Archive for the ‘science’ Category

American Humanist Association new ads

November 13, 2010 Comments off

The American Humanist Association has an expensive ad campaign to combat, not what Scriptures actually say through critical exegesis,  but rather their own false ideas (eisegesis) read into Scripture. It is to show that humanist values are mainstream while religious fundamentalists that read the Bible are not. But don’t worry many are fighting back, like on Ricochet by being… depressed!? Don’t just sit there, report on the story and claim depression. This isn’t how the Bible reads and furthering lack of proper reading by not pointing out the clear fallacies is telling. It is dishonest work by the AHA as their interpretation gleaned from the passages quoted CLEARLY lack any context and thus critical exegesis. Typical of Christian critics they remain dishonest in their approach of reading the Bible.

The main AHA biblical quotes are; 1 Timothy 2 and Hosea 13:16. They juxtapose those Scriptural fragments with quotes of prominent scientists and the like and use their words to contradict the false interpretation that AHA has presented. So instead of being depressed and crying about it, this blog will actually analyze these pieces of Scripture to determine if indeed they represent exactly the notions that are implied by the AHA. If the Scriptural exegesis I present is not the same as the AHA, then one of us has a dishonest agenda. I would hope the eisegetical nature of AHA would sharply show which is the guilty party.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 (NASB):

11A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

To think that the writer of 1 Timothy was bashing woman verbally is wishful neo-liberal feminist thinking (feminazi for those in  Rio Linda). What in fact is happening is that the writer is addressing the women of his time and how Christian woman act. The writer was not attempting to use religion to mold future subjugation of woman by man but rather conveying certain characteristics of Christian woman. Namely you should not talk if receiving instruction, much like anybody shouldn’t talk while receiving instruction. Thus, the writer specifies that it is wrong for a woman to exorcise authority over the man if at that time the man was trying to instruct the woman. Modesty and that the true nature of woman is to help man and to give birth to life were highlighted. This is taking into consideration the context of Galatians 3:28 (which the AHA didn’t do because it would of cost them more money to be honest as they had to purchase space to write it) in which clearly favoritism by gender is rejected through equality inherent in biblical Christianity. Check here for more as well.

Galatians 3:28 (NASB);

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The AHA opposition to the exegesis of Scripture I have laid out would mean that they don’t endorse respect to a teacher, but rather I guess endorse nonsensical outbursts by woman within the teacher-student setting. Good anti-learning values AHA, really feminist of you. Next up on the laughable AHA quote mining (lack of context) list is Hosea 13:16 (NASB), it states;

16Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open.

For insightful commentary that does not let you read into the text what you want by leaving out context, read John Calvins’ commentary here. I say to you, what is so depressing about dishonest representation of the biblical text Ricochet? Nothing, when you can use your standing on a high-traffic site to rebut such laughable uncritical organizations like AHA, of which their little ad campaign clearly shows. The fact that space is required to write down the context and fully understand the texts in question, essentially means that the amount of truth allowed by the AHA ad campaign is determined by the amount of money they spend, how ridiculous.

Two debates are online

October 25, 2010 Comments off

I have posted two major debates about Intelligent Design and Biblical exegesis. You can also use the Debates tab to find them and other future debates as I try to find at least some people trying to be honest and critical with their thinking and debate approach. You be the judge.

Please read and sign-up on the Geopolicy Forums to comment or bring a challenge.

New debate @ Liberal Forum

October 25, 2010 Comments off

*UPDATE:* Looks like the debate is over. Full breakdown of most riveting parts ;p, can be found HERE. Enjoy.

Big debate on whether or not Intelligent Design is Science… GASP! I am the poster subzer0, check it out HERE. Trust me it gets better as the pages go on.

Then discuss HERE.


tharock220, on 25 October 2010 – 04:45 PM, said:

I’m going to start a little game. It’s called Restan’s Buzzword Bingo, stolen from Dilbert of course. Every time restan uses a biology buzzword(genetic, biochemistry, etc) the first person to point it out gets a point. I’ll paypal the first person to five points a $1000 check. I think I’ve demonstrated I know far more about genetics than you do. 

Joking aside, what separates you from other great apes. I’ve already asked the question but got no answer. What’s a great ape??? Can you point to a single characteristic diagnostic to them that humans don’t possess???

subzer0 response
Merely because humans possess the same characteristics as apes doesn’t mean that they are or have to be related, as I have already shown to you through convergent evolution. I have shown your taxonomy lacking from sources. Your hierarchical taxonomic system DEMANDS assumption that the only way is common ancestry.

You choose to believe it is all.

sigsfried, on 25 October 2010 – 05:36 PM, said:

What convergent evolution can explain the telomeres in the middle of the chromosome. 

Ok if you don’t believe in evolution why do genetic algorithims, which mimic evolution, work so well?

subzer0 response
Chromosomes are genetic traits. Convergent evolution is the independent appearance of the same trait in different lineages.

I believe in biological evolution to an observed limit. This includes processes/mechanisms of mutation, environmental pressures, natural selection, speciation etc that produce ONLY phenotype change.

Convergent evolution is a type of biological evolution can be called convergent phenotypes as that is the result.

Let the debate begin! Geopolicy Forums are LIVE!

October 22, 2010 2 comments

*UPDATE*: Forum registration now fully functional! Sorry about the trouble… Now let the debate begin! :)

Forums are in effect. Bring it on, let the debate begin! There have been recent comments upon the nature of evolution within recent political debates. Perhaps we can start there?!

Either way, Click HERE and join the Geopolicy Forums! Be one of the first to start posting and debating, a most critical foundation of knowledge and science and to the long-lasting life of our republic.

Debate going down @ The Right Scoop

October 20, 2010 Comments off

Here it is folks, an intense debate by yours truly, and commenter Dan_Tumser. This was sparked by Christine O’Donnell debate against Chris Coons dealing with teaching the theory of evolution. The Right Scoop has the Beck commentary in video form. O’Donnell was questioning Coons governing philosophy of not allowing states to control school curriculum.

Also, spark up debate in the comments here! Bring it on! This is what Conservatives do, we are not afraid of the ideas.

Some highlights:

Dan_Tumser responding to geopolicy (Tony):
From your language I have to ask if you accept the veracity of cladistic phylogenetics. If this is the case then where do you draw the line in the nested hierarchy separating the “kinds,” and “sorts?” By what basis do you do this and how is it not arbitrary?Responding;
1. Look at any phylogenetic “Tree of Life,” and taxonomic classifications combined with fossil aging, the strata they have been found in and genetic analysis. Working backwards, Homo Sapiens is found as a species of Hominoidea (apes) which is part of the Anthropoidea clade. Go further back and you hit Primates.You can’t outgrow your ancestry. If you accept cladistic phylogeny at all you will need to accept the monophyletic hierarchy, which with the studies I listed and more is constructed chronologically, morphologically and when we have access to the genome, genetically, and they all line up. 

The process of systematic classification set up by the hard-line creationist Carrolus Linneaus puts us both in the apes, which comes from monkeys, making us both. He knew and admitted this himself, his challenge to the scientific community was to find an explanation for this or refute it. It has not been refuted, the basics of his taxonomy are the basis of a much more detailed and extensive system today. What did happen though was the Theory of Evolution explains this perfectly.

If the word monkey means anything at all, you and I qualify, accept it.

2. There are multiple different kinds of Speciation actually, there isn’t only what you see with ring species. What you describe is Parapatric & Peripatric speciation, but you leave out Sympatric speciation, Phyletic speciation and Punctuated Equilibrium.

Your example of the frog and fish is absurd, what you describe would in fact disprove the Evolution you claim it would evidence. It’s essentially the same as asking for a Crocoduck, and I hope you don’t like Kirk Cameron. As I showed in my response to #1, you can’t outgrow your ancestry, a frog’s descendants will always be a frog just as we will always be apes. That’s how taxonomy works.

Evolution doesn’t say such radical changes happen in single generation, something like that would be so genetically disimilar to even it’s nearest relatives even hybridization would be impossible. Evolution happens over long periods of successive incremental changes. You know this, you are either strawmanning or are misinformed.

What you say actually happens is what I compared to walking 20ft, but for some reason you insist on a barrier with no evidence stopping species from reaching the 20miles.

3. Then explain to me the Design/creation explanations for Atavisms and the ERVs in our 3billion base pair genome that we share in common with other apes in the EXACT same places. Also the evidenced relationship of T-rex and modern Aves.

4. You essentially claim induction for design is sufficient over methological naturalism. It is a leap to supernatural causation. I don’t understand why people still rely on the Teleological Argument, Hume and Kant eviscerated it ages ago.

You seem to be operating under a misapprehension. “neo-darwinists,” if you are so fond of the word, don’t say that genetic drift and environmental pressures worked any differently in the past. You point to several things that are actually argued by people like myself and somehow claim that it is evidence against our side of the public debate (there is no debate among biologists).

There is nothing about Evolution that says a frog would give birth to something so radically different as a “fish” and not be a frog. That would disprove Evolution and be evidence for creation. You concede that new species can develop so I have to ask again in case it got lost in the rest of my post.

The textbooks of ID say that the designer poofs these basic archetypes into existence fully formed, so what are your definitions of the “kinds,” “sorts,” or archetypes? How far back in the phylogenetic record do you go to start work with your scissors and arbitrarily cut clades out to move them off to the side arising seperately.

Examples will do, since the wording would probably be pretty vague.

(I’m working on a paper while I write this, if that was unclear, please say so and I’ll edit or fix in another post)

Geopolicy – Tony response
2. You are all wrong. Speciation has several types which are; Allopatric, peripatric, sympatric, parapatric speciation types. All dealing with extremes of geographical isolation.
Punctuated Equilibria, or PE, is not a type of speciation. It is an attempt by Stephen Jay Gould to explain the observation of lack of gradualism in the fossil record originally proposed to be there by Darwin. Gould asserts that species can change instantaneously on geologic time scales (i.e thousands of years). Speciation is the mechanism, in its many forms that could have caused PE. PE is not speciation proper.
20 feet to 20 miles. OK fine, that is completely in line with creationist thinking because the thing walking 20 miles didn’t change drastically or come from the same single cell or whatever. To follow the logic further, many different base patterns walked 20 miles genetically developing similar conserved areas along the way through convergent evolution. Into what we can observe today.3. Its a biological evolution explanation not ID or creationist. The biological evolution process is called Convergent evolution. Convergent evolution causes the independent appearance of the same trait in different lineages.4. Methodological naturalism or the Scientific Method essentially, is used significantly with ID. That is how you derive that things were designed not spontaneously happening or created in the first place. ID determines things are guided, not unguided and spontaneously happening. 

4a. A frog has to give birth to something radically different after generations. If it doesn’t than how can we have one single common ancestor? Answer is, we don’t, we have poly base patterns and poly processes that formed the tree of life that we try to follow in the fossil record today with incredible neo-darwinist assumption and bias.

4b. No ID textbook ever states that the “designer poofs these basic archetypes.” You have to separate foundations of study and interpretation if you are to understand. That sentence I quoted from you is the origin of life discussion, centered on philosophy or theology of creationism. Frankly its pretty disrespectful how you present it as well…

Quick note… Now that we know we are dealing with philosophy and theology rather then scientific observation. God could of quite possibly utilized abiogenesis, designing it to create life out of nothing. You see there is a blending of philosophy/theology and science there, that is creationist language. So, to be scientific or like an ID theorist and not a creationist, the answer is: “abiogenesis was designed to happen.”

The use of language in that manner escapes otherwise intelligent scientists forcing them to commit philosophical bias within peer-reviewed science articles.

m_quick post
This is getting ridiculous. When Beck says ignoramus crap like this it discredits everything else he says. Rush and Beck (and probably a lot of conservatives) should just stop trying to talk about science.Seriously, he sounds like an idiot. No one says we evolved from monkeys. There are about 2 dozen “missing links” from a common ancestor of all primates to homo sapians. He can easily look this up. From Australopithecus to Homo habilis to Homo ergaster etc.We have google. There’s no excuse. 

geopolicy (Tony) response

Why do these different missing links have to prove one common ancestor? Why couldn’t there be two ancestors or many original ancestors, or can be called base patterns? Why can’t these missing links be either fully primate or fully human?

One ancestor for humans, and one ancestor for primates, etc, etc. These parallel lines of ancestry produce immense similarity because of convergent evolution. It does not show one common ancestor as the new-darwinists think but two independent common ancestries.

In what way is that scientifically inaccurate to posit that? It isn’t, it is inaccurate because it contradicts your neo-darwinist philosophy.

Why science as we know it is corrupted!

October 9, 2010 Comments off

Despite the whole ClimateGate fiasco, the research-peer-review-grants and then research-peer-review-grants cycle has continued since the beginning of the 1900’s within the US government. The US government modeled research after governments special interests. Since then this fabric has only been woven tighter, not only within the US but also the the rest of the world.

The UK especially is having trouble, as about 2000 supporters of research, and UK scientists protested the government because of, you guessed it, cuts in money for research

“We want to send a message to the Treasury. Cutting spending on science would actually be shooting ourselves in the foot, because science, technology and innovation fuel the economy,” said Jenny Rohn, spokeswoman for the Science is Vital campaign.ref

Umm, no sir, jobs within those fields of science actually fuel the economy. These damn intellectuals don’t even know the need for specificity if it hit them on the head. If only talking about scientific fields and the reliance upon government alone, then that is enough to eliminate any notion of job creation. Why don’t these public scientific institutions and labs, go to the private citizen of the UK and let them invest. I like the concept of a marketplace of ideas, allow a market to form, based on public interest absent of government involvement. Allow the scientific institutions to get start-up money like any other small business venture, and then let them research a product, or bring an already established idea into the public by way of making it a product. Let the scientific institutions accumulate money based on a diffused market, rather then centralized dictation from a government.

It seems jobs would create around the fields with the most promise. Instead of jobs being created to research science by money taxed by people who may or may not think the science being practiced is ethical. People of all income brackets would/could invest and indeed if the money was followed by an already completely transparent process, then an individual can determine which fields of scientific research are promising and able to hold to a predictable outcome for private investment. There also needs to be a shift from short-term results to long-term results. We invest in now to see results in the future, not always the close future either. Science and its manifested research as a marketable product based application within the marketplace can help determine this shift needed, but ONLY if the government steps back and allows it to happen.