Search This Blog

Monday, February 16, 2009

Orthodoxy stifles, saith the radar


"The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes."
--Sherlock Holmes, The Hound of the Baskervilles

People who read this blog know that I am a Christian, a believer in a literal six day creation event, a young earth, the necessity to be born again to know God...that I am conservative politically, that I believe anthropomorphic global warming is a dangerous hoax that kills people in combination with tree-hugging green-brained regulations such as those that have led to the massive fires in Australia. I am a traditionalist with a twist. I am not orthodox. I adhere to most traditional values for a reason and reject those which do not make sense to me.

Merriam-Webster online gives us the first definition of orthodox.


1or·tho·dox           Listen to the pronunciation of 1orthodox
Pronunciation:
\ˈȯr-thə-ˌdäks\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English orthodoxe, from Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French orthodoxe, from Late Latin orthodoxus, from Late Greek orthodoxos, from Greek orth- + doxa opinion — more at doxology
Date:
15th century
1 a: conforming to established doctrine especially in religion b: conventional

~~~~~~~~

"Fundamentalism isn't about religion. It's about power." --Salman Rushdie

Ortho means "straight" as in forward or upright, or it can be translated as "true."
Dox means "belief" or "opinion."

Cliff Notes Online says it thusly:

orthodox: conforming to established doctrines and practices, from the prefix ortho- (meaning right or true) and the root dox (meaning opinion or belief)

However the word has originated, it far too often is synonymous with "politically correct." While technically the orthodox opinion should be the truth, it will tend to be the popular opinion instead, where "right" is used as it might be used in society; one must commune with the right people and avoid the riff-raff.

Orthodoxy, then, is the tendency to fall in lock-step with the majority and stand your ground against all reason. No matter what commenters may say, it is important to me (and my lovely and talented wife) to think about positions on important issues and have a reason for your beliefs other than that those beliefs agree with the majority opinion....or the majority opinion of your own subset of people who are otherwise in the minority...or one particular teacher or scientist or preacher or politician or philosopher.

This tendency has put me at odds with the majority concerning origins.

It has put me at odds with the majority concerning climate change.

It has put me at odds with the majority-within-the-Christian-subset concerning eschatology.

I have completely changed my position on all three of these subjects over the course of time, by the way. I was once a dedicated Darwinist, I was initially willing to believe in man-made global warming (that lasted about two weeks), and I was once a dispensationalist Biblically.

If you let a hypocrite get between you and God, the hypocrite is closer to God than *you* are.

This is a side note especially for Christians, from a Mark Copeland (a religious man who may or may not be a Christian, but has some wisdom in this excerpt from a recent online message):

1. Jesus did not refuse to worship in the synagogues though the religious leaders were hypocrites. 2. Peter, James, John and the rest of the apostles did not leave Jesus because Judas was a hypocrite! 3. If you let the hypocrite come in between you and God... a. You let the hypocrite become bigger than God! b. You can't see God for the hypocrite! How tragic!
~~~~~~~

In the spirit of the exception makes the rule: If any of you gets their Christianity from television preachers, that is like getting your food from a dumpster out behind a fine restaurant. Yes, there is a chance that a wonderful meal will be tossed out there. But the vast majority of it will be garbage!
~~~~~~~

The wise man accepts wisdom even if he is in general disagreement with the source. I like this quote very much, have it on the bottom of the blog in fact:

"The best thing to give to your enemy is forgiveness; to an opponent, tolerance; to a friend, your heart; to your child, a good example; to a father, deference; to your mother, conduct that will make her proud of you; to yourself, respect; to all men, charity. " Francis Maitland Balfour

Balfour, who died at age 30 while climbing Mont Blanc, was a scientist who largely agreed with Darwin and was vigorously researching and publishing on various subjects in the field of biology at a young age. That he could express such a conviction that was so Christlike and yet agree with Darwin is, in part, a function of the days in which he lived and the upbringing he received. That he and I were not on the same page in the matter of origins doesn't diminish the beauty of the thoughts he expressed concisely and well.



I often post information from sources that I am not entirely in agreement with and find commenters hazing me for the practice. Is not truth truth whether it is uttered in a courtroom by a judge or on the sidewalk by a kid zipping by on a skateboard? Pretty much anyone with a basically honest nature and a good mind may have information worthy of consideration.

The wise man does not say that he is absolutely and unshakably right, he rather comes to a thoughtfully considered position on an issue and then maintains it unless and until more information or reasonable argument is presented to him that causes him to reconsider that position. If he will not even consider evidence that may cause him to change his position, he is not wise. Just because he holds to the orthodox point of view does not make him right, it simply makes him numerous, so to speak.

One Exceptional Exception

I am willing to change my position on any issue but one. Christianity. I am helpless to change even would I care to do so. You see, once a man agrees with God and asks Jesus Christ to forgive his sins and come in to his heart and life, a permanent change happens. Just as a butterfly cannot go back within a chrysalis and once again take on the form of a caterpillar, I cannot undo being born again. As a born-again believer, I would be foolish not to adhere to the Bible to the best of my ability, and therefore by faith I took the Bible to be God's Word and by choice now screen all information through the filter that is God by means of that Word. God is absolutely and unshakably right and I am simply a mortal and fallible man trying to approach to within shouting distance of that standard.

Christians disagree all the time on various issues but we must agree that Jesus is the Christ or we are no Christian at all. We must agree that the Bible is the Word of God or we are not wise. It doesn't mean I cannot listen to Queen on my media player or watch 24 on television every Monday. Some of us have preferences that allow for drinking alcohol in moderation and some of us believe drinking alcohol is wrong.

My belief in the Word of God means that I now have a predisposition to disbelieve Darwinist teachings and be skeptical of their claims. Thus far I have been proven to be wise in this, for no proof of evolution has ever been shown to me and thousands of generations of bacteria and fruit flies have made macroevolution a testable thesis that has been thus far a failure. But I tell you this, in any matter in which the absolute authority of God has not expressly spoken I will consider any idea presented to me in honesty and honestly consider it.

Since the Hebrew word, yom, means "day", I therefore believe that God created in six days because the Bible asserts that is what happened. "And the evening and the morning was the first day" is pretty clear. Yom is rarely used for anything other than a simple 24 hour day and it is found in the Hebrew Old Testament scriptures over 2,000 times. Only when there is a prophetic passage when the author is speaking poetically does that word mean anything other than a simple day. Jesus Christ also asserted that the Earth was made in six days when he stated that Moses' writings were true. Moses asserted in Exodus that the Earth was made in six days, backing up the Genesis account as being a description of six literal days.

From Exodus 20:11
- "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day."

You will find in Matthew 24 and Luke 17 that Jesus mentions Noah and the flood as factual events. You will find that Bible geneologies cannot be stretched to number much beyond 6,000 years (and a backwards extrapolation of the population of the current Earth human population back to a single family fits in nicely with the approximate time of the flood). "HUMAN POPULATION: The human population can be extrapolated backwards to see how long it would have taken to achieve present-day numbers. Using even conservative growth figures of one-half percent per year, earth’s population would have been eight people about 5,000 years ago. That compares nicely with the number of people on Noah’s Ark. Starting with evolution’s claim for the origin of man, and using the same ½ percent growth figure for the human race, we calculate a huge present day population that can not be justified by the fossil record or current statistics. "

There is a huge amount of tangible evidence for a young Earth, a world-wide flood, dinosaurs co-existing with mankind, the rock record being one of cataclysmic activities and plenty of measurables that put an upper limit to the planet and the atmosphere at around 20,000 years at the very most. Okay, I will stop before this becomes another long treatise on one subject because it is supposed to be a general post on Orthodoxy.

~~~~~~~


So please do not be boringly orthodox with your comments, strive for wit and veracity if you can?

So don't bother with ad hominem attacks on me or my sources. It will not convince me of anything nor will it convince any reasonable readers, it will just make you look bad in comparison. Rarely does the source have anything to do with the truthfulness of information unless it is someone who has been shown to deliberately post falsehoods such as Dr. Dino or TalkOrigins. (See, I was nice and mentioned one on both sides).

Don't tell me something is true because "everyone knows" because, no, they don't and even if most of them "know", they can be mistaken. If you are a lemming, why tell the world?

Don't use a string of curse words, because I will delete your comment altogether. While it is up there, again, it makes you look bad. But there are kids and teens who sometimes read this blog so cussing and pornographic stuff is out!

Do please quit asking for something to be explained that was already explained and then complain that your comment was never addressed. It gets boring. I do not care to waste any more time on prison populations, Hartnett's notational errors or one of the multitudes of opinions concerning the ways and means of trying to date ice cores. My best guess was just that and no one has a better one (prison), Hartnett was sloppy and who cares, since his postulation is almost certainly wrong and most definitely speculative anyway, a sidebar and finally (I hope) no one can date ice cores with certainty beyond the certain dates we have for specific volcanic eruptions, period. That means we can learn some things about the last maybe around three thousand years from ice cores and after that it is too speculative and various pressures and systems make the readings far too unreliable anyway. Okay, end of subjects. Good grief!

I almost hate to say this, but both creeper and taxandrian made very good observations recently and their comments inspired an entire series of posts on information that is likely going to have at least a part three coming soon. I know they disagree with me in many ways but they were able to say something that absolutely sat up and begged to be answered. (Sometimes they say stuff that makes me want to groan out loud, but wheat comes with chaff). Disagreements are fun when they lead to discussions. I like an "atta boy" occasionally, don't get me wrong. But disagreements can fuel good posting.

Orthodoxy is the comfort zone of the lazy and uninformed. That doesn't mean it cannot be right, it simply means it can certainly be wrong and it is up to you to think for yourself, my friend!

It is nice to know that I am not alone in this: Over 30,000 scientists have doubts that global warming is man-made

Scientists by the thousands reject the idea of human-caused global warming

Posted by Ron Masek, Strongsville February 13, 2009 04:07AM

Categories: Letters

In response to "O'Brien still frosty to global warming" (Letters, Sunday):

Kevin O'Brien wrote in his Feb. 5 column "Global warming? Foiled again" that "plenty of scientists have proclaimed . . . that man-made climate change is nonsense . . . and they've picked up some defectors."

In fact, the U.S. Senate Minority Report, released Dec. 11, lists more than 400 prominent scientists who dispute man-made global warming claims. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Petition Project of 2001 has now 32,000 signatures of scientists who reject the concept of man-made climate change. And Joanne Nova, a Ph.D. in meteorology, believed in man-made global warming by carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 to 2007. But not anymore. She is now convinced that the evidence is conclusive: Carbon dioxide is a bit player in temperature changes, responding to them rather than driving them.

The sun, not man, drives climate change and caused the melting of the glaciers.

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

What is "anthropomorphic" global warming?

lava

Anonymous said...

Do please quit asking for something to be explained that was already explained and then complain that your comment was never addressed.

For serious?

I think most regular readers could come up with a quick list of issues that were never explained, asked about, and then told by you that they were addressed. These arguments get strung from post to post and are then eventually buried. Never do they get answered. If they were ever explained, a simple cut and paste into comments or a link to where you supposedly explained these things would be helpful.

Do you want me to start the list? If you did explain these things, it should be easy for you to put these issues to bed.


lava

radar said...

"What is "anthropomorphic" global warming?"

the word means "man-made" and is commonly used among climatologists, but I guess most of us aren't, so my bad.

radar said...

As to this list, as long as ice cores, prison populations and Hartnett math are not among them, I will give them a look. Oh, and I forgot the Obama aunt thing. My friend lobo gave us the example of the law that could have been broken and I agreed we could not prove that it was broken but certainly could surmise that it stretches one's beliefs to think that Obama would not know exactly what her status was and just didn't want to stir up any controversy. It would not have been politically expedient for him to act and it would be impossible to prove that he was guilty of anything, so it isn't worth further discussion. That ought to cover that one.

Anonymous said...

"As to this list, as long as ice cores, prison populations and Hartnett math are not among them, I will give them a look."

Ah, subjects off limits now. Can we change the title of this post to "Radar stifles"?

Radar, a list of things you have not addressed or have promised to address should of course feature these 3 subjects along with any others. Just because you say "end of subject" doesn't mean you magically answered them all of a sudden. The only way you can change that is by, you know, answering them.

And if you think you have addressed them, hey, you can check them off by simply linking to where you have done so. Yes, it is as easy as that. Until then, claiming that you have addressed them when in fact you haven't remains quite simply a lie.

Re. your prison population claim, I note that above you again misrepresent the nature of my objection: "My best guess was just that and no one has a better one" - though you still owe someone here a link to where you supposedly explained this guess step by step, I forget if it was Lava or Taxandrian. Again, a simple link and you can call the subject closed.

But basically, you took a guess at the general population, not the prison one. If the relationship between the two exceeds your comprehension (and by now it really seems to), then so be it. But let us be perfectly clear that you did not respond to this, ever, and that you have never indicated anywhere that you understood how the fallacy of division applies to your thinking on this subject.

Re. Hartnett, as far as I recall you did say you were going to get back to this, but that the people in question happened to not be near the Internet for the next few months, something like that. Other commenters have followed that issue more closely.

Re. ice cores. Why should this subject be dropped when you had such a lovely question still unanswered? This one:

"Blah blah blah. Study of ice cores shows that many, perhaps hundreds of layers can be formed in one year."

"Please provide a link to this study, provided it didn't take place in your backyard. And if you don't have such a study, please just tell us instead of wasting everyone's time again."



Re. peer review, there were some more questions left open:

1. What were the papers submitted by Dr. Henry Morris, and what journals did he submit them to?

2. Is it possible to see the various papers by Dr. Morris and/or the others, along with the reasons cited by the journals' representatives for rejecting them?

3. Did the papers contain testable and confirmed predictions based on observable evidence that confirm a YEC stance while denying an Old Earth/Theory Of Evolution stance?


And there were plenty of other subjects with open questions, of course, as lava indicated.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

1. Do you mean anthropogenic? Anthropomorphic, as I understand it, means endowing animals or inanimate objects with human traits. Maybe it has a different meaning in climatology...but that meaning would be very close to anthropogenic.


2. My friend lobo gave us the example of the law that could have been broken and I agreed we could not prove that it was broken but certainly could surmise that it stretches one's beliefs to think that Obama would not know exactly what her status was and just didn't want to stir up any controversy. It would not have been politically expedient for him to act and it would be impossible to prove that he was guilty of anything, so it isn't worth further discussion. That ought to cover that one.

First, you claimed Obama broke the law as an officer of the court by doing nothing about his aunt.

Second, lobo presented some laws which required action(harboring...). This causes 2 problems for your first statement- you believed Obama had a duty to turn in his aunt as an officer of the court, and you thought by doing nothing he broke the law. Then you want to lean on the 2 laws lobo present which require huge leaps of fact.

Now you say "...certainly could surmise that it stretches one's beliefs to think that Obama would not know exactly what her status was and just didn't want to stir up any controversy." What does his knowledge of her legal status have to do with anything? Are you still under the impression Lawyers, as officers of the court, have to turn in anybody who they know is committing, will commit, or committed a crime?

lava

highboy said...

"If I lived hundreds of years ago, and all of my food was faster than me, my feet would evolve into rockets!" -Michael Kelso.

It's be cool to evolve.

Anonymous said...

"Thus far I have been proven to be wise in this, for no proof of evolution has ever been shown to me and thousands of generations of bacteria and fruit flies have made macroevolution a testable thesis that has been thus far a failure"

Radar, the heap of ignorance you put on display here is nothing short of stunning. I've asked you some of these questions in recent posts before, and I find my earlier suspicion that this actually is out of your intellectual grasp confirmed every time you post something like "bacteria not evolving into something other than bacteria disproves Darwinism" (unlike Taxandrian, I don't think you're perpetrating a hoax with this blog), but the questions are worth repeating just in case you can articulate your reasoning:

1. What do you mean by "losing specific small portions of the DNA chain"? Chromosomes are "specific small portions of the DNA chain". What, other than chromosomes, are you referring to here? What, other than chromosomes, do you think is getting lost?

2. When a farmer breeds a cow that, for example, provides more milk, and another that, for example, provides more meat, that is an addition to the gene pool, not a loss. If you think it represents a loss, could you explain why?

3. You've talked up this whole "loss of information" bit, but really failed completely to explain what you mean by it. That's why it is significant that you failed to properly answer Taxandrian's question. How do you think information is lost in speciation?

4. What do you think the theory of evolution predicts to happen in an experiment with bacteria?

5. I've pointed out to you that a simple google search will uncover a number of experiments in which bacteria speciated. In what way do you consider it "wise" for you to not read such information and take it on board? Is willful ignorance - because that's exactly what this is - really a "wise" stance? Does Christianity dictate willful ignorance and dishonesty? Not last time I checked.

Incidentally, an "ad hominem" is not just any old thing that happens to hurt your feelings, it has a specific meaning, namely that you argue that something is invalid merely because of the source of the argument.

If you repeatedly make a statement that indicates complete ignorance of a certain subject (such as arguing that according to the theory of evolution, bacteria should evolve into non-bacteria in a lab experiment), then one can conclude from that that you are ignorant with regard to that subject. That is not an ad hominem, that's a logical deduction. If it hurts your feelings, well I'm sorry about that - but when your ignorance is pointed out to you, you might want to consider learning more about that subject instead of repeating the ignorant claims in question, as you seem hellbent on doing.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Highboy,

"It'd be cool to evolve."

Enjoy it - you're already enjoying the benefits of millions of years of evolution.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Yom is rarely used for anything other than a simple 24 hour day and it is found in the Hebrew Old Testament scriptures over 2,000 times. Only when there is a prophetic passage when the author is speaking poetically does that word mean anything other than a simple day."

Poetically, say, the way one would use for a creation myth...

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

I think we can look at this post as the "jumping the shark" moment of Radar's blog, the point where he veers off into territory that is simply too absurd and off-the-wall for reasonable readers to continue pretending to take him at all seriously.

It's a breathtaking masterpiece of incoherence: Radar pretends to be a fact-based, hard-nosed rebel even while clinging to the orthodoxy of Christian fundamentalism and presenting a whopper of a strawman argument re. evolution that indicates an ignorance of basic biology that wouldn't get him out of high school (so is either willing to lie or has next to no knowledge of the material he chooses to discuss).

Are there any YECs who can stand up to simple questions about the factual basis of YEC?

-- creeper

highboy said...

"Enjoy it - you're already enjoying the benefits of millions of years of evolution."

So what observable, testable signs can I spot that I'm evolving as we speak? If I'm not evolving as we speak, why aren't I? And why do I not have rockets for feet?

Anonymous said...

"Enjoy it - you're already enjoying the benefits of millions of years of evolution."

So what observable, testable signs can I spot that I'm evolving as we speak? If I'm not evolving as we speak, why aren't I? And why do I not have rockets for feet?


Are these serious questions?

lava

radar said...

Wow. I am not going to be sidetracked here. Those four subjects, go ahead and complain until you are blue in the virtual face. I am not spending any more time on those things. Celebrate my defeat or slink away defeated as you will. I am satisfied with my answers and will not go back.

This is pretty funny, when you commenters say I don't understand evolution and then claim that when a farmer selects out a cow that gives more milk he has added information to the breed.

I am sorry to say that you don't even have a clue if you say something like this. A farmer uses Mendelian selection to breed OUT the traits he doesn't want as he seeks to breed IN the traits he does want from the pool of already available information within the DNA. The cow that gives more milk has had some of the information selected out. It has less information.

Do any of you think that a purebred Poodle has more information in the genetic code than a mongrel dog? Yikes!

creeper, I cannot believe you do not understand this. If not, you are the one who needs to go back to school. Otherwise you are being deliberately deceptive to try to fool those unfamiliar with genetics. Or, you are not grasping the problem. Which one is it?

I am a YEC who can and will stand up for my beliefs because they are based upon reason, logic and evidence. I can give you a reasoned answer for light years, for Biblical language, for rock layering, for age measuring techniques, historical records, geneologies, irreducible complexities and so on.

Dr. Morris is dead and I am unsure which papers of his that did not get accepted caused him to abandon orthodox scientific peer review. He did get published and receive his doctorate before he gave up on naturalistic materialistic dogmatic fundamentalist humanists. I will poke around and see what I can find out about that, interesting question.

You guys cannot even put up a fight over the subject of information so you try to change the subject, but I have you by the short hairs. Evolution has been tested and found not to occur in thousands of generations of bacteria and fruit flies. Ouch! Try to deal with THAT.

radar said...

lava, Anthropomorphic is the term commonly used in climatology circles. It is kind of a shaky fit, since the real meaning is more like attributing human qualities to a rabbit than to assign human responsibility to a change in systemic function. I don't know who began using it that way first, but if you use it climatologists will know what you mean.

Anonymous said...

I really think it is anthropogenic. I tried finding online "climatologist circles" which used the term anthropomorphic- there aren't many reputable sources online using this term. Guys like : http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFrameset.html a Stanford professor, use the term anthropogenic. As does Wiki (the all and knowing source that it is).

Can you point to multiple climatologists (because it takes at least a few climatologists to compose a circle of them, right?) using the term anthropomorphic instead of anthropogenic?

lava

radar said...

Hahaha! Lava, yep, wiki isn't always reliable but I think you are right on this one. Anthropogenic is a better word for the term. It is the perfect term. I officially yield to the wisdom of your research.

I looked back at the sites I had visited and found Google hits for anthropomorphic but anthropogenic yields more hits. Plus, the definition is right on. I admit to being lazy in not double-checking it. Mea culpa.

I also note that the majority of the posts I saw on Google using the correct term are posts that assert that Anthropogenic Global Warming is unlikely, uncertain or a complete hoax. Cool!

I hope you check out my latest post and apply similar research skills to it, should be interesting.

highboy said...

"Are these serious questions?"

The first two certainly were. The last one was just wishful thinking. I'm addicted to 70s Show reruns for some odd reason.

Anonymous said...

Holy Crap. Did I just get Radar to admit that he was wrong about something? (and if there was a little more wiggle room, would it have happened?)

lava

radar said...

Actually, I admitted to being wrong about the Obama Aunt thing, too. I just didn't want to talk about it any longer, since it was so inconsequential in the long run.

I was also wrong in a way to defend Hartnett, since he himself refused to communicate with me on the matter. His carelessness with notation in an equation, in the final analysis, makes it an error no matter whether the equation works anyway. So I will concede that as well. If he is careless in notation, might he not be careless in computations and sloppy in reasoning? If he will not even bother to defend himself, I will no longer defend him.

In those other matters, I am right IMO. I have already defended my positions in those matters and to do it over and over again is unreasonable. So back to our movie?

highboy said...

What, were my questions too stupid to answer? Throw the little guy a bone. LOL.

chaos_engineer said...

What, were my questions too stupid to answer?

There are no stupid questions, only stupid people. Let's see what I can do with the questions:

So what observable, testable signs can I spot that I'm evolving as we speak? If I'm not evolving as we speak, why aren't I?

Did you notice that Creeper said that you were "the product of millions of years of evolution", not that you yourself were evolving? That's because individuals don't evolve; only populations evolve.

If you happen to have a mutation that helps you survive better than your neighbors, then you can pass that on to your children and it will become more and more common in future generations and eventually everyone will have it.

The mutation will probably be something subtle...you're not going to suddenly get X-ray vision or Adamantium Claws or Spider-Strength; that only happens in comic books. (Actually, comic books give us a good picture of what life would be like if Intelligent Design Theory were true.)

Evolution is such a slow process that you can't really see anything over the course of a single human lifetime. A lot of what we know is deduced from the fossil record.

And why do I not have rockets for feet?

Rockets aren't very efficient if they're expelling gas. You'd need a huge amount of fuel to power them, so it would probably be impossible for you to catch enough food to stay alive.

It's more efficient to expel something heavy, like water. But then you'd have to drink all that water and it would weigh you down.

But what if you lived underwater, so you could suck in water and then immediately expel it? That could work, and in fact squids are using that strategy today.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I admitted to being wrong about the Obama Aunt thing, too. I just didn't want to talk about it any longer, since it was so inconsequential in the long run.

I didn't see it...unless it was this, which might be a retractions

My friend lobo gave us the example of the law that could have been broken and I agreed we could not prove that it was broken but certainly could surmise that it stretches one's beliefs to think that Obama would not know exactly what her status was and just didn't want to stir up any controversy. It would not have been politically expedient for him to act and it would be impossible to prove that he was guilty of anything, so it isn't worth further discussion. That ought to cover that one.

This doesn't really sound like you are saying you were wrong. If this is it, I still don't think you realize how wrong you were.

lava

lava

highboy said...

Lava, you're awesome just for taking the time to actually address my concern for not having rockets for feet. You are permanently in my cool book.

highboy said...

"Evolution is such a slow process that you can't really see anything over the course of a single human lifetime. A lot of what we know is deduced from the fossil record."

So what you're saying is that humans won't know they've evolved until whatever they've evolved into millions of years later looks back on the fossil record?

Anonymous said...

"In those other matters, I am right IMO. I have already defended my positions in those matters and to do it over and over again is unreasonable."

If only.

You're absolutely right, to do it over and over again would certainly be unreasonable, but that's not what happened in either of these instances. To not do it at all and claim to have done it is even less reasonable (and dishonest to boot).

To do it once and be done with it would be the reasonable thing to do. So why not do that and be done with it?


1. Your response to my pointing out the fatal fallacy in your prison population claim was to threaten me with censorship, and you have never, not once, defended your position.

To clarify the issue one more time: I did not take issue with how you derived at the figure 11% (though it is questionable), which is what you have occasionally responded to, but that this does not bolster your claim with regard to the prison population at all, because you only used data for the general population, which is of course a completely different group, and knowing something about that group tells us next to nothing about the other group known as the prison population.

Look at it this way: if I claimed that 51.1% of the people in your household were female, you'd be quite puzzled, and you might ask me to back that up.

Now what if, in response to your questioning that claim, I demonstrated that 51.1% of the US population were female, would you think I had made a reasonable argument? Or would you think that the statistic with regard to the US has nothing to do with the makeup of your household, which could be anything from 0% to 100% male?


2. With regard to ice cores, I'm a little puzzled that you claim to have defended this, because it's a relative newcomer from the comments here: "Blah blah blah. Study of ice cores shows that many, perhaps hundreds of layers can be formed in one year."

I asked you to back that up: " Please provide a link to this study, provided it didn't take place in your backyard. And if you don't have such a study, please just tell us instead of wasting everyone's time again."

This was on January 27th, a grand total of 11 posts ago. And you didn't defend your position on that "over and over again". You didn't defend it at all.

So what's the story? Can you back up the claim or can't you? Or will you concede the issue of ice cores? It's kind of a biggie.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"So what you're saying is that humans won't know they've evolved until whatever they've evolved into millions of years later looks back on the fossil record?"

Maybe not quite millions of years, but essentially yes. Evolution is a slow process and you're not going to see much of it in a human lifetime. Even fruitflies and bacteria will only make small (but in some cases measurable) strides during that time.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Lava, you're awesome just for taking the time to actually address my concern for not having rockets for feet. You are permanently in my cool book."

Highboy, not that Lave shouldn't be in your cool book, but it was chaos_engineer.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"Highboy, not that Lave shouldn't be in your cool book, but it was chaos_engineer."

My bad. Props to chaos engineer. Lava can be in my cool book anyway.

"Maybe not quite millions of years, but essentially yes. Evolution is a slow process and you're not going to see much of it in a human lifetime. Even fruitflies and bacteria will only make small (but in some cases measurable) strides during that time."

So right now we have no way of testing weather or not we humans as a species are evolving?

Anonymous said...

"So right now we have no way of testing weather or not we humans as a species are evolving?"

You mean whether our offspring's offspring down the line will be different from us? I'm not aware of any way of testing that.

-- creeper

chaos_engineer said...

So right now we have no way of testing weather or not we humans as a species are evolving?

It might be better to say that we can't tell whether we're evolving in an "interesting" way.

We could do a genetic survey and find out that 25% of the population born in 1975 carries a gene, and that 26% of the population born in 2000 carries the same gene. That's technically evolution; it's just not very exciting.

Assuming humanity survives for another thousand generations, we can be mathematically certain that genes that don't exist today will become widespread, and genes that are common today will die out. Probably some of the changes will be interesting.

That said, I don't think humanity has another thousand generations of natural evolution left. Based on the state of technological progress, I think we'll make some clumsy attempts at Intelligent Design via Genetic Engineering, and then be replaced by hyperintelligent nanomachines.

If we're kind to our modern-day computers and don't use them to troll the Internet, then the nanomachines might allow us to survive by uploading our personalities into software before they dismantle and reassemble the planet.

It's a bit of a gamble but the Rapture is way overdue and I've given up waiting. It was supposed to happen back in the 1970's.