Media alert!

| 139 Comments

We have some interesting events coming up on TV and radio: two interviews that pit the wise against outrageous fools.

  • Tonight (Wednesday), Jay Leno is having two special guests on his show. Ann Coulter, who is plugging her new anti-evolution, anti-freethought, anti-thought book of hate, is going to be on, and most wonderfully, with her will be George Carlin, of the famous irreverent irreligiousness and sharp, searing wit. Let's hope for fireworks.
  • Friday, at 3:15 ET, on NPR's Science Friday…it's Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science and advocate of good science, will be paired up with Tom Bethell, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, who most infamously said, "Darwin's theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse…Natural selection was quietly abandoned, even by his most ardent supporters, some years ago."

These could be great fun. Tune in!

139 Comments

You can listen to Coulter here claiming that solar and wind power do not create new energy, but nuclear power does! She’s such a brilliant scientist that Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate her, but she’s a little weak on advanced concepts like the conservation of energy.

You can read Coulter on evolution here:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/archiv[…]1.PHP#005875

It’s fascinating to see how “I’m not listening, nahanhanhanhanhanha” is considered a legitimate political and scientific opinion by some.

Having been drawn introduced to Coulter via a seedy discussion on UD I am interested to hear this. Is there some way someone from the UK can listen via the Internet?

Bethell quote: “Natural selection was quietly abandoned, even by his most ardent supporters, some years ago.”

We abandoned natural selection??? I didn’t get the memo…

On the other hand…Coulter has produced no offspring, so sexual selection appears to be intact. :)

secondclass – Just to point out, Dawkins hasn’t been willing to debate Creationists since they got such a large showing even at Oxford, with well over 1/3 of the Oxford audience voting with the Creationists.

I agree that it is silly to think that Dawkins should debate Coulter, or that he even cares who she is, but I do find it odd that he refuses to actually engage in any public dialog with Creationists.

Jonathan, I personally don’t find it the least bit odd. Eye of the beholder, I guess.

Coulter is just a publicity whore. She likes to sell books. Look for her to pick up some other cause once the book sales peter out.

She sure is laughing all the way to the bank.

On the Harpie vs. Hippie match, I call Harpie by UD. Good chance of a work, however.

LOL!

Tom Bethell (1976) Wrote:

“Darwin’s theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse. […] Natural selection was quietly abandoned, even by his most ardent supporters, some years ago.”

[Tom Bethell (1976). “Darwin’s Mistake.” Harper’s Magazine, February 1976.]

By all means, Jonathan, let’s run science by opinion polls.

Perhaps Dawkins realizes that “debates” only give undeserved credibility to people who want their religious opinions taught as science?

There’s a lovely Southern saying for why Dawkins shouldn’t debate Coulter:

“Never debate an idiot. They drag you down to their level, and beat you with years of experience.”

Coulter is not a pundit, she is an attention-getter. She will not debate, and in all the times I’ve seen her on TV, she has not debated any issue. She will attack, using ad-hominem and emotional arguements. (Evil scientists and the ACLU taking away our religon is her latest thesis). Worse, no matter what the outcome, in the media follow-up, 30 second snippets will be extracted, making it look very balanced.

from rightwingnews:

John Hawkins: If you were to pick three concepts, facts, or ideas that most undercut the theory of evolution, what would they be?

Ann Coulter: 1. It’s illogical. 2. There’s no physical evidence for it. 3. There’s physical evidence that directly contradicts it. Apart from those three concerns I’d say it’s a pretty solid theory.

Honestly, how do you even begin to debate with that? She summed up her 3 points in 15 words!!! That’s about all there’s time for on TV. You can’t even begin to talk about heredity, natural selection, mutation, exaptation &c. in that time.

Stuff like this makes me think the end is near.

GuyeFaux

Laser –

I never suggested we should.

Never fear. Dembski’s now riding the Coulter diatribe like a rented mule: Coulter’s promotion of intelligent design “will propel our issues in the public consciousness like nothing to date.

Re “Honestly, how do you even begin to debate with that?”

How about: 1. It’s perfectly logical - complex life comes from ancestors. 2. There’s no significant evidence against it. 3. There’s lots of places where contrary evidence should have been found if the theory were wrong.

Jonathon, I think that you are playing coy. Exactly what did you mean then, by “with well over 1/3 of the Oxford audience voting with the creationists”?

If Dembski wants to tie himself and his “movement” to Coulter, then by all means let him. However, his quote could more appropriately be, “She will drag us into deeper levels of muck than even I ever imagined.”

Can I assume, then, that none of you have actually READ the book?

Can I assume, then, that none of you have actually READ the book?

Actually, no.

But perhaps you have. Care to give a spirited defense?

Randy, since criticisms of Coulter here are about things she has publicly said on her book promotion tour (and in the past), why is reading her book relevant? Is it necessary to read her latest book to criticize her public statements? If you look closely at the comments, nobody criticized her book. They criticized statements that she has made that are in the public record. (They even provided links!)

Adam Ierymenko Wrote:

Coulter is just a publicity whore. She likes to sell books. Look for her to pick up some other cause once the book sales peter out.

She sure is laughing all the way to the bank.

That’s been my opinion of her for a while now. No wonder Dembski finds his views being “promoted” by her. I think he should be less enthused about the company ID keeps.

Can I assume, then, that none of you have actually READ the book?

I have.

Enjoy!

Yes, I read it and enjoyed it.

I don’t agree with everything she says, nor do I always like some of the hyperbole.

Nonetheless, she does a good job making her case. It’s a footnoted book, and many of the sources can be found in published material on the web. There were a couple of times I was reading the chapters on evolution and thought “No *WAY*!! She must be taking this out of context” and then I went and found the citation and realized she wasn’t.

She does a good job gathering materials to make her case that Darwinism is the liberal state religion…and of course I expect that much of this crowd is composed of its true believers, I am sure that the ‘contempt’ that Ann attributes to ‘Darwiniacs’ will undoubtedly be thrown in my direction.

But rather than reading ABOUT her book. Maybe some of you should try an exercise in intellectual honesty and read it…in context, read the footnotes, absorb what she’s saying, and ask yourself if there isn’t some truth to it? It’s called self-reflection. I try to read sites with which I disagree for that very purpose. It’s a very good habit to get into.

I’d love to read some refutations of her thesis about the history of evolution, but that would in fact require someone to actually read the book.…and not just pluck quotes from editorials.

Randy

engage in any public dialog with Creationists.

There have been, over the past 40 years, a number of *very* public dialogues and debates with ID/creationists. In all of these instances, the ID/creationists were given as much time as they wanted to present whatever evidence and witnesses they cared to, and even given the opportunity to cross-examine every single one of the “evolutionist” witnesses to point out any flaws, dishonesty or evasions that they thought they could find.

Those “public dialogues” were called: Epperson v Arkansas, Daniel v Waters, Maclean v Arkansas, Edwards v Aguillard, Segraves v California, Peloza v New Capistrano, Freiler v Tangipahoa, Selman vs Cobb County, and Kitzmiller v Dover.

The ID/creationists lost all of them. Every single one. Without exception.

Can I assume, then, that none of you have actually READ the book?

Nope. But since ID/creationists haven’t come up with any new “arguments against evolution” in 30-some years, I’m pretty sure that Coulter presents nothing — nothing at all whatsoever — that wasn’t already dragged out decades ago by ICR, and hasn’t already been killed somewhere in the T.O “index to creationist claims”.

Could you point out an original argument made by Coulter in her book? One that’s not already 30 years old?

It’s a footnoted book, and many of the sources can be found in published material on the web. There were a couple of times I was reading the chapters on evolution and thought “No *WAY*!! She must be taking this out of context” and then I went and found the citation and realized she wasn’t.

I see. So, since Coulter isn’t a biologist and odesn’t know a prokaryote from a pachyderm, she instead engages in that most favorite of all creationist pastimes — quote-mining.

Let me guess ——– she triumphantly cites Stephen Jay Gould’s statement about the “trade secret of paleontology”, right?

And Patterson saying there are “no transitional fossils”?

(yawn) Seen it all before.

Darwinism is the liberal state religion

Hang on their, young Jedi ——– I thought that ID/creationism was all about SCIENCE and didn’t have any religious agenda, purpose or goals. None at all. Not a shred. It’s just them lying atheist darwinists who say so.

Or were ID/creationists just lying to everyone, under oath, when they testified to that in court, several times … ?

she triumphantly cites Stephen Jay Gould’s statement about the “trade secret of paleontology”, right?. And Patterson saying there are “no transitional fossils”?

Uncanny, sir. You must be psychic!

That exact Gould quote in on p 219., while Colin Patterson mother lode is on p. 201.

One of those would have been a darn good guess. Two is truly impressive. (And in case anyone asks, I didn’t buy the book)

Ann Coulter on embryonic stem cells: There are lots of leftovers when you abort 1.5 million babies a year. This is the next logical extension of the obsessive recycling mentality. “Hey, don’t just throw away that baby you just aborted. Don’t you know how full our landfills are getting? Let’s see if there’s some parts of it we can re-use for other things, like…I don’t know…stem cells?”

LOL. Someone should explain to her that all one can get from an aborted fetus are adult stem cells. What a kook.

Clerly, she’s a witless windbag. Dangerous though, because so many people will see their ignorant opinions mirrored by what she says. And this is a good review of her book, as noted above http://homepage.mac.com/gerardharbi[…]ekd172012271

Here’s a couple places on PT where I mentioned relativistic effects:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives[…]omment-80198

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives[…]omment-80214

I didn’t tend to mention them separately, though I did once, because both graviational and translational relativity affect spacecraft.

I was the one on a post within a week or so who argued that relativity has been accepted because of evidence, not because of “usefulness”. I could link to it, but would rather let that thread rest.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

I gave DaveTard enough time to post my response to his dishonest attack. So I am going to post here (as I did on Antievolution.com) my response to Dave’s egregiously idiotic attack:

Why yes, it is old news:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives[…]omment-80198

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives[…]omment-80214

I have mentioned observed relativistic effects on PT.

The question I asked was in response to this question, which I included in my post:

“Where, precisely, has macro-evolution been done in a lab (in the sense that nature didn’t ‘fight back’ when you were done meddling and revert to the original species.”

Then followed my question:

“Where have the relativistic effects of gravity been shown in the lab. … So show us how the more difficult aspects of gravity have been studied in the lab.”

I am more than a little aware of the observations supporting relativity, but I was countering the old canard that if “macro-evolution” is science it must be shown ‘in the lab.’

I finally had to register for this forum, simply because of the twisting of a reasonable question into one that DaveScot wants to portray as stupid.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

What a surprise, the idiot liar won’t print my first post on UD.

Unsurprisingly, he doesn’t want his egregious distortion to be exposed.

I suppose it all comes out ok in the end, though. Anyone who actually reads the link, and can think, will know that Dave is just slow, and incapable of reading anything that doesn’t fit his preconceptions. And that he’s a censor, especially of anything that would make him look bad (well, when written by others. He continually writes nonsense that makes himself look bad, but again, we don’t call him DaveTard for nothing).

Nothing new, of course, just the constant unchristian (at least as they’d identify “christian”) behavior of Dembski and those he puts in charge.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

After leaving his egregious post unanswered for hours after I had posted, DaveTard finally puts up my response, and of course misses the context of my question once again, claiming that I was not honest with my question.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inde[…]236#comments

Vintage DaveTard. I’m always wondering just how much he misses (good grief, he doesn’t even understand the evidence in favor of evolution) and how much he just makes up for “his tribe.”

It’s just another sorry day in the life of Dembski’s blog.

I should add that Dave’s comments in his original post did not say that I was bashing Coulter, but would leave the impression that I had been. While I did put in a few digs at her, she was hardly my target, so mostly I had been responding to Randy’s YEC-inspired attacks on those of us who accept science.

Again, it’s just another sorry day in the life of Dembski’s blog.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

I’m not waiting for Dave’s slow responses, or his good manners, before getting a response out to him. Is he the most stupid person on the planet? How can anyone who claims to know science also state that gravity is the strongest force?

“The first experiment in a laboratory confirming relativistic effects of gravity fields was in 1959. Here’s a clue from old Dave, Glen. When you find you’ve dug yourself into a hole the first thing you should do is stop digging. Of course if you took that bit of advice you’d have to turn in your Darwinian chance worshipping paraphernalia and face reality head on. I don’t suppose that’s likely is it? -ds”

I did not, of course, claim that no relativistic effects of gravity can be seen in the lab. In fact LIGO is designed to detect gravity waves, though no unambiguous results have been reported yet. While mere detection of gravity waves is not a huge use of relativistic gravity effects in the laboratory, at least it would be something.

I would suggest that you quit trying to bury someone else into the holes you dig.

I would like to see some evidence for LABORATORY confirmation of relativistic effects of gravity fields from 1959.

“By the way, gravity is the strongest force in nature. It overwhelms the electromagnetic force to form neutron stars. It overwhelms the weak nuclear force to form quark stars. And finally, when it overwhelms the strong nuclear force, a black hole is formed. Thanks for playing.”

Of course this is one of the least informed comments that you have ever made. Even high school physics students often know better than that. Gravity IS cumulative, which is why relativistic effects of gravity appear around black holes and neutron stars, but it is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. These matters are explained further here:

http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm

I mentioned finding the graviton in my post, because it is considered to be practically impossible to do.

Glen D http:tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Continuing to answer DaveTard here, since he is certainly not one that I can trust, especially re time. I already posted this on AtBC:

DaveTard did link to an experiment confirming relativistic gravitational effects in 1959, so that’s all well and good.

Of course I never asked for “an experiment” that showed gravitational effects, I asked, ““Where have the relativistic effects of gravity been shown in the lab. … So show us how the more difficult aspects of gravity have been studied in the lab.” [Emphasis added]

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Again, DaveTard shows his class, and his incapacity to deal with both what I had written and with his ignorance regarding the strength of forces.

“Keep digging that hole deeper, dummy. Pound-Rebka is no secret. “

Glen Wrote:

Fine, it’s an experiment indicating relativistic effects of gravity. Something I didn’t deny was possible or that ever happened.

So you avoid the real issue that I brought up, which is that the relativistic effects of gravity remain largely outside of laboratory effects, and resort to what you know how to do, put down others.

“It confirmed with 10% accuracy the relativistic prediction of time dilation in gravity fields in 1959. Pound-Snider in 1964 confirmed it to 1% accuracy. Links to the original articles which appeared in Physical Review can be found at the first link I left for you. I can spoonfeed this stuff to you if you’d stop making faces and spitting it out.”

Glen Wrote:

You’re like the Jesuit (sorry, RCs, but I’m just recounting the story, not claiming that it tells us anything about Jesuits like one of my teachers was) accused of killing nine men and a dog who triumphantly produces the dog alive.

You can’t find any denial of mine that there are experiments that confirm one aspect or another of relativistic gravity.

“Gravity is only weak in low mass regimes. In high mass regimes it overwhelms the other forces and becomes the strongest. What part of it overwhelming the electromagnetic force in neutron stars and the strong nuclear force in black holes didn’t you understand, Glen? -ds”

Glen Wrote:

First of all, I had not seen that post, which may not even have been up when I started to write. Secondly, gravity is the weakest force. That is how it is characterized in physics, while strong gravity fields are understood as cumulative. I was responding to your post, which indeed was terribly mistaken

Magnetic forces also become very strong when they are able to be condensed down to small spaces, such as in magnetars. Nevertheless, the electromagnetic forces have never been condensed down as much as gravitational forces have been.

It’s a shame that you try to cover up your egregious mistake by bringing up the cumulative effects of gravity. I had already alluded to the strength possible in high mass objects by mentioning how relativistic effects are typically studied astronomically, around neutron stars, massive galaxies, and the like.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Sorry to keep on posting UD stuff here, but it is still the follow-up to remarks made on this thread, and the stupidity and lies of DaveTard do not end:

Dave wrote:

Gravitons aren’t a relativistic effect of gravity.

That’s why I wrote:

“…I mentioned the graviton because I want quantum gravity effects to be demonstrated in the lab.”

The idiot can’t read, any more than he can do science or think. This is what we’re “up against”, and let’s not forget that Dembski brings us the stupidity of DaveTard.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 26, column 279, byte 2377 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

DaveTurd isn’t going to let me eviscerate his lies any more on UD. I don’t blame him, considering that he is a dishonest dolt. I wasn’t going to post the following on PT, but since it’s not going to appear at UD, and it actually has more to do with PT than the rest of it did, I think it’s worth adding here. I am responding to Michael7 below:

“1) produce it in a lab”

Why a lab? A good deal of science is done outside of the lab.

“2) why do insects or higher level organisms fight against mutation?”

I am not aware that they do. Fit populations should not be expected to readily incorporate “non-neutral” mutations, however the evidence of genomes is that organisms have diverged, often due to adaptive pressures.

“You said you did this to “counter the old canard about the lab…”. In truth, all your doing is avoiding the difficult question others have not answered after 150 years. Lets remain focused on the issues and problems with macro-evolution.”

No, I was avoiding nothing. I was pointing out that much of science is done outside of the lab. How is one to answer a question based upon the notion that science must be done in the lab, when that is not the case?

Why not deal with the issues of “macroevolution”? I mean, why are you bringing up objections, however sound or not, to evolution instead of asking what the evidence in the genomes could mean except for RM + NS?

“Its a valid question. If scientist today with 1000’s of years of cumulative lab experience amongst them, in nature and genetics cannot randomly mutate a new insect with novel features and have it naturally selected for survival in the lab and then have it survive in nature, then its a valid question.”

A population of organisms cannot be naturally selected for survival in the lab. The lab does not bring “natural” selective pressures to bear upon the population. Also, it would generally not be considered to be ethical to introduce a lab-produced “species” into the wild.

Natural selection has to be observed in the wild. Likely enough we are observing speciation today, other than via the doubling of chromosomes and similar changes, however it would require a considerable period of time to observe allopatric or sympatric speciation in the wild.

Continuing:

“Pointing fingers elsewhere is not an adequate response.”

Yes, that is right. You should deal with the evidence that seems to show speciation, transitions between vertebrate classes, and the like, before suggesting that these cannot occur through RM + NS. Pointing fingers, especially without understanding the issues, only confuses the matter. You should deal comprehensively with all of the data.

“The experiments done in on insects, fruit flies, etc., were not successful. If RM/NS were true for McEvo, you could reproduce it. You could morph flies all day long with new features that would survive.”

The experiments have been highly successful. No one is trying to show via experiment that evolution occurred through RM + NS, because that is not in doubt. It would be well for you to find out what the experiments are actually designed to study.

“Secondly, the overlooked question of why higher level organisms such as insects, fish, etc., in fact fight against mutations. This leads to more questoins which I’ve yet to see answered by the RM/NS answer. The regulatory process limits mutations. Why is there error correction, editing and splicing? Why are there dual pathways as backup systems?

“These are valid questions.”

Why is there a need for error correction, editing and splicing? In other words, why do you suppose that DNA mutates as readily as it does, and why it doesn’t mutate more rapidly? Essentially, DNA and its corrective mechanisms are exactly what is necessary for RM + NS to happen. Why is there sex? It seems to be nothing other than another adaptation to the evolution of organisms via RM + NS, since in many organisms it kicks in at exactly the time when change happens.

Why are there backup systems? How could there not be redundancy in evolving systems? They are both necessary for evolution to effect a quickly needed change under adaptive pressure, and they are to be expected from the evolution of different pathways under different circumstances.

And there is no evidence that organisms “fight against” mutations. Natural selection weeds out non-adaptive information.

Continuing:

“I’ve got the feeling scientist will design a new insect before evolutionist ever randomly mutate one.

“I’m very curious to know Glen if you think one day scientist will Randomly Mutate a new insect, or design one.”

Scientists may very well design a new insect someday. We can be confident, however, that if they do there will be evidence for rational design in the subsequent insect, unless they try to design it using evolutionary algorithms, or use some other method to avoid rational design. They could just copy existing organisms to produce something that doesn’t show rational design, of course.

Why do we see derivation in organisms, but no convincing evidence for elements of rational design in them? I anticipate that some may claim otherwise, but I would point out that rational design elements would need to be shown to differ from evolutionarily-derived “design”. We see plenty of the latter, and what we don’t see are de novo designs (or designs modified from completely different hereditary lines lacking significant horizontal transfers of information) based upon a rational accounting of how the whole organ or biological machine will have to operate.

I mentioned the enzyme Rubisco on PT once, specifically the inefficient one found in plants. Plant Rubisco is understandable through derivation from cyanobacteria (the genetic evidence supports this) which live in a carbon dioxide-rich environment, but it is slow and wasteful in land plants. The oxygenase side-reaction simply wastes energy in C3 plants. Red algae rubisco, on the other hand, is rather more efficient, and there is talk of engineering it into plants to replace plant rubisco.

Silicon solar cells do demonstrate rational design, while plant rubisco does not. Plant rubisco makes sense in the light of undirected evolution, but indicates no rational design whatsoever.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

I was going to include a source for my Rubisco comments, but forgot until I was on AtBC. Then I found Wiki, here:

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

DaveTard puts down my website, naturally, since he has nothing else. Nevertheless, I don’t dispute the problems with color and what-not. I took a local class after my stint at grad school, and was experimenting with pictures and colors. I didn’t know that the site would end up on the search engines, but when it did I had to pull the pictures (hadn’t had permission for them–the colors looked rather better with the pictures), and was no longer able to access the server to change the colors. I get to keep the site as long as I ask them to do so at each start of the quarter. The content is good, on the other hand. Because I have no qualms about the quality of content, I don’t mind putting it out there, and I have very little reason to be on UD, by contrast with PT, other than to list my site–at least once DaveTard is shown once again to deserve that epithet.

Below, the dolts at UD show once again that they don’t understand the core of physics, the nature of evolutionary theory, or why gravity is such an excellent analogy with evolution. They can’t comprehend that relativity and QM are what prevent us from having an unexplained phenomenon in gravity, or “Goddidit” as the “explanation” for gravity. Likewise, they can’t comprehend that biological science would be meaningless with evolutionary explanations for the patterns that we see.

The analogy between testing the relatavistic effects of gravity in the lab being on par with testing macro-evolution in the lab is false on it’s premise. The relatavistic effects of gravity are peripheral to the core workings of gravity in general, not so with macro-evolution, it is THE core of the workings of evolution. False analogies shouldn’t be argued with, they should just be dismissed.

Mea culpa. You’re right of course. I was bored. -ds

Unsurprisingly, DaveTard reveals once again that he has virtually no knowledge of physics, or of “macroevolution”.

So despite the fact that DaveTard has decided that I will not be allowed to eviscerate his BS on UD, I will eviscerate the various morons here.

The relativistic effects of gravity are not in the least peripheral to the core workings of gravity in general, they are central to explaining gravity.

Actually, the analogy with “macroevolution” is rather exact, at least for the IDists who accept that descent with modification has happened. Newton described gravity, he did not delve into what gravity can be understood to be (I hate to write “what gravity is”, but in a way that’s what I mean).

Likewise, DaveTard is willing to concede the description of evolution at its most basic, but he refuses to acknowledge the explanation for evolution. He cannot concede to any respectable theory for evolutionary effects (namely, the one we have now), for he is wedded to a nonsense “explanation” that leaves himself as an engineer with a “mastery of biology”.

I know what the naive cretin who wrote that relativity is peripheral “to the workings of gravity” actually means, of course. He means that we can observe gravity to act without recourse to relativity. Of course this is true, just as we can look at Linnaean taxonomy to discern evolutionary patterns, and even a simpleton ought to recognize archaeopteryx as an intermediate between reptiles and birds.

Relativity deals with deep relationships between gravity and motion, helping to give us the “how” of gravity. QM may be an even more basic explanation, though. Actual theories of gravity do not say simply, “Gravity exists”. Evolutionary theory is also hardly content to say, “evolution happened”, rather we are intensely interested in how evolution occurs.

DaveTard agrees with the moron, as we knew he would.

[Slightly modified from a post I made on AtBC]

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

I hope it’s ok if I respond to comments on DaveTard’s circus o’ ignorance, since he won’t let me do it on the thread that was a takeoff from this thread. Typical “tard” action.

After a cursory glance through Glen’s “Electric Consciousness” website, I did not find one mention of the most interesting problem of consciousness—intentionality. Curious.

It’s because intentionality isn’t very interesting, and especially, because it is only tangentially relevant to consciousness. Non-intentional states, particularly in vision, are closer to being a “primordial” conscious experience than are the more derived intentional states.

Not that I didn’t know this (without being able to articulate it) before studying phenomenology, but Husserl essentially bears out this conclusion as well. Intentionality is important to his purposes, but I am interested in the conscious fusion that exists prior to intention. Intentionality itself appears merely to occupy a subset of consciousness.

Consciousness requires a physics explanation, not a cognitive or phenomenological elucidation and description.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

It’s probably worth including this, for the record, for lurkers, and even for UD folk trying to escape the censorship of DaveTard:

Aw, the retard has a quote:

“Curiously, in some ways gravity is also the strongest force in the universe. It always adds, never subtracts, and can build up until it overwhelms all other forces.”

John G. Cramer Professor of Physics Nuclear Physics Laboratory University of Washington

Cramer writes articles on cutting edge physics for Analog Magazine. He’s written 90 columns so far. I read all 90 hot off the press. He’s one of my favorite non-fiction authors.

Why yes, in some ways gravity is also the strongest force (actually, I couldn’t write even that in good conscience, but wouldn’t fault Cramer in context). Of course if you qualify it, it becomes a reasonable enough assertion.

The little geek busily reads pop science, neither understanding scientific terminology, nor why someone competent does qualify any claim that “gravity is the strongest force.” Well hey, he does read SciAm, so is competent to (mis)judge all and sundry science statements. I’m just sorry that SciAm, which is doing a pretty decent job in educating laymen, is given credit for DaveTard’s deluded fantasies.

The above is what I posted on AtBC. Richard T. Hughes added another worthy comment on AtBC (well, more than just this, but you know…), which I excerpt:

Update.. The article Davetard cites starts..

“Gravity is the weakest force in the universe.”

http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw89.html

Dude, you’re rolling in the mud with a pig.

And the pig likes it.

Lenny Wrote:

Dude, you’re rolling in the mud with a pig.

And the pig likes it.

True, but an attack pig cannot always be ignored. I wrote “gravity is a weak force,” and despite the fact that every intelligent scientist says essentially the same thing, unless using significant qualifications, he’s still maintaining that his stupidity and viciousness are appropriate.

Even so, I suppose at some point one has to say, “Let the filthy be filthy still” (from Revelation). DaveTard will always be more filthy than we can be, even if we want to fight him using his own tactics.

Dembski seems to be attracting and using filth, from Coulter to DaveTard. Ressentiment is now all for him, and he has no limits.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

I guess we should take all them religious people and do unto them as Stalin did (religious guy that he was).

Hey Randy, Stalin was educated at the Gori Church School and then attended the Tilfis Theological Seminary. Guess we need to shut down all them there par-oak-ee-al skules right quick before some poor kid from Biloxi becomes the next worst dictator in in history.

I think it might be worth posting the following here. DaveScot tries to shore up his faulty remarks, only adding to the fact that he knows virtually nothing about physics:

In the beginning, according to the big bang theory, gravity was the ONLY force in the universe. The other three forces separated out from it as the universe expanded and cooled. In certain regimes (neutron stars, black holes) gravity continues to overwhelm the other 3 forces even today. And of course gravity is responsible for the overall structure and movement of matter in the universe. None of the other three forces determine the motions of planets, stars, and galaxies.

Calling gravity the weakest force only has meaning in certain regimes. In some circumstances it is the strongest.

There’s really nothing more to say beyond that. Those are the facts and they are not in dispute.

These comments may be seen here:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?bl[…]036727872778

Dave’s trying to shore up his earlier faulty commments using further incorrect claims. Gravity was never the “only force”, it was simply the first to separate out from the others. Another force existed, at times called the strongelectroweak force, which was made up of what would become the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force.

The other forces did not separate out from gravity, rather they separated from the strongelectroweak force.

It’s just more disinformation (though probably owing to ignorance instead of desire to misinform) from the one who wants to tell us about physics and evolution.

Besides that, DaveScot seems not to understand why gravity is termed “the weakest of the four fundamental forces.” It is called that because such a statement informs people about gravity’s strength relative to the other forces.

To call it “the weakest force” is not to suggest that gravity cannot add up to considerable strength. Likewise, when we call the strong nuclear force the “strongest of the fundamental forces” this does not imply that electromagnetism (or gravity) cannot overwhelm the strong nuclear force under certain situations, instead it points to, for instance, the greater strength of the proton’s SNF than its EMF.

It’s like someone said, “Neodymium magnets are stronger than ferrite magnets”, and DaveScot comes along and points out that a big ferrite magnet can be stronger than a small neodymium magnet (which are capable of the highest gauss for permanent magnets), and thus states that ferrite magnets are stronger than are neodymium magnets.

A question: If we were able to make a “neutron star” entirely out of protons, would gravity hold it together? Of course not. It wouldn’t because gravity is a much weaker force than is the additive strength of a huge number of protons in one place (when not neutralized by negative particles).

We don’t encounter very dense and massive clusters of protons for various reasons, one being that no force exists that can bring these together (the nuclear forces act at too short distance, while gravity is far too weak). Neutralization via electrons and other particles is a practical reason as well, but presumably we could shoot the electrons off at relativistic velocities, leaving almost only protons in a region of space (we could confine protons magnetically). But only electromagnetism is available to try to force them together (gravity being far too weak), and a magnet able to force protons to the density and mass of a neutron star would probably be so large as to collapse to a black hole.

I should point out once more that Dave’s erstwhile comments were in response to this:

Gravity is a weak force, which is why most of the observations must occur outside of the laboratory. Neutron stars, massive galaxies, and galaxy clusters are the objects through which many of the relativistic effects of gravity may be observed. Such masses do not fit conveniently into the laboratory.

That is to say, I had already alluded to the cumulative effect of gravity by bringing up neutron stars and other massive “objects” as places where relativistic effects of gravity may often be observed. So that Dave added nothing, except for his confusion over what the term “strongest force” means.

I wrote this to post on the blog linked above, but for some reason I the verification figures are not shown at this time, so I can’t post there now.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PZ Myers published on June 14, 2006 12:47 PM.

The failure of the explanatory filter: Unreliability was the previous entry in this blog.

That’s DR. Reed Cartwright to you, mister is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter