. At least until we've achieved utopia. So, we can either choose to continue funding fundamental research, including space exploration, or stop it entirely. Forever. And, applying the same logic, we should also stop funding the arts. Paintings, music, sculpture, dance--they don't cure cancer.

The U.S. can either continue to be a leader in the exploration of space, or it can sit back and let China do it. Countries that invest in exploration, even if the benefits are not immediately obvious, have historically done pretty darn well for themselves. Space is the future. It's a small investment for a potentially large return. I won't get into the spin-offs that space exploration and NASA can and do provide, including medical benefits.

Want to save money and put it to good use? End the Iraq war. The cost of the Iraq war is of order $1 trillion dollars plus or minus hundreds of billions. Interest on the debt to fund the war could push this substantially higher. That amount of money could fund NASA for 100 years or more. Or it could be used to fix health care, cure cancer, or end hunger. On the flip side, you could zero the NASA budget and you still won't have enough money to fix health care. The cost of two B1 bombers is equivalent to a single Mars mission. The cost of an aircraft carrier (order $5B) could fund 5-10 Mars missions, not to mention the cost of maintaining and running it. And the Navy doesn't even want them. That is a waste of money.

63. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #176196 by mesomodel on May 6, 2008 at 9:22 pm

dom1234,

Stein is known for his monotone nasal sound. In the right context, like a comedy, it's funny.
See "Ferris Bueller's Day Off".
But, when you realize it's his real voice and not an act, it's not so funny. It's irritating. Like sandpaper. Like sandpaper instead of toilet paper.

64. Rover instrument to sniff out life on Mars

Comment #176194 by mesomodel on May 6, 2008 at 9:08 pm

riandouglas,

It's not a publicity stunt, but I do think it's a waste of time and money at this point in time. Given the high probability of not finding anything, it's a lot of effort (and money). If we want to go looking for biomarkers on Mars, we still have a lot to learn both about how these signals might be preserved and where they might be preserved. And, even if we think we know where on Mars to look, chances are that we can't actually get there with today's technology. All the landed Mars missions have been heavily constrained by engineering design with limits on slope, rock abundance, and atmospheric and environmental conditions. On top of this, Mars has what is known as "special regions", which are off-limits to exploration due to concerns of forward contamination. These special regions are places that might have liquid water or, in the case of nuclear missions, places with water ice that could be melted by an "off-nominal" landing.

Of course, this is all my opinion. Other scientists may disagree. I think the Mars program has been driven too much by the hype of habitability and not enough by the notion that Mars is a cool place to explore even without the "life" question; it's close to Earth, relatively easy to get to, and can be explored by humans (eventually). There's lot's of non-life science to do on Mars and it's taken a back seat to habitability.

Many scientists have gotten caught up in the Mars habitability hype. This is for good reason. About a decade ago, starting with the Mars Pathfinder/Sojourner rover, the community found it a lot easier to sell Mars on the theme of water and habitability. Prior to this, Mars hadn't received much attention since the Viking era. The controversy over the Mars meteorite with putative microfossils started it all. Since then, selling "life", "water" and "habitability" has become part of the Mars culture. But, what's going to happen when we keep coming up empty after looking for habitable places and biomarkers? Will the public continue to support billion dollar missions that keep returning the answer of "no life here"? I don't think so. And that's a shame, because there is good science to be done on Mars. Eventually, we will want to look for biomarkers. But we won't be able to do this if we blow our goodwill on premature missions with little chance of success. We need to do a lot more precursor science before we start looking for bugs or their droppings. It's a cart before the horse thing.

Examples of things we ought to look at first:
1) Resolve the methane abundance question. Methane should be destroyed rapidly and be at relatively small concentrations (i.e., <10 ppb). But some ground-based obsevations have put the value at >100 ppb. If high concentrations are confirmed, then we ought to find the sources of methane. It could be biogenic (or not).

2) Better understand the penetration depth of high energy radiation, albedo neutrons, and the diffusion depth of oxidizers.

3) Better understand the climate history of Mars. What happened to the liquid water that laid down the sediments at Meridiani Planum discovered by the rover Opportunity?

4) At what rate is Mars losing it's atmosphere (and water in particular)? What does this say about the past climate?

5) How is the water cycle changed with obliquity cycles? Is there evidence for water ice in the tropics from periods of high obliquity.

6) What do the polar layered deposits tell us about past climates?

7) Precursor measurements for eventual human exploration and colonization: radiation, water, other in situ resources, weather.

65. Rover instrument to sniff out life on Mars

Comment #176179 by mesomodel on May 6, 2008 at 7:40 pm

Follow-up to my comment #176164

Just to be clear...
Even though they are drilling, the atmosphere will diffuse downward. Two meters is probably not deep enough to escape this, especially with billions of years to work with. Furthermore, when the layers were first emplaced, they were exposed to oxides and radiation that would have destroyed organics before burial.

66. Rover instrument to sniff out life on Mars

Comment #176164 by mesomodel on May 6, 2008 at 5:51 pm

As much as I hate to be a stick in the mud (sand), I don't think they are going to find anything for at least two reasons. First, there is severe ionizing radiation at the surface of Mars. The bombardment will dissociate any long carbon chain molecules. The second is that there is likely very high concentrations of superoxides produced by photochemistry and especially through electrochemistry within dust devils and dust storms. These superoxides (including hydrogen peroxide) eat carbon big time.

The NASA Mars Science Laboratory will launch in 2009, although it may be delayed to 2011 due to engineering issues. Still, it will beat ExoMars to the surface. MSL carries a GCMS that should be able to identify oxidizing chemicals and organic compounds. MSL also carries the Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD), which will measure the ionizing radiation from protons through iron plus neutrons and gammas.

67. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176131 by mesomodel on May 6, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Been following this thread via my PDA while on travel today. Finally at a wireless hotspot...

Reverend: This is the closest I've found to a 4K year old dinosaur.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

It's got the usual load of YEC garbage, plus a letter from Univ. of Arizona dating bones to thousands of years.

Seeker: I've done your work for you. Here's your evidence. But, it's still worthless for all the reasons previously stated.

68. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175553 by mesomodel on May 5, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Elii said:

I have interviewed numerous survivors of concentration camps. When I was in my final year of high school, there was a living historian program we undertook where we interviewed numerous holocaust survivors and documented the details of their testimony. According to ASM I take it they must have all been liars.

Check out the Shoah Foundation. The goal was to document via video the survivors of the holocaust that were still alive. You can see them all on-line.

http://college.usc.edu/vhi/

69. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174564 by mesomodel on May 2, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Retrozpekt:

How very Xtian of you.

Oh, one more thing: Nike sucks.

70. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174520 by mesomodel on May 2, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Comment #174516 by Dr Benway

Hadn't seen it before. Nice. I like the use of the geometric argument, which I hadn't seen presented like this before.

71. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174505 by mesomodel on May 2, 2008 at 2:10 pm

In anyone was unsure about the answer to the question posed in the thread topic, just read the last 17 pages of posts. It's a threat. Big time.

72. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174495 by mesomodel on May 2, 2008 at 2:01 pm

MaxD:

Indeed. And that's just the ones we see! No matter how or where you look, the data always shows how absolutely insignificant we are in the grand scheme of the cosmos. Just a little chunk of dirt around an ordinary star. One out of zillions.

73. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174485 by mesomodel on May 2, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Comment #174468 by seeker_of_truth

This is too general for me to know what you are asking. Please state where my assumptions in this link are flawed/misrepresented or what I am specifically supposed to be looking at.

OK. One last time, then I give up (again). The FAQ is divided into sections. The first 9 sections are introductory material. Section 10 deals with YEC and the points you raised in particular. In the introduction to this section it restates your concerns. Do you agree with what is written?

Section 10.1 restates some of the simple mathematical (back of the envelope) concepts that your forwarded related to the lifetime and frequency of SNRs. It then goes on to show why the assumed numbers by you (and YEC) are wrong. And wrong in many different ways. I'm guessing you would take issue with this. If so, you need to specifically explain why the information provided by, for example, Green (1991), Kodaira 1974, Vettolani & Zamorani 1977, Leahy & Wu 1989, are wrong. In other words, the numbers and assumptions you provided in your back of the envelope calculation are wrong. If you still feel you are correct, then you need to state where all these scientists have gone wrong, and you need to provide evidence, and ideally, you should provide peer-reviewed papers to support your point. After you have done that, we'll move to section 10.2. I can't make this any clearer, but I can say that this is how normal scientific discourse takes place.

As to the rest of your post: No, we are not in agreement. Not even close. Please read my earlier post. I provided the text you quoted back to me as an example of what you might say to support your side of the argument. I did this, because you didn't quite seem to comprehend how to construct a scientific argument backed by evidence. [Edit: It is purely an example, and is not meant to be taken literally!]

My exact words were:

If you have an objection, please do more than cut and paste paragraphs of the FAQ followed by a few sentences. Instead, may I suggest the following example statement, using information in 10.1:

74. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174466 by mesomodel on May 2, 2008 at 1:08 pm

FYI. For anyone interested:

List of supernovae:

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/Supernovae.html

75. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174463 by mesomodel on May 2, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Seeker,

Your first blockquote:

You seem to have copied it correctly. It provides a list of SN with ages. We agree on that. But, note that this section starts with "For example", which means not inclusive. There's lot's of information before this paragraph. Can I take your glossing over this prior information as acceptance of its veracity?

If not, let's back up to the beginning. Do you concur that the FAQ has restated your objections correctly? If so, do you then agree with all the calculations done in section 10.1? If not, please state your objections and back them up with credible evidence and reasoning. If you are ok with section 10.1, then let's move on to section 10.2. Any objections to 10.2? And so on.

If you have an objection, please do more than cut and paste paragraphs of the FAQ followed by a few sentences. Instead, may I suggest the following example statement, using information in 10.1:

"The assertion that Davies' use of the SNR percentages of 19%, 47%, and 14% is wrong is not true. The sigma-D method can in fact be used for all SNRs as discussed in Bullshiticus (2004) and Hogwash and Horsepucky (1998), whereas the FAQ claims is is only valid for certain types. Furthermore, in the next paragraph, a list of problems with Davies' are provided. None of these are a problem at all. Yaweh and Allah (1997) clearly demonstrate that external factors are irrelevant. [And then you go on to refute the other points in the list]."

This is how you make your point.

Please proceed.

76. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174395 by mesomodel on May 2, 2008 at 11:23 am

Annabanana,

I thought seeker struck out a couple of days ago already?

I had appealed to the invisible umpire to have him ejected from the game.

77. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174378 by mesomodel on May 2, 2008 at 10:37 am

Let's not forget the outstanding issue on the table here.

Seeker listed the trouble he had with supernova and the age of the universe (and which he clearly cut and pasted from a YEC website somewhere). These were based on the average lifetime of three stages of life of SN and the number actually observed. Rev. Dark provided a link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/#BM10

That responded point by point (and then some) to his concerns. These included references and actual verifiable evidence.

Seeker was then asked, by me and others, to either concede the point, or to refute the statements in the talkorigins FAQ with real evidence.

He has failed to do so.

We're still waiting.

[Edit: a few typo corrections]

78. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174011 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Comment #174007 by riandouglas

I always forget the library, though there is nothing quite like owning a it.

Indeed. If I find it to be a book that I would go back to for reference, I would consider buying it. But, I like the try before you buy option made possible by the library.

79. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174003 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 12:23 pm

riandouglas,

After finding the papercopy by Lapidus was $45, I quickly checked the on-line catalog of my local library. Surprise! They have it, it's on the shelf, and it's free. Better yet, the library is across the street from my office. I'll mosey on over there after work.

Sometimes I lament that I didn't live a few thousand years ago when nearly all of mans' knowledge could actually be known by one man. Now, one man can't even have complete knowledge of any number subjects. Our brains can't handle all the information, and we don't live long enough to learn it all anyway.

80. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173951 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 11:46 am

This should be enough to get me started. I'll ask you about the other 97 when I finish these. Now, off to amazon.com...

Thanks.

81. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173933 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 11:28 am

al-rawandi,

No need to apologize for the life essay. I'm trully curious. You've obviously learned a lot and Cal served you well. Can you recommend some introductory books that might help alleviate my glaring amd painful ignorance? Thanks.

82. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173926 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 11:20 am

Al-rawandi,

I know you have a degree (from Cal, right?) in arabic or islamic studies of some sort. I'm curious if you have done post-graduate work in the area. Although I know little (almost nothing actually) of the history of the middle east or islamic religion, you seem to have remarkable knowledge on the subjects.

83. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173923 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 11:13 am

Comment #173910 by MaxD

MaxD,

I think it's a reasonably good analogy. The SNR evidence gets washed away, like blood. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

84. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173915 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 10:58 am

Comment #173901 by seeker_of_truth

173889 got a response - last page, second from the bottom.

You responded, but it was not a response to the question at hand. I asked for a well thought out argument with appropriate references and refutations to an overwhelming body of evidence, among other things. Intstead, you posted a link to an article. Furthermore, you didn't show how the information in the article would have any impact on changing the age of the universe by 10 Gy give or take.

If the members of this board will forgive me, I'm going to appeal to the invisible umpire (who I'm sure exists but for whom there is no evidence) to simply eject the player from the game rather than waiting for three strikes.

I shall return to comment on this topic if and when I see a reasonable scientific argument from the ejected player. Until then, it's just a waste of time.

85. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173898 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 10:29 am

Comment #173892 by seeker_of_truth

So what? Please respond to Comment #173889. You may incorporate the information from the newscientist article if you'd like, assuming it has any relevance. We're all waiting.

86. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173889 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 10:17 am

seeker:

Only so much time in a day, my friend. Please understand this.

Indeed, I do understand this. But, we are all here waiting for the same thing, so I don't think I'm asking too much. You have suggested that SNRs give an age much less than 14Gy for the universe. You have been presented with evidence supported by numerous peer-reviewed references that your assertion is wrong, and in some respects, not even wrong, because SNRs are not an appropriate tool for establishing this age. Now, please, provide some honest to goodness scientific evidence to the contrary. Handwaving arguments and distractions about the effect of gravity on light speed are not relevant unless you can provide evidence, ideally backed by references, that this has a significant effect. Enough already. If you are not prepared to provide a sound argument based on sound scientific evidence that is not contradicted by the overwhelming evidence that has already been presented, then either please concede the point or take a break and come back when you can put a worthwhile argument together.

87. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173870 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 10:04 am

Seeker,

Rev. Dark provided you with a rebuttal that included many references. Please state how each of these are wrong, and provide evidence and ideally references to back up your claim.

88. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173839 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 9:32 am

Seeker,

Cutting and pasting from YEC and NASA public information sites is no way to have a debate about the scientific merits of your claim. Please support your claim with a credible, peer-reviewed paper showing that supernova suggest the age of the universe is anything less than a dozen or more billion years old. If you can't find one, I suggest you immediately write a paper. Your hypothesis, which I'm sure you can back with evidence such as you've given above, will surely rock the entire scientific community.
Of course, just as I pointed out regarding the age of the solar system, you'll also have to refute the many, many papers that provide pretty darn good evidence that the universe is 15Gy old.

Typically, before anyone thinks of even starting to write such a paper, one does an exhaustive literature search. I'd suggest you start there. You'll want to see if there are already any papers that support your claim, or if there are even any papers that might help refute any of the other papers that point to an old universe. I'd be interested in seeing these papers, too. Please let me know when you have such a list.

[Edit: Typo. I meant to type 14Gy, not 15Gy]

89. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173826 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 9:22 am

MaxD,

Yes, I remember his inane riddle. I took it to mean NASA. Why he couldn't just type it out is beyond me.

In any case, if there were ET UFOs, NASA almost certainly wouldn't be involved. More like USAF, CIA, NSA or other undisclosed covert agencies.

90. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173819 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 9:15 am

Comment #173816 by Don_Quix

Astrophysics involves understanding math, and math is hard! If a person doesn't understand something, then that something can't possibly be true, right?

You are exactly right, and I've made this point before. How can one reject scientific evidence and invoke god(s) in its place, when you don't understand the science in the first place?

91. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173809 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 8:59 am

Just curious: Was the issue of radioisotope dating ever resolved? If I recall, all of seeker's claims were refuted, which leaves us with the proposition that the Earth/Moon/asteroids are ~4.5Gy old. So, the universe is at least that old. Why jump to the age of the universe? Seeker, do you concede that our solar system is billions of years old?

As I stated to MelissaJoy a while back, there's lots of independent evidence beyond radioactive decay rates that give us the age of the sun and planets. Here's a link to a paper on the age of the sun:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0204331.pdf

You'll have to refute that plus all the science in the papers provided in the references that deal with the age of solar system objects. Just refuting one point in one of the papers isn't good enough, because there's at least a dozen more papers presenting evidence for the same age.

92. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173774 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 8:31 am

MaxD, riandouglas:

I find the UFO claims almost laughable. While I don't work for the gov't, all my work is funded by the gov't. NASA in particular. I regularly travel to many of the NASA labs. I also sit on a variety of NASA advisory committees, and I'm intimately familiar with the agency. If I recall, and I could be wrong, Dick also works for NASA. So, I'm pretty sure we're talking about the same agency here. And, I'm also pretty darn sure there are no ET groups, covert or otherwise. I have my sources, too, and they are high up. Very high.

DickD, I know you want to drop the UFO thing. But, can you tell me at what field center you work? Just curious.

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

Comment #173738 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 7:34 am

Comment #173706 by al-rawandi

*applause*

94. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173047 by mesomodel on April 30, 2008 at 9:10 am

It's not just radiometric dating that needs to be discarded to believe the Earth is 6K not 4.5G years old. You also have to reject the entire theory of planet and solar system formation. And geology and sedimentology. And evolution. And [insert favorite science].

We know the age of the Earth not just from isotope decay, but from a whole variety of evidence that are, for the most part, independent of one another. Therefore, it's not enough to only disprove isotope dating. You also have to refute the other methods. In addition, there's the domino effect. If you are going to reject radiometric dating, then you also have to reject all the science and technology that is derived from isotope decay. That would include everything like nuclear power plants to smoke alarms.

It never fails to amaze me the limits to which goddidits will attempt to contort evidence and facts to prove their premise. They have come to an answer before evaluating the evidence and are therefore in the uncomfortable position of having to make everything fit their answer regardless of the absurdity. Txpiper did this on the "Lying to Jesus" thread with the global flood and sedimentology. MelissaJoy tried this, but had absolutely no knowledge of the science she had already rejected (a rather inane position).

Rather than confront the overwhelming evidence, Txpiper and MelissaJoy cut and run. Maybe they didn't want their faith shaken? Seeker has stuck it our for a while. Ultimately though, you're never going to convince him that your evidence refutes his ridiculous proposition. He has his answer and he'll develop a Rube Goldberg-esque interpretation of evidence to fit his answer.

95. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172536 by mesomodel on April 29, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Since this thread left the subject matter long ago, I thought this might trigger some additional OT discussion:

A teen accused of plotting to blow up his high school told police that he wanted to die, go to heaven and kill Jesus, federal authorities said Tuesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/29/teen.charged.ap/index.html

[snip]
Ryan Schallenberger, 18, is cooperating with the bomb plot investigation, police say.

Prosecutors argued in a federal courtroom that the statements are an indication that 18-year-old Ryan Schallenberger needs a psychological evaluation.
[/snip]

OK. So why does he need psych evaluation? Is it because he believes in a sky daddy? Or, because he wants to kill sky daddy (who obviously exists). Or, because sky daddy exists, but you clearly can't kill him?

Millions of people run around believing in god without a single shred of evidence and they are considered sane. But, if you want to kill god, then your crazy. That's crazy.

96. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170717 by mesomodel on April 27, 2008 at 10:45 pm

Riandouglass,

It's pretty quiet. I for one am going to finally head off to bed. I've got meetings most of the day tomorrow, so I'll be lucky to get back here anytime soon.

Good night and god bless!
*says with a smirk*

97. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170678 by mesomodel on April 27, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Comment #170646 by MaxD

Mmmm....Guinness.
*said in a Homer Simpson-like tone*

Stout is my favorite. Wish I had one to help chill out. I should be sleeping, but I keep getting sucked into posting.

98. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170673 by mesomodel on April 27, 2008 at 10:07 pm

txpiper,

Have you been back over to christianinformant.com to correct your points on floods and sedimentology?

99. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170624 by mesomodel on April 27, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Comment #170622 by riandouglas

That struck me as odd, too. But, I don't care necessarily who writes papers. I generally have more confidence in papers written by an expert in the field.

Since funkymaniac has a problem with Dziembowski et al's findings, I'm curious to see how his paper specifically refutes this. In particular, I note that Dziembowski et al took into account the magnetic issues of the Sun and came up with at best a 0.5by difference if they assumed the sun was an extremely fast rotator (it's not). Funkymaniac claimed the answer could be off by 4.5 by because of this. I'd like him to back this up with evidence.

EDIT: Meant to say centrifugal issues rather than magnetic. Magnetic issues were minimized by looking at solar minimum conditions.

100. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170609 by mesomodel on April 27, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Comment #170597 by funkymaniac2610