101. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #201722 by squinky on June 30, 2008 at 7:31 am

Ah, first!

This theory is intellectually gratifying because it starts with no a priori assumptions--it's natural selection from the start at cosmic scale. Hopefully, I'll live long enough to see measurements to codify such a theory.

102. The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete

Comment #199813 by squinky on June 26, 2008 at 11:33 am

Pure crap. This sounds like a computer scientist's wet dream. I remember computational types saying that after the human genome was sequenced, we'd be able to cure diseases using a computer. Right! Get out of the darkened office, stop staring at the screen, and go get a beer or get laid or something you stupid neckbeards!

103. Band T-shirt draws charge

Comment #199316 by squinky on June 25, 2008 at 2:04 pm

I ask you, what is more offensive:
Jesus is a c*nt (which really harms no one since Jesus is not alive)
OR
Priests engage in child rape and bishops take pains to cover it up.

I think hate speech should apply only to intrinsic human attributes (such as anti-race or anti-gay epithets) not extrinsic things such as beliefs (I hate fucking Nazis, Jesus is a c*nt, IDers blow horses, etc).

104. The Mother, The Child, The School Board And The Psychic

Comment #196056 by squinky on June 19, 2008 at 8:56 am

SUE THE SCHOOL BOARD!

Don't blame the psychic, the school board is guilty of defamation or discrimination or SOMETHING that you can trump up charges on for listening to a goddamn psychic!

False accusations can be devastating to someone's reputation and this is about as false as it gets. Start some rumors. Say the educational assistant has child porn on her computer. Say that she is a member of a secret vampire cult that practices sado-masachism (see the scratches on her arms?). Say she rough-handled one of the children. Oh and put some shit in the psychic's mailbox just for good measure.

An eye for an eye, not turn the other cheek, I say.

105. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #195768 by squinky on June 18, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Quetz,

Do you really think we can overcome the limits of interstellar distance, radiation, zero-G, and ultrafast space travel to colonize nearby planets?

Rational-G,

I concur. It is exciting. How cool will it be to discover life in our solar system?

106. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #195481 by squinky on June 18, 2008 at 9:59 am

Meso: let's do one more round my friend.

I have no idea where civilization will be in 1000, 10,000 or 1,000,000,000 years.

This, as you say, is the real nonsense. Even though we are a unique species, it is anthropogenic arrogance to think that we will survive longer than the typical few million years of most species on Earth. How well will we do in the next Ice Age? What about the next meteor impact (think Chixulub that wiped out the dinosaurs and allowed us lowly mammals to crawl out from under a rock) or after the next super-volcano (think Yellowstone with a 200 mile across caldera) that will block out sunlight for decades and cause planet-wide extinction and ecosystem crash due to photosynthetic failure?

My main point is that we will be alone in the universe unless we can get proof (not just evidence) of life elsewhere. Intelligent life that can send us a signal is incontrovertible proof. Non-radio-sending life may be out there but we will never know it. I have no doubt that it may be possible to find life on Mars or Europa or elsewhere in our solar system. Panspermia is a tractable theory but only within the solar system because the organic molecules of life won't survive interstellar travel based on their half-lives. That means that life must be created de novo at each location in the galaxy (an extremely rare event I think). Your discussion above exactly frames the problem. We can't even decide whether the methane on Mars is due to planetary phenomena or methanogenic bacteria living there and Mars is our closest neighbor.

The difference between our solar system and extrasolar planets is that we can directly visit, measure, and observe the planets in our solar system but we can't (and I'm damn sure) won't make it to other solar systems. Here's why: Let's say that our best wobble data and spectroscopic analysis finds a water-bearing, Earth-sized planet in the Goldilocks zone with evidence of oxygen 40 light years away (and it better be less than that!). Let's assume you could create a spacecraft that could travel at 0.1 lightspeed (we're talking matter-antimatter fantasy propulsion here). That would take you 400 years to get there. Nevermind the effect of zero-G on human anatomy or the effects of radiation. We can shield that you say? Well, add that mass to your spacecraft and increase the time/energy for the trip. Also, Google "human longevity" and get back to me while you're at it.

View it another way. Here's the headline: "Scientists have just discovered uric acid on Planet X, 32 light years from Earth, which is thought to come from aerosolized bird droppings in the atmosphere just as we can see on Earth from space". There is NO WAY to verify whether this hypothesis is true or not because you can't go there. You can say with strong conviction that Planet X has uric acid but not birds.

Bottom line. Forget the trillions of Earth-like planets out there, it is exceedingly improbable that life spontaneously formed on the few hundred potential planets within 40 light years of us. All we may say in the future is that we have spectroscopic speculative evidence of life on Planet X.

I think the only way to have proof of life outside our solar system is
(A) intelligent life sends us a signal, or
(B) robots eventually visit Planet X and observe life. The rest is just an unverifiable hypothesis.

107. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194814 by squinky on June 17, 2008 at 9:55 am

We're in speculative territory here but here it goes:
1) I have no doubt that we'll find many Earth-like planets in our neighborhood. Finding evidence that they have life on board seems like a pretty intractable problem unless they send us a signal.
2) I mean ANY self-replicating system.
3) Bottom line: there may well be life out there but we'll never observe evidence of it unless it's intelligent life. Life could be quietly replicating now 73 light years away in a beautiful swamp bog on an Earth-like planet but we'll never know.

If we can't hear ET, then they don't exist?

Then give me your best thought experiment of how to get evidence of mute ET?

I don't believe that in the future, we'll be able to do anything technologically. There are limits such as the speed of light that pretty much relegates us to our solar system. All we can do is look at light spectra and try to peer through nebulae for chemical signatures.

108. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194767 by squinky on June 17, 2008 at 8:51 am

Nalfesnee wrote:

I do sometimes think that this constant harping on the question "are we alone?", "is there life out there?" is just a remnant of internalized religious sentiment (i.e. we are the sole creations of a big whatsit in the (singular) sky).

Actually, I'm a proponent of the rare Earth scenario. I think that while some building blocks of nucleosides and proteins are common in the astrochemical milieu, their combination to make a self-replicating system that survives and evolves and masters metabolism and packages itself, etc is exceedingly rare--so rare that it can rival the insanely large number of Earth-like planets in the universe.

I say this based on several speculations:
1) we've been hammering on prebiotic chemistry for 60 years and haven't even come close to figuring out how RNA self-assembles or what the first replicators were. This in the era that we can make organism-sized genomes with DNA and RNA in our sleep.
2) We haven't found a self-replicating chemical system on Earth and we've looked in a lot of niches.
3) The hardest step of evolution is step 1: genesis.

Assuming the rare Earth scenario, I think we will always be alone on the Earth for three reasons:
1) we've only been sending radio waves into space for 60 out of 4,600,000,000 years. Life, while it may exist, doesn't transmit it's existence.
2) Space is so vast, we won't "hear" radio waves from intelligent extra-terrestrials from outside our galaxy. That limits SETI to the Milky Way--not the quadrillions of others solar systems out there.
3) SETI has failed to find any evidence yet.

Given my assumptions, if life is out there, it is not intelligent and if it was, we won't ever see evidence of it. Our only chance is to find life on Mars or Europa (or in our solar system). The rest I'm afraid reeks of science fiction.

109. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194657 by squinky on June 17, 2008 at 6:24 am

Quetz,

I'm with you. It's almost a first step that for a replicator to bag itself inside a membrane and copy itself it would need a constant and accessible chemical energy source. My own favorite niche is terrestrial volcanic or geothermal pools (or deep in mineral laden rock) while getting energy from methane or hydrogen sulfide or metal redox reactions (all proteins and DNA/RNA have metals associated with them). These boiling pots of rich (and concentrated) chemicals appear to fit the bill.

The problem with origin of life near the sea bottom hydrothermal vents is dilution of replicator components (it's a killer for me) as well as it presumes there was a big ocean or sea to bubble around in and our evidence is that the early Earth had little to no water in the beginning and it arrived via comets after Earth cooled enough. Chemical soup with organic molecules (maybe even from comet impacts in an active volcanic region) seem most logical to me.

110. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194641 by squinky on June 17, 2008 at 5:59 am

Babrock,

The extraterrestrial extremophile theory is intriguing but not necessarily true. The problem is that since we don't know where the first replicators and ultimately first cells appeared on the Earth, we can't assume they would resemble Earth's hardy extremophiles. Many extremophiles on Earth appeared later in evolutionary time (hot area of research) thus they may have been mild prokaryotic bacteria that evolved to fill the extreme niche and didn't start there (or maybe they did). Clearly giant tube worms and crabs living on boiling hydrothermal vents didn't start there.

111. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194099 by squinky on June 16, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Moderndaythomas,

Your albatross analogy is wishful thinking. This bird doesn't lay eggs on the wind nor incubate them on a zephyr. The little hatchlings don't parachute around in little eggshells until their wings have strengthened to glide and not flap.

Until we understand how self-replicating molecules formed on the early Earth and where (assuming we ever do), the 'Goldilocks Zone' should be amended to the 'Bollocks Zone'. All the GZ means is that liquid water is present. So! Let's talk self-replicating RNA or how to create a working cell before we skip several billion steps to arrive at the impressively adapted Jovean Waterbird that effortlessly glides through hydrogen gas.

112. Scientists confirm that parts of earliest genetic material may have come from the stars

Comment #193847 by squinky on June 16, 2008 at 6:11 am

SAVE YOUR MONEY. Don't buy the article.
Here are some clarifications

To Mordacious and Backfriend:
Life on earth (replicating via enzymes) selects for carbon-12 over carbon-13 to make its molecules. This means all biologically derived carbon is much more enriched in C-12 than C-13 than the natural abundance ratio of 99:1. The reason for this is called the 'isotope effect'. Heavier isotopes make chemical reactions slower and nature has managed to use C-12 to maintain uniform rates of reactivity in chemical transformations involving carbon.

Sent2null: The problem of oceanic nucleobase formation is one of dilution. Chemical reactions drop off in an inverse square with volume. That's not to say it can't happen, actually it's quite likely to happen in hydrothermal vents or volcanic cauldrons or deep in rock where organic molecules can concentrate (not dilute) and undergo chemistry. The open ocean notion is a non-starter. Remember that almost all the Earth's water was delivered by comets (dirty snowballs coated with oily organic muck) so early on, there were no oceans.

113. Scientists confirm that parts of earliest genetic material may have come from the stars

Comment #193837 by squinky on June 16, 2008 at 5:53 am

American Godless is correct. Nucleobase formation in space is trivial compared to the chemistry to form nucleosides (ribose sugar plus nucleobase) or especially their polymerization (via phosphate backbone) to make strands of RNA (or DNA).

The killer chicken and egg is this: how did nucleobases combine with enantiomerically pure ribose (4 chiral centers) or deoxyribose (3 chiral centers) when all sugars are made by enzymes (also chiral) that are ultimately coded for by DNA/RNA? This is the hard problem and WAY harder still is how did they polymerize? Making strands of DNA and RNA in a soup does NOT happen (scientists have looked for years) and in fact, primordial elements of the "wrong chirality" are known to inhibit the polmerization of life-forming, "right" RNA. The meteoric nucleobase evidence is a QED. It's irrefutable evidence that astrochemistry includes making the simple, non-chiral pieces of our DNA/RNA.

114. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #192486 by squinky on June 13, 2008 at 7:02 am

A very cogent and well-written review.

There is no better way to finish off intelligent design than to gut Demski and other leading IDers' illogic with the razor-sharp blade of hard science.

115. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191028 by squinky on June 10, 2008 at 6:07 am

This just shows you how hard the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have it. Can you imagine shooting a 14 year old that approaches your checkpoint? A little kid?

If I was such a soldier, I would hesitate and I would end up dead. I can't capture with words just how sick and perverted the imams are. Any imam that commands a child to murder others in this way because they don't have the balls to fight themselves should be executed and their mosque dynamited (with no one inside of course).

116. The Great Evangelical Decline

Comment #188776 by squinky on June 4, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Lucas: good point but atheists (perhaps not very recently) are also in decline worldwide. I'm a believer in memetics over genetics. People are born into religion but can change their opinions in less than a generation. Conversion to evolution over creation is generally one-directional (except for the occasional whacko like Francis Collins).

We ARE right and I hope the correct scientific answer begins to sweep America and that religious influence starts to seriously subside. We have catalysts like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris that reignited the fuse. Religious scandals definitely erodes their 'moral high ground' and makes a strong case for humanists.

117. Synthetic Copycat Of Living Cell Underway: Life, But Not As We Know It?

Comment #186593 by squinky on May 30, 2008 at 7:36 pm

Sounds like more hype than science.

The breakthrough could have a number of potential medical uses. Among them could be the development of new targeted drug delivery systems, where the capsules would be used to carry drug molecules to attack specific diseased cells in the body, while leaving healthy cells intact, thereby reducing the number of side affects that can be associated with treatments for life-threatening illnesses such as cancer. The technology could also be used as an anti-microbial agent, allowing doctors to destroy harmful bacteria, without attacking other health-promoting bacteria in the body, which could offer a new weapon in the fight against superbugs.

Sigh! Whatever polymer-fantasy-molecular transfer man

118. Edgar Mitchell ushers in the Next Epoch in Evolution

Comment #183169 by squinky on May 21, 2008 at 1:31 pm

This guy is a whacko. I HATE physicists and astronomers discussing biology. Hate it!

...the dyadic model says that energy has two faces. Instead of being two separate things, it's the energy as the basis of our existence in matter. And, it´s the basis of our knowing and information [bullshit, blah, blah]...Consciousness means to be aware, and then we have different levels of consciousness depending upon how complex the substance is [blah, blah, I'm making this up as I go]...This is done with Faraday cages. It's shown that this information at this deep level, at the quantum level, can transcend electromagnetic theory...[don't ask me for data, blah] now we're getting into quantum physics...

Where's the data spaceman? Show me a measurement in the brain space cadet!

As for "A new epoch in evolution" the present one is doing just fine.

119. Lab agrees to test Shroud of Turin for new theory

Comment #183000 by squinky on May 21, 2008 at 7:51 am

Here is my prediction about the Shroud:

1) The Shroud of Turin after centuries of debate is scientifically authenticated.
2) The blood on the Shroud is real.
3) Molecular biologists in Colorado Springs get blood samples from the Shroud sent to them.
4) After much work using PCR, Jesus's genome is extracted from the blood and transferred to a blastocyst.
5) The new zygote grows in vitro to become an embryo that is implanted in a devout Christian woman from Colorado Springs named Mary.
6) The Second Coming of Christ occurs on Dec 25, 2015. He is born in St. Luke's Hospital in Denver (not in a manger).
7) Three wise men come to visit him: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens (Dan Dennett got the short straw) all bearing gifts: Elmo, Pampers, and a free copy of God is Not Great.
8) The world collectively genuflects. The Muslims are pissed!
9) Miracles around the world are reported every day.
10) Baby Jesus (Jr.) has his DNA sequenced. He has an extra gene on his Y chromosome that codes for a protein called "omnipotence" the function of which remains a mystery.

120. Surviving an unholy school war

Comment #182066 by squinky on May 19, 2008 at 7:20 am

I don't believe in 'turn the other check'.

I'm 'an eye for and eye' kind of person.

Thus everyone who was abused by a nun or priest in the past should come forward and exact your pound of flesh. A little penance for the devout would surely help for past sinful conduct. Step right up victims and smack the crap out of these sadists.

121. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #182054 by squinky on May 19, 2008 at 6:53 am

Phillips, a Methodist, also drew from science to make his argument in favor of God's relevance, saying physicists know there are things that are "really, really improbable, but they are not really impossible according to the laws of physics ... From what I know about physics, it's not impossible to imagine a world in which God acts but we never can prove it."

Bullshit. If God intervenes, we will observe evidence of it e.g.: whether or not he answers prayers. If God only intervened (past tense) then we're faced with Deism. Case closed.

Mary Midgley, who was not at the AEI event, states that science is just one worldview that has come to prevail.

Sorry Mary, because science can predict outcomes before they happen, it has changed the world. Religion is deaf and mute on this account. Science is NOT a worldview. It is true (idiot).

Miller: "... to reject God because of the admitted self-contradictions and logical failings of organized religion would be like rejecting physics because of the inherent contradictions of quantum theory and general relativity."

Ugh! God is a failure because of theodicy, he is impotent and immoral and kills humans wholesale via natural disasters.

Kauffman fancies: "reinventing the sacred" and evolving from a supernatural God to a "new sense of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe."

I can adore nature but forget replacing that with the Earth Goddess: "Nature"-supernatural bullshit.

Hoodbhoy ends by saying that God is neither dead nor about to die. There is still plenty of "space for a science-friendly God as well as for 'deeply religious non-believers' like Einstein."

NO, NO, NO! I am sick of this 'ratio ad Einsteinium' where he is paraded out by theists as some God-inspired scientist. Read his recently found letter:

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish ... No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
January 3, 1954

Furthermore, Einstein ain't all that. He died before: DNA was discovered, human genome sequenced, the computer age, the internet age, molecular biology revolution, genetics revolution, all space missions including the Hubble and interferometry, chemistry, and of course (wait for it) high energy physics.

Einstein is a scientific luminary much like Galileo or Newtown but he's also sooooo 1950s!

122. UC Berkeley is going to court over Evolution website

Comment #180934 by squinky on May 16, 2008 at 7:00 am

Excellent posts from Blackwolf and MeIM.

I hope that Harris's Reason Project goes to sponsor lawsuits and countersuits against religious organizations that attack science such as the one above. Clearly the separation of church and state can cut both ways but we should mount a counterattack and deplete their money by filing frivilous lawsuits.

By the way, there is nothing in the US Constitution about separation of science and state! IT'S NOT IN THERE.

F- off fundies!

123. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180120 by squinky on May 14, 2008 at 8:35 am

The Bible "is not a science book," Funes said, adding that he believes the Big Bang theory is the most "reasonable" explanation for the creation of the universe. The theory says the universe began billions of years ago in the explosion of a single, super-dense point that contained all matter. But he said he continues to believe that "God is the creator of the universe and that we are not the result of chance."

WTF?! God let the big bang happen and then kept intervening every billion or so years to prevent us from occuring by chance? He created us but not the big bang? Time for excommunication, Chief!

Pies Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem. *headsmack*

124. I Am Evolution

Comment #178857 by squinky on May 12, 2008 at 6:48 am

Mordacious,

You nailed it. Lame, pseudo-literary science crap that always seems to get airtime on NPR.
Evolution simply is the truth. Here's the litmus test: if all human beings were dead, what would still be happening. For what it's worth, I believe gravity, it keeps me grounded.

Here, allow me to plagiarize Ms. Dunsworth and try some NPR-esque saccharine-sweet 'this I believe'. Tell me if you're inspired:

"I believe in atoms and molecules. It's easy. They are my life. I'm a chemist. I study molecules and how they combine to make things from drugs to shampoo, and I teach students about their place in nature and their usefulness.

Of course I believe molecules.

But that is different from believing in molecules.

To believe in something takes faith, trust, effort, strength. I need none of these things to believe molecules. They just are. My health is better because of medical research based on molecules. My genetic code is a polymer made of them. My bipedal feet walk on Nike's made from them and well as everything under them for that matter (no pun intended). And when my feet tire, those molecules fuel my car.

Yuch.

125. The History Channel might do something right

Comment #176291 by squinky on May 7, 2008 at 6:12 am

Covering the evolution of the eye is brilliant since it slays one of the Intelligent Design's sacred cows. Just illustrating how many different eyes exist in nature destroys that lame argument (to say nothing of the evolution of rhodopsin and the photoisomerization of cis to trans-retinal) but there's nothing quite so good as a well-done science documentary.

126. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175390 by squinky on May 5, 2008 at 10:36 am

Sam is the best!
I can't wait until he publishes his next article in Nature showing the fMRI comparison of 3 brains: normal (left), on religion (center), and on crack cocaine (right) where the center and right images are superimposable.

Conclusions: "This is your brain (Fig. 1a), this is your brain on religion (Fig. 1c)." Q.E.D. bitches.

127. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #149785 by squinky on March 26, 2008 at 8:21 am

These type of stories haunt me. As a father, I can only imagine what the poor child is going through as her kidneys shut down and she fades in and out of diabetic shock:
"Mom, Dad, help me!"
[praying] "We are honey, we're doing our best."

She is the innocent victim of religion. Her parents feel guilty because they 'didn't have enough faith', because God didn't deem them worthy enough to save their child. Actually, they ARE not worthy--to be parents. Their reproductive rights should be stripped by the State (cut Dad's balls off and fill Mom's vagina with hot wax).

I can only imagine that these 'parents' are guilty of criminal negligence much like leaving a child unattended in a hot car to die.

128. Chemical brain controls nanobots

Comment #142333 by squinky on March 12, 2008 at 10:44 am

Beer-Monster beat me to the punch. Let's clear up a few things.
1) In response to Symanowsk: We're all equally qualified to comment on the merit of this article? You can't possibly believe this! We're all qualified to have an opinion but not to be critical of highly scientific research unless so trained. I take exception to the lead author's fantasy that:
"If [in the future] you want to remotely operate on a tumour you might want to send some molecular machines there...One day they may be able to guide the nanobots through the body and control their functions"
And if he had a remedial course in the immune system, he wouldn't have made that stupid claim. More broadly, I have a problem with scientists passing basic research off as somehow applied the best example of which was the superconducting supercollider ($9 billion) planned in Texas. The amount of 'revolutionary medical treatments and technology breakthroughs' that were to come out of a BASIC research project in high energy physics was nauseating. I only say I'm a scientist to add a little credibility (not arrogance) to my claim that this guy is full of scientific shit!

2) In response to Aileen: Sci-Fi is great. We all love it. But let's not sprinkle it in with real science in little doses as if to somehow sweeten the mixture. I have no problem with speculating about the future of science or discoveries but don't hype science particularly when you don't know what you're talking about.

129. Chemical brain controls nanobots

Comment #142293 by squinky on March 12, 2008 at 9:12 am

I for one am getting sick of these type of "science" articles. They have all these grandiose future claims of treating disease with nanobots. This is a classic example of computer neck-beards making claims in a realm (human medicine) that they don't have a clue about (btw, physicists are extra guilty here too). Hmmm, what happens when someone's body recognizes these nanobots as 'foreign' and mounts an immune response to them? How well will they treat disease when T lymphocytes coat them, bog them down, or traffic them to lymph for enzymatic destruction or send their organic parts to the liver for oxidative death? Nevermind the need for an STM probe.

I'm a Ph.D chemist who is qualified to comment here and I'm tired of this bullshit. Research grant DENIED! Fantasy repudiated. Science fiction belongs in Discover magazine and Popular Mechanics. Good luck with the computing application as well since you need an STM. Last time I checked, they cost a few $100,000 and aren't available at Radio Shack.

130. Discovery Challenges Finding of a Separate Human Species

Comment #142278 by squinky on March 12, 2008 at 8:50 am

Clearly adaptation to small islands (limited available calories) leads to smaller creatures. Within just 200 years, there would be heavy selective pressure to be small and consume less calories. Inbreeding within such a small island population also increases the incidence of abnormalities many fold so expect some strange skeletons. This assumes isolation from the mainland tribe (cultural or geographical).

Sounds like it's time for some genetic profiling to crack the case. Quick, call Craig Ventner!

131. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #141861 by squinky on March 11, 2008 at 9:57 am

No more blasphemy?! Wow, and Purgatory (and presumably the souls still in it) is now toast. But we do have some more sins to navigate like pollution and genetic engineering.

The "Bad Idea" bodycount continues to mount on the religious side.

132. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141323 by squinky on March 10, 2008 at 9:17 am

Zara,

Don't forget viruses! They insert new DNA wholesale into our own for serious genetic manipulation, the little sinful bastards! Perhaps they too should head for the nearest confessional to er...explain that they were...uh...created by...God

133. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125945 by squinky on February 12, 2008 at 9:58 am

It's Pinker for me.

We've had excellent public representatives for astronomy, physics, biology/evolution, (not chemistry sadly), and not the brain/cognition/psychology.

With the parallel ascent of religion and atheism, is there any guy more deserving and more needed in this day than Pinker? He epitomizes the best of science and at the forefront of the most important human question (in my opinion greater than even physics and chemistry and math): the science of brain and how it thinks.

134. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96479 by squinky on December 10, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Mitchell and Riley,

With all due respect, this response is NOT in bad taste. This is not about 'holiday display areas' it's about putting religious shit on the courthouse steps. Why not drape Lincoln's lap with a ten foot crucifix? Because NO religion has any right to display their God symbols on our public land! Put the nativity in front of the Catholic Church. Put the Star of David or Menorah on synagogue property.

If you insist that it goes in the public square then I get my equal opportunity too. I do conceed that the display would have been more accurate if it read "Imagine no Islam" but hey, Lennon needed 3 syllables.

135. Holy Nonsense

Comment #96466 by squinky on December 10, 2007 at 3:10 pm

I've got one word:

"WHOOOOPISHCK"
(That would be the onomatopoetic whip of superior intellect resounding against the bare naked ass of Romney)

You just HAVE to love Hitch!

136. Excerpt from 'The Portable Atheist'

Comment #87940 by squinky on November 13, 2007 at 6:26 pm

Hitch is my hero. As much as I like Sam's potent logic, Richard's sarcasm and Darwinian knowledge, and Dennett's grandfatherly wisdom, NOBODY can match Hitch's writing eloquence and oratory. He is one of the best speakers around and one hell of a debateur.

137. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85334 by squinky on November 5, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Correction:

We've sequenced neanderthal DNA (in triplicate by the way), not Cro-Magnon. My hasty error.
By the way, neanderthals may have been able to speak:

http://www.latimes.com/la-sci-neanderthals20oct20,0,7642357.story?coll=la-home-center

138. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85328 by squinky on November 5, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Steve and Epeeist,

I tend to favor the biological refutations of theology over the use of physics. Laymen easily get overwhelmed by cosmic scales and geological time. If you saw (here at RDF) Hitchens debate Dinesh d'Souza you'll see what I mean. Dinesh likes to use God as the omnipotent 'knob fiddler' to set cosmological constants (speed of light, strong nuclear force, etc) and then argue design. He also says that the exceptions to 'laws' of nature allow for miracles (technically, relativity overtakes Newtonian mechanics as cosmic scale and the rules of matter and light are suspended right after the big band so in a way the rules can be broken). It plays well to naive people.

The better tack is to take d'Souza apart with biology which is much closer to us and easier for laymen to comprehend. Any scientist could bury him. Questions like: so did humans evolve? Yes? then I'll bet half of your Christian audience--the true believers--just stopped listening to you. Or No? So you don't believe in radioisotope dating nor in telling time either I gather?

As to philosophy and psychology, I studied the classics early and must say I disliked much of the tradition. It appeared to me as a young scientist searching for answers to be open-ended speculation without rigor. All philosophers create great hypotheses but then never validated their observations because the scientific method was not yet mature. Case in point: Freud. Complete nonsense with a smattering of truth but hey, cold readings from psychics are partly true too!. Philosophy and psych have been transformed recently by science because of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. It's the gold-standard. The rest is history!

139. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85295 by squinky on November 5, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Can I for one say that I'm sick and tired of the theists rant of "no new arguments" hogwash?

How about:
1) We've sequenced Cro-Magnon DNA and found that they are not in our lineage.
2) We now know quite a bit about the brain and its workings because of functional MRI as well as the study of human brain disease and trauma. We know very well that you are your brain down to specific collections of neurons as is your personality and everything that makes you non-monkey.
3) Given DNA, forensic, anthropological, archaeological, and geological evidence we know that humans (in their present form) have been around for over 100,000 years. God is only a few thousand years old, thus he is manmade.
4) etc...

The science we've learned in the last 25 years is a game-changer to the classical arguments. Nothing new? Again, religionists confortably occupy the past and aren't acquainted with modern science and modern logic.

140. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55795 by squinky on July 12, 2007 at 10:33 am

Here's how to prove the point that superior morality (innate) is superior to the teachings of the Old or New Testament:

1) Display 10 commandments
2) Get Wilson to quote Jesus for the ten most moral pieces of advise from the New Testament
3) Make up your own off the top of your head.

Guarantee that #3 will have the moral high ground over 1 and 2.

Example: Use not your strength to oppress others or cause them hardship; help them as you are able.

141. A force for good?

Comment #55231 by squinky on July 10, 2007 at 9:57 am

Time to unpack your bullshit:
"I am not saying you can't be good or moral without religion. Humanists can and many are. But a Christian humanist like me does not premise morality on fallacious foundations; rather my morality is undergirded by my faith at a much deeper level."
WRONG. Altruism with no payback from God or the promise of heaven IS the higher moral ground.

"Religion does its bad in public and its good in private."
Hate to burst your bubble Chief, but child rape by priests has been the private secret for centuries.

"Many of Britain's great political traditions were nurtured by religion. Democracy by the Protestantism of the Puritans. Civil disobedience and pacifism by Quakers. The labour movement by Methodists. The hospice movement. Alcoholics Anonymous. Amnesty International. All founded by religious people."
And then they outgrew it and found that helping people for the sake of it is more noble than proselytizing.

"It's ironic then for advocates of religion to be accused of cherry-picking sacred texts to "make them halfway acceptable". Religion has built into it a self-critical ability."
SO, if double blinded, controlled studies prove that praying is horseshit, you pass the word at your next prayer meeting, right?

142. A force for evil?

Comment #55226 by squinky on July 10, 2007 at 9:44 am

Well pontificated Minstrel!

Although I agree with many of his points, those are some tortuous sentences!

143. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #50068 by squinky on June 14, 2007 at 8:51 pm

Phasmagigas--point of comment

Olasky's quote of Francis Crick doing the statistical probability of a 200 amino acid protein self-assembling is one of the saddest testaments to Fundie pre-programmed thinking contaminating the logic of a great mind. Crick should have to return his Nobel Prize for this unforgiveable blunder.

Proteins so self-organize in a random, statistical way--never have, never will. They are translated directly from the DNA code (there's an intermediate step) based on function. Crick's argument that a fully fledged protein coming into existence is the same arguement invoked by IDers with the eye, the flagellum, blood clotting factors, a 747, etc in others words, God made it. We now know (as Dawkins articulately discussess) that small incremental changes over time amount to small improvements that culminate in a huge improvement. Unforunately for bozo here, we have many genomes sequenced and now know how genes evolved or were duplicated and improved upon.

144. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44377 by squinky on May 24, 2007 at 12:57 pm

His last paragraph pisses me off.

I donated money to Katrina relief, Tsunami relief, and 9/11 victims (all God's fault). Do I know these people? Not one. Do I believe in God? F*** no! God doesn't feed people or clothe them or give them medicine--people do--including a lot of humanists like me (and secular organizations like Doctors Withour Borders, USAID, the Gates Foundation) who think you and your non-interventionalist God are assholes!

145. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44362 by squinky on May 24, 2007 at 12:38 pm

"In Exodus God says, by way of
identification, "I am that I am."

Not as profound as:
"I am what I am" --Popeye, and
"It is what it is" --Tony Soprano

"Faith is what we do. This is real faith.
Faith is the sister of justice."

So killing others for a disbelief is God is justice? No, no--faith is not even a step-child of justice. Justice won't even adopt faith, that's why the legal system has no Biblical versus in it.

146. Prayer can improve physical health

Comment #43757 by squinky on May 22, 2007 at 1:03 pm

"Irrespective of whether scientists seek to attribute the benefits of prayer to the relaxation response, placebo or positive emotions, the most common reason people turn to prayer is their belief in a divine being that transcends the natural universe and hears and responds to prayer."

FINE--henceforth, all religious people can no longer be admitted to a hospital or seen by a physician. If praying can heal your body then turn left at the hospital and right into the church/mosque/synagogue parking lot. You have no need of the practitioners of science (doctors/
medical researchers/pharmaceutical companies) because the big man upstairs will fix your problems. Got it?

Throw your prescriptions away!
Stop reflecting and start genuflecting!
If your heart is spent, you'd better repent!
No more exercise, more exorcise!
Only prayer can make your body repair!
You got cancer? God's the answer!
See a priest before you're deceased!
Have faith in God to fix your bod!

(You guys try it, it's fun and the catharsis is scientifically proven to improve your health.)

147. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure

Comment #43386 by squinky on May 21, 2007 at 8:31 am

"But suppose God is not like the Hitchens model. Suppose that God is not a Rationalist, a Logician, a straight-line Geometer-of-the-skies. Suppose that the Creator God deliberately made a world of probabilities and failures, of waste and profusion, of suffering and hardships and frustrations."

It's arguments like this that snatch the Ace of Spades from under the house of cards such that religion comes tumbling down like the walls of Jericho. NONE of the fundies can seem to agree on a single attribute of God (aside from love). So what is he? Omniscient, omnipotent? He is all things but not one thing? He loves entropy but orders our lives? He creates life on Earth but gets off on supernovae that preclude it?

The Final Definition of God: The supreme being that possesses an obsessive infatuation with human self-lubricating tissues.

148. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #41945 by squinky on May 17, 2007 at 10:55 am

"...as an observant Jew myself, who also happens to be involved in the movement for women's meaningful participation and leadership in Orthodox Judaism."

You go girl! Make every rabbi a woman, balance the gender power, stand up for equal rights...and then perpetuate the stupidest f***ing 3000 year old vestigial dogma on Earth. When it's your turn to metzitzah b'peh your son, pucker up sweetheart and prove your Orthodoxy lest you stop being truly Jewish.

149. God grief

Comment #41881 by squinky on May 17, 2007 at 8:51 am

This review is a balanced critique of Hitchens.

I appreciate Dennett, Dawkins, Harris, and now Hitchens for dismantling religion precisely because they harken from different areas of expertise (philosopher/historian, evolutionary biologist/ecologist, neuroscientist, and now literati) and overall, have a better chance at converting segments of the ecclesiastical population to rationality because they appeal to different people in different ways.

My problem with this review:
Why if evangelists and religious fundamentalists are so easy to tear down as 'easy targets' can't we succeed in doing so?

150. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38205 by squinky on May 7, 2007 at 8:09 am

"In recent years, research has thrown up some remarkable benefits - the faithful live longer, recover from surgery quicker, are happier, less prone to mental illness and so the list goes on. If religion declines, what gaps does it leave in the functioning of individuals and social groups?"

PUHLEEEASE! How about:
"In recent years, substantial research has shown that people in countries (eg. Sweden) that reject religion altogether are happier, live longer, are healthier, smarter, have less crime, have less unwanted pregnancy and so the list goes on. If religion persists, what gaps does it leave in the functioning of individuals and social groups?"

Madeleine Bunting, you are an idiot. By your illogic, vociferous opposition to slavery and sexism and racism would 'do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon [slaves, women, minorities] loathe too much to understand.'