Misdefining terms for purposes of propaganda

This is the direct sequel to https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/atheism-is-a-dogma-get-over-it/

Prior to the 1990s, it was clear to me what atheism, atheists,  agnosticism,  agnostics, dogma, and fanaticism were. That’s because we had clear and logically consistent definitions of those words. They were found in reliable dictionaries like Webster’s New World Dictionary. Here are the definitions I found in the 1975 edition, which I still own and use.

atheism: “the belief that there is no God”. (That’s the ONLY definition in the book.)

agnostic: “a person who beleives that one cannot know whether or not there is a God or an ultimate cause, or anything beyond material phenomena.” (The ONLY definition in the book.)

dogma: “a positive, arrogant assertion of opinion.” (One of several definitions, and it is not implied that dogmas must always be religious in nature.)

fanaticism: “excessive and unreasonable zeal” (Again, it is not specified that only religion can produce fanatics.)

Continue reading

Why I despise Alex Jones

Because the man is a fuked up lunatic, even worse than most of those right-wingers who spew their hate on FOX News!

Check this out:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/elite-moves-to-lobotomize-zombify-global-population.html

{{{Elite Moves To Lobotomize, Zombify Global Population

The Alex Jones Channel

Aug. 4, 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm3PYZ0N7Dg

THIS IS REALLY HAPPENING!!! LINKS ARE BELOW
The establishment media and the scientific dictatorship are promoting brain-eating vaccines that virtually lobotomize people and rewire their brains into a state of subservient compliance so that their natural instinct to get angry and rebel against the tyranny being imposed upon them is neutered and sterilized.
“Academics say they are close to developing the first vaccine for stress — a single jab that would help us relax without slowing down,” reports the Daily Mail.
FOR MORE INFO
FOOD THE ULTIMATE SECRET EXPOSED PT1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSpkLk…
FOOD THE ULTIMATE SECRET EXPOSED PT2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B9MeO…
http://www.infowars.com/food-the-ulti…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/art…
http://www.infowars.com/new-york-time…
http://www.prisonplanet.com/establish…
http://www.infowars.com/oxford-bioeth…
http://www.infowars.com/category/feat…
}}}

Continue reading

Holding CNN accountable for phony “balance”

CNN published an article on its website about climate change. Two bloggers with a strong interest in the subject looked at it and quickly debunked its credibility.

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/new-study-lays-out-11-indicators-of-a-warming-world-media-focuses-on-contrarian-views/

From time to time, journalists like Andy Revkin and Keith Kloor protest that the mainstream media doesn’t do an awful job covering the issue of climate change. They believe that the well-documented, systematic bias of undermining scientific conclusions by “balancing” them with contrarianism is behind us. Unfortunately, this is demonstrably false.

The above image is from the self-proclaimed “Most Trusted Name in News” CNN’s coverage of NOAA’s just-released 2009 State of the Climate Report, copy from The Financial Times. The State of the Climate report details how the planet is warming as captured by 11 different indices, from land surface temperature to glacial mass balance.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/misleading_reporting_from_fion.php

Thingsbreak has produced a graphic illustration of how lazy journalists mislead in the name of “balance”. On right is his colour coding of her story on the NOAA report on the State of the Climate in 2009, with red marking coverage of “Climategate” and contrarians and green marking coverage of the report that the story is ostensibly about. This, from the red coverage, quite takes your breath away:

David Herro, the financier, who follows climate science as a hobby, said NOAA also “lacks credibility”.

Tim Lambert, the blogger, who follows climate journalism as a hobby, says Harvey lacks credibility.

Harvey’s story was so bad that even Keith Kloor said that it was “glaringly flawed”.

CNN must have noticed the criticism and acted on it. The article has now been REMOVED from its website! Another victory for honest reporting, as opposed to fake “balance” in reporting.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/29/climate.change.noaa.ft/

Page not found

We’re sorry! This page is not available. Please visit the CNN homepage or use the search box below.

A damning statement about public schools

Occationally I find a statement by someone so stunning in its brilliance, yet so obvious, that I feel the need to spread it around. Such as this:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/i_am_the_wrong_person_to_answe.php#comment-2702235

Posted by: skeptifem Author Profile Page | August 3, 2010 10:28 PM   #9

Public school isn’t meant to genuinely educate. It never will. They dole out skills that increase the value of the lowest rung of workers. That is the purpose of it. Having customers and workers who can read and do basic math is something that power structures need, so we have it.

The current cirriculum in schools does not prepare students for huge portions of living, perpetuating privilege and disadvantage. People come out of school knowing nothing about how to go further than HS, medicine, the law, economics, and history. Children are taught obedience and discouraged from thinking critically. The liklihood of a state institution portraying the state honestly (which is to say, in a negative light) is unlikely. So it isn’t as though everyone who grew up in public school isn’t pumped full of ridiculous lies in the same way the homeschoolers are, it is just a different set of lies.
Real knowledge and the ability to think critically is kept to classes of people who are conditioned for obedience. The number and variety of meaningless hoops a person typically has to jump through in order to make it far in education weeds out radical people. Even on the K-12 level, people are branded “behavior problems” (of course there are genuine ones as well), or put into “slow” or “advanced” groups based on what people should know by a certain age, as if minds don’t vary wildly in that respect. It divides em, often along race/class/sex lines. It teaches learning is a chore (that takes place between 7 and 3), and you learn what other people say, and that you unwind by doing a bunch of non thinking by buying products or staring at screens all day. It kills the motivation to learn. Children don’t see the past or future of the world they are in, shut in with only people their own age except for authority figures.

SO yeah, I unschool. I don’t see the supremacy of public school at all. Crappy homeschools literally move school into homes- that is what creationist homeschoolers do in spades. School would have to be radically rethought for me to approve, and they have been before. Voluntary skill swaps, anarchist free schools from the early 1900s, that I would approve of in a school. As is public school is a crock of shit.

I must note that I was brought up in public schools, even in college. I guess I was lucky I learned to think as critically as I do. But I am not against public schools. But P Z Myers, who wrote the blog entry skeptifem was commenting on, said at the beginning:

I am not a fan of homeschooling; in fact, if I had my way, I’d make it illegal.

I am glad that P Z is not a dictator over us, then. Not all homeschoolers are religious fundamentalists. That’s an urban myth we need to stamp out.

There are indeed secular homeschoolers. Here are some of their websites:

http://www.secularhomeschool.com/

http://www.secular-homeschooling.com/

http://www.secularhomeschoolers.net/

http://www.atheistview.com/secular_homeschool.htm

There are also Unitarian Universalists who homeschool:

http://www.uuhomeschool.org/

Public schools may provide a valuble service, but no one should rely on them exclusively to educate their children. Parents and other adults also have a responsibility to be teachers, now and forever. Let it be so.

White Americans need to grow up!

Note: the writer of this blog is a white guy.

From the very beginning of the United States of America’s existence as an independent nation, it was totally white dominated. Not just the union as a whole, but every single state within that union, was white dominated. Not a single state was ever allowed to be ruled by non-whites, not Native American tribes, not blacks, nor Asian-Americans. Even states that you would expect to be ruled by non-whites were taken over by whites before they could become states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma#History

During the 19th century, thousands of Native Americans were expelled from their ancestral homelands from across North America and transported to the area including and surrounding present-day Oklahoma. The “Five Civilized Tribes” in the South were the most prominent nations displaced by American expulsion policy, an atrocity that came to be known as the Trail of Tears during the Cherokee Nation’s removals starting in 1831. The area, already occupied by Osage and Quapaw tribes, was called for the Cherokee Nation until revised American policy redefined the boundaries to include other Native Americans. By 1890, more than 30 Native American nations and tribes had been concentrated on land within Indian Territory or “Indian Country.”[45] In the period between 1866 and 1899,[43] cattle ranches in Texas strove to meet the demands for food in eastern cities and railroads in Kansas promised to deliver in a timely manner. Cattle trails and cattle ranches developed as cowboys either drove their product north or settled illegally in Indian Territory.[43] In 1881, four of five major cattle trails on the western frontier traveled through Indian Territory.[46] Increased presence of white settlers in Indian Territory prompted the United States Government to establish the Dawes Act in 1887, which divided the lands of individual tribes into allotments for individual families, encouraging farming and private land ownership among native Americans but expropriating land to the federal government. In the process, nearly half of Indian-held land within the territory was taken for outside settlers and for purchase by railroad companies.[47]

Major land runs, including the Land Run of 1889, were held for settlers on the hour that certain territories were opened to settlement. Usually, land was open to settlers on a first come first served basis.[48] Those who broke the rules by crossing the border into the territory before it was allowed were said to have been crossing the border sooner, leading to the term sooners, which eventually became the state’s official nickname.[49]

Delegations to make the territory into a state began near the turn of the 20th century, when the Curtis Act furthered the theft of Indian tribal lands in Indian Territory. Attempts to create an all-Indian state named Oklahoma and a later attempt to create an all-Indian state named Sequoyah failed but the Sequoyah Statehood Convention of 1905 eventually laid the groundwork for the Oklahoma Statehood Convention, which took place two years later.[50] On November 16, 1907, Oklahoma was established as the 46th state in the Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#History

In 1887, Kalākaua was forced to sign the 1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii, which stripped the king of much of his authority. There was a property qualification for voting, which disenfranchised many poorer Hawaiians and favored the wealthier white community. Resident whites were allowed to vote, but resident Asians were excluded. Because the 1887 Constitution was signed under threat of violence, it is known as the “Bayonet Constitution”. King Kalākaua, reduced to a figurehead, reigned until his death in 1891. His sister, Liliʻuokalani, succeeded him on the throne.

In 1893, Queen Liliʻuokalani announced plans for a new constitution. On January 14, 1893, a group of mostly Euro-American business leaders and residents formed a Committee of Safety to overthrow the Kingdom and seek annexation by the United States. United States Government Minister John L. Stevens, responding to a request from the Committee of Safety, summoned a company of U.S. Marines. As one historian noted, the presence of these troops effectively made it impossible for the monarchy to protect itself.[36]

In January 1893, Queen Liliʻuokalani was overthrown and replaced by a Provisional Government composed of members of the Committee of Safety. Controversy filled the following years as the queen tried to re-establish her throne. The administration of President Grover Cleveland commissioned the Blount Report, which concluded that the removal of Liliʻuokalani was illegal. The U.S. government first demanded that Queen Liliʻuokalani be reinstated, but the Provisional Government refused. Congress followed with another investigation, and submitted the Morgan Report on February 26, 1894, which found all parties (including Minister Stevens) with the exception of the queen “not guilty” from any responsibility for the overthrow.[37] The accuracy and impartiality of both the Blount and Morgan reports has been questioned by partisans on both sides of the debate over the events of 1893.[36][38][39][40]

Then, of course, there is the Mexican War of 1846-1848, in which nearly half of Mexico’s territory was taken over by the United States, along with Texas that had been annexed prior to the war’s beginning. All those territories and later states were later, you guessed it, WHITE dominated, not Hispanic dominated. Of course, it is understandable that allowing  Hispanics to rule those territories or states might eventually result in the secession of some of those states from the USA either to seek independence or to rejoin Mexico.

Also, Puerto Rico has never been allowed to become a state, even though it has been a protectorate of the USA for over a century!

Could that be what fuels anti-illegal immigrant agitation in the United States today? Fear of states that were once part of Mexico being returned to Mexico by the mostly Hispanic people wouldn’t be such a problem if the territories that made up those states had not been TAKEN BY FORCE FROM MEXICO IN THE FIRST PLACE! And liberalizing immigration laws would be a positive step to someday allow non-whites to rule at least one state in the USA, finally! Ironically, illegal immigrants are profitable for American businesses that employ them, since the businesses don’t have to pay the illegals according to minimum wage laws. But they would lose those profits if the illegals were able to gain American citizenship. And the 14th Amendment grants American citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States, so the proportion of Hispanic American citizens will rise dramatically a generation from now. OH, NO!

So to white politicians like Tom Tancredo who have made a career out of bashing illegal immigrants from Mexico and elsewhere, I have but one thing to say:

FUCK YOU!

Covering up a discredited Baha’i prophecy

When I was a Baha’i, I spent a summer at the home of an elderly Baha’i couple, and I looked at their Baha’i books. One thing I noticed was a copy of the classic introduction to the Baha’i Faith, Baha’u’llah and the New Era by J. E Esslemont. It contained a reference to 1957, the year Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith, died, yet it had been published before that year. After searching online this year, I finally found a reference to this older edition.

http://lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com/2009/03/bahai-faith-bahai-faith-missing.html (original link)

http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/bahai-faith-bahai-faith-missing-prophecy

(new and improved version)

Continue reading

NSYNC got it right, for once

This is a sequel to https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/how-christian-bigots-make-the-peace-process-of-israel-and-palestine-impossible/

I have little regard for most pop vocal stars and note that most of them profess to be Christians (at least they mention their faith in God and/or Jesus Christ in the liner notes of their albums). That includes NSYNC, five young boys who were ultra-hot a decade ago. But on one of their albums, “No Strings Attached”, they made a bold statement in one of their songs. Here is the lyrics for it:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/nsync/spacecowboyyippieyiya.html

“Space Cowboy (Yippie-Yi-Ya)”

Here it comes, millennium
And everybody’s talkin’ bout Jerusalem
Is this the beginning or beginning of the end?
Well, I’ve got other thoughts my friend

See I’ve got my eyes on the skies
The heavenly bodies up high
And if you’re in the mood to take a ride
Then strap on a suit and get inside

If you wanna fly, come and take a ride
Take a space ride with the cowboy, baby
If you wanna fly, come and take a ride
Take a space ride with the cowboy, baby
Why-yi-yi-yippie-yi-yay-yippie-yi-yo-yippie-yi-yay
Why-yi-yi-yippie-yi-yay-yippie-yi-yo-yippie-yi-yo
Why-yi-yi-yippie-yi-yay-yippie-yi-yo-yippie-yi-yay
Why-yi-yi-yippie-yi-yay-yippie-yi-yo-yippie-yi-yo

We don’t need all these prophecies
Telling us what’s a sign, what’s a sign
Cause paranoia ain’t the way to live your life from day to day
So leave your doubts and your fears behind

Don’t be afraid at all
Cause up in outer space there’s no gravity to fall
Put your mind and your body to the test
Cuz up in outer space is like the wild wild west

Boom and never let you try to stop me
Born to fly sky high up to the top see
Nothing to fear, no doubts and no tears
Millennium sound to motivate the future years
And you can either be scared or get prepared
Against all odds I bet you never would’ve dared
To make these moves and take flight like me
To come through for the world prophecy
Space connect to overthrow your interception
Ready or not make it hot
That ain’t no question
Get *N Sync and put your head to the sky
Keep the faith
One love from Left Eye

Continue reading

The bottleneck effect and the Genesis creation myth

According to the creation myths of the Book of Genesis, humankind is descended from two bottleneck or founder events. The first was when man was created as Adam and Eve (and even Eve was created from a tissue sample from Adam). They had thousands of descendants, including Noah, his wife, their three sons and their sons’ wives. All of humanity after the flood depicted in Genesis at Noah’s time are thus said to be descended from five people at most (Noah, his wife and his sons’ wives, assuming none of the sons’ wives were closely related to Noah or his wife). But remember that they were ultimately descended from ONE PERSON, Adam, who lived only a dozen or so generations before them, so even their genetic diversity would have to have been lower than people living today.

The reduction of a population causes a loss of genetic diversity and makes inbreeding more likely, which itself limits genetic diversity among offspring until mutation and natural selection has had time to increase that diversity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIID3Bottlenecks.shtml

Considering the diversity of humankind today, one would expect that humans evolved very rapidly after the flood, which would make rejection of evolution by believers in the Bible pointless. How is it that fundamentalists can beleive in rapid evolution within “kinds” over thousands of years, yet deny unlimited and slower evolution over many millions of years?

Because they reject science, of course. Dogma is everything to them, and that’s inexcusible in a society that depends on science for almost everything we have.

The dishonesty and ignorance of the Creationists becomes obvious here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/events.asp

By comparing DNA from different humans around the world, it has been found that all humans share roughly 99.9% of their genetic material—they are almost completely identical, genetically.7 This means that there is very little polymorphism, or variation. Much evidence of this genetic continuity has been found. 8 examined a 729-base pair intron (the DNA in the genome that is not read to make proteins) from a worldwide sample of 38 human males and reported no sequence variation.

These results are quite consistent with a recent human origin and a global flood. Evolutionary models of origins did not predict such low human genetic diversity. Mutations should have produced much more diversity than 0.1% over millions of years. And yet this is exactly what we would expect to find if all humans were closely related and experienced a relatively recent event in which only a few survived.

Bull$#it. If humans were NOT genetically almost identical, they would not be able to interbreed at all and would have already diversified into various species, like humans and chimps did several million years ago. The fossil record shows that species more closely related to us than chimps became extinct long ago and that our species is only a few hundred thousand years old, having evolved from older ones.

We should also seek to understand genetic evidence in the context of the tower of Babel event. 12 This too seems consistent with Biblical events in Genesis 11. Surely, much research is needed to expand ideas about such genetic evidence to determine its consistency with the Bible and its inconsistency with, for example, the various evolutionary out-of-Africa models. 13

When scientists debate issues, they start with the evidence they have and make their different hypotheses fit the evidence, then look for more evidence to rule out competing ideas. They don’t start with a creation myth that can never be ruled out and assume that any evidence must be forced to fit it!

It’s not a whitewash, you denialist bastards!

Remember when I noted the Climategate issue? I first mentioned Isaac Newton and how some of his ideas and actions were highly questionable, but since the ideas he got right proved useful enough, his wrongdoings were overlooked. No one today screams “WHITEWASH!” over that.

It was the e-mail hacker who committed a crime, remember?

https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/climategate-what-it-really-means/

Thus we have now seen the depths the denialists will go to attack their targets; most of them are willing to commit crimes and/or condone those crimes committed by others to advance their cause. Yet they have the gall to demand that, on the basis of the stolen e-mails, the writers of the e-mails should by charged with fraud and imprisoned. That is sheer hypocrisy.

And as far as I know, no serious effort has been made to track down and jail whoever pulled that stunt.

Meanwhile, the scientists who were targeted have had to endure hearings on the issue. Their work has been scruntinized and their motives questioned. And the results have been as follows:

http://live.psu.edu/story/47378

http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/MannInquiryStatement.html

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HC387-IUEAFinalEmbargoedv21.pdf

http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-muir-russell-report/

So a few stolen e-mails were dissected last year, some statements within them were taken out of context and their meanings distorted and this was supposed to be the big scandal that would bring  down the movement against global warming? Such cherry picking is typical of denialists, but that is not the way science should ever be run. In the end, the climatologists have been let off the hook and allowed to resume their work. Hopefully, reforms will be made to make the process of sharing data more open and transparent, but that must be through legal means.

Climategate is a dead issue now. Let’s bury it and move on!

Scienceblogs listens to reason, not just $$$$$$$$

The uproar over the inclusion of a corporate sponsored blog on scienceblogs resulted in a dozen or so blogs, some of which had been there for years with a sizable readership, jumping ship in disgust. Realizing what they had to lose, the management quickly backpedaled:

http://scienceblogs.com/seed/2010/07/food_frontiers.php

We have removed Food Frontiers from SB.

We apologize for what some of you viewed as a violation of your immense trust in ScienceBlogs. Although we (and many of you) believe strongly in the need to engage industry in pursuit of science-driven social change, this was clearly not the right way.

Indeed, I would hope someone got fired over this.

Other responses:

http://scienceblogs.com/obesitypanacea/2010/07/pepsico_food_frontiers.php

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/repost_sugary_drinks_weight_ga.php

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/07/farewell_good_math_bad_math.php

http://scienceblogs.com/brookhaven/2010/07/a_clarification.php

http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2010/07/pepsi_has_been_defeated.php

http://scienceblogs.com/bookoftrogool/2010/07/small_fry_blogging_networks_an.php

http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2010/07/more_on_pepsigeddon.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/pepsico_has_been_expelled.php

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/07/food_frontiers_is_gone.php

http://scienceblogs.com/classm/2010/07/failing_the_pepsi_challenge.php

http://scienceblogs.com/eruptions/2010/07/tempests_teacups_and_the_futur.php

Well done, fellow bloggers! I’m proud of you all!

Scienceblogs has sold out!

Corporate advertising, in the form of ads posted on websites, is one thing. But when corporate shills are allowed to set up and run a blog of their own on a website that is supposed to be about SCIENCE, not corporate advocancy, that just blows my mind!

See for yourself here!

http://scienceblogs.com/foodfrontiers/

http://scienceblogs.com/foodfrontiers/about.php

http://scienceblogs.com/foodfrontiers/2010/07/welcome_to_food_frontiers.php

I am absolutely opposed to this crap and I hope there is a massive protest against it by other bloggers at scienceblogs!

Oh, it’s already started:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/say_hello_topepsico_wtf.php

http://scienceblogs.com/superbug/2010/07/pepsi_messy.php

http://scienceblogs.com/eruptions/2010/07/a_pause_for_thought.php

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2010/07/on_corporate_content.php

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2010/07/more_on_pepsi.php

http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2010/07/a_pepsi-induced_hiatus.php

http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/2010/07/rethinking_blog_networks_and_e.php

http://scienceblogs.com/classm/2010/07/beyond_the_pale.php

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010/07/sucking_corporate_dick.php

http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2010/07/an_egoistic_perspective_on_the.php

http://scienceblogs.com/neuronculture/2010/07/a_food_blog_i_cant_digest.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/2010/07/so_long_and_thanks_for_all_the.php

http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2010/07/programming_note_thanks_to_pep.php

http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2010/07/a_teachable_moment.php

http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2010/07/alliances_beginning_and_ending.php

http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2010/07/blog_suspended.php

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/07/if_i_say_something_bad_about_p.php

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2010/07/seed_conflicts_of_interest_and.php

http://scienceblogs.com/culturedish/2010/07/culture_dish_doesnt_live_here.php

http://scienceblogs.com/neurotopia/2010/07/my_official_farewell.php

Finally, the people running scienceblogs made a statement recognizing how they had blundered, but still tried to justify the presence of the corporate blog itself:

http://scienceblogs.com/seed/2010/07/transparency_regarding_food_fr.php

Yesterday, ScienceBlogs launched Food Frontiers, a blog sponsored by PepsiCo. This isn’t the first time we’ve hosted sponsored blogs–recent ones included GE, Shell, and Invitrogen–but it is the first time we’ve received this level of criticism about it.

Frankly, we at ScienceBlogs did not do a good job of communicating what these sponsored blogs are for, give a proper explanation of what our relationship to Food Frontiers was going to be, or even properly explain what Food Frontiers is.

We have blogs from industry because we think it’s important that the story of how and why industry science gets done be part of the conversation at ScienceBlogs. It’s certainly the story of a great many of the world’s engineers, mathematicians, chemists, physicists, and biologists. These scientists necessarily have conflicts of interest, so as a matter of transparency, we’re fixing the way those conflicts are presented, in line with the best practices of scientific journals.

Bullcrap!

To the owners of scienceblogs, Seed Media Group, I say this: What a stupid thing you have done! You do NOT need corporate money that badly. You only undermine the credibility of your website and your own bloggers that have been here for years. What you need is INTEGRITY! Kill that Pepsi blog and don’t EVER do anything so underhanded again!

I AM SICK OF CORPORATIONS RULING THE WORLD!!!!!

I’m from Texas, not Missouri

Take a look at this disgusting blog by anti-evolutionist and anti-Semite Larry Farfarman:

http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/

The introduction of it alone is enough to make me barf:

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : “I`m from Missouri — you’ll have to show me.” This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Clearly, this bastard doesn’t know the difference between skepticism and denialism. Among scientists, evolution is not controversial and among historians, the holocaust is not controversial either. It is denialists among the lunatic fringes of society that have problems with such things. Those big babies need to grow up, that’s all.

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs — there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

 In other words, this @$$hat thrives on chaos and insists on his  stupid opinions being held as equally valid with all others without any attempt to sort out truth from falsehood. How can anyone do science with that attitude? And if nothing is to be deleted or closed, what point is there in saying that rude comments are to be “discouraged”? That is meaningless.

Here is a recent episode of Larry’s insanity:

http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2010/06/systematic-holocaust-would-be.html

Saturday, June 05, 2010

“Systematic” holocaust would be impossible even with DNA testing! I have long contended that a “systematic” Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable way of identifying Jews and non-Jews. This claim is often pooh-poohed with examples of how supposedly easy it was for the Nazis to objectively and reliably identify Jews. The stories go something like this: Nazis raiding a synagogue find the rabbi there. They torture him, forcing him to reveal the synagogue’s membership list. The Nazis then hunt the members down one by one.
 
I have speculated about whether the Nazis could have objectively and reliably identified Jews and non-Jews by means of DNA testing, which of course was not a available to them. This study shows that the answer to that question is no.
 

Clearly, this fucked up moron never lived among Jews, never studied how the Jewish religion is practiced, and thus thinks that Jewish people can be identified only by their DNA and nothing else. He would have failed Anthopology 101.

Need I say more?

WHAT A DAMNED LIAR AND COWARD!

First, read this from P Z Myers:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/how_not_to_run_a_blog.php

A strange little blog has been carping at various atheists blogs for a while now. Called “You’re Not Helping”, it pretended to have the goal of keeping internet atheists honest and holding them to a higher standard. It wasn’t very interesting — it’s main claim to fame was a tone that combined self-righteousness with whining — but it has just flamed out spectacularly. The author has admitted to committing flagrant sockpuppetry, with four identities (“yourenothelping”, “Polly-O”, “Brandon”, and “Patricia”) who were active commenters there, all reinforcing the same views and sometimes congratulating each other on their cleverness.

So much for honesty and a higher standard.

Indeed, not only has the liar been caught out, he has hidden his blog! If you try to access it now, you get:

http://yourenothelping.wordpress.com/

This blog is protected; to view it, you must log in

Well, this is what should happen to it:

This blog has been archived or suspended for a violation of our Terms of Service.

Because if sockpuppetry is not a violation of WordPress Terms of service, IT SHOULD BE!

Update: Now the place where that blog used to be says:

The authors have deleted this blog. The content is no longer available.

Atheism is a DOGMA! Get over it!

I recently had a long argument with an atheist who not only openly disagreed with all religions, but insisted that all religious people were delusional, stupid, even insane, while totally denying that he was himself promoting an unproven belief of his own.

What is atheism? There appear to be two kinds:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

By the first definition, I am indeed an atheist, but I reject that term for myself because I know that people assume that atheism is about outright denial of God’s existence (the second definition) and nothing else. By contrast, I question God’s existence and do not deny it at all. My position is a neutral one regarding that specific issue.

And that is why Thomas Huxley in the 19th Century coined the term agnostic to describe himself and his beliefs, or lack thereof.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Thus by the first definition one can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, though most people only know of the first kind (because that is consistent with the second definition) . What one cannot be is lumping all people who are religious into the same category of irrationality, delusion, and stupidity and then be nondogmatic at the same time. Not only are you being dogmatic, you are being a BIGOT.
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
And any atheist who does that is no better than someone who is a religious bigot.
Atheists say that the burden of proof should be on the religious person to support the claim that God exists. But producing such proof is exactly what the religious person does when he produces the Bible, the Quran, or some other religious text that is the basis for a God-centered religion. You can say that the proof is insufficent to establish belief in God beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is still a proof. And religion by definition requires faith, not absolute proof. If belief in God could be established beyond a reasonable doubt, it wouldn’t be part of religion. Conversely, atheism also cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt, because there is no way to disprove the existence of God. Atheism is a dogma, not an objective point of view.
When an atheist says that the Bible is no more credible than the Harry Potter books, he is not making an objective statement at all, but giving a subjective opinion. That’s exactly what a DOGMA is!
Does this mean atheism is also a religion? It depends on your definition of religion. I say no, because you don’t need faith to be an athiest or agnostic. Faith involves belief in something that cannot be directly detected. But you do have to make a choice to be an atheist, agnostic, or theist. Belief in the non-existence of God is as much a religion as not playing chess is a form of gaming. But one still makes a choice if one refuses to learn how to play chess.

Floods cause canyons? Yeah, but…..

Check out this science news article:

http://www.physorg.com/news196255219.html

Geologist investigates canyon carved in just three days in Texas flood

June 20, 2010

In the summer of 2002, a week of heavy rains in Central Texas caused Canyon Lake — the reservoir of the Canyon Dam — to flood over its spillway and down the Guadalupe River Valley in a planned diversion to save the dam from catastrophic failure. The flood, which continued for six weeks, stripped the valley of mesquite, oak trees, and soil; destroyed a bridge; and plucked meter-wide boulders from the ground. And, in a remarkable demonstration of the power of raging waters, the flood excavated a 2.2-kilometer-long, 7-meter-deep canyon in the bedrock.

According to a new analysis of the and its aftermath—performed by Michael Lamb, assistant professor of geology at the California Institute of Technology, and Mark Fonstad of Texas State University—the formed in just three days.

A paper about the research appears in the June 20 advance online edition of the journal Nature Geoscience.

Our traditional view of deep river canyons, such as the Grand Canyon, is that they are carved slowly, as the regular flow and occasionally moderate rushing of rivers erodes rock over periods of millions of years.

Such is not always the case, however. “We know that some big canyons have been cut by large catastrophic flood events during Earth’s history,” Lamb says.

Unfortunately, these catastrophic megafloods — which also may have chiseled out spectacular canyons on Mars—generally leave few telltale signs to distinguish them from slower events. “There are very few modern examples of megafloods,” Lamb says, “and these events are not normally witnessed, so the process by which such erosion happens is not well understood.” Nevertheless, he adds, “the evidence that is left behind, like boulders and streamlined sediment islands, suggests the presence of fast water”—although it reveals nothing about the time frame over which the water flowed.

Shrewd commenters noticed the irony of that article:

yyz – Jun 20, 2010

I wonder how long before the Texas Board of Education and Young Earth Creationists (same thing, really) point to legitimate research such as this as further proof that Earth “might be” 6,000 years old? We’ll know soon enough.
Andragogue – 23 hours ago
Young Earth Creationists will not doubt cherry pick bits of data from this study thereby adding to the volume of their pseudoscientific books and pamplets sold in gift shops around the Grand Canyon. (At 7 meters in 3 days, that’s about 230 days to carve out the Grand Canyon.)
GaryB – 22 hours ago
> Unfortunately, these catastrophic megafloods — which also may have chiseled out spectacular canyons on Mars—generally leave few telltale signs to distinguish them from slower events.
 Is Lamb a young earth creationist?? There are plenty of signs: Slow erosion such as formed the Grand canyon leaves a meandering canyon when the earth rises under a meandering stream. Fast floods tend to leave straight paths.
Caliban – 21 hours ago
Unfortunately for the YEC crowd, the total volume of material excision that is represented by the Grand Canyon will defy all but the most idiotic or foolhardy among them.
I don’t have exact figures, but the discharge flow/volume rate of moving water required to carve out the canyon, on young earth timescales simply doesn’t exist, and there is no documented megaflood precedent that could even come close to camparing- and even at that at least a couple orders of magnitude too small.
The Grand Canyon simply dwarfs any of the other megaflood sites- Washington state’s Channeled Scab Lands, the English Channel, and the McKenzie River megaflood features, after repeated episodes, are HUGE- but still tiny in comparison to the Grand Canyon.
 
Ethelred – 18 hours ago
There is a simple way to show that the Grand Canyon was not created by a single great flood.
The North Rim of the Grand Canyon is 2000 feet higher than the South Rim. The Colorado River flows mostly west with a little bit of south. Across the slope. Not along it.
As single great flood would have flowed SOUTH towards the Gulf of Mexico instead of west towards the Gulf of California. Pointing this out has invariably stopped YEC in their tracks for me. Some have even bothered to ask why the Colorado flows the way it does. Thus showing signs that they might have actually begun to think.

 
Indeed, I highly commend these people for recognizing how Young Earth Creationists (YECs) can misuse data to support their absurd dogmas and knowing how to debunk the Creationist claims before they are even made. The problem is that Creationists use two methods to make their claims:
  1. Taking real phenomenon out of context to support something that is only distantly related to it (There is a HUGE difference between a local flood like what was referred to in the science article above and the mythical flood of Noah).
  2. Ignoring details about something to make a Creationist claim about it plausible when in fact it is not (Have you ever seen flood waters carve out a meandering river course? Also, how could a single flood both make the layers of rock that make up the sides of the Grand Canyon and carve out the canyon itself?)

YECs are deluded liars, of course. And since one of the Ten Commandments of the Bible forbids bearing false witness against one’s neighbor, that must mean Young Earth Creationism is actually unbiblical, right?

Was Lawrence Solomon insane in 2008?

If you want to see what a deranged lunatic Lawrence Solomon really is (or at least was in 2008), read this hilarious joke of an op-ed piece that he wrote and published for a Canadian right-wing rag:

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/07/12/abundant-energy-will-power-future-growth.aspx

Up! Up! Up! The world is consuming more and more energy and, as if by miracle, the amount left to consume grows ever higher. Never before in human history has energy been accessible in greater abundance and in more regions, never before has mankind had more energy options and faced a brighter energy future. Take oil, the scarcest of the major energy commodities. In the Americas, proven oil reserves have increased from 170 billion barrels to 180 billion barrels over the last two decades, according to the 2008 Statistical World Review from British Petroleum. In Europe and Eurasia, proven oil reserves almost doubled, from 76 billion barrels to 144. Africa’s proven oil reserves did double, from 58 billion barrels to 117. Even the Asia Pacific region, where China and India are reputed to be sucking up everything in sight, has increased its proven reserves. And the Middle East, the gas tank of the world, shows no sign of slowing down — its reserves soared by almost 200 billion barrels, from a whopping 567 billion barrels to a super-whopping 756. Bottom line for the world: an incredible 36% increase in oil reserves during the two decades that saw the greatest globalization-spurred oil consumption in the history of mankind. And that doesn’t include the 152 billion barrels in proven oil reserves obtainable from Canada’s tar sands. Is there any reason to doubt that the next two decades won’t build on the steady growth of the last two? These oil reserves aren’t the end of it. These figures — for the year ending December 2006 — represent oil that’s not only known to be available, but also economic at 2006 prices using 2006 technology. Since prices have soared in the last year, and technology has improved too, BP’s annual assessment for the 2007 year will show greater proven oil reserves still. But this is still not the end of it. Unconventional oil reserves are now in play. In 2005, the Rand Corporation estimated that the oil shale in America’s Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, contains 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil, with as much as 1.1 trillion barrels of oil recoverable, an amount comparable to the reserves of four Saudi Arabias. Oil shale becomes recoverable at $95 a barrel, it determined. With oil now trading at $140 a barrel, oil shale exploitation is now very much economic. Then there’s Canada’s tar sands, with its even greater potential–estimates of the total reserves that may be available top two trillion barrels, or eight Saudi Arabias. This is still not the end to it. Most of the oil we know about lies in the well travelled portions of the globe. But most of the world remains unexplored — the interiors of Africa, Asia and South America have seen relatively little oil exploration. Oil exploration in the oceans, too, is in its infancy. For all practical purposes, mankind has limitless oil supplies available to it. The story is similar for natural gas and coal, the other major nonrenewable sources of energy. And for nuclear power. And for the renewables. The amount of solar power landing on Earth could supply our current needs 10,000 times over. This potential will soon start to be realized on a large scale thanks to breakthroughs in the U. S. and Israel that have dramatically brought down the cost of solar technology. Wind also represents an inexhaustible resource, as seen in a 2005 NASA-funded study at Stanford University of viable wind sites worldwide. It found that wind power could satisfy global demand seven times over, assuming a realistic capture rate of 20%. Some European countries already meet a significant portion of their power needs with wind. The world is awash with exploitable energy, both renewable and non-renewable. Availability is not at issue and never has been. The only issue is the cost –both economic and environmental –at which it can be exploited. Nuclear currently fails on economic grounds. But most fossil fuel technologies don’t need subsidies and soon, neither will most renewable technologies. That leaves the environment as the chief determinant of what energy we use, and where we use it. Thanks to environmental awareness and the high energy prices we now face, energy production has become ever cleaner, safer, and more efficient, giving us more meaningful options than ever before. Whatever the outcome, whatever energy forms we ultimately rely on, the table is diverse and bountiful, allowing the world economy to grow large and to grow cleanly. And it will have been largely set by environmentalists.

If that is not insanity, what would be? How can anyone seriously claim that nonrenewable resources can suddenly appear in greater abundance without a shred of proof or an explanation for his obviously absurd conclusions? I hope the oil companies pay this shill well enough; he may someday need a lawyer to defend him against charges of FRAUD. Hey, he could always plead not guilty by reason of insanity, and a judge and jury just might buy that!

There is still hope even for those who are brainwashed

Check out this blog:

http://nolongerquivering.com/

It is a protest against men using religion to train women to be little more than breeding machines.

http://nolongerquivering.com/about/

by Vyckie

I am a single mother of 7 wonderful kids. I am a former “Quiverfull” mother who dedicated my life to bearing and raising up “Arrows for God’s army.”

My pregnancies nearly killed me on several occasions, but I was so dedicated to the ideal that I continued to risk my life. I left the movement and my Christian faith, so that’s led to learning a whole new way of thinking and living. My kids and I are really having a blast and enjoying the freedom to be ourselves rather than ordering our lives according to some predefined roles based upon an ancient patriarchal society.

I am a former Christian homeschooling mother of seven who finally walked away from fundamentalism after our radical extremism drove my oldest daughter to attempt suicide. I was so convinced of, and committed to, the Biblical family ideals espoused by what has been termed the “Quiverfull” or “Biblical Patriarchy” movement.

Mine is a candid story of one who was seriously sucked into a hate-filled worldview and was so committed that I was willing to die for the cause – and now I am equally bold in speaking up to say that the Quiverfull worldview and lifestyle overburdens women, enslaves the daughters and destroys families.

Of course, this is the sort of evil that trapped Andrea Yates and killed her five children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates

Women shouldn’t teach at Christian schools

Take a look at this:

http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/teacher_fired_for_having_premarital_sex

Teacher Fired for Having Premarital Sex

by Alex DiBranco

June 09, 2010   04:00 PM

Newlywed Jarretta Hamilton, an elementary school teacher in her late 30s at Southland Christian School in Florida, went to her supervisors last year to be congratulated on her pregnancy and request maternity leave. But things took an unexpected turn when administrators asked just when, exactly, did she conceive? Refusing to bear false witnesses, Hamilton admitted to the prying busybodies that she had become pregnant three weeks before her wedding day.

In response, Hamilton was fired for engaging in “fornication.” Conveniently, this also meant that the school was off the hook for paying maternity leave. Then, in an added insult and violation of Hamilton’s privacy, her premarital conception was made public to others in the school and parents.

A letter explained the school administrators’ supposed rationale for the firing: “as a leader before our students we require all teachers to maintain and communicate the values and purpose of our school.” Fornication, of course, is not one of those values. Yet given that Hamilton conceived a mere three weeks before her wedding day, it would be impossible to claim that it was visibly obvious that she’d become pregnant outside of marriage. In fact, if they were concerned about the image and values being communicated, they would have given Hamilton maternity leave and not broadcast the length of her pregnancy to the entire community.

Hamilton is now suing for compensation for both her lost job and the emotional distress of being humiliated before the entire school. The invasion of a woman’s private life and high-handed moralizing makes me gag. And while the courts while decide whether legally this private religious school had the right to discriminate against Hamilton based on her marital status, morally I’d put Southland Christian School squarely in the wrong.

What Would Jesus Do? I imagine the mother of Jesus would also have been fired for fornication. The hypocrisy and self-serving attitude just sickens me!

The arrogance of Catholic League President Bill Donohue

Look at these videos:

Question: Is the Empire State Building (ESB) owned by the Catholic Church? Is it even a religious building at all? And would Mother Teresa herself have insisted on this sort of thing?

If the answer to any of these questions is no, then the refusal of the owners of the ESB to set aside a special night to honor Mother Teresa is their right. The whole point of owning private property is doing with it whatever you wish, not what someone else wants. Bill Donohue is an @$$hole! A very loud farting one!

Here is the scheduel for the lighting of the ESB over the past year:

http://www.esbnyc.com/tourism/tourism_lightingschedule.cfm?CFID=38563048&CFTOKEN=63757689

It should be noted that Mother Teresa, as beloved as she was, is not even yet an official Saint in the Catholic Church. Perhaps someday she will be declared as such. And there are so many ways to honor her, within Catholic Churches as well as anywhere else. Why make such an issue of the ESB?

Because Bill Donohue needs something to scream about to make his name appear in the news and look like he is doing something good, when he is just spitting in the wind. And even if he gets his wish, I don’t see how lighting the ESB a certain way for one night will save a single life or otherwise do anything beneficial for the building, its owners, or the businesses that work within it. Does anyone?

China will eventually face an economic crisis

For decades, China has tried to solve its overpopulation problem via a one-child per couple policy that has indeed stabilized its population size at about 1.3 billion. This has resulted in the population aging over time. But at the same time, China has been encouraging more and more foreign businesses to outsource their manufacturing labor to China to take advantage of the vast amount of cheap labor there.

That will soon come to an end, because you cannot have it both ways for long. As population growth stops and eventually starts to decline, China will be forced to devote more economic resources to care for its elderly, which will grow in numbers at the expense of the younger workers. And Chinese workers will feel they are worth more and start organizing and even striking for better pay and work conditions, resulting in the era of cheap labor in China coming to an end.   Meanwhile….

http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/chinapopulation.htm

In the next few decades, India, the world’s second most populous country is expected to surpass China in population. By 2040, India’s population is expected to be 1.52 billion; that same year, China’s will be 1.45 billion and India will become the world’s most populous country. As of 2005, India has a total fertility rate of 2.8, well above replacement value, so it is growing much more quickly than China.

The result will most likely be a shift in outsourcing from China to India, at the very time China’s social and economic systems will be most dependent on the younger workers there to support welfare for the retired workers. So that will cause vast unemployment in China and poverty for all ages there, instead of the economic prosperity it has been striving for. We will see more and more products that say, “Made in India”,  “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”. And India will suffer from both overpopulation and increased pollution that will dwarf what China is suffering now.

Poor China! It would have been better not to have accepted the outsourcing in the first  place!