Archive for December, 2013

Something smells dead…

December 18, 2013

Gravity is dead scientifically … all that is left is the weeping and PhD thrashing.

Oh, wait…  Oops, the original quote was “evolution is dead scientifically … all that is left is the weeping and PhD thrashing“, and it is just as silly as the first misquote.  Of course, it is from a religious delusionoid desperately trying to prop up a crumbling belief in god- crumbling due to there being fewer and smaller ignorance gaps in which a god could hide.

Show me where the theory of evolution (evolutionary science) is in trouble. Show me.  Don’t just tell me, or show off your complete lack of understanding of what science is or what it does.  Don’t tell me what you heard some religious guy say about his discovery of “Darwinism’s weak spot”.  Don’t just try to make the point that if you can make people doubt science they’ll have to become believers in your creation myth by default.  I know Wiccans who don’t “believe in” evolution.  Your delusion isn’t the only alternative.

Yet, no one can even begin to attempt to address my challenge without grasping at “woowoo” and misrepresenting science and misinterpreting new discoveries.  I see this day after day after day.  Delusionoids absolutely desperate to find some crack in science that allows their god to regain some control.  But it doesn’t happen except in their feverish brains.  It is really very sad.

Even if some new scientific discovery falsified evolution, it still doesn’t do anything to prop up your silly desire to prove your Sky Daddy.  Sorry.  And your belief that you can ignore reality and be taken seriously just makes me pity you.

Singing hymns to Santa

December 9, 2013

Today my daughter was making up and singing her own songs of praise and celebration toward Santa Claus (belief in which I don’t encourage, but her mom insists on fostering).  

I was suddenly struck by how this is exactly what religious people do with their hymns about god.  With less evidence for their beliefs, I might add.

Life doesn’t violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics!

December 7, 2013

This time from people trying to argue that because “life is energy”, it can’t be destroyed, so it must mean there’s an “afterlife” (“afterdeath” would be more accurate) or reincarnation.  Oh, please!

Anyway, someone made the comment:

life forms do not obey the second law of thermodynamics as lifeforms are organized. we, for example, have highly organized bits of matter known as organs. science is still struggling to understand this.

Life forms are not “closed systems”. There is no contradiction.  Science (by which I suppose he means individuals who use the scientific method) isn’t struggling to understand the existence of organized bits of matter called organs.

life forms produce energy by ordering molecules…. that is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. if there is no contradiction explain the exception to the law.
and i didn’t say life forms were closed systems

at the molecular level, i.e. each individual reaction in the Krebs cycle, you are dealing with a closed system. entropy can be calculated… imo bertalanffy came up with the theory of open and closed systems to help explain this, or maybe he was just finding a way to sweep it under a rug which is all too common in the sciences…

Entropy increases in a closed system. A closed system is one which gains zero energy of any kind from anything outside itself. The Earth is not a closed system because it gains energy from the Sun. The only “closed systems” around are artificially created, and are not even perfectly closed- something still gets in from outside.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not violated by life in any way, because life exists on Earth (or wherever else) because it is gaining energy from the Sun (or other nuclear reactions).  There is no exception to explain because there is no violation.  You just don’t understand what you’re talking about- that’s all.

As long as entropy increases *in the Universe as a whole* there can be localized decreases in entropy and that is not a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics- and the size of those “localized decreases” can be huge- it doesn’t matter as long as the Universe, taken as a whole, is experiencing an increase in entropy.

The amount of electrical and chemical energy (and that’s what that “life energy” consists of) contained in an individual life would not be discernible from background fluctuations if it all were released as heat. That doesn’t prove there is no “after life” of any kind, but it does show that trying to grasp at physics to prove there is can only be attempted by people who don’t understand science very well.

it is nearly impossible to create a “closed system” as you stated yourself. because we could not apply the laws of thermodynamics to organisms, we had to redefine what a system was. the scientific community is still at odds on this, and scientists being scientists disregard the tenants of logic (and even science) by believing (often mistakenly) that because something does not fit our current belief system it cannot be.

i hope you are not putting words in my mouth. i didn’t use the law to try to prove anything, i pointed to a controversy. one that the scientific community is still working on. proof of said controversy is present in our debate, unless you believe yourself so superior that there is no debate…

Another “Teach the Controversy” proponent, where there is no controversy?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies perfectly well to organisms.  The “scientific community” is NOTat odds on this“.  It’s not even a “thing”.

And, yes, I am very sorry, but in this particular case, I am so superior (in my knowledge of this subject, compared to his “knowledge” of this subject) that there is no debate.

Added: OMG!!!  Someone said:

Science at least backs their claims with evidence on what IS known to figure out what isn’t. Its more deductive reasoning over just making claims about what lies beyond.

And then the moron responded:

“yes, and then come up with new theories to explain why the experimental measurements don’t match the calculations..”

YES!  That’s what science does by definition, and how it approaches the truth!  If scientists didn’t do that, they wouldn’t be doing science, and they’d be as dumb as that guy!

Creationism: “2 + 2 doesn’t equal 4, because government says it does!”

December 3, 2013

Creationists.  Ugh.

No matter what science you mention, they don’t trust it unless they want to.

I responded to the silly “news” that some “scientist” had declared that he had discovered that humans were the result of an interbreeding of chimps and pigs.  And, no, the link doesn’t lead to The Onion.

This is so easily refuted on so many levels from so many different angles, but that’s not the point here.

The creationist in question was celebrating that this was so silly it showed what desperate measures the “evolutionists” were willing to resort to in an effort to keep clinging to their ideas.  He said this proved it was time to start from scratch without relying on evolution.

Being a person who understands science somewhat, I gave the person a few BIG reasons why this just didn’t really happen.  He then rejected everything I told him and claimed that “evolutionists” have only their assertion that “there is no god, so evolution must be true” to fall back on.  No, that’s what creationists do when they say “We don’t understand how this could have happened, so that means no one can understand it, so god did it“.  

Never mind that even if evolution were falsified, it still doesn’t mean the Genesis fairy tale is automatically “proven”.  Not by a long shot.  There are not only two “choices” to choose between.  Maybe the Hopi creation myth is true, instead.

Scientists don’t need for god to not exist for science, including evolutionary biology, to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.  They have genetics, anatomy, fossils, etc.  

Creationists have only wishes and a book.

Trying to discuss something with a creationist (who nowadays always claim they don’t necessarily believe creationism, but there is no proof for evolution) is like discussing the solar system with a “flat earther”.

I don’t have the ability to take a flat earther in a spaceship and show him the planet hanging in space.  I don’t have the ability to take a creationist back and forth through time to show him species evolving.  I can show both of them the evidence and artifacts, and explain what those things means and why.  But, as with the flat earther, creationists will dream up fantastical scenarios to explain what they see.  I have heard flat earthers, even in this age of tentative space travel, claiming the earth is flat, it just looks spheroid from space because of an optical illusion.  Creationists always do the same thing.  They desperately don’t want to believe, for whatever reason, so they just decide not to.

What is especially frustrating to me is when fellow anarchists choose to reject science because it is taught in government schools.  Yeah, well, so is addition.  Do you choose to reject that 2 + 2 = 4 just because a government employee tells you it does?  That’s silly!

Do you reject gravity because it is taught by government employees in government schools?  Rejecting robust science simply because government schools also accept it is giving government too much power over your mind.  Even government can’t ignore some facts.

I also see fellow anarchists make the complaint that government “uses” evolution for it’s benefit.  I’ve never seen a good explanation of just how they imagine this is being done.  Sure, some governments have used eugenics to violate individuals, but government thugs also use gravity to send ballistic missiles to a target.  Get over it.  

Truth doesn’t stop being true just because a goon accepts it.