Making videos for YouTube, finally!

For years, I’ve had a YouTube channel, but lacking a webcam I was unable to make actual videos. So I was content to favorite videos by others and make comments. But that all changed when I finally bought a webcam after several months of hesitation and learned how to edit files on my computer to make videos too.

Here is my first, made purely to test the systems.

Satisfied with that result, I produced this one a couple of days later about one of my favorite topics:

And this will be just the beginning!

Allowing for error and uncertainty in real science.

Genuine science is always based on reality, never dogma. And there are two issues regarding reality:

  1. Nature gives consistent answers based on empirical analysis.  So those answers will tend to be reliable.
  2. Human beings are fallible. That means they make mistakes and do not always make precise measurements.

A contradiction? Not really. Look at these two charts:

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg

The light blue areas in the first graph, and the grey areas in the second, are uncertainties resulting from the fact that there were fewer measurments relative to earlier time periods than later ones. There were far fewer tide gauges in the late 19th Century than in the late 20th Century. And there were far fewer proxies extending back to the Middle Ages than those which referred only to modern times. And in both charts, there are more precise measurements of sea level (from satellites) or of temperatures (from direct thermometer readings).

Scientists take pride in their honesty, so they allow for errors and uncertainty in their data, even while attempting to increase the accuracy and detail of their measurements. Even if the actual sea levels or temperatures centuries ago were not exactly known, we can still give approximate estimates that are better than knowing nothing at all.

Contrast these two charts with this one:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm

Where is the uncertainty? This chart seems to depict EXACT measurements of sea levels from hundreds of years ago, which is really impossible! But those who are scientifically illiterate (like many members of the British House of Lords, I would guess), would not realize that!

Which explains why I commented on this chart and others here:

How the hell is it that denialists are willing to accuse the makers of the “hockey stick” graphs of faking data, yet they never noticed anything from their own people like THAT?!

Ironically, when you have no uncertainty allowed for in the data, THAT is a sign of fakery!

Priestly Celibacy is unbiblical and stupid!

Cover of "Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy...

Cover via Amazon

For many centuries, all clergy in the Roman Catholic Church have been required to be celibate, despite the total absence of any scriptural basis for this policy. Indeed, there is a clear statement in the New Testament against it!

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%203&version=NIV

1 Timothy 3

1 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)

Continue reading

Dr. Georgia Purdom, hypocrite

This is a bio of Answers in Genesis “scientist”  Georgia Purdom.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/g_purdom.asp

Quotes from it will be in red and my responses will be in green.

Dr. Georgia Purdom is a compelling and dynamic lecturer and well qualified to speak on the relevance of Genesis to the issue of biblical authority.

So she has the gift of gab. You need that to be a successful preacher, but that has nothing to do with being an effective scientist.

She is the only female Ph.D. scientist engaged in full-time speaking and research for a biblical creationist organization in North America.

This actually violates Biblical teachings!  1 Timothy 2:12 – “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

Dr. Purdom states, “A proper understanding of Genesis is very important because it is foundational to biblical authority and a Christian worldview. It’s about so much more than the creation/evolution controversy. It’s about the truthfulness and authority of God’s Word.”

Sure, as long as you ignore that verse from 1 Timothy. Or maybe she thinks it is not God’s Word? After all, it IS in the Bible. So can she, her boss Ken Ham, or other Creationist advocates specify what parts of the Bible are the Word of God and what are not?

The real issue I have with religion

The real issue is of honesty, not what one beleives. I don’t care if you bow down and worship a blue bull, as long as you don’t LIE to us about how that bull is not only your god, but is somehow a god to everyone else and that there is credible scientific and scholarly evidence to support your dogmas about the bull.

Anyone can read the Bible with his own eyes and mind and see that it is chock full of historical errors, contradictions, logical failings, and absurdities. So what do Christian apologists do to explain them away? Word gaming, nothing more! Once you start down that perverse path, with no test in reality, there need be no end to it. One lie is defended by another lie, and then you tell yet more lies to support the earlier ones. It just becomes a habit that is impossible to break, because doing so would make your whole case fall apart and you would lose your blind and ignorant following which gives you your power!

That’s how religious apologetics works, and Creationism is merely religious apologetics with scientific terminology. Nothing more.

Response to the video “Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker”

The YouTube member cdk007 is well-known for  making videos attacking Creationism/Intelligent Design, and promoting evolution. This is one of his early works and I consider it to be an masterpiece.

But after seeing it several times, I came up with ways to improve it further. Here are quotes from the video in red and my suggestions in blue on how to make the simulation of natural selection upon clocks even more realistic and consistent with how it works on populations of organisms.

Each clock organism consists of 30 gears, 1 ratchet, 7 hands, 1 spring, and one housing.

Each clock organism consists of a random number of  gears, ratchets, hands, springs, and one housing, determined by mutations of the organisms themselves . Reason: Mutations should be allowed to change the number of clock parts to make the process of natural selection even more difficult. Humans have two kidneys but can survive with one and it is perfectly possible that we could have evolved with only one.

Remove 3 at random and arrange them in order of their ability to accurately tell time. The better two clocks kill the worst clock. Mate the surviving two and produce an offspring.  Return all three clocks to the pool and repeat.

Remove 3 at random and arrange them in order of their ability to accurately tell time. The better two clocks kill the worst clock. Mate the surviving two and produce FOUR offspring. The remaining two older clocks are also killed off. Add the four new clocks to the pool and repeat. Reason: Represents the process of overproduction, which is an actual factor for populations of organisms to evolve over time, plus even the most successful organisms eventually die. As long as they are able to reproduce viable offspring first, they may be considered a success. After two “generations”, the population of clocks will have doubled, and so it will randomly split into two populations which will begin to evolve independently, simulating the process of speciation. Further splits occur every two generations. Finally, after TEN generations, all but two populations will be randomly wiped out, simulating a mass extinction. The cycles of two generations and ten generations continue indefinitely. As a result, the surviving populations of clocks diverge in form over time.

It would probably require a much more advanced computer system, with a lot more memory, than the one cdk007 used for his original simulations, but I still think it is worth a try.

A banned person lies to me!

When I ban someone from commenting on this blog, it is not merely because I dislike his or her opinions, but because I find the person using dishonest, profoundly stupid, and/or abusive comments against me or others here.

Consider some the comments on this blog entry:  https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/those-terrible-twins-of-climate-change-co2-and-h2o/

wrauny said

December 28, 2009 at 1:33 AM

You are right that H2O is a strong greenhouse gas, due to its absorption spectrum. I didn’t really understand the molecular weight argument. I have analyzed the CO2 greenhouse effect (here). You might find the results surprising. Sorry that I don’t include the secondary effects of H2O.

After I made a reply to him, he said:

wrauny said

June 9, 2010 at 12:52 AM

In the last table, the emitted Radiant Intensity from the earth is decreasing due to increasing CO2 absorption. In order to balance the Radiative Forcing (incoming Solar Irradiance minus outgoing thermal and reflected radiation), the surface temperature of the earth was increased in MODTRAN so the the radiant intensity matches the baseline value.

Note that I updated my blog to include the IPCC definition of radiative forcing, which excludes this balancing effect (increased thermal radiation from a hotter earth). My blog was really a criticism of that definition, thus the glossing over other factors (which you justly criticized).

I apologize if the language I used was provocative and I regret this. I am concerned about the environment, but I feel that the sensationalism and politicization of this issue is preventing us from being reasonable in our solutions.

I will NEVER ban honest critics who can admit to being wrong. Making mistakes is not a sin if the mistakes are subject to correction.

Later, humphreyc showed up. His comment there was so offensive that I used the editing technique called “disemvoweling” to obscure its contents while still allowing the comment to stay up as a warning to others. I had learned this tactic from P Z Myers.

He should have had the good sense to stay away, or better still, to publish a critique of me on his own blog. Instead, he pulled this useless stunt: He made one more comment which got listed as spam. I read it.

This is strange. I didn’t make this post (I can’t even read it). Someone appears to be using an identical appellation to comment here.

My only comment ever on this site was on the Iran/Afghanistan/Iraq thread, which was simply to point out that things always go better in theory than in practice. I apologize if you thought that juvenile.

So am I banned, or should I simply change my post name?

humphreyc, you damned moron! Here are the vital stats that appear along with BOTH comments:

humphreyc
paul_dworian@urscorp.com
209.165.164.243

The first is your screen name, the second is your e-mail address, and the third is what computer the comment originated from!

His other comments, all with the exact same stats, are as follows:

https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/dinosaurs-and-creationism/

Those of us who never bought into creationism in the first place have a lot less anger about the issue.

As to your last paragraph…you really want to go with the word “blasphemy”? Oh wait, sorry I meant “BLASPHEMY!” I seem to recall god creating and then subsequently destroying all sorts of things in the bible, including a fairly close call with humanity. In fact, there seems to be alot of things in the bible that would cause one pause regarding God’s behavior toward the world. Killing off the dinos doesn’t seem particularly out of character.

https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/iran-iraq-afghanistan-and-the-usa/

Everything always goes better in my imagination too…

No, you will NOT be unbanned, you lying @$$hole. GO AWAY FOREVER!