Friday, July 30, 2010

NOT ON STRIKE!

I just didn't want anyone to think I was neglecting my self appointed duties here. I'm enjoying the beautiful weather of Western Canada while visiting with 100 plus relatives. I'll be tapping out new posts on my iPhone as soon as I get over the jet lag.

Enjoy your week everyone!

-Chris

Sunday, July 25, 2010

The Creationists' ASS-umptions.

It's often fun sport to make fun of the claims of creationists, but every now and then they come up with a pile of convoluted drivel that is designed specifically to confuse people into listening. The approach seems to be "let's make it so confusing and throw in so many scientific terms that we'll trick people into thinking it's really science."

Dating The Earth's Age

The article linked above is exactly what I'm talking about. Read it if you dare, but allow me the indulgence of sharing their glaring sleight of hand.

Their argument is all about radioactive decay and its use in dating rocks. We know how fast certain elements decay, so we can measure how much of the elements have decayed in certain rocks and we can come up with a reasonable date as to when the rock was formed. This has been a solid and respectable science for quite a while now, but the creationists have come up with what they seem to think is the achilles heel.

How do we know that radioactive decay has remained constant over the years? They argue that we are making a huge assumption and a leap of faith when we assume that the rates of decay are the same now as they always have been. In fact, they argue that the rates of decay have actually slowed significantly and that they were much, much faster in the past. Because of this, our dating of the rocks has given the rocks an artificially old age.

Put aside the fact that we can see stars that are hundreds of millions of light years away (meaning that the light that we see was necessarily emitted hundreds of millions of years ago). Nevermind that we can use tree rings to date areas of the earth to far, far older than the 10,000 year maximum age that creationists cling to desperately. Nevermind that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to carve out. Nevermind that the Sumerians were brewing beer more than 10,000 years ago. Nevermind that creationists argue for a beginning of the earth right about the same time that their precious book was being written. Nevermind that plate tectonics reveals a gradual drifting apart of the continents that would have taken millions of years. Nevermind that we don't find fossils of modern day animals in any older deposits. Nevermind that pretty much all scientists in the world who have studied and worked in areas relating to Geology, Evolution, Biology or Paleontology agree on the 4.5 billion year old estimate. Nevermind that DNA evidence has shown that humans and chimpanzees split off the same evolutionary tree branch millions of years ago and that all DNA evidence has already put the nail in the coffin of anti-evolutionists claims. Nevermind that EVERYTHING WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT SCIENCE SUPPORTS A 4.5 BILLION YEAR OLD EARTH!

Nevermind all that. No, you see the creationists have revealed that the major flaw in our reasoning is that we make the assumption that radioactive rates of decay have remained constant and we didn't consider that maybe they were really, really fast before Noah's flood but slowed down to modern speeds afterward, sometime before we figured out how to measure them.

Okay, I'll grant that we make this assumption. It's an assumption based on the FACT THAT WE HAVE SEEN THAT RATES OF DECAY REMAIN CONSTANT OVER TIME, but it's an assumption nonetheless. Nevermind that we also "assume" that the far side of the moon isn't covered in cheese doodles. Nevermind that we "assume" that worms don't gamble in tiny underground casinos. Let me ask the creationists this question though. If rates of decay have actually changed over the years, why do you assume they've slowed down? I feel like assuming that they actually sped up and the earth is really more like 300 gazillion years old. Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

Friday, July 23, 2010

Study Time

A pet project has been researching the biblical Book of Revelations. It's a fascinating work that has had religious and historical scholars enthralled for many years. Many people have already died due to the interpretations of the book by some. Who wouldn't want to understand what would drive people to such extreme and ludicrous actions?

Here's the thing though, it has been a while since I actually read the text of the book. I'm now going to do just that, then write my thoughts. Stay tuned!

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Jesus Interrupted


One of my favorite authors on the historicity of the New Testament.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

In Fact: The Bloop

Brian once again clearly demonstrates that the best scientific answer is simply "I don't know." There's no shame in not having an answer to a mystery.

Very Cool Fish

Check out this great MSN Video: Catching Dinosaur Fish

To steal a title from a great musician/blogger/podcaster/comedian/tweeter by the name of George Hrab. This definitely falls under the heading "Interesting..........Fauna."

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Religious Lesson Plan

“The world is something we apprehend but cannot comprehend and it is that inability to comprehend which makes us human."

This quote probably sums up my divergence from organized religion. While seemingly innocuous on the surface, it encourages us toward the idea that we cannot comprehend the world around us. In other words, the pursuit of understanding is fruitless so instead, open your hearts and minds to God.

Science seeks to explore, learn, develop, invent, etc. Originally it was stone tools. Lately, it's things like remote robotic surgery that would allow a highly specialized physician in New York City to literally operate on a patient in Bankok via a high speed web hookup and a robot on the other side. These are the things that comprehension and the pursuit of knowledge give us.

50 years ago, children with Autism were institutionalized. The pursuit of comprehension and knowledge gave us better understanding and tools for progress. When I think of the joy that my autistic son brings our family and I think of where he would be had he been born 50 years ago, I'm hard pressed to hold back a tear. Thank you science.

My other child is allergic to peanuts. It also wouldn't have been too long ago that he would have not survived past a relatively early birthday. He's 11 now and has an incredible future ahead of him. I cannot wait to see what he decides to do with that future. Thanks to science, I actually will get a chance to see it.

As we're told in the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve were placed in a paradise and they had but one rule to follow. Do not partake of the tree of knowledge. Do not learn. Do not seek to understand. Remain in the garden, ignorant and happy. As I do not believe in the literal truth of this story, I seek to understand the lesson that was intended for those who read it. The only thing I come away with is that we are not to learn, nor are we to seek understanding and comprehension.

I for one am very glad that so many people choose not to live by the lessons imparted in Genesis, even if they don't realize it.

Holy cow. Really?



This is possibly the most jaw droppingly stupid argument I have ever heard against the theory of Evolution. I'm actually not sure if it's a joke or not, so I feel like a complete idiot even commenting, but here goes.

I do realize that many readers of this blog will come from many different backgrounds, and not all will be well versed on the theory of Evolution. That's cool. Let me just explain why this video misses horribly.

Evolution does not address the issue of life's origins, plain and simple. The creationists can scream this drivel all they want, but it's a straw man argument that is reprehensibly misleading.

Evolution would argue the following.

1) Take a large, sterile room and fill it with peanut butter.
2) Introduce a single strain of microscopic life that can survive on peanut butter.
3) Close door and let the microbes do their thing until all the peanut butter is gone.
4) Check the microbes on a genetic level and compare to frozen samples of the original microbes that were introduced.

If the time interval was long enough, you will see distinct, noticeable changes in the genetic makeup of the microbes from the end of the experiment as compared to the beginning.

Claiming that Evolution is wrong because sealed peanut butter jars don't sprout new life forms is like claiming Gravity is wrong because chocolate tastes good. The argument makes no sense and it glaringly reveals the ignorance of the one making it.

Entertaining with Brainpower

I love it when kids show other kids that it's cool and fun to be smart. It just doesn't happen enough, does it?

Get Listed!

Do you have a Skeptical Group that is not yet listed as a "Skeptics in The Pub" group? Send over your info.

Click HERE to list your group.

Click HERE to see a list of current groups.

Monday, July 19, 2010

Temple Grandin

Watched some moving video about Temple Grandin tonight with my autistic son. Actually, he technically falls short of officially being labeled autistic, but obviously has many of the difficulties, symptoms and characteristics. He's 9, but understands that he has what he refers to as "a little bit of autism." I'll tell you something. Sitting him down and explaining what autism is and how it affects him has been an incredible step forward for him and for his happiness. He knew he was different, but didn't know how. Now he understands why he needs an aid in class, why the fire alarm scares him in ways that clearly don't matter to the other kids, and why he has a hard time expressing himself.

Now with Temple Grandin, he also realizes that he could very well end up very successful and happy in life, if only he works for it.

Carl, I hardly knew ya.

Reposted from The Road, which had reposted from Pharyngula. Great video. True brilliance never goes out of style.

Sunday, July 18, 2010

The Devil Potato



I took this picture in a friend's garden last night during a barbecue/pool party. It's a simple red potato popping out of the ground, ready to be harvested. We nicknamed it "The Devil Potato," though we should have probably called it "The Jesus Potato" and auctioned it off on eBay. Pretty freaky, huh?

The truth is, I'm the only one who noticed that it looks just like a face halfway out of the ground when you look at it from a very specific angle. The covering of the other face "half" with soil only adds to the illusion, and our minds fill in the blanks reinforcing the face image. When I took the picture with my iPhone and showed it to some friends, they were floored and didn't believe it wasn't photoshopped. I took them to the potato still in the ground and pretty soon the entire gathering of friends were crouded in the garden staring at this spud.

Next time you see a picture of the devil, or Jesus, or The Virgin Mary, or Elvis that was taken in a cloud of smoke just remember this little potato. Our minds can play some pretty cool tricks on us.

Arguing with Creationists



For anyone who has never engaged in this sport I highly recommend it, but only for the mental workout and exercise in self restraint that you must endure. You are not going to change the mind of a creationist overnight. Perhaps you'll plant a tiny bug in his/her ear (figuratively speaking). Perhaps you'll simply chuckle at the responses you receive. My personal favorites are along the lines of "All science has conclusively proven that The Bible is 100% accurate, yet you atheists refuse to accept God so you make up this evolution garbage as a way to avoid accountability."

I really don't have any solid advice for you if you decide to engage in a debate with a creationist, but I'll share my own humble view. Put the onus on them. Every time they make a broadly sweeping comment, ask them to back it up with science. When they claim that it's a matter of faith, force them to admit that they have no physical proof (which they shouldn't have a problem doing). Since there are a myriad of scientific proofs for evolution, pick about 3 or 4 and lay them out in exceptional detail and ask the person to explain it away. My experience is that they will undoubtedly make up an explanation on the spot. Call them out on it and ask how they could argue when they don't know the specifics of that case study. If they say "I don't have a good answer as I don't know the specifics," give credit where it's due. That's a fair comeback and it shows a hint of rationality. Then direct them toward the resources and issue a friendly challenge to examine the studies.

When someone is arguing from passion and not facts, they will often make factual claims with no actual truth to them. If you call them out on each and every one of those, they will have no choice but to recognize what they are doing. It's a small step, but it's a step in the right direction. Don't point out the error in their arguments. Let them figure it out on their own.

Friday, July 16, 2010

The Amazing Kreskin?

I had been told that Kreskin was an "old school" mentalist who walked the line between being an entertainer and claiming true psychic powers. I never knew the answer and I hadn't really thought of the guy in many years. I don't know why, but I thought of him again recently and looked up some of his videos on YouTube. I was depressed to find that he has actually pretty solidly gone over to the dark side by claiming real psychic ability.

A friend of mine has done quite well for himself financially. He is also a huge baseball fan and attended the Yankees Camp a few years back (which you need to be pretty well off to attend). Some old timers from the Yankees come play with the attendees and show them proper technique, etc. It's a week long adult camp full of baseball and meeting the guys you watched when you were a kid. His reaction to meeting his childhood hero? Depression. The guy was "as dumb as a hat full of screwdrivers."

Another friend works in the Professional Wrestling business. He has similarly met all the guys he watched as we grew up. Some are cool and level headed. Some are miserable, sad caricatures that were used as the model for Mickey Rourke's character in "The Wrestler." He was depressed to see this.

As I watched Kreskin in the old video clips, my heart sank. The tricks were obvious and almost amateurish to anyone who has studied mentalism a bit. I'm nowhere near good enough to do shows like he did (does), but I can see what he's doing and how he does it. I was depressed, but for different reasons than my friends.

Kreskin was never a hero or idol of mine. He was just a guy who I found entertaining. I enjoyed wondering about whether or not he was truly psychic. Now as I watch, I shake my head and wonder how anybody can be fooled. If you want to know how this trick below is done. just write me an email. Trust me though. You'll be disappointed.


SCIENCE

I must confess that I got this from my friend Jay Novella over at The Skeptics Guide. The title "SCIENCE" is similarly borrowed. I couldn't have summed it up better. Thanks Jay.

Test Post via iPhone.

Just curious to see if I can post an entry with my iPhone. Of you're reading this, you should be able to deduce whether or not it worked

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

SKLOG is now at Blogger

I've been neglectful. As I sat at work watching my Facebook friends enjoy themselves at TAM8, I sat back and pouted about my inability to join in the fun and debate. Then I remembered that I have my very own personal way of spouting my opinion via the web. It's this blog thingy.

Skeptics in the Pub is a website that I created for many reasons, but SKLOG is my outlet for venting and/or initiating conversation. They were all created on iWeb, which is basically "Web Design for Dummies." The only problem with iWeb is that it's pretty cumbersome to make changes to a website and/or blog. This has kept me from regularly posting. NO MORE!

Since I can write to blogger from pretty much anywhere I want, here I go. This takes things and makes them so much easier, I no longer have an excuse. Stay tuned!

-Chris