In a previous blog entry, I focused on the phony rhetoric of a Christian apologist named Ken Ammi. My attacks must have really bothered him, because he engaged in some desperate damage control in not one or two, but THREE blog entries about me in a row! I guess I should be flattered.
I’ve used this blog to deal with all sorts of ridiculous claims, dogmas and political crap over the past decade or so. Now my attention turns to lunar landing denialists.
According to these lunatics, NASA faked the moon landings as part of a vast conspiracy. Why they would ever claim such a thing is a mystery to me, but I guess some people just take comfort in believing that humans are simply not capable of achieving such feats. They need to grow up.
For the latest manifestation of such insanity, read this story:
When I started this blog about a decade ago, I always hoped it would be a useful reference for people seeking credible arguments about science, religion, politics, and other social issues, backed with a consistent ethical standard. Little did I know just how far my words would travel!
Recently, other bloggers that are critics of the Baha’i Faith have begin taking my words and directly posting them onto their own blogs and even on one video on YouTube, much to my astonishment.
First the video, based on Four Ways to Create a Religion of Hypocrites
Which also appears here: http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2016/12/4-ways-to-create-religion-of-hypocrites.html
The original blog entry was copied here: http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2015/07/four-ways-to-create-religion-of.html
That same blog also reposted several other blog entries of mine:
When it comes to faithfulness and accuracy in quoting my writings, Others, not so much.‘s blog is indeed the best.
Here are other examples of blog entries elsewhere that got it right, mostly:
Another blogger, Ed Darrell, referred to one of my early statements on climate change, which is an even bigger issue to me than the Baha’i Faith:
Which actually came from here:
And loooooong before any of that, one of my oldest online friends referred to my blog here:
Which came from here:
Earlier, he made this: https://dovaryeh.wordpress.com/2007/07/29/science-can-it-dictate-ethics/
Which referred to this: https://dalehusband.com/2007/07/21/three-opponents-three-different-results/
Which is also more important in some ways than criticizing the Baha’i Faith.
So now it is official: Not only has Hillary Clinton secured the Democratic nomination at last, but even her fierce rival Bernie Sanders has publicly endorsed her. The fighting among Democrats is over.
However, some diehard Bernie supporters refuse to vote for Clinton and may instead vote for the Green Party, which is indeed more progressive than most Democrats are.
I like most of what the Greens stand for, but there is one point that I strongly disagree with them on.
Greens support a wide range of health care services, not just traditional medicine, which too often emphasizes “a medical arms race” that relies upon high-tech intervention, surgical techniques and costly pharmaceuticals. Chronic conditions are often best cured by alternative medicine. We support the teaching, funding and practice of holistic health approaches and, as appropriate, the use of complementary and alternative therapies such as herbal medicines, homeopathy, naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and other healing approaches.
Unfortunately, most forms of “alternative” medicine are called that precisely because they have not been fully tested and confirmed to work via scientific methods. To illustrate the danger of being willing to uncritically trust such things, read this:
One of the things people need to understand about science is that it is not like a buffet restaurant where you can pick and choose what scientific ideas and products you can accept or reject. You either accept it all or you are not thinking scientifically.
Here’s another questionable part of the Greens’ platform:
We urge the banning of sewage sludge or hazardous wastes as fertilizer, and of irradiation and the use of genetic engineering in all food production. (Emphasis mine)
Genetic engineering itself is neither good nor bad, so banning the procedure completely is nonsense. We need to judge all such issues on a case by case basis.
The Greens need to modify their platform by removing these controversial and inappropriate statements if they expect to keep my support. Otherwise, I will just return to voting a straight Democratic ticket this November.
Check out this article in NewScientist:
Stringy fields may make the universe swell faster
A common objection to natural selection as the mechanism for evolution is that while it may act as an editor, it cannot be an author. That is, it may change genetic information through mutation, but it cannot cause genetic information to increase. And they are right, but genetic information can still increase across the generations of organisms through a process called nondisjunction. This occurs when an unequal amount of genetic material is passed on to two daughter cells after the process of a cell dividing. One cell will have slightly less genetic material, and the other will have slightly more. The most famous example of nondisjunction is the kind that causes Down’s Syndrome, when a human embryo receives three 21st chromosomes from its parents rather than the normal number of two. But nondisjunction can occur regarding any chromosome in any organism and may not even involve chromosomes at all, such as in the case of bacteria.
Let us imagine that three billion years ago, a bacterial cell was dividing, but because of a chemical malfunction, slightly less genetic material ended up in one daughter cell, and slightly more in the other. The cell with less material will probably end up smaller, while the cell with more material may end up larger, because a greater amount of genetic material can produce a greater amount of proteins, the molecules that provide the structural basis for all organisms. Larger cells (assuming the reproductive potential of the different cells was the same) would have an advantage over smaller cells in the race to gain food, thus natural selection would favor larger cells.
If this process was repeated many times, then it is possible that over a billion years a bacterial cell would have emerged that had hundreds of times more genetic material than the first primitive organisms that arose on Earth about four billion years ago. And that would have enabled the evolution of more complex organisms than bacteria…including us!
Reality trumps any number of fallacious arguments made to support a preconceived position based on one or more lies. This is why I am a hard-core empiricist and reject the philosophical school of rationalism, which claims that human reason alone can produce truth. Instead, it has only produced conflict.