Pharyngula

Posted by: Wolfhound | July 16, 2009 7:46 AM

Yaay! Clean sandbox!

Posted by: ForgotMyGingko | July 16, 2009 7:52 AM

hm. Maybe there should be special clumping sand in this box.......

Just a suggestion.

Posted by: DaveX | July 16, 2009 7:56 AM

We're going to the moon today! (In 1:36:09 last I checked...)

Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | July 16, 2009 7:58 AM

Hey guys, we have a poll.

Do you think Maine's Gay Marriage law should be repealed?

Yes 2561 Votes

No 3289 Votes

5850 Total Votes

TRiG.

Posted by: Josh | July 16, 2009 8:02 AM

Hey, Logan came back? Wow.

Posted by: Keippernicus | July 16, 2009 8:20 AM

I made a commentary video on Heaven the Game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2PYlAk9grs

It is totally awesome.

Posted by: Douchey France | July 16, 2009 8:23 AM

Pursuant to the contretemps on accommodationism vs. honesty, the Secret Science Club in NYC hosted a lecture by Don Johanson (paleoanthropologist who discovered Lucy) the other night. The good doctor is an excellent conduit between science and the unwashed public -- he gives good lecture. He also took a couple shots at Godidiot Francis Collins, so we know where he stands in the debate.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 16, 2009 8:30 AM

So I was wondering about taking a sharpie and crossing off that line on all the bills that pass through my hands. If we got enough people to do that, we could 'clean up' a lot of America's currency. And we could piss off a lot of fanatics.

People have been doing that and other defacements for a long time such as rubber stamps etc.. for the same reason.

It isn't illegal - you can do whatever you want to american currency as long as you aren't trying to commit fraud.

My understanding is that is arguable as to what can be defined as fraudulent.

Posted by: James Sweet | July 16, 2009 8:33 AM

I'm pretty sure that defacing US currency is technically illegal, but there have been so many different people writing so many different things on currency (I've even heard of the crossing out "In God We Trust" thing before) that the odds of legal repercussions are essentially nil.

Posted by: FlameDuck | July 16, 2009 8:34 AM

Really? I am skeptical of this claim.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 16, 2009 8:42 AM

Humm I linked to the wrong part of the code there.

Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

I guess it depends on the interpretation of the "reissue" part, but yeah seems like it would be a very thin case.

Posted by: Colonel Molerat | July 16, 2009 8:50 AM

Ooooh! Can I post this here, too, then?

Can I take this opportunity to link to that slimey slimeball Andrew Brown's latest blog-post:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/jul/10/religion-atheism

And the Merseyside Skeptic Society's response:

http://www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk/index.php/2009/07/freudian-cif-errors-of-an-old-guardian-bloggist/
?

He is trying to argue that, since Freud wasn't correct in his psychological work, his atheism is therefore invalid.
Even in one of Britain's most reliable, sane and generally-ok newspapers, this lunatic gets free rein for quackery regularly. It's just the latest in the Guardian baiting atheists in order to get readership.
Yup, Andrew brown appears to be a self-hating atheist, blaming 'new atheism' for the world's ills and, it seems, praying that one day he'll be able to believe.
Ah well, I'm game for feeding the troll.

Posted by: Colonel Molerat | July 16, 2009 9:00 AM

"Not related to any other posts in this or prior versions of this thread, but I wanted to throw out an idea that occured to me during the Sam Singleton Athiest Evangelist show in St. Paul last weekend. He was discussing not trusting in god, yet it is written on all our money. So I was wondering about taking a sharpie and crossing off that line on all the bills that pass through my hands. If we got enough people to do that, we could 'clean up' a lot of America's currency. And we could piss off a lot of fanatics.

It isn't illegal - you can do whatever you want to american currency as long as you aren't trying to commit fraud.

Comments? Everyone, get your sharpies!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3146/2884652691_580ccf0586_o.jpg
Laaaa, la la la la la...

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 16, 2009 9:11 AM

At some point, PZ, you may want to start up a newsgroup and take the load from Seed's servers. May I suggest "alt.talk.pharyngula.zombiethread"?

Posted by: Michelle R | July 16, 2009 9:31 AM

That's so late 80s Mike !

...wait, is 84 late or early?

Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 16, 2009 9:39 AM

Curt Cline @ #10:

He was discussing not trusting in god, yet it is written on all our money. So I was wondering about taking a sharpie and crossing off that line on all the bills that pass through my hands. If we got enough people to do that, we could 'clean up' a lot of America's currency. And we could piss off a lot of fanatics.

It isn't illegal - you can do whatever you want to american currency as long as you aren't trying to commit fraud.

I do this all the time, with every bill that I can. The relevant law, as I learned at wheresgeorge.com, states that it is illegal to alter US paper money with fraudulent intent, or to make it unspendable. As scratching out the unconstitutional cult slogan added in a fit of communist hysteria neither alters the bill's denomination nor prevents it from being spent, it's perfectly legal.

Posted by: AJ Milne | July 16, 2009 9:43 AM

What kind of B-movie horror franchise is this, anyway? We're up to what, installment six and still no 3D?

Shoddy. I refuse to participate until at the very least we get Sensurround... or hell, I dunno... mebbe we could have an usher dressed as a creobot wackaloon just jump into the audience in the scary parts, start doing a Gish gallop thru the Paluxy tracks and peppered moths, start screaming 'there are no transitional forms' while running around the theatre with their hands firmly clamped over their eyes...

(/'Kay. So that might come off more as comedy that horror... My point is: let's think outside the box, people...)

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 16, 2009 9:54 AM

Can I, as a Brit, just take a little time here to gloat, and point out we have Charles Darwin on the £10 note ?

It was done just to piss off the ignorant Americans.

Thank you.

Posted by: Lynna | July 16, 2009 9:57 AM

James @17: Even though no one has prosecuted people for crossing out "In God We Trust" in the past doesn't mean they won't start prosecuting, especially if they hear that PZ Meyers is "nurturing, and cultivating" an online atmosphere that leads to massive defacement of U.S. currency.

Prosecuting PZ would probably not go anywhere, but somebody would try.

Posted by: Soil Creep | July 16, 2009 9:58 AM

"Charles Darwin on the £10 note" But we have the Simpsons on our postage stamps!

Posted by: Rey Fox | July 16, 2009 10:04 AM

"But we have the Simpsons on our postage stamps!"

Yeah, really crappy drawings of them. I mean, was it completely not possible to get an actual Simpsons animator/artist to do them?

Posted by: ursa major | July 16, 2009 10:08 AM

[color=#660000]"Can I, as a Brit, just take a little time here to gloat, and point out we have Charles Darwin on the £10 note ?"[/color]

Well, has anyone ever seen a £10 evolve into a £20? Well?

Posted by: Lynna | July 16, 2009 10:36 AM

@23

Can I take this opportunity to link to that slimey slimeball Andrew Brown's latest blog-post:

Yes, Mr. Brown is a pusillanimous pouch of putrid pedantry. He's taken some swipes at Richard Dawkins in the past. Here's an excerpt:

There has been a long-running battle among the American scientific community about the degree to which atheism should be identified with science teaching. On the one side are those bodies, like the National Centre for Science Education, whose chief concern is to get evolution taught in schools, and who will happily enlist mainstream Christians in their cause. On the other side are the hard-line new atheists, who think that science must sweep away religion and the sooner the better: if believers object, so much the worse for them. No prizes for guessing which side Richard Dawkins is on. Of course we already know this is Dawkins' attitude to the religious. That is exactly what people who complain about the New Atheists being aggressive are complaining about. The really extraordinary thing is that it is is marketed under the banner of "science and reason" and that he supposes that displays of naked contempt are the way to win over agnostics.

And note that, if Andrew Brown is complaining about "aggressive" atheists, and advising them to stop showing "naked contempt" -- well, then you know something is wrong with the nicey-nice strategy.

Article from which the quote above is extracted is at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/apr/30/religion-atheism-dawkins-contempt

Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 16, 2009 11:01 AM

Anyone want to join a web forum? One that I read has a thread about Sarah Palin that has taken a turn to a discussion of evolution-- and there are posters claiming that it isn't important to teach evolution in schools. It is a pain to register, but somebody might want to show them a little reason.

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/557652-sarah-palin-resigns-governor-29.html

Posted by: Sven DIMilo | July 16, 2009 11:26 AM

Incidentally, 6979

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 16, 2009 11:29 AM

Can I, as a Brit, just take a little time here to gloat, and point out we have Charles Darwin on the £10 note?

Very soon, this thing will be completed in Shrewsbury, by way of a memorial to Darwin (it is very strange if you ask me). It will take its place as a Darwin tribute, alongside this oddity and one of the ugliest shopping centres ever to be dropped into the middle of a medieval market town.

I prefer this one. I used to meet my mates by it (in the town square) every Friday before the pub...

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 16, 2009 12:01 PM

Ben Stein and freescore.com is a match made in sleazeball heaven.

Posted by: fossilator | July 16, 2009 12:29 PM

Where's F'lar when you need him?

Posted by: J. A. Baker | July 16, 2009 12:56 PM

The Thread That Will Not DIE is going to go on and on.

Sing it with me folks:

This is the thread that never ends
It just goes on and on my friends
Some people started commenting, not knowing what it was
And now they will be commenting forever just because

This is the thread that never ends
It just goes on and on my f-*blam!* *blam!*

Ow..... *falls over dead*

Posted by: Wes | July 16, 2009 1:23 PM

Wait... This shit is still going on even after pedophile Alan Clarke got banned? What's going on?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 16, 2009 1:31 PM

We're up to what, installment six and still no 3D?

no! no 3D! fucking 3D makes me nauseous, which is why I still haven't been able to watch UP!!!

*grumble grumble*

Posted by: Paleos | July 16, 2009 1:38 PM

Just wanted to post on the zombie thread.

Also, Billy @54, I had not heard of FSM's bride before but am now an instant convert! I may start my own Catholic-like sect of pastafarianism where the bride is as revered, if not more, than the god! Hail the grace of Fettucini and her noodly appendage! :)

Ok, so I'm not big on regular prayer and setting up alters in my yard, but at least I will always know what to order at Italian restaurants.

Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2009 1:40 PM

@24, @35:

I'm super jealous now.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 16, 2009 1:52 PM

What worries me about Darwin on the £10 note is what will happen when the Bank of England redesigns the note. All Bank of England notes get a re-design every 8-10 years, and when the £10's turn comes up Charlie will go and we will have a new prominent Brit on the new note. The creationists will no doubt trumpet that as somekind of victory.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 16, 2009 2:33 PM

A bit of Klassic Kw*k:

I am certain I will perish in an Al Qaeda-organized nuclear attack on New York City if Barack Obama wins the election.

Posted by: Dr P | July 16, 2009 3:05 PM

@ 54,

This thread (okay, these threads) have convinced me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (and His Bride, Fettucini)

Posted by: blf | July 16, 2009 3:17 PM

This thread-that-has-eaten-all-other-threads has grown large enough it will soon collapse into a singularity and form a black hole. It will continue to consume the SciBorg, internets, and even Teh Kw*k. It is undoubtly spinning, wobbling all over the place. A wormhole is therfore possible.

By then this thread will have grown to the point that one end of the wormhole will swallow the other. At which point we'll have the very first thread-that-is-a-Klein-bottle. All known intelligences and unintelligences will be contained within, forever seeking another thread.

Theorists are busily trying to determine the amount of bacon a Klein bottle will hold.

Posted by: (((Billy))) The Atheist | July 16, 2009 3:23 PM

Thunderbird5 @54:

Does His Noodliness hang with non-noodly pasta? Flat noodles (like Fettucini) I could understand, but sheet pasta? That just ain't right.

Posted by: ERV | July 16, 2009 3:27 PM

@ 69-- Ahh, those were good times! Right before I b& him.

If Kwok gets too cocky over at Moonytits place, you could always remind him that I still havent published his emails/facebook messages to me.

I really hope he sends similar messages to Sheril some day.

I reaaaaaaaally do.

*throws head back* heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehehehehehehehehehehe!!!

Posted by: Paleos | July 16, 2009 3:31 PM

Thank you Billy with coming up with her, sometimes those long stressfull days lead to great things.

Of course, Fettucini is clothed in a veil of white sauce, unlike FSM. The celibacy issue perhaps remains to be resolved, mainly because it makes me start to think about how pasta would... and I don't really want to go there.

Hail Fettucini, full of tasty goodness.

Posted by: (((Billy))) The Atheist | July 16, 2009 3:35 PM

Damn double posting. Do you suppose that is how these threads get so huge?

Paleos: Doesn't have to be Alfredo, could be Fettucini Primavera, right? Veggie red sauce.

And thank you so very much for introducing the phrase (you didn't write it, but you led my mind there) pastasexual. I need caffeine.

And I always wondered how people manage to post many messages in the same thread. Now I know. Lack of sleep, lack of caffeine, too much to do.

Posted by: (((Billy))) The Atheist | July 16, 2009 3:47 PM

82, BLF: Revenge of the Son of the Bride of the Thread That Will Not Die.

Wing Nut Daily loves batshite crazy, neh?

Posted by: (((Billy))) The Atheist | July 16, 2009 4:01 PM

BLF: Like the joke about the ceiling, I guess. Over my head. Keep in mind, I'm just an historian, not one of those sciency people.

I've spent the day trying to work with a 24 by 36 inch poster. Currently, I'm up to 24 layers (though I can't figure out why I have layer 3 -- nothing in it). And I'm doing this on a Windows Vista machine with only 1 gig of RAM. I am losing my mind. And, apparently, my ability to grok a joke. Sorry. I'm an old man (well, 43 (which is old to most of you whippersnappers)) and I tend to miss things.

My bad.

Posted by: MikeyM | July 16, 2009 4:15 PM

Posted by: Rey Fox | July 16, 2009 10:04 AM

"But we have the Simpsons on our postage stamps!"

Yeah, really crappy drawings of them. I mean, was it completely not possible to get an actual Simpsons animator/artist to do them?

In an attempt to settle the question "Which Springfield do the Simpsons call home?" I ordered and received first-day covers from the USPS, thinking that the cancellation stamp would reveal the answer once-and-for-all.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 16, 2009 4:21 PM

Hey, I just looked at the Dungeon page and I see that Silver Fox got booted. When did this happen?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 16, 2009 4:30 PM

I see that the SB technoweenies still haven't fixed the submission bug. Not that my hopes were particularly high on that happening.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 16, 2009 4:37 PM

Dear Hell-bound atheists and currency defacers,

IN GOD I TRUST!

I’m pleased that there is a new thread,
For clearing shit out of my head;
Things that I’ve found,
That rattle around,
And give me no peace in my bed.

Like…

What if I die on the john?
Where has my virginity gone?
And why is my dog
A back-to-front god?
And is anal sex all that wrong?

And why do some people here say,
That they think a more sensible way,
Is to burn the Good Book,
Let yourself take a look,
And see what the facts have to say?

‘Cos when I was young I was sold,
A bill of goods in which it told,
That I’m going to hell,
Where the atheists dwell,
Unless to my Bible I hold.

As you see I don’t need my big brain,
If I choose the sky-hook, not the crane—
I might seem as loony
As Thingy and Mooney—
But not having faith is insane!

For my safety I always praise God,
That perverted, demented old sod.
You may find that funny,
But his name’s on the money!
Which is why each way I’ll have a bob.

Yours in prayers for pecuniary advantage
Smoggy Batzrubble

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 16, 2009 4:43 PM

Hey, I just looked at the Dungeon page and I see that Silver Fox got booted. When did this happen?

Posted by: Carlie | July 16, 2009 4:47 PM

There's a thread at the bottom of the Seed,
There's a thread at the bottom of the Seed,
There's a thread, there's a thread, there's a thread at the bottom of the Seed.

There's a Creationist in the thread at the bottom of the Seed,
There's a Creationist in the thread at the bottom of the Seed,
There's a Creationist, there's a Creationist,
There's a Creationist in the thread at the bottom of the Seed.

There's a stupid comment from the Creationist in the thread at the bottom of the Seed,
There's a stupid comment from the Creationist in the thread at the bottom of the Seed,
There's a stupid comment, there's a stupid comment,
There's a stupid comment from the Creationist in the thread at the bottom of the Seed.

There's a response to the stupid comment from the Creationist in the thread at the bottom of the Seed...
(etc.)

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | July 16, 2009 4:49 PM

I've once again closed the old thread, and here you go, more fresh virgin database entries to despoil.

Oh, goody! I love despoiling virgins - even if it is a bit geekish to despoil this particular one.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 16, 2009 4:51 PM

Jadehawk is on official Clarke Watch now...

no need to be insulting :-p

that was on Debunking Christianity, found via FSTDT

Posted by: Josh | July 16, 2009 4:59 PM

no need to be insulting :-p

*giggle*

Ahhh...so, before he got banned from there the other day, then. Anyone wanna take bets on where he'll turn up next?

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 16, 2009 5:05 PM

Ahhh...so, before he got banned from there the other day, then. Anyone wanna take bets on where he'll turn up next?

50 Quatloos on The Intersection!

Posted by: (((Billy))) The Atheist | July 16, 2009 5:06 PM

'Tis Himself @90:

That's why I said most. And I got my first AARP mailing Monday, much to the delight of my 16 and 19 year old kids.

BLF@94: Ditto

I copied each layer to a new image, then merged the layers which do not overlap, then pasted them back together and now have 40 layers. I give up. I spent the entire day (minus, of course, the 3 minutes of Pharyngulatime) on one poster and am now further from production than when I started. I knew there was a reason I stopped being a computer science major and went into history.

RickR @ 98:

Don'f forget the prosciutto. Mmmm. Raw ham. Salty ham. Mmmmm.

Posted by: Sili | July 16, 2009 5:18 PM

Sometimes you just know that the word you try to invent is already out there in spades.

Speaking of trolls banned, when did Africagenesis go?

Posted by: blf | July 16, 2009 5:20 PM

One distinct advantage (of many!) of living in Europe (currently France) for multiple decades is you don't get AARP propaganda. I'm not sure if that counts as a reason to (or not to?) leave UnSaneAsylum, but it is a convenient perk.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 16, 2009 5:48 PM

Nerd,

The hammer is this link.

Posted by: Happy Tentacles | July 16, 2009 6:02 PM

Did anyone see the Abraham sketch on Mitchell & Webb tonight?

Posted by: Dr. P | July 16, 2009 7:56 PM

only begotten son, Cheeses

Posted by: Small Still | July 16, 2009 8:09 PM

Did someone say Stooges? Yes!! Curly was an outstanding comic. He made the Stooges timeless. Shemp was great, but Curly, well, what can I say. Moe, Larry, Cheese . . . remember that one? How about the musical "The Woman Hater's Club." Anyone recall it?

And by the way, the Quebecois in Montreal really get peeved at having Queen Elizabeth on their dollar bill.

And I almost forgot - there is a Hollywood movie in the works about the Stooges, with Jim Carey as Curly, Benicio Del Toro as Moe. Sean Penn was to play Larry, but just dropped out. Rumors are afloat that Paul Giamatti may play Larry - but not confirmed as of yet. Stay tuned Stooge fans!

Posted by: Holbach | July 16, 2009 8:42 PM

'Tis Himself @ 120

The Triumvirate of Chaos!

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 16, 2009 8:56 PM

And by the way, the Quebecois in Montreal really get peeved at having Queen Elizabeth on their dollar bill.

Are you suggesting the French Canadians are too dense to realize we use a dollar coin?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 16, 2009 9:19 PM

We must remember that Dewey, Cheatam & Howe's senior partner, Hugh Louis Dewey*, is the legal counsel for the Car Talk guys.

*Known to the pigeons in Harvard Square as Huey Louie Dewey.

Posted by: Logan | July 16, 2009 10:17 PM

Thanks for the responses, everyone. I was asking because I have heard people take that thought further (i.e., "If people decide what is right and wrong, is it okay to commit murder? Who decides this?" and blah, blah, blah-you get the picture, I assume). That link to the wikipedia article on the dialogue by Socrates was very interesting. In my opinion, if there is a God, I would assume He decides what is right and wrong. (I don't mean any offense by this statement, people).

@ Owlmirror:

I'm using the websites you guys and girls referred me to. I think you would agree that for me to do otherwise would be very narrow-minded to say the least.

P.S. A very interesting conversation about our currency seems to be going on. Out of sheer intrigue, I'm contemplating butting in, if that's alright.

Posted by: Sili | July 16, 2009 10:29 PM

You're very apologetic, Logan? Are we really that scary?

I guess we need to remember the three-post-rule more.

As I'm sure someone has already said upthread(s?), if God decides what is good, then how can he himself be good? If it's entirely arbitrary when we decide for ourselves, then is that not also the case when God decides for himself?

That does help to explain why it's alright to kill your enemies, rape their women, tear the children from their wombs and stone unbelievers, witches and unruly children, though.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 16, 2009 10:29 PM

In my opinion, if there is a God, I would assume He decides what is right and wrong. (I don't mean any offense by this statement, people).

All too many of the Judeo-Christian "laws" are like Terry Pratchett's Abominations to Nuggan. Do wearing a cotton-polyester shirt or eating shrimp deserve being stoned to death?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 16, 2009 10:33 PM

I only clicked on "post" once.

Posted by: Kseniya | July 17, 2009 12:23 AM

Tonight's bedtime song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shlRX7zFP64

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 17, 2009 12:42 AM

what's AARP, and what is "AARP propaganda"?

oh, and I only now noticed Logan's question about morality. here's the Cliff's Notes version of my take on it:

morality at it's very basic comes from the fact that we're social animals, i.e. ones who evolved to get along and cooperate successfully with other members of our group. so at the very base, we have in our brains an evolved empathy for other members of our group, as well as a "conscience", i.e. feeling bad when doing something deemed bad by our group, and feeling good when doing something deemed good by our group.

however, what is actually deemed good or bad by any group of humans is a complex process of what has been decided (or has culturally evolved) to be harmful or helpful to a given society, at a given time. depending on the structure of the society in question, some moralities are reflections of the whole of society, some represent only the values of the oligarchs at the top, and some are adaptations of archaic and outdated moral codes of past societies not representing values of any part of the society, but rather superimposing the values of a previous society on a current one.

religion usually falls into the 3rd category. look for example at the "be fruitful and multiply" bits (and the quiverful bits, by extension): this "commandment" was born in an ancient pastoralist tribe. in such tribes, family is the main (or even sole) labor force; as such, the more children you have, the better you can take care of your herds, increase your wealth, and expect not to be a starving beggar in your old age. it also provides you with a better defense, when you have more young men (sons) to fight against other tribes, and more daughters to exchange in trade and peace treaties. in short, back then more children meant more wealth and power.
in modern society, "be fruitful and multiply" is counterproductive. we have a severely overpopulated planet, and it's getting worse; moist countries are supporting efforts to lower their birth-rates, to ease population pressures and make it easier to give better lives to the people they already have, instead of creating more. children are now also a financial burden, rather than a boon, so that having a hockey-team worth of them is more likely to end you and them in abject poverty than add to your wealth. For that reason, modern societies' morals support contraceptives and smaller families in which the few children can achieve a higher quality of life (quality over quantity); this stands in stark contrast to ultra-conservative morals, which are still focused on making as many children as possible(quantity over quality), and seeing family planning as a great vice.

Posted by: Logan | July 17, 2009 12:59 AM

Just a tad bit on the monetary discussion. My understanding-correct me if I'm wrong-is that it was during FDR's presidency that we were "taken off the gold standard" IN THE SENSE THAT HE MADE DECISIONS THAT MAY HAVE HASTENED ITS OCCURANCE. Of course, it was Nixon who made the actual decision and Johnson’s economic/domestic policies that also played a large role. This is, in my opinion, because when there is a crisis (e.g., the Great Depression for that era), the general public will except any means of salvation available, without seriously considering the long-term results.

I'm not blaming solely FDR, nor am I picking on him because he is a Democrat. My issue with FDR is that I disagree with his more or less socialistic tendencies.....and his Executive Order 6102.

To be fair to him though, he was president through, at least, one of the toughest times in American history. Just think about it: the Great Depression (although Hoover had most of it) and World War II (though it was Truman who made the decision [albeit very controversial] to drop the atomic bombs). As a motivator and as an inspiration to the American people, I certainly can see that he deserves a lot of credit.

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 17, 2009 1:27 AM

Ahh the euthyphro dilemma, making any version of a supernatural basis for morality totally meaningless.

Consider the two different options. Firstly that morality is commanded by God. This makes morality totally arbitrary, it is at the whim of a higher power. This isn't morality, it is obedience. While the other choice means that there's an objective sense of right and wrong, but it is property basic. It requires no further explanation.

Of course a crane explanation for morality would be that a moral sense has evolved, that we behave in particular ways in order to interact with others. And our interaction of what is moral is provisional, contingent on our genes and experiences.

The problem with this position is not in the description, but its prescription. If there are no moral absolutes, it means we can't absolutely condemn actions. It seems that people want that certainty, that belief in belief that allows for such statements. No matter what reasons one has for a moral justification for an action, no matter what ethics supporting it - apparently you need the absolute that comes from God or the whole game is bust.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 17, 2009 3:33 AM

Logan,

No one said Christian societies(or Abrahamic for that matter) were the only source of the overpopulation problem. Secondly, no one said that religious attitude was the only problem in approaching sustainability. There are other factors as ell. However, see this video of an Arizona state senator using the argument that because the world is 6,000 years and hasn't been destroyed so we don't need protect the enviroment. I've also heard the case that we are going to get rapture soon enough so why bother protecting the planet. Now these are probably just religious rationalizations for greed and materialism (the consumerist type), but by enabling that behavior it isn't really helping out. Yes, there are some cases of people using their religion as a justification for environmentalism, but I think the overall effect is negative.

As for morality, I encourage you to read this interview: Is Morality Innate and Universal?. The analogy is made with language. Language in children is picked up very quickly and has many universal features across the globe so we are forced to conclude humans have a universal grammar. This is pretty much established. Similarly, humans tend to pick up morality fairly quickly and despite superficial differences between cultures on what is right and wrong their moralities have much in common*. There is some flexibility because different lifestyles are going to require different strategies. What's good for hunter-gathers is not necessarily optimal for an agrarian society or modern Westerners.

Finally, when it comes to morality people usually don't consciously invoke the Ten Commandments, Kant's category imperative, utilitarian principles, etc. They make their decisions quickly and unconsciously. The reasons they give are usually after the fact rationalizations. All this suggest that we are born with an innate capacity for morality. This is a huge simplification and I don't want to give a false impression that's it's established. However, it has recently become an active area of research and has much data to back up the basic claims.

Now I don't want to strain the language analogy, but your original question was "If there's no God, who determines what is right and what is wrong?". Well if there is no God who decides what's grammatical correct? That sounds like a silly question, but it's not much different. I'm not revoking you for asking it. We are told over and over that God exists and we get our morality from him. The people who say it probably honestly believe it, but the problem is what they do contradicts this. Fundamentalist claim to get their morality exclusively from the bible, but how many of them would find nothing wrong with eating shell fish, working on the Sabbath, eating pork, etc. The more liberal Christians are a little more honest and say they are just influenced by it. But both are getting their morality from elsewhere. So to answer your question, we get it the same place we get our grammar: a mixture of innate abilities and social agreed upon rules.

Excuse the length of this rant. I'll just end by paraphrasing Sartre: morality is a human thing and we don't need a God to dictate it to us.
____
* I remember seeing a poster showing several world religion had some sort of golden rule. However, this was saying more about human nature than it was saying about the religions.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 17, 2009 3:42 AM

One more thing.
WORST PUN EVER:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_B5UrI7nAI

Posted by: Lifewish | July 17, 2009 5:16 AM

Feynmaniac @ 143

Well if there is no God who decides what's grammatical correct?

I do, and I say that that sentence isn't.

I like the sentiment, though. Carry on.

Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2009 5:24 AM

Will: clueless technique, pointless ASCII art.

Posted by: Alan B | July 17, 2009 6:56 AM

England 419 for 9!

The tail Anderson and Onions (yes, really!) have scored 41 off 43 balls. 12 off the last over.

Posted by: Logan | July 17, 2009 7:02 AM

Feynmaniac, thanks for the link. I read the article, and though some of the analogy seems very awkward (for lack of a better word) I think I know what the author was getting at. Now this may seem like quite a stretch, so I apologize in advance, but couldn't this article then be used to justify the actions of those such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, etc.? After all, what's "wrong" for us isn't necessarily "wrong" for someone else. There doesn't seem to be any even vaguely set standard then, and perhaps this is, in fact, what the author was implying. But this seems contradictory in the sense that if there is no "right" or "wrong" a "conscience" (as referenced by the author) would seem to suggest such.

Thank-you for your response though, Feynmaniac. Very thorough. I'm not trying to shoot you down or anything—just offering my interpretation of the article.

Posted by: Alan B | July 17, 2009 7:16 AM

425 all out!

Anderson caught by Hussey in the gulley.

Anderson (No. 9 in batting order) ends up with more runs than all the recognised batsmen except for Strauss, Cook and Pietersen.

Highest last wicket stand against Australia at the home of cricket - Lords.

But is 425 enough? What role will the weather play? Will the men in white from the planet Krikkit seize one of the stumps and save the Ozzies from defeat?

Will the citizens of the USA follow Slartibartfast and start to enjoy the game of cricket, or will they follow the more sensible citizens of the galaxy and find the sport to be in rather bad taste?

Watch out for more after lunch!

Posted by: Rorschach | July 17, 2009 7:31 AM

Still not made any irrevocable decision on whether to have the heart zap but if this is the best I will be, I think I will go for it.

Yeah,no big deal really,I do a couple a month or so in the Emergency setting,if you know who not to cardiovert because of risk it is a very safe procedure.

And, and, Hughes' dismissal was ridiculous !

Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2009 7:36 AM

Logan,

Now this may seem like quite a stretch, so I apologize in advance, but couldn't this article then be used to justify the actions of those such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, etc.?

Did you know that on July 22nd it will be the 800th anniversary of the sack of Béziers?

Béziers was a Languedoc stronghold of Catharism, which the Catholic Church condemned as heretical and which Catholic forces extirpated in the Albigensian Crusade. Béziers was the first city to be sacked, on July 22, 1209. Béziers' Catholics were given the opportunity to leave before the Crusaders besieged the city. However, they refused and fought with the Cathars. In a sortie outside the walls, their combined force was defeated, and pursued back into town. In the bloody massacre which followed, no one was spared, not even those who took refuge in the churches. The commander of the crusade was the Papal Legate Arnaud-Amaury (or Arnald Amalaricus, Abbot of Citeaux). When asked by a Crusader how to tell Catholics from Cathars once they had taken the city, the abbot supposedly replied, "Kill them all, God will know His own" - "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet". (This phrase can only be found in one source, Caesarius of Heisterbach along with a story of some Cathars who desecrated a copy of the Old Testament and threw it from the town's walls.)

The invaders fired the cathedral of Saint Nazaire, which collapsed on those who had taken refuge inside. The town was pillaged and burnt. None were left alive. (A plaque opposite the cathedral records the 'Day of Butchery' perpetrated by the 'northern barons'.) A few parts of the Romanesque cathedral St-Nazaire survived, and repairs started in 1215. The restoration, along with that of the rest of the city, continued until the 15th century.

Good people do good things, bad people do bad things; people are very good indeed at justifying their actions. When bad people rise to power, bad things happen to other people.

Posted by: Foie Gras Connoisseur | July 17, 2009 10:30 AM

In case you didnt get the link - Feynman physics lectures video are available on Microsoft website.

http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/index.html

Great time.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 17, 2009 12:45 PM

The Intersection is beginning to look like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Posted by: Watchman | July 17, 2009 1:55 PM

couldn't this article then be used to justify the actions of those such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, etc.? After all, what's "wrong" for us isn't necessarily "wrong" for someone else.

Nope. Hitler did what was right for Hitler, but that was WRONG for many, many people who were not named "Hitler". Some people (other Nazis) agree with him, of course, but the larger consensus was that Hitler needed to be stopped at any cost, and so he was.

Re: Kwok-Davison: Not since Ali-Frazier have two titans clashed with such ferocity of purpose... etc.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 17, 2009 2:12 PM

620. John Kwok Says: July 17th, 2009 at 10:52 am

@ Rev. BigDumbChimp -
With a friend like you, who needs enemies? That’s why we’re no longer FB friends.

ROFL

I'm sure the rev is devastated by this...

Posted by: Alan B | July 17, 2009 2:54 PM

For those of you dying to know how the test match has gone at the home of cricket:

Australia were 156 for 8 when bad light ended play for the day. Ricky Ponting the Ozzie captain was given out (apparently incorrectly) for a catch instead of being (correctly) given out for lbw. (Confused? You should be!). Makes up for Bopara from England who was (incorrectly) given out for lbw.

Australia need 70 to avoid being asked to follow on.

Australia have not lost a Test at the headquarters of world cricket since 1934. On the 75th anniversary of that victory it looks like England might change this around and save the Universe from destruction by the planet Krikkit.

On the Krikkit front. It appears the space robots dressed in white were after the ultimate symbol of cricket - the Ashes themselves. These were to be reconstituted into the the Wooden Pillar of Nature and Spirituality to complete the reconstruction of the Wikkit Gate and the destruction of the Universe.

It appears that Anderson has forestalled this single handedly by his superb batting and bowling. The Universe lives on for another day (subject to the English weather).

Posted by: Stu | July 17, 2009 3:58 PM

Sven: my money is still on narcissism.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 17, 2009 4:18 PM

Now this may seem like quite a stretch, so I apologize in advance, but couldn't this article then be used to justify the actions of those such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, etc.?

How so?

After all, what's "wrong" for us isn't necessarily "wrong" for someone else.

I don't see how that follows.

There doesn't seem to be any even vaguely set standard then, and perhaps this is, in fact, what the author was implying.

There's the standard of not doing unto others as you would not want have done unto you.

What the despots you list did was redefine "others" such that it was divided into in-groups and out-groups. The in-group (Aryans/Nazi Party members, Bolsheviks, Maoist Communists respectively) was treated (somewhat) morally, internally; the out-group was declared a threat that must be destroyed without mercy or hesitation.

Understanding that this (division into trusted in-groups and hated out-groups) is the sort of thing that humans often do, and trying to counter it and compensate for it, is an important part of the philosophy of ethics.

Even if God is, as you say, the one that "determines" (or "decides" -- a word with what I think has very different implications than "determines") what is right and wrong, how are we humans supposed to know without God directly telling us? Does the bible offer any sort of ethical analysis? Or is it (from a moral perspective) a collection of often contradictory prescriptions that not even its adherents follow with perfect consistency (and sometimes without any consistency at all)?

But this seems contradictory in the sense that if there is no "right" or "wrong" a "conscience" (as referenced by the author) would seem to suggest such.

"Conscience" is shorthand for an evolved moral sense. But conscience can be subverted, and, as noted, is far too often used in support of one's privileged in-group against the out-group: Those guys, the ones over there that look different and/or think different, they don't deserve to be treated well, let alone as we wish to be treated. It therefore isn't right to treat them as we would wish to be treated.

Or more briefly: Yes, a moral sense does seem to have evolved -- but so too has xenophobia evolved, and xenophobia does definitely conflict with and sometimes override morality to lead to the atrocities perpetrated by those you listed above, and by many others.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 17, 2009 7:33 PM

Will the citizens of the USA follow Slartibartfast and start to enjoy the game of cricket

There is a cricket league here in Southeastern Connecticut. There are enough Australians, Indians, Pakistanis, West Indians, Bangladeshis, and even Brits living here to field four teams. From May to September, weather permitting, there's a 20 Over game every Saturday. I'd watch except that when the weather's nice I'm sailing.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 17, 2009 8:37 PM

Owlmirror is correct in pointing out the ubiquitousness of zenophobia.

Take my sister-in-law. (Please).
You can't mention paradoxes or tortoises around her without her totally freaking out. It's her Achille's heel.

Posted by: Lynna | July 17, 2009 9:14 PM

J.A. Davis*n is pathetic, but no where near degenerate enough to be interesting. Sven quoted him/her above. This cry of all-is-foul (except for J.A. Davis*on, of course) is tedious.

I prescribe a dose of Wallace Stevens as an antidote:

Complacencies of the peignoir, and late
Coffee and oranges in a sunny chair,
And the green freedom of a cockatoo
Upon a rug mingle to dissipate
The holy hush of ancient sacrifice.
...
Passions of rain, or moods in falling snow;
Grievings in loneliness, or unsubdued
Elations when the forest blooms; gusty
Emotions on wet roads on autumn nights;
All pleasures and all pains, remembering
The bough of summer and the winter branch.

Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2009 9:24 PM

Lynna, that epitomises why I disdain poetry, Cuttlefish and a couple of others aside.

What a load of crap.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 17, 2009 9:47 PM

Now this may seem like quite a stretch, so I apologize in advance, but couldn't this article then be used to justify the actions of those such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, etc.? After all, what's "wrong" for us isn't necessarily "wrong" for someone else. There doesn't seem to be any even vaguely set standard then, and perhaps this is, in fact, what the author was implying.

No, not really. To take an example from the book, societies all have a sense of justice. Justice takes in many factors: equality, those who work more should get more, those in greater need should get more, etc. Now these vary from culture to culture because different lifestyles (e.g, hunter gatherer, farmers, people living in an industrialized nation) will have different optimizations. Flexibility of the human mind makes us adaptable to a variety of different environments. While they differ on what takes priority all will take into account those factors and all of them have some sense of justice.

I think pretty much all societies would agree (at least in abstract) that the actions taken by the people you listed would be wrong. Then why do so many massacres occur? A variety of reasons. Some people are born lacking empathy just like some are born lacking an ability to speak. A lot of times it's just merely for power. I don't see however how one can take the arguments of a universal morality to justify massacres. If anything it's a great case against moral relativism. It shouldn't be mistaken for moral absolutism either. It much more nuanced than that. Jadehawk already mentioned the problems with both moral relativism and absolutism so I'll skip that. I'll just say the vast majority of atheists, at least from my experience, aren't moral relativists. Most behave like decent human beings and refrain from stealing, killing, etc. So the argument that without God people lose their morality and they do whatever they want is bogus (I know you haven't suggested that, but I have heard others claiming this). The evidence doesn't back that up.

If you want to hear an interesting take on morality listen Sam Harris' lecture "Can We Ever Be Right About Right and Wrong?".

Posted by: Lynna | July 17, 2009 10:09 PM

John @181, and anyone else who has a bad taste in their mouth from the "load of crap."

A palate cleanser from Charles Bukowski:
oh my
very painful to write this
of course
but most poets are just big
tit-suckers
...
very painful to write this'
of course
but hardly as painful
as
attempting to read
their
Selected
Works.

having said the above
there goes
my last chance
to join their
worldwide
circle
jerk.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 17, 2009 10:16 PM

The moral sense has evolved, but I believe it very much plays second fiddle to xenophobia

Humans are pack animals. Pack animals differ from herd animals in that herd animals will let anyone into the herd while pack animals are much more selective. Packs are in competition with other packs, they are usually territorial, and almost all pack animals are carnivorous or omnivorous.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 17, 2009 10:28 PM

Some people have empathy beaten out of them, or they have empathy programmed by their environment (religion, tribalism, etc.) to switch on only in limited circumstances.

Yes, that also happens. I didn't mean to suggest that lack of empathy was only a result of how one is born.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 18, 2009 4:10 AM

Pirates and Emperors - Schoolhouse Rock

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQBWGo7pef8

Also,
Midterm Elections

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oowPidJSeb4

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 18, 2009 7:22 AM

Anyone who thinks that humans are the only aggressive primates is either ignorant or delusional.

Posted by: Cathal | July 18, 2009 8:06 AM

Here's John Waters in yesterday's Irish Times.

[[http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0717/1224250844850.html]]

Basically, his argument that the arguments of reason are irrelevant because he was familiar with them thirty years ago, and that he knows a religious physicist, so there.

What a plank.

Posted by: Sven DIMilo | July 18, 2009 10:44 AM

cartoons, is it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR7prgyEqZM

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 18, 2009 12:42 PM

Nobody else is playing? Here's another cartoon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ8kMbMpQbo

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 18, 2009 2:06 PM

But, - and I think this is Plantinga's point, adaptive behaviour is different from true beliefs about what the environment is.

Posted by: Small Still | July 18, 2009 5:57 PM

Nerd states:
>>>Science and reality say logic and reliability of the senses must be good. Or hominids would have died out.

Yes, that is why adaptive behaviour works. That is why we are still here. We adapted! But our beliefs? I don't know. Witness our beliefs:

1997: U.S. Gallup Poll comparing scientists with the general population:

Everyone: Young Earth-44%, guided evolution-39%, naturalist evolution-10%
Scientists: Young Earth- 5%, guided evolution-40%, naturalist-55%
The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, psychology, business administration, etc. (Commentary from Gallup)

I still believe there is a difference between adaptive behaviour and core beliefs. How am I missing the boat here? Before I get responses cursing me out for using poll data, I know that polls do not support what is right or wrong. I am only using the poll data to show what people, including scientists, believe. This shows a big difference between adaptive behaviour and beliefs, no matter which side of the ID coin you are on.

I mentioned in the old board that belief in the supernatural might have had a positive evolutionary impact. A false core belief (according to those that visit this board, no doubt) but nonetheless a possibly instrumental belief in our survival as a species. So much for logic and evolution going hand in hand (if you are a evolutionary-naturalist).

But, I am very open to the other side of the argument. Keep it coming. I like arguing, even if it means I am wrong. I can take it. Let's keep the conversation going.

And - I have to ask this - (much more important than this trivia about ID) I have noticed that many of the posters here are from Australia, or so I have surmised. I love popular, rock&roll, jazz, and blues music, and my favourite band is a group from Melbourne: The Cat Empire. Any music lovers out there know of this group?

Peace.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 18, 2009 6:36 PM

I hate to have to report this to Alan B, but I went sailing this afternoon instead of watching cricket.

A landsman's life is all his own,
He can go or he can stay,
But if the sea gets in your blood,
When she calls you must obey.

-Tommy Makem Farewell to Carlingford

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGn2G-xjM_M

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 18, 2009 6:42 PM

The English women's cricket team actually know what they are doing, and have the various trophies to prove it.

Posted by: bastion of sass | July 18, 2009 6:53 PM

Cathal @ #195 wrote:

Here's John Waters in yesterday's Irish Times.

Basically, his argument that the arguments of reason are irrelevant because he was familiar with them thirty years ago, and that he knows a religious physicist, so there.

Whew! You had me worried there until I took a quick look at your link. For a brief moment there, I though the US's most famous John Waters had lost his mind!

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 18, 2009 7:11 PM

I'm sorry, but I seem to have lost the plot/plan/purpose.
What are you playing?
And...why?

Sven was posting cartoons.

Posted by: bastion of sass | July 18, 2009 8:03 PM

Whoa! Got this strange-to-me message after I hit "post" for my last comment:

Confirmation...
Your comment has been submitted!
Return to the original entry.

What's happening?!!

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 18, 2009 8:26 PM

Small Still,

I'm in Australia and yes, I know the Cat Empire - I'm a fan, albeit not a massive one. I haven't seen them in concert yet but I hope to soon. They've got an great reputation for the quality of their live performances.

Oddly enough they've done a cover of Hotel California in French that's just brilliant.

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 18, 2009 10:46 PM

Yes, we certainly "know," through adaptive behaviour, not to jump off tall buildings in a single bound (Superman, being from Krypton, does not have this fear in his DNA). Yet our reluctance to jump comes from a built in fear of heights, and not from our understanding of the theory of gravity. Animals and young children will recoil from the edge of a precipice without having studied Newton.

Yes, gravity only came later, and we have a fear of heights, but you're missing the entire point of what I'm saying. I'm saying we have the capacity to observe. Science works by drawing theoretical constructs from those observations in order to explain them - and such a process works. Again, a Chimpanzee gathering nuts and cracking them on a tree root with a rock. How can a sentient being like that engage in such a behaviour? It knows the nuts, it knows the rock and it knows the causal effect of smashing the nut with a fulcrum. It doesn't understand it in scientific terms like we do, but it knows the process that leads it to food. It's able to recognise patterns, recognise causal relationships.

And that's my point that you are neglecting. That our brain is built to recognise patterns, to see cause and effect. And because of that, we have the capacity to know. Do you think it just coincidence that the agricultural revolution led to the explosion in population of mankind? That by domesticating grain and animals, that the human populations having a source of food that was constant meant they could give up nomadic lifestyles and cease having to search for food? Surely you see that the human mind can know, and it is evidenced by the entire ascent of man. That there are tools found from about 200,000 years ago and is a signifier that humans once stayed in a position. That jewellery and art accompany human bones, possessions that require an ability to know the world around in order to manipulate it. Weapons on bones, maps on tusks, etc. Plantinga's argument that one belief is as likely as another and that we cannot know anything in an evolutionary sense is evidentially false.

We "know" many adaptive mechanisms, through adaptive evolutionary behaviour, like a fear of heights and wild animals, not to mention the need to breath and eat. But, - and I think this is Plantinga's point, adaptive behaviour is different from true beliefs about what the environment is. Fear of jumping off of a building is different than understanding the nature of gravity. BTW, do physicists have gravity nailed down yet? This is the heart of his argument, I believe.

I'm not disputing that we don't have absolute knowledge, we have limited knowledge. But it seems Plantinga's argument is that we either have knowledge of the gods or we don't know anything - yet you're sitting on a computer right now. You're sitting on a box that has come from the study of electromagnetic force. The discovery of semi-conductors, the flow of electrons and the use of logic gates means that we have manipulated the environment sufficiently to demonstrate that we have an ability to know.

Know of quantum electrodynamics? Scientists have been able to measure what happens so well on a quantum level with electromagnetic theory that it is the equivalent to being able to measure the distance from New York to Los Angeles to the width of a human hair. Gravity is currently still an unknown quantity in the absolute sense (haven't found the miniature and elusive graviton yet), but we do know it enough to be able to use it on the macroscopic level. We've sent orbiters into space, put men on the moon, sent probes to the other planets, use aeroplanes, build skyscrapers, etc.

Again, it seems that you don't understand the basics of knowledge. We can't have absolute knowledge, but we can have limited knowledge because we have the capacity to observe the environment on a macroscopic level. Have you seen a Geiger counter? The radiation given off is not visible to us, yet the device converts the radiation into an audible output that our minds can process. Just as an infrared camera converts the output onto the visible spectrum for us. We are limited in our knowledge, but we have the capacity to know. That's where Plantinga fails, his argument says that we can't know if there was no Godddidit, and that is clearly false.

Accept Plantinga's argument or reject it, but the question (to me) is as follows: Is the truth about the environment the same thing as behavioural adaptions implanted in us by DNA?

What we have now is a largely malleable mind whereby certain processes are acquired through experience and transmitted down through the generations through mimicry and communication. The brain only needs the capacity to be malleable in such a way, and the mammalian brain is very good at doing this.

When it gets down to it, we are built to see causal relationships, and have the capacity to learn through cultural transmission. Ideas can be tested against because we have the capacity to observe. Like I said, pick up something on your desk and then let go, repeat. You're able to see that it falls to the ground. Why is that? Well therein comes an interpretation, but if you make that interpretation falsifiable, then you get the chance to test the validity of such an idea. We are on the receiving end of thousands of years of cumulative knowledge - that distinguishes science from all other disciplines and why it is such a powerful tool. It seeks to disprove, destroy bad ideas and beyond all else fit to the evidence. And as you can see by sitting on a computer, it does so really damn well.

Do you get it? It's not all or nothing. There are degrees of certainty, and while we cannot know absolutely (again, read Heisenberg) we can made a good approximation of reality that in time with an accumulation of knowledge would lead to us knowing more and more while the cultural transmission of information is protected.

Posted by: John Morales | July 19, 2009 2:42 AM

Kel, OM. :)

Surely you see that the human mind can know, and it is evidenced by the entire ascent of man.

[Bah, these guys are hopeless.

Allow me to score some yardage for the religionists, out of simple charity.]

Here: Actually, it's God's influence — as evidenced by the fact that, at approximately that time, religion was first observed — that led to the ascent of man*, not some purely hypothetical shift in thinking like you unparsimoniously invoke.

So, if it's more parsimonious to think humans became 'homo sapiens' when they got a soul, whence they discovered religion which led to true sapience, it's the null hypothesis.

--
* I prefer to use 'humans' or 'humankind' or 'humanity' to 'man'; but then, I'm not a traditionalist.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 19, 2009 4:37 AM

Alan B,

OK !
Now we only have to get those last wickets today and then bat for 2 days to earn a draw !
Should be easy.....

Not.
:-(

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 19, 2009 7:19 AM

Here's a song from the past that I came across looking for something completely different:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQYQTFudrqc&feature=rec-HM-r2

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 19, 2009 7:55 AM

Brains are Darwinian, knowledge is Lamarckian. Knowledge is either self-taught or, much more usually, acquired from others.

Posted by: Logan | July 19, 2009 8:08 AM

I misspelled "Seeing" in post #226. Sorry.

Oh, and someone called Islam an "Abrahamic religion" in an earlier post. No, Islam is a "Ishmaelic" (pleased note the quotation marks). And even this is a stretch of the imagination to some extent. Perhaps we should refer to it as a "Mohammedian religion" in the future.

If I'm wrong to assume such, please let me know, and I'll admit to my shortcomings in this area of discussion.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 19, 2009 8:25 AM

HOPE FAVRE COMES BACK FOR AT LEAST ONE MORE YEAR!

As someone born and raised in central Wisconsin, I have a certain inbred loyalty to the Packers. So Brett Favre's recent shenanigans are a source of annoyance. First he wants to retire, then he doesn't, then he asks the Packers for an unconditional release (which he gets), then he whines that he really wants to play for Green Bay but those meanies won't let him, then he decides he doesn't want to be a backup but those mean Packers won't give him a release but want to trade him but he wants a release (it's rather unclear to me what happened to the original release) then he gets traded to the Jets and has an extremely uneven season (22 touchdown passes and 22 interceptions), then he decides he doesn't want to be a Jet any more and gets a release, now he's supposed to show up at the Viking training camp in a couple of weeks.

Favre, make up your fucking mind about what you want to do.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 19, 2009 8:31 AM

Another excellent explanation of the Abrahamic religions: http://imgur.com/nb3e3.png

Posted by: Small Still | July 19, 2009 9:25 AM

Kel, Thanks for your thoughtful and thorough post on Plantinga. Your point on absolute knowledge is well taken and I think this is where I was getting hung up. The fact that we do not have such perfect knowledge, and maybe are incapable of such knowledge (Kant, right?) is of course different than saying we can have no knowledge.

I still find such things as dropping a pencil and observing it drop as an adaptive learning device, one we share with the animals. Many educated people find it hard to believe that a feather will fall as fast as a bowling ball in a vacuum. However, as you say, it is through recognizing a pattern of cause and effect, through our senses, we can learn and know. A key point for me in what you said is the limit of this knowledge. Science has taken cause and effect to the absolute limit of material knowledge for the most part. Beyond this? Who knows. But the fact that this limit may exist, does not mean that everything else that we have learned is suspect.

Now I guess the question for Plantinga is whether naturalist evolution falls into the category of what we have learned through cause and effect, or is this theory something beyond our ability to know through observation and pattern recognition. He would likely say the latter. On the other side, naturalist evolution does explain things pretty, pretty well, with the only the knowledge limit (to my understanding) being the starting point, - how elementary particles could come together to form self-replicating DNA. On a larger frame, there is also a knowledge limit, I guess, to what preceded the Big Bang, as well.

But again, Kel, thanks for staying with me on this. You have been a big help.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 19, 2009 10:35 AM

From what I've read, Plantinga is saying that we cannot have absolute knowledge so we cannot have any knowledge. This argument is false on its face. What I understand Plantinga as really saying is that God (his favorite, pet god, no others need apply) is the source of all knowledge.

Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm not a professional philosophicalizer like Plantinga, so my bullshit detector is probably set at too sensitive a level.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | July 19, 2009 12:29 PM

Somewhere a long time ago.

Man 1
Man the goverment is really fucked up and the rulers are working our people to death, we need some sort of union.

Man 2
Oh yeah right, remember the last time we tried to unionize, they slaughtered the union leader and most of his followers and production went up cause the people were scared, no it won't work.We need someone they can't see or touch.

Man 1
Hey, I got an Idea...wheres that union carpenter!

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | July 19, 2009 2:15 PM

Those were the days...

The Government didn't care deeply enough for the public welfare, as gov. do, they have a goal to reach and that goal is at all cost, this will never change. The goal is preservation of their species and has always been so and will always be so.Religion has morphed over time, it has become obscure in many ways.Religion was the answer to aggressive government in many instances.Tho once a religion no longer serves the primary goal (survival) it becomes destructive and unproductive.How bad does it have to get till we have the mass humanity creation of a new religion?
(end concept)
There is no place in religion for god, if god leaves religion then religion falls apart.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 19, 2009 3:20 PM

If you're going to refer to a religion according to who was most responsible for its greatest growth and current form, Christianity should probably be called a Pauline religion.

Judaism is a bit trickier, being a synthesis of more than a few discrete source texts. An Ezraic religion? A Jeremian religion? Or perhaps a Cohanite religion, just to emphasize that everyone involved was a priest of one sort or another.

Abraham did not exist. In addition to the problems with archaeology contradicting the bible (Abraham is said to have done things like visit cities that did not yet exist when he would have been alive, and field an army in a war that could not have happened and that he could not have won), there is the genetic assay of Semitic peoples in general and Jewish populations more specifically, which was posted to "bride of the thread that will not die", which contradicts the idea of one single individual being the primary father of those populations.

"The implication is that this source population included a large number of distinct paternal and maternal lineages, reflecting genetic variation established in the Middle East at that time."

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 19, 2009 7:26 PM

We shouldn't be working all seven days of the week, and we need a place to wash, you know hygiene, and Holy days, yeah, gotta have a break from all this damn work!

Just as a historical note, after the French Revolution the National Assembly attempted to reform the measurement system and the calendar. While the metric system has become used world wide, the calendar reform fell by the wayside.

One problem with the calendar reform was the introduction of the ten day week. Workers still had one day of rest per week, but that was one day in ten instead of one in seven. A lot of people did not see that as an improvement. In 1806, the Revolutionary Calendar was abolished and the Gregorian calendar restored.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 19, 2009 10:10 PM

its just a lack of sanity.

There are so many nasty, cruel, yet true remarks I could make in response to this statement that I'll forbear...this time.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 20, 2009 5:57 AM

Pigs lack the will to fight? These guys never met a wildschwein!

Posted by: Britomart | July 20, 2009 11:06 AM

Falyne: The best thing I have found about Clarke is his web page. He runs a computer business with religious downloads- http://atechworld.com/files/BIBLE/ However, the evolution- creation debate one has produced a 404 error for months now. Some computer professional, can't even get his own business web page to work! His family photo web pages are there too, totally unhidden altho not obvious. Go take a look!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 20, 2009 11:16 AM

Dude, that's twice with the Bilboroll. Remember the 3-comment rule!

Posted by: Watchman | July 20, 2009 11:31 AM

Yeah. I shoulda just put it here! My bad.

Posted by: Watchman | July 20, 2009 2:59 PM

I meant to post this instead.

Posted by: Alan B | July 20, 2009 3:45 PM

#206 blf is quite correct in drawing a distinction between the men's and women's teams for English cricket.

What are the differences between the men and women's England cricket teams? It's a question that Charlotte Edwards [women's team captain] gets asked a lot. There's the usual stuff about speed and power, and there's the money of course, but she is far too diplomatic to comment on the most glaring difference of all: that the women win everything.

It has been an incredible few months for the team that Edwards captains. In March, they won the World Cup in Sydney (the men's team have never won it) and last weekend, they won the World Twenty20. They have also won their last two Ashes series.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/jun/27/womens-cricket-charlotte-edwards-twenty20

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 20, 2009 7:21 PM

Am I gonna go see the director's cut? Nah. How about you?

I'll wait until it comes out on DVD and get it from Netflix.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 20, 2009 9:09 PM

Coupla good picks there, 'Tis.
Here's one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybN7KcphfZM

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 20, 2009 9:37 PM

Here's another Eric Burdon song. Unfortunately, the guy who made the video doesn't realize that the song does not celebrate military chaplains.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqbIk7-09cw

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 21, 2009 6:05 PM

According to physicians and medical experts, pork is a harmful diet.

No way!

Pork is the Meat of Kings, baby!

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | July 21, 2009 7:26 PM

'Tis Himself | July 19, 2009 7:26 PM #243
"but that was one day in ten"

Of course it failed,the first four days were mondays.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 22, 2009 4:05 PM

*Peeks in, sees thread living, leaves bacon and beer.*

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | July 22, 2009 7:21 PM

MMMMMMM, smack, smack, gonna need more, more I tell you, more BBL. And I like it cold, crispy and hot.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 22, 2009 7:40 PM

Nerd, you forgot lesbians.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | July 22, 2009 8:49 PM

Here's a brief update and I dare say 5 TEV will require more work.
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/39735

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 23, 2009 8:13 PM

It appears that Logan has disappeared.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 23, 2009 10:28 PM

Some of us peek in every so often...

Posted by: cicely | July 23, 2009 11:55 PM

test

Posted by: ? | July 24, 2009 12:13 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUUKSH4Pd7s

Posted by: Sili | July 24, 2009 6:34 AM

Well, I haven't paid much attention, but I sorta got the impression that Logan actually did research when asked to. Given how slowly I read, myself, these days, I can't blame him for taking his time.

Trying to get back into maths, but I really can't bend my head round it - of course, I couldn't back when I studied it, either. Too lazy. Watching Leonard Susskind lecture on physics on Youtube is paying off, though. Occassionally I realise what I supposed to understand in maths.

I'm afraid I can't do a good impersonation of a creationist kook to tide you over, but I do do a mean Nice Guy(tm). Just in case anyone wants to try their hand at Savage Love Lite.

Posted by: Abs42 | July 24, 2009 9:21 AM

Poor thread *Gives kiss of life*
Wanders back to real life and school holidays *shudder* :D

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 24, 2009 11:13 AM

it's just restin'

beautiful plumage...

Posted by: Lynna | July 24, 2009 11:30 AM

Feynmaniac @286: I listened to that panel discussion. Tyson did a great job! He's a public speaker as good as Carl Sagan, IMO. His summary of the faulty reasoning/observing powers of humans, and of how we get around that fault with the scientific method, was particularly clear.

Posted by: Lynna | July 24, 2009 12:25 PM

Yes, Dawkins explained the use of an actual field trip to a football or soccer stadium, with the children in tow. They placed the "sun" and the pinhead-earth, etc. Mixing physical activity with knowledge seems to work really well for younger students. No lights, no CGI. M&K take note, this is Dawkins at his best as an educator.

Tyson was memorable in his description of all the roadblocks put in his way once he'd decided to become an astrophysicist. He made a point that stuck with me: he understands the unspoken prejudice often still aimed at women (as well as at black kids in inner-city schools). You can be all grown up and still find yourself fighting the undercurrents of prejudice on a daily basis.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 24, 2009 12:46 PM

Quiet night at work(although there is a rave close by, but so far so good), so was going to post YT vid illustrating Sven's 268 and watch the linked vid, but can't access TY from work, sniff....

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 24, 2009 5:59 PM

Thank you, Lynna, for the link to the Economist blog.

The "new atheist," "fundamentalist atheist" and "militant atheist" labels came about because atheists are coming out of the closet. Certain goddists are upset because atheists are making themselves and their rejection of goddism known.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 25, 2009 12:59 AM

There is a difference—call it a fundamental one—between being certain and wrong and being certain and right.

glad SOMEone said it... :-)

Posted by: Sili | July 25, 2009 8:25 AM

Ooooookay.

Challenge:

If you make it to 500 comments on this thread within the next twelve hours - measured from the timestamp on this comment which should be #301, I'll plonk another $100 into the pledges for our two Blogathon participants.

Hell - add another $50 for every hundred comments thereafter within 24 hours.

(No, I can't afford this.)

Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 25, 2009 8:40 AM

Ooooookay.

Challenge:

If you make it to 500 comments on this thread within the next twelve hours - measured from the timestamp on this comment which should be #301, I'll plonk another $100 into the pledges for our two Blogathon participants.

Hell - add another $50 for every hundred comments thereafter within 24 hours.

OK, I'll do my bit (and blog-whore at the same time - two nerds with one stone!). Catch up on events in Honduras here:

http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/

(More non-Honduras posts soon, too...)

Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 25, 2009 8:46 AM

(The two nerds referred to being, of course, myself and DiMilo.)

Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 25, 2009 8:57 AM

Hey SC, that's some shiny new blog you're whorin'.

Why, thanks!

I couldn't figure out how to make the comment box work, though.

Huh. I think you just have to sign in with your Google account (which is your Blogger account - when you do, it should link to your profile). I haven't heard of an issue from anyone else, but now I'm concerned. Please let me know if you continue to have problems.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 25, 2009 9:08 AM

Wow, gotta get used to the posts actually going through and returning us to the thread we posted from. Now, they need to work on preview and TypeKey/Pad interface. Still some bugs in the system.

Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | July 25, 2009 9:12 AM

Bacon for the cause.

Posted by: Josh | July 25, 2009 9:26 AM

*pops in and looks around*

*pops out*

Posted by: Josh | July 25, 2009 9:32 AM

It must be corn.

Yep. No other explanation.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 25, 2009 10:01 AM

The clouds have finally gone away, the sun is shining, the birds are coughing in the trees, and I'm off for a sail.

Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 25, 2009 10:11 AM

And, of course, I just had to click on the link. You're pure evil, Teapot.

***

Have fun, 'Tis!

Posted by: Lynna | July 25, 2009 11:31 AM

Nerd @320: Karen Carpenter was the first famous person I ever saw starve herself to death.

Posted by: Lynna | July 25, 2009 11:52 AM

'Tis @297: Yeah, great article. The Economist comes out of the closet as a socially liberal, fiscally conservative rag? I see PZ picked up the article and put it front and center today.

In other interesting reading, I liked Paul Starr's article "Liberalism for Now" in The New York Review, July 16, 2009. Excerpt:

... the American public hadn't actually become more deeply divided than in the previous several decades; issue by issue most Americans continued to be bunched closer to the political center than the extremes. What had become polarized was the expression of political opinion... partisan mass media had become more important in the news and in public controversy.

Even if Starr is correct that the *expression* of opinion (and I would add religious opinion here) is more extreme than the day-to-day choices people make, I'm still anxious about the flavor of Limbaugh cheese.

I keep thinking about Rwanda, about how much difference the relentless radio campaigns of hate made in the outcome. I think Ann Coulter would be happy to see her big servings of hate prompting more action.

In his concluding paragraph, Starr writes:

The realistic aim of efforts to transcend partisan divisions is not to win over the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, but to isolate them, and ultimately to persuade enough Republicans that playing to heir hard-core base is a strategy for making their own party irrelevant...

Starr also discusses morality, secular versus religious societies, etc. Thoughtful article.

Posted by: Lynna | July 25, 2009 3:52 PM

SC, OM: per your link to your new blog, I liked the comparison of the cartoon describing a restaurant owner's version of physics to the M&K failure-to-understand.

IMO, the best parts of the blog are those that use concrete examples to illustrate more abstract ideas.

Well done on the Honduras issue, BTW; lots of detail there.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | July 25, 2009 5:02 PM

Can't blog for

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | July 25, 2009 5:06 PM

here's my input

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | July 25, 2009 5:10 PM

for the cause..!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjMMz6osU4U&feature=related

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 25, 2009 8:23 PM

'Tis, how was the wind and water...

Posted by: Josh | July 25, 2009 9:10 PM

Glad the weather was good, 'Tis. It was hot as hell down here today, with pretty much no wind moving at all (although we're getting a nice series of storms now).

Posted by: Josh | July 25, 2009 9:28 PM

"Southern Cross;" a simply wonderful song.

Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 25, 2009 9:40 PM

I have a really tasteless joke about Karen Carpenter and Mama Cass.

But I'll refrain.

I'm so torn.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | July 25, 2009 9:45 PM

Well I'm river bound in a canoe for the next several days.
Sorry for all the post I got carried away.
I would Imagine that when I return the Eternal thread will still be going strong...yes, yes of course it will.
Hey Josh, get this...PZ was right about geologist...I'll be *paddling* with one very soon.

Oh and Tis, sounds like you had a great day,cool!
The vid you mentioned was a strange one, yet it was mild compared to others by that group.I'd like to hear more of what has been on your mind lately (#300)The 40+ dead zones have been an area in conservation of concern to me.

SC, you've put a lot of work into your site and it shows!

Nerd, I won't be doing any fishing while I'm away,but I hope you do...good luck.

Abs42, Ahhhhhhh that was sweet. Don't wander too far or too long,You wouldn't want to miss a rock fight.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 25, 2009 10:11 PM

SC,

I just posted a comment on your blog but I don't know if it went through. It had to do with your Unscientific America post.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 25, 2009 10:29 PM

Nerd, I won't be doing any fishing while I'm away,but I hope you do...good luck.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | July 25, 2009 10:38 PM

YEC fishing *with a net* remember to throw back the small ones.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 25, 2009 10:43 PM

I could come up with a tasteless joke about YEC Alan Clarke and "the young ones" but, like my hero, Rev BDC*, I shall refrain.

*When I grow up I want to be Rev BigDumbChimp OM KOT. Well, except for living in South Carolina.

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 25, 2009 11:13 PM

Thanks (I think :)). Did you notice that I added you to the list (sorry for the oversight)?

*checks*

I see. Awesome, thanks

Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 25, 2009 11:24 PM

I used TypePad to post the comment. TypePad has been wonky for me for the past couple of days.

Shoot! I want you to be able to comment! Also upsetting more generally. I thought the TypePad thing was just with Scienceblogs.

Posted by: Bobber | July 25, 2009 11:31 PM

There seems to be a problem with logging in to Typepad. I've used my Blogspot account to comment on SC's blog (which, by the way, is a definite must-read. Four thumbs up [I also use my big toes]).

Posted by: Bobber | July 25, 2009 11:41 PM

Now who's blushing...

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | July 26, 2009 12:34 AM

Dock jumpers.

Guess I haven't been watching close enough, seems Kel has been elevated...Well deserved, OM Indeed.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 26, 2009 11:57 AM

Since the weather people are threatening me with thunder storms for the rest of the day, you're stuck with me (unless the wife decides we should do something else) (or unless the urge to finish my Civ IV game* strikes).

For some reason, I can't log on to Gmail, Blogspot or any Google websites. It's quite annoying. I suspect I've picked up a virus that McAfee ignored.

*Which I'm currently losing, last time I play the English.

Posted by: tresmal | July 26, 2009 5:21 PM

RevBDC I have a really tasteless joke about Karen Carpenter and Mama Cass.

But I'll refrain.

Posted by: Dania | July 26, 2009 5:53 PM

I knew the server upgrade was going to make things worse... Now I can't preview before posting. Gah.

Posted by: blf | July 26, 2009 6:16 PM

It has been going for six months now, right? That's half a year!

On you your backwards planet deep in the uncharted waste areas of the western spiral arm. On real planets we not only have sensible time scales, we know how to make Preview work…

(Posted without Preview because your planet is too stoopid for words, or a working Preview…)

Fortunately, the Vogons are coming, and both problems—silly time measurements and Seed's SciBorg technonothingies—will be solved.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 26, 2009 6:25 PM

Weirdness I meant

Posted by: cicely | July 26, 2009 6:36 PM

I'm relieved to see that TypeKey/Pad doesn't have it in for me, personally. I didn't think that they'd hand-crafted a whole page of meaningless text just for me, but still.....

And SC, I've also added your blog to my check-it-every-day list. Dance for us! :D

(Bacon.)

Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 26, 2009 7:04 PM

Weirdness off the internet:

Are all of the photos real? 'Cause they're cool.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 26, 2009 7:18 PM

That website is about .4 on the Time Cube scale.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 26, 2009 7:27 PM

I don't know what's happening, SC, but I cannot post on your blog. Damn shame too, because you've got some interesting things there.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 26, 2009 9:24 PM

Back to Miss Marple...

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 27, 2009 8:41 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg

Posted by: cicely | July 27, 2009 8:55 PM

Even testier.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 27, 2009 9:26 PM

What's with this "Author Profile Page" thingy that pops up next to typekey IDs for some people, but not all, since the upgrade?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 29, 2009 9:47 PM

Maybe T-Rex is a giant chicken...

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 29, 2009 10:55 PM

Sven, I doubt it either. Just trying to keep the thread going. Countdown to DM 5...4...3...2...

Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | July 29, 2009 11:10 PM

I'd like to publicly thank PZ Myers for correcting the spelling of my nym in the Molly list zone. The correction was unprompted (my me).

Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | July 29, 2009 11:30 PM

huh. Thanks, Salty!

Chomsky, eh? OK, I'll read it...

Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | July 30, 2009 12:14 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WxgeYXCjM8

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 30, 2009 5:47 PM

For something different, here's William Shatner reciting Sarah Palin's resignation speech as a beat poem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0VpFP3FRMM&feature=related

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 31, 2009 7:56 PM

Gah! Alvinrolled!
Damn near unforgiveable, Nerd.

Posted by: John Morales | August 1, 2009 2:57 AM

Is anyone else having this problem?

Why bother with TypeKey?

Posted by: Rorschach | August 1, 2009 4:51 AM

Oh, my bad, that was last week's...

Latest New Rules

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 1, 2009 9:38 PM

Well' Im back...and still finding rocks and sand in, well everywhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfBo-_ED7p8

Whatevergodyagot...ok, but I like the song

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 2, 2009 12:29 PM

OK, but seriously, here it is--maybe you've seen it--the officially Best Thing on the internet:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7258896287489458266&hl=en

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 2, 2009 1:16 PM

Oh, man, it's the visuals I'm talking about, not fucking Shatner! (And the Stewie version is almost too exact to be funny.)

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 2, 2009 5:55 PM

+1

  https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geosc10/book/

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 3, 2009 12:16 AM

oh, and b...t...w...

7343

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 3, 2009 1:08 AM

just because they are in my headphones right now, they are the greatest fucking band there is right now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9du7_C3IOw&feature=related

Posted by: SC "So Not the Wall Drug of Bloggers" OM | August 3, 2009 1:37 AM

Holy shit! I did a search for this* and this is what came up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhj5Gfjhvdk

I was at this show - now looking for myself on the video. Wow. Such great memories. So long ago...

*my theme song (not my favorite - that's Little Wing...and Cheek to Cheek...and, yeah, Tupelo Honey, and...)

I've tried to have some fun over there, but the comment moderation is disturbingly random. I've had innocuous stuff disappear.

Yeah, after hearing others' stories I haven't even tried. Even if they go through, the wait ruins the exchange. I can't put up with the randomness and I've really given up on them at this point.

Posted by: windy | August 3, 2009 3:34 AM

the greatest fucking band there is right now

that would be this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdVZ2NKlMEQ&feature=related

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 3, 2009 7:29 PM

Ken Miller weighs in; Sheril Kirshenbaum and J*hn Kw*k agree with him; dog bites man.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 3, 2009 9:37 PM

Ken Miller weighs in; Sheril Kirshenbaum and J*hn Kw*k agree with him; dog bites man.

Gah! Why did I have to follow your links?! I'm so sick of this business of them all making totally unsubstantiated claims and then pointing to each other's agreement as some sort of verification. "See, they think the same things I do about those militant atheists. I agree with them wholeheartedly. They're correct in pointing out what surely is the case." That's not evidence, you dishonest hacks!

And now there's another fool, Pascal Lapointe, arguing that social scientific claims really require no evidence. Moron.

I cannot allow myself to go back there. It just makes my blood boil.

***

Please visit my blog:

http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 3, 2009 9:40 PM

Where's my Comic Sans tag? Here, I'll just post this chunk of Ken Miller fail here:

Instead, Mooney and Kirshenbaum make the rather unremarkable point that Myers' actions in desecrating that communion host were "incredibly destructive and unnecessary." They further observe that such events set "the cause backward by exacerbating tensions between the scientific community and many American Christians." This assessment seems to me to be exactly right.

However, what now ensues is a back-and-forth blog slapfest between Mooney, Kirshenbaum and their critics. And, quite frankly, I don't see the point of it.

While Myers and others may advance the argument that religious faith is the arch-enemy of scientific rationalism, this doesn't imply that insult and ridicule are appropriate tools with which to defend science. Similarly, the blunt tactics of such folks are no reason to reject the "new atheists" as advocates for science, as Unscientific America seems to do, and as others have explicitly suggested. Scientific rationality is too important a cause to limit participation in its defense. We need each and every voice in our society to speak up for science, no exceptions.

Mooney and Kirshenbaum are right that the tactics of bloggers like Myers have surely reinforced creationist claims about the nature of the scientific enterprise. It is for that reason that the producers of Ben Stein's notorious anti-evolution movie "Expelled" were delighted to feature PZ Myers in that film. Myers' anti-religious views made a perfect foil for the scientific and historical nonsense dished up by "Expelled," and that's the unremarkable point highlighted by Mooney and Kirshenbaum. They had the nerve to point that out, and that's why we've got a brawl in the scientific blogosphere. It's a brawl, unfortunately, that will only serve to weaken the public case for science, no matter who hangs in there for the last word.

***

I'm beginning to think that Ken Miller wants his main claim to fame to be that he defends evolution with a mouth full of communion wafers, like some sort of Catholic Demosthenes on PBS, and can't stand the fact that Mooney has issued nothing more than a weak and petty poot in PZ's direction for the travesty of having driven some sort of post-Lutheran rusty nail through one of Miller's sacred limp biscuits, advancing atheism while forcing Miller to defend fatuous nonsense.

Mooney has, not doubt, not noticed the flaccidity of Miller's praise.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 3, 2009 10:38 PM

PZ has his cephalopods, Coyne has his kittens, may I suggestLagomorpha?

Marmots perhaps?

They could hold the whole blog together, man...

Posted by: Carlie | August 3, 2009 10:54 PM

Hey now, say what you want about Shatner, but I never understood a single word of the Rocketman lyrics until I saw his version.

Posted by: Kseniya | August 3, 2009 11:33 PM

Max Creek? Grateful Dead tribute band?

Posted by: Dianne | August 4, 2009 4:11 AM

Hey now, say what you want about Shatner, but I never understood a single word of the Rocketman lyrics until I saw his version.

FSM's noodly toenails, you mean there really is a Shatner version of Rocketman out there? I always thought that that was a running joke.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 4, 2009 10:58 PM

A little antidote for the 404s...enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkjeKuBwXKE&feature=related

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 5, 2009 8:40 PM

Most of the faitheists are more concerned with tone than anything else. That's why so many of them complain about "militant" and "strident" atheists. It's like that guy who lived down the hall in the college dorm. You know the one, he would get drunk and yell out the window at everyone who passed by. He wasn't being rude or gross, he wasn't telling the women to show their tits, in fact, he was quite friendly to all and sundry, except at the top of his lungs. "HI JACK! HELLO SARAH! ISN'T IT NICE OUT TONIGHT? IF YOU'RE A DODGERS FAN, YOU'LL BE GLAD TO KNOW THEY BEAT THE GIANTS SIX TO ONE!" Just like some people got annoyed at that guy, certain faitheists get annoyed at us. We're too loud and raucous.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 5, 2009 10:01 PM

Hmmm....With a little change in the lyrics, we should use this as our theme song. "I am atheist..."

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 7, 2009 11:37 PM

I'm gone for 10 days of beach-camping. Hold down The Thread.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 7, 2009 11:46 PM

you heading my way again sven?

Posted by: Dianne | August 8, 2009 3:11 PM

Truth in advertising?

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 9, 2009 11:58 PM

Rule # 453 You can't be insulted by a joke if the person telling it,is of the same race or gender, and if you do... well piss off, grow up...It's just a joke.

An Indian and Cowboy were walking through the woods. All of a sudden they came upon a cave the Indian ran up a hill to
the mouth of a small cave.

AWooooo AWooooo he called into the cave and listened
Closely until he heard an answering, AWooooo AWooooo! He then tore off his clothes and ran into the cave.

A while later the Indian came out of the cave smiling.
The Cowboy was puzzled and asked the Indian what it was all about.
It is our custom during mating season when Indian men see cave, they holler AWooooo AWooooo into the opening. If they get an answer back, it means there's a beautiful woman in there waiting for us.
Perplexed, yet intrigued the Cowboy came to a fork in the road and bid farewell to the Indian.

The Cowboy wandered around alone for a while, and then spied a large cave. As he looked in amazement at the size of the huge opening, he was thinking, 'Hoo, man! Look at the size of this cave!
It is bigger than the one the Indian found. There must be some really big, fine women in this cave. He stood in front of the opening and hollered with all his might
A'Wooooo A'Wooooo A'wooooo.
Just like the Indian, he then heard an answering call, A'Wooooo A'wooooo A'wooooo.
With a gleam in his eye and a smile on his face, he raced into the cave, tearing off his clothes as he ran.

The following day, the headline of the local newspaper read...
Wait for it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Cowboy killed by freight train.

OK, it's all I could come up with at the spur of the moment, got a better one?
Thread lives...

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 11, 2009 2:20 AM

OK, open thread right? So as I sit here pondering mans fate and why mankind seems to follow specific patterns throughout recorded time. Why is it that the some modern man have not evolved into a logical thinking species?
I've come to the conclusion, that for some 80 or 100 years is just not long enough for them to reach this state.
Would 150 years be long enough? Perhaps 250 years.
Maybe for some even immortality wouldn't even be long enough.
What saddens me is the fact that having an end game religion as a guide line for life leads to the destruction of the very home that we all live on (earth). I think the men who wrote the bible should have had a little more foresight when writing about taking care of the planet and perhaps some guidelines in overpopulation problems tho not yet confronted with these I would suspect it would have seemed impossible.How does one instill in the population as a whole the responsibility and respect for future generations when some don't even respect themselves enough to seek the truth about the past and today?
Can foresight be acquired by the masses, We have already seen that corporations do not act as such, since they are divorced from accountability. Religion is divorced from accountability.Government is divorced from accountability. All that is left is the individual.The question is can the individual be a strong enough driving force to make a difference.There is but one fact that is overwhelmingly evident in human nature and that is mankind, *excuse me* uneducated mankind is doomed to repeat the past over and over again.Would it be different if s/he lived longer?
How is it that greed plays such a dominate role in religious and secular society when this is suppose to be evil? When these entities act as if there is no tomorrow does that preclude failure?At what point in the evolutionary process does man as a whole finally get it? Will there have to be a massive pop. draw down? Why have the centers for education not kept pace with the increasing population? When religion starts teaching it's self preserving pseudo reality of knowledge does that not tell the government that quality and availability of state sponsored education has not kept pace?
Hmmmm...

Posted by: Sven DIMilo | August 12, 2009 1:31 PM

I have one hour of internet access today, in my parents' motel room.

Therefore, +1.

(BDC: yes, I am camping this week at Hunting Island State Park, near Beaufort (that's "Byoofert") SC. We are a small island of tents in a sea of gigantoid RVs and trailers. Fabulous, fabulous spot if you don't mind a few mosquitoes. And stinging jellyfish. And thunderstorms. And insane heat and humidity. And sunburn. We are having a marvelous time!)

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 13, 2009 8:32 AM

We need to put this thread in front of a death panel.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 13, 2009 11:41 PM

Little steps. First 500 posts. Then 550. If it is going out, we a Mythbusters ending, with a bang!

Posted by: Dianne | August 14, 2009 9:52 AM

Maybe we ought to invite Nikki from the other day over here. That ought to liven things up.

Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | August 14, 2009 10:08 AM

Nikki, the 15 year old christian?

I read half that thread until I was bored of dildo. Did it get interesting later on or did she just keep repeating the usual jesus loves me spiel?

Posted by: Josh | August 14, 2009 10:25 AM

I want more geology!

FFS, I will get to Mt. Rushmore. I've had actual science to do (I know! Right?).

In the meantime, here's a question for RogerS, if he's still watching from the shadows. How does hydrodynamic sorting from the flood explain this:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rsecord/PDF%20Files/Secord%20et%20al.,%202006,%20AJS,%20BHB%20Geochronology.pdf

Show your work.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 14, 2009 11:09 PM

I've been whining to the technogeeks at work because of my antediluvian (I love that word) computer. It has a sticker on it "designed for Windows 98"). Yep, my computer is the one the cavemen used to debug fire. It also had 256 meg of RAM. Up to last month, that was sufficient for me to do my work. Then the technoweenies inflicted a virus scanner on everyone. The thing's a real memory hog. My computer had run at the speed of an arthritic snail. After the scanner was installed, it ran at the speed of an arthritic snail on its deathbed. I got into a pissing contest with the IS Assistant Director when I told him that their scanner was a piece of malware.

A week ago I tried to read my email. It took four minutes to open Outlook. I call the help desk and told them that if they'd give me the specs, I'd go to the local computer store and buy some RAM. So today a guy from IS installed 512 meg in my computer. The arthritic snail is no longer on its deathbed, but even so tortoises will not worry about being overtaken on the information superpathway.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 14, 2009 11:20 PM

Yikes, 'Tis and Dianne. I sympathize with your computer woes.

All I have to offer is something you probably can't watch :/. I give you one of my favorites, Horror at Party Beach:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO8tl7gEJTQ

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 14, 2009 11:23 PM

'Tis, I feel your pain. My computer at work is a 1.4 GHz P4, and I brought in some memory from home (ironically with the words Apple Computer on it) to raise the memory to 768 meg. I also have a corporate virus scanner, and the Pharyngula threads with say 800 posts can take 3-4 minutes to load and be accessible. It has a 100 MHz bus which is the pits. Being at the far end of the site for LAN access doesn't help.

Compare that to the home computer with dual 2.93 GHz CPUs, 4 Gig RAM, and a 1 GHz system bus. The slowest part is the SciBlogs response.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 14, 2009 11:48 PM

Jadehawk, OM |
You have my sympathies, don't watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchaIlWyFCs

Posted by: Rorschach | August 15, 2009 6:26 AM

jadehawk @ 464,

got a song for you...:-)

Lass uns ein Wunder sein !

Ah well, since you're a poor worker bee, here's another one, from Germany's anarchic music underground of the 70's ! SC,OM would undoubtedly approve,shame she can't understand the lyrics...:-)

Mensch Meier !

Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | August 15, 2009 6:53 AM

My computer woe is that last year, I had to replace my hard disk and reinstall XP. This worked fine apart from the fact that it could not detect my sound card, even though it has the designed for XP sticker on.

My linux partitions have no problems with the sound card, but as I have to work with XP most of the time, this is no consolation.

So when you post music and video links, I unfortunately can not get to listen to them :(

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 15, 2009 7:22 AM

A fair number of years ago I was listening to the radio on the Friday before Labor Day. At five o'clock the DJ said: "This is the beginning of the Labor Day weekend. This is a rock station but right now a country song is appropriate."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knetbVx5A-Q

Posted by: bastion of sass | August 15, 2009 11:07 PM

I decided to take a look at this tread to see when it ended, only to find out that it hasn't.

I think it's wonderful that you were able to carry on without me. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: bastion of sass | August 16, 2009 12:25 AM

I think the worst job I ever had was a job, fortunately a temp job, washing hair in a beauty shop.

Now, putting my bare hands into other women's dirty wet hair was bad enough for me, but what made it worse was this job was during the late 60's, when women wore their hair teased, then sprayed their "do" with hair lacquer that hard-glued their hair in place until it was washed, and often, it often wasn't washed more than once a week when they visited the beauty shop and repeated the whole tease and spray process again.

Eugh, eugh, eugh.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 16, 2009 3:40 AM

Worst for me was picking bananas in far north Queensland. Hot, humid, painful, and dangerous (snakes, spiders, rates and not-too-bright farm workers with machetes) all for very little pay.

On the up side: I learned just how much I wanted a cushy office job.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 16, 2009 4:02 AM

Kel,

Bill and HBO are rather protective of these clips,and as of now it's not out there as far as I can tell.

There is an official site where you can watch previous episodes with a delay of a week or so,its linked in this vid of last week's episdode.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 16, 2009 8:07 AM

And to just continue with the tradition of posting random music vids,here's a couple:

As tears go by

and

Angie in Rio,1995 !

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 16, 2009 8:47 AM

The worst job I ever had was working at a boat yard making sail boats. You'd think that an avid sailor like me would love it. My job was to grind the fiberglass smooth after the hull came out of the mold. Even wearing coveralls, gloves, a dust mask, goggles and a face shield (this was in summer) I still got fiberglass all over my skin. I finally stopped itching three months after I left that job.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 16, 2009 8:59 AM

bloody hell,MMEB ! Hadnt thought of them for ages !!

Thanks 'Tis !!

Posted by: DJ | August 16, 2009 12:21 PM

I have a question for the open thread:
Is the compressed air powered car which is being developed by MDI enterprises based real science? I get the feeling it's all a bunch of BS, but I don't have much knowledge of physics.

Posted by: bastion of sass | August 16, 2009 1:25 PM

'Tis wrote:

How about a song with one of the most misheard lyrics ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRtAJy2nFVM

Yeah, when this was popular, I never could figure out what the actual lyrics were. I knew that the lyrics I heard: "Wrapped up like a douche, another runner in the night" probably weren't exactly accurate.

Here's a version with some of the misheard lyrics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMiV5Ls_LVU

Posted by: bastion of sass | August 16, 2009 1:28 PM

And, in honor of the 40th Anniversary of Woodstock:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ4QF45Vygw

Sometimes, Woodstock seems like just yesterday. And sometimes it seems like a zillion years ago, in a different lifetime.

And, a final reminder:"the brown acid that is circulating around us isn't too good. It is suggested that you stay away from that. Of course it's your own trip."

Peace.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 16, 2009 2:56 PM

DJ, I did a little digging. No prototype available, the inventor's credentials seems to not be totally on the up and up, and essentially you are driving a bomb. A 100 gallon carbon composite tank at 4350 psi. Normal gas cylinders use about 3000 psi and are made of steel. (The Mythbusters have shown that a regular steel cylinder, if it gets loose, will puncture a concrete block wall.) And instead of using a turbine (usually considered very efficient), this uses regular cylinders like a car to turn a crankshaft. My BS alarm bells are going off big time. I could be pleasantly surprised if it actually comes to market, but I wouldn't either invest in it, or hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 16, 2009 4:25 PM

Some time ago I was listening to two men, approximately my age, having a discussion. One man said: "I was at Woodstock."

The other said: "I was at the other main cultural event happening in 1969, Vietnam."

Posted by: DJ | August 16, 2009 5:33 PM

Thanks Nerd, that's about what I expected.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 16, 2009 10:32 PM

I took a quick look at John's links. The engine iced up as I would expect. The Joule-Thompson effect, gas cools as it expands, if it is below a critical temperature. For air this is above ambient temperature. I still see some problems they can have. I also find it hard to believe the tank could be filled in just a few seconds. Compressing gas heats it up, and my understanding is that the 3000 PSI steel cylinders have to be filled in stages, and allowed to cool in between increasing the PSI. Compressing gas to high pressure requires a lot of work, ergo a lot of electricity.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 17, 2009 8:39 AM

See me feel me

And a classic from the Stones:

Memory Motel

Posted by: Britomart | August 17, 2009 6:28 PM

Owl, got some thread topics or a few urls for the troll please ?

Thank you kindly

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 17, 2009 7:32 PM

Who Who Who...Back to my dorm days.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 17, 2009 7:38 PM

Bah. Link teh fail.

Quote the thrid: (Note that the comment is deleted by Javascript after the page loads -- if you want to see it, you have to turn off javascript, or cancel the page load, or click on "Post a Comment" (which shows all comments undeleted). Comment is 4:11 PM, July 27, 2009 )

Note that all comments are currently restricted to members of the blog for the next couple of weeks, so I will probably not be getting my SIWOTI fix there for a while.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 17, 2009 10:57 PM

Um, that third (or thrid) quote is from Dogma (the Kevin Smith movie, not the other one).

That was the very first thing I thought of on seeing it. I couldn't believe a fundy was citing such a blasphemous film, though. Maybe I have been Poe'd?

I suspect that the meme was out there in religio-folklore long before Kevin Smith put it in his film. It may be something that cranky nuns tell to over-curious children, just before rapping their knuckles with a ruler.

Oh, and Kevin Smith's quote is this:

"Human beings have neither the aural nor the psychological capacity to withstand the awesome power of God's true voice. Were you to hear it, your mind would cave in and your heart would explode within your chest. We went through five Adams before we figured that one out."

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 18, 2009 12:55 AM

This thread needs an other random song.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 18, 2009 1:19 AM

Hi Nerd, Janine; the very first thing I heard through stereo headphones was when Zappa's Freak Out was still Hot Wax, and my fellow eleven year old pal's dad put on the last of four sides, with Return of the Son of Monster Magnet. An appropriate title for this thread, no?

The songs they played on the radio those days, even on Ed's TV Show! They don't make 'em like that anymore.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 18, 2009 1:55 AM

What has happened? Even the early ninties was a long time ago. I can remember when punk broke. It was a kool thing.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 18, 2009 2:06 AM

Oh, and Kevin Smith's quote is this:

"Human beings have neither the aural nor the psychological capacity to withstand the awesome power of God's true voice. Were you to hear it, your mind would cave in and your heart would explode within your chest. We went through five Adams before we figured that one out."

Owlmirror, I'm speechless...so
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47LR51mbbAs

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 18, 2009 2:18 AM

I agree with you about George Harrison, even though "I should have beat the fucking shit right out of him, him with his fucking Hare Krishna,"** that, He's So Fine.

**Magical Misery Tour

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | August 18, 2009 3:20 AM

aaah, that was some nice, oldfashioned anarcho-communist punk up there (my boyfriend didn't like it though. Not only was there not enough angry screaming, the guys actually sorta knew how to play their instruments; what kind of punk is that?! :-p)

oh and also, my mother was 13 in 1969

*runs*

Posted by: frozen_midwest | August 18, 2009 4:50 AM

Owlmirror @ 513 - you may be might about the meme, although it's not one I recall (catholic school, mid-50s to early 60s). Of course, I might have been sick or not paying attention that day.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 18, 2009 8:01 AM

Some real punk then....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWO4JxM3nDc

Posted by: Rorschach | August 18, 2009 9:13 AM

And one more for the francophiles :

Port d'Amsterdam

Posted by: frozen_northwest | August 19, 2009 12:04 AM

The 70's, on the other hand

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOfXNGuGs28

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 19, 2009 1:23 AM

OK, three post rule,I'm out

Awww fuck the rules, ride a dinosaur,open some eyes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6vNzHgUqig&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIfUD70yvz8&feature=related

Posted by: frozen_midwest | August 19, 2009 10:31 PM

Even older days:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBKl9Jcb9eU

Pity about the last 30 seconds or so, but up til then it's awesome.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 20, 2009 10:32 PM

PZ coming to visit, another oldie....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa3h3pnhg8s

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | August 20, 2009 11:36 PM

and some visual entertainment, for a change: Timon and Pumbaa are real

Posted by: frozen_midwest | August 21, 2009 6:56 AM

For opera fans with very little free time, the condensed version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHwU9Qs0jh0

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 21, 2009 9:53 PM

Hi Kseniya. We're taking turns playing VJ at the moment. Join in if you wish. Almost to 550, time to start thinking of reaching 560...

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 21, 2009 10:16 PM

If we're doing covers of songs, here's the Weedhawks' cover of an old favorite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vK-ZGAPDLo

Posted by: Lynna | August 21, 2009 10:57 PM

Pitching a Wang Dang Doodle, Koko Taylor. RIP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp5NIxWdUbI

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 21, 2009 11:01 PM

Here is an explosive smash hit explosion.

My youth was so wasted.

Posted by: Lynna | August 21, 2009 11:06 PM

pitching a Wang Dang Doodle, Grateful Dead
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzm6o0x3BGI

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 21, 2009 11:11 PM

1972 was good for me. :)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 21, 2009 11:12 PM

Blues Traveler

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

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 21, 2009 11:18 PM

Sorry Lynna, I need a wang dang doodle from an artist I adore.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 21, 2009 11:41 PM

Hi K!
Coincientally, yes.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 22, 2009 12:02 AM

Tis, I just can't do a cover right now, instead I give you a flip side.Love the first 30 seconds best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGJnM2oQB9s

Sven, Ive always wondered, on the chart is it known which actual comment broke the record? Not that it matters, just a curiosity in a sort of trivia kind of way...no woo,
well maybe a woo hoo.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 22, 2009 12:14 AM

It's alright ma, it is just that I love this album.

Well you thought me safely drown
In the depths I swim around
Dither when you do descend
With my claw I will tear you...friend

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 22, 2009 12:40 AM

Ever wondered what it would be like if a semi-legendary band was interviewed by a puppet rat? Wonder no more!

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 22, 2009 2:45 AM

When The Spell Is Broken-Richard Thompson

If you ever need a post break up song, it does not get much better than this.

Posted by: 386sx | August 22, 2009 3:34 PM

Was looking at the comedy section of youtube and found a funny channel called "fred" with 1,361,263 subscribers, however have not located the funny video yet. Does anybody know which one of the "fred" videos is the funny one?

So far it is a complete mystery...

Will keep looking...

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 22, 2009 3:44 PM

A hypothetical question for Sven DiMilo, Keeper of the Cumulative Threadcount:

I note that both the thread "i_get_email_40", with Bradford contributing Creowoo, and "The dilemma of the anti-creationist" thread with "help me booab" offering his pro-creationism, are both currently more than 1000 comments. If PZ closes those threads and points them at this one, are all of the comment-counts for those threads added to this one? Or not?

I ask out of sheer bloody-minded curiosity.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 22, 2009 3:53 PM

Bah. The strikethrough would go through the the horizontal midline of the "e".

"help ma boab"

Fixed, damnit.

Although he is still also a boob.

+1.

Posted by: Sili | August 22, 2009 4:13 PM

Don't make me lecture you on how to waste youth, Janine.

As they say: "Youth is wasted on the young."

My aunt says that they used to say that they could "sleep when they got old" when she was young. Of course, old people sleep less as it happens.

I've taken her words to hard and still make sure to use any and all opportunities to sleep 12+ hours.

And now for something completely different:
Does anyone know any good French podcasts?

Science/skepticism would be good, but ideally I want something I'm likely to know - say the news of the week summed up in simple language. I want something immersive, so language lessons where half the audio is English won't do.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 22, 2009 7:17 PM

I wasn't keeping up with the "I get email" thread. Is Bradford saying anything interesting there? Not sure if I want to try to catch up or not...

Posted by: Dania | August 23, 2009 5:44 AM

No, just I believe in evolution, but it is caused by my dog. Never mind he presents no evidence for his dog...

Thanks, Nerd. I'm reading some of Bradford's comments right now and s/he seems to think that "Hydrogen exists, therefore Jesus" makes perfect sense. Well...

Posted by: Dania | August 23, 2009 8:00 AM

Welcome back, Alan! It's good to see you here again.

Interested?

But of course. Can't wait for it. :)

Posted by: Rorschach | August 23, 2009 10:28 AM

Kel et al.,

New Rules !

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 23, 2009 10:45 AM

If PZ closes those threads and points them at this one, are all of the comment-counts for those threads added to this one? Or not?

Let us all hope that PZ can summon the wisdom to resist any such temptation. Besmirching the pure linearity of The Thread Everlasting with input from reticulating multiple thread-lineages could well have unforeseeable repercussions of unpredictable severity. I would not dismiss out-of-hand the possibility of a rent in space-time, global economic collapse, WW III through V, or atonal music.

Nay, I say to you: nay! Let the singular and linear jewel that is The Thread roll on unsullied by other mortal, senescent, merely finite comment threads! Or suffer the consequences! The ice-caps could melt!

Posted by: Carlie | August 23, 2009 11:14 AM

'Cause Darwin didn't know about comment threads! Yeah! We showed him!

Sven - a relatively large posterior is necessary for the jeans to work properly, or jeans that are several sizes too small, as you noted. They had another video of several people walking in a parade wearing them, and one of the guys had a pretty skinny butt. It just looked like he was walking along with two weird pictures on his legs. Which, of course, he was, but there was no winkening happening.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 23, 2009 1:42 PM

Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross the streams.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Why?
Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad.
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm a little fuzzy on the whole "good/bad" thing here. What do you mean, "bad"?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Dr. Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal!
Dr. Peter Venkman: That's bad. Okay. All right, important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.

Posted by: frozen_midwest | August 23, 2009 5:03 PM

Time for some tunes -

first, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAy_ePlMtb8

And now, the ultimate DIY guide:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LJFJyvZA94

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 23, 2009 6:01 PM

Another song about fishing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD6zC0aqgCQ&feature=related

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 23, 2009 6:28 PM

Do the ridges have to be basalt?

I read this and came up with an incredibly silly pun having to do with pepper, but I shall stifle the urge to inflict it on an unsuspecting populace.

Posted by: Carlie | August 23, 2009 8:21 PM

Oh no, don't start this schist again.

Posted by: frozen_midwest | August 23, 2009 8:41 PM

Awww, but who doesn't lava good rock joke?

Posted by: Lynna | August 23, 2009 8:47 PM

Alan B. @596: Great post on inverted topography. Thanks. I'd read about it before, but your presentation was clearer.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 23, 2009 8:55 PM

Oh no! It's time for flaky scientist humor.

Posted by: Lynna | August 23, 2009 9:10 PM

What do geologists call angry sex?

Cross-bedding

(Shale we stop now? These jokes may contribute to the friable nature of our brains.)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 23, 2009 9:23 PM

I'm quaking in my boots.

That's a lode off of my mind.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 23, 2009 9:30 PM

aw, jeez. Geology puns?
And it was such a gneiss thread.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 23, 2009 9:37 PM

Woo woo!
Bow-chick-wow-wow!
Gneiss lamina, baby!
Hoooooooooo!

Posted by: frozen_midwest | August 23, 2009 9:39 PM

Sorry, that should be Smoggy, not Smoggt

Posted by: Rorschach | August 23, 2009 9:46 PM

Not music,but

Sam Harris on Maher

Posted by: Carlie | August 23, 2009 9:53 PM

I'm feeling a cone of depression that I can't spar anywhere in the same plane as Smoggy. He's really raised the bar.

Posted by: Lynna | August 23, 2009 10:04 PM

Holy Smoggy! The "laminar flows" was just too much. Gonna half to go ROTFL now.
Smoggy rocks.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 23, 2009 10:13 PM

Smoggy is in excellent form on multiple threads tonight and is officially off my killfile.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 23, 2009 10:18 PM

*Pops head up, sees active posts with puns, can't think of one, pops back down* (+1)

Posted by: Lynna | August 23, 2009 10:29 PM

Ah, Carlie,
Being gneiss goes a long way,
but if it's IDiots you want to slay
let Smoggy bury 'em in rubble.
And call Floyd Rubber to double
the sod's trouble with concretions
equigranular from his regions
left unwashed for several seasons.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 23, 2009 10:34 PM

Where is Emmet?

Posted by: frozen_midwest | August 23, 2009 11:11 PM

Tis' @594 - I have been known to request 4'33' at piano bars (and if unduelly provoked, shout 'Encore')

As for the rest, I must bid you all adieu for 20 hours or so (blasted corporate firewall blocks all blogs and message boards). But before I depart, I wish to leave you with the immortal words of the noted 20th century film director Gorge Lucas - 'May the quartz be with you'

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 23, 2009 11:29 PM

Dear Sister Lynna,

Your intimate descriptions of Floyd Rubber's extrusions and equigranular concretions are disturbingly accurate.

That isn't you parked across the street in the blacked-out van marked "Homo-Erotic Building Supplies" is it?

Smoggy

Posted by: Lynna | August 24, 2009 12:53 AM

Lynna's Homo-Erotic Building Supplies is going out business. Lowest prices of the season on:
Swarms of Dikes - decorative rocks for landscaping
Detrital Sediment - from Goliath's bathhouse
Bi-tuminous fencing
Boy-troidal wall panels
Dynamo-thermal bidets
Black and White Framed Photos - suitable for wall art (all featuring Floyd Rubber, and signed by him with bodily fluids)

(In future, no unmarked vans will be parked outside the domicile of Smoggy Batzrubble. Instead, I will be spending time with the local constabulary. They need a decorator... and I need to fulfill certain community service requirements.)

Posted by: Lynna | August 24, 2009 1:44 PM

Just thought I'd better clear up a few things. In case someone reads this who does not know the Smoggy/Floyd story, nor my own, I'd better make it clear that I don't collect photos of prisoners. I'm so insulated from the criminal population that I don't even know anyone who's ever been to prison. Closest I can get to knowledge of prisoners is that I have one friend whose son was in jail overnight for fighting in a bar.

That's it. Nope, no street cred here.

I'm going to go bake a pie now. Preferably apple.

But, Sven, I thought the line of Dynamo-thermal bidets was a good idea. We should patent it while we have the chance.

I do actually have rocks for sale through my brother's website. http://www.agateslabs.com/prueheart_agate_slabs.htm

I don't think the rocks qualify as homo-erotic, but Smoggy may see them in a different light.

Posted by: cicely | August 24, 2009 3:50 PM

Lynna, just up-stream:

I'm so insulated from the criminal population that I don't even know anyone who's ever been to prison. Closest I can get to knowledge of prisoners is that I have one friend whose son was in jail overnight for fighting in a bar.

May I offer you my cousin, then? I think the idiot's out, by now.

Posted by: Lynna | August 24, 2009 4:04 PM

Thanks, cicely, for the offer of your cousin. But, for now, I think I'll just try to get by without any released prisoners in my social circle ... unless he's a geologist. Maybe he even already has rock-breaking experience?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 24, 2009 4:48 PM

Garnet Rogers' song about his brother, Stan. The instrumental introduction is fantastic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHyTxGwAdnk&feature=rec-HM-r2

Posted by: frozen_midwest | August 25, 2009 7:42 AM

See what you've done? Let some geologists start talking schist, and before you know it they're exploring orogenous zones in public!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 25, 2009 7:55 AM

Oh no, more puns, time to evaporite.

Posted by: cicely | August 25, 2009 3:29 PM

Ah, so you'll be wanting the assistance of my cousin's Mad Rock-breaking Skillz then, Lynna? Going cheap!

Posted by: Josh | August 25, 2009 4:04 PM

I can't help it - all my faults are stress related.

How sad for you. All of my faults are normal.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 25, 2009 4:33 PM

A WARNING TO LYNNA @ 648

Those who rest 'tween the breasts of my Bubba, Floyd Rubber,
Often find that his gross, hairy tits smell like blubber,
For his mom was a whale,
Whom his father dids't nail,
By expanding his wang with a ten-foot-long dubber.*

----------------------------
*Dubber \Dub"ber\, n. [Hind. dabbah.] A globular vessel or bottle of leather, used in India to hold ghee, oil, etc.

Posted by: Lynna | August 25, 2009 5:38 PM

Smoggy @653: Thanks for the warning, but as a one-time Alaskan resident, blubber doesn't really put me off.

Great doggerel. A classic. And new vocabulary as well. Dubber. Dubber!

And now we have a back story for Floyd Rubber that goes all the way back to his conception. I'll be carrying this enigmatic smile to the grocery store. See you later.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 25, 2009 6:49 PM

They'll come back. I can't see England retaining the Ashes at playing in Australia.

I still wonder how England gained the Ashes in England.

the River Budleighgensis

Which river is that? I know there's several Rivers Ouse (pronounced "ooze") in England* but the Budleighgensis seems too outré for even English geography.

*Not to mention Hilaire Belloc's description of a river running by a Cambridge college: "Tall Trinity, by which the Cam its awful torrent rolls."

Posted by: Alan B | August 25, 2009 7:45 PM

#657 'Tis Himself asked about the River Budleighgensis.

I referred to it in #656

...pebbles (and a few small cobbles) of hard quartzite laid down in the bed of the ancient River Budleighensis that flowed in early Triassic times.

The concept of a major ancient river flowing from the South was introduced into the geology of the Permo-Triassic period to explain a number of features:

1) the major amount of coarse conglomerate laid down just after the P/T boundary. It looked like a giant braided river - perhaps that is exactly what it was.

2) the Cheshire plain salt formation which looked like the result of evaporation of a series of lakes/salt marshes where a giant river had dried out after passing through a desert environment.

3) the presence of a large number of pebbles of hard rock (quartzite) which would have had to have travelled a long distance (such as from France) to have become rounded and which had no source locally.

4) The presence of deposits attributable to deltas.

The hypothesis was set up that a giant braided river would explain much of the geology in the West Midlands. It is well enough accepted to be referred to in the key reference work from the Geoconservation Review:

http://www.thegcr.org.uk/GIA/24/Figures/JPEGsLoRes/GCRv24c03f050.jpg

...the Budleighgensis seems too outré for even English geography

But you are dealing with geologists here ...
The name came from the seaside town of Budleigh Salterton which has a famous set of early Triassic pebble beds and is on the South coast, between the West Midlands and the area of France whence the river was believed to have come.

http://www.soton.ac.uk/~imw/Budleigh-Salterton.htm

Posted by: Alan B | August 26, 2009 4:58 AM

#658

I agree with you Mr Batzrubble.

"Did England win the Ashes or did Australia lose them?"
Discuss.

#660 Hi Lynna

I'd rather walk around and look at it all ...

Posted by: Rorschach | August 26, 2009 5:09 AM

"Did England win the Ashes or did Australia lose them?" Discuss.

Australia obviously lost it.
I cant decide whether it was Hussey running out Ponting, Clarke running out himself, or North copping the weirdest dismissal of all times, that did for us on that final day.Could have actually made it otherwise.
And yeah, the spinner.

*Sigh*

Posted by: Lynna | August 26, 2009 11:18 AM

If you are ever round this way, give us a shout.

Thanks, Alan. You can visit my website via the link in my name and find an email link to me there (the info is there, I don't usually make the email links live -- text/but-no-link tends to slow down the spam). Visiting the U.K. is not as unlikely as it once was. My daughter has fallen in love the place and we've been talking about make a trip together. She's a great walker and enjoyer of the outdoors, so she'd love some on-site geology lessons as well.

Maybe next year? I've got to get out of the American West more. Contrast and perspective are good for me.

In the meantime, I'll reciprocate by extending the same invitation to you. If you're ever in my neck of the woods, do stop by. I can show you some Jasperoid formations, among other things.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 26, 2009 7:05 PM

Been busy of late,will have to catch up to the topic at a later date.I've skimmed and it looks very interesting.

Other news for those who have interest;

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/40100

Beam injection mid-November.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 26, 2009 11:27 PM

Ashes to asses
Dust to Must

Posted by: clinteas | August 27, 2009 8:59 AM

House of the rising sun

Posted by: clinteas | August 27, 2009 9:07 AM

They are not the same, mind you.
(+1)

Those were the days

Streets of London

Posted by: clinteas | August 27, 2009 9:18 AM

Got all sentimental after that afternoon spent sparring with TM yesterday...:-)
And commented after much hesitation on the Kennedy thread, beer might have played a role I admit lol, and thought it fitting to resort to the old nick for the occasion.
:-)

Posted by: clinteas | August 27, 2009 9:31 AM

I hope Sven keeps up the count...:-)

Sounds of silence

Be my baby

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 27, 2009 9:56 AM

7608

Posted by: clinteas | August 27, 2009 10:05 AM

7608

:-)
And counting !

Aerzte feat. Lara Croft !

*reverts back to alternate nick*

Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | August 27, 2009 11:00 AM

May I give you both Punk and feminine.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 27, 2009 11:21 AM

Oh this is nice: (and good nite)

Nirvana playing Seasons in the sun

Posted by: Alan B | August 27, 2009 4:30 PM

Inverted Topology Part 3

Right. So we have dealt with river channels being filled with basaltic lava with the rock in the valley sides being weathered/eroded to leave a sinuous ridge standing proud. Then we have considered the effect of pebbles, cobbles, boulders armouring the river bed and thereby protecting the alluvium, gravel underneath.

Is there any other way of hardening the river channel or even the whole valley and thereby allowing it to stand proud once the softer rock has been worn away? Yes and its all about duricrusts (often known as hardpans).

A duricrust is a hard crust formed on the surface or within the upper horizons of a soil in a semi-arid climate where evaporation is nearly equal to rainfall. Duricrusts are a product of deep chemical weathering, where mineral deposits are precipitated within the surface layers by the evaporation of ground water that is saturated with dissolved salts.

Based on the nature of the cement, geologists give names to the range of materials formed when soils, alluvium, gravel etc are cemented together like this.
* silcrete where the cement is silica
* calcrete with calcium carbonate
* ferricrete with iron compounds
* gypcrete if the cement is gypsum (calcium sulphate)

Inverted topology is well established to have resulted from three of the four (gypcrete is somewhat speculative, partly, I suspect, because gypsum is the softest of the cements).

Probably, Americans know more about hardpans than I do but let me just mention calcrete because we have examples local to where I live:

The (artificial) boundary between the top of the Silurian and the bottom of the Devonian has been set locally as being at a well-defined layer of calcrete (locally called cornstone), the Bishops Frome Limestone (BFL) Formation. This lies within a series of mudstones, shales, occasional sandstones that are believed to have been formed in the flood plain and delta of a series of slow-flowing rivers. At times the rivers dried up and salts were drawn up by evaporation from the underlying muds and sands to form layers of calcrete. The BFL and similar layers extend as a rings around much of South Wales and moves over the border to the West Midlands. The BFL is hard enough and thick enough to form steps in the landscape. It is estimated that the BFL took about 10,000 years to form.

Thus, under the right conditions (semi-arid Mediterranean rather than tropical or desert) thick layers of hard rock can form in river channels, in valleys or in low-lying areas.

Some further examples of inverted topology:

1) References from the article referred to in #596:
C F Pain & C D Ollier (1995), "Inversion of relief - a component of landscape evolution." Geomorphology 12 (1995), 151-165. (Sorry, hidden behind a cost-per-article wall. Because of difficulty of access for most, I am quoting in more detail than usual.)

An area of 10,000 km^2 in eastern Saudi Arabia described as “drainage lines in bas-relief”. The original author attributed this inversion of relief, or “suspened drainage”, to calcareous cementing of materials along drainage lines and subsequent erosion of the less resistant materials from between the channels.

Saudi Arabia & Oman. The author (not the same as for the Saudi Arabia example above)described “gravel trains” lying 30-60 m above the present river beds. He noted that a “dendritic drainage pattern is etched out in bas-relief, a caliche [calcrete] carapace having protected the Pleistocene channels while the wind removed the inter-stream divides”.

Appalachians of USA (another example for Part 2).
“Floors of valleys up to 1 km wide become infilled by large (>1m) boulders of quartzite which armour the floors of channels and so prevent further erosion of the floors by running water. Erosion then becomes focussed on the valley side slopes. These are progressively eroded until the old depression floor is at a higher elevation than the original ridge. The result is ridge tops with caps of bouldery colluvium*, and beneath them deeper saprolite** than underlies the tops of many uncapped ridges, as determined by seismic methods.”
*colluvium – unconsolidated and usually unsorted material at the bottom of a cliff or slope or in a stream bed.
** saprolite – totally decomposed rock, formed in places by deep chemical weathering of igneous or metamorphic rock. Structures in the original rock are generally retained.

2) From the Late Jurassic Morrison Formation (a popular Formation with Josh – lots of dinosaurs, footprints, fish, river systems, evaporites) and the Lower Cretaceous Cedar Mountain Formation there are a series of sinuous ridges and buttes around I70 in Utah. The site below gives an article with superb pictures and description. Unfortunately, the pdf file is huge at about 20 Mb. Since some will not wish to download the file, I am including more description with trimmed quotes. If you are interested, this is definitely an article to read:

http://ugs.utah.gov/surveynotes/snt40-3.pdf

About 145 Ma meandering streams and rivers flowed East across broad planes. These rivers deposited sand and gravel as point bars along channel bends and as channel fills in the flood plain which was composed of mud and silt. These fossilised river systems were buried during the Late Cretaceous by about 8000 feet of late Cretaceous marine shale. To cut millions of years short, eventually the region was uplifted as part of the Colorado Plateau and the overlying deposits were eroded away.

The compacted and well-cemented sandstone and conglomerates that now filled the ancient river channels (palaeochannels) were harder than the mud and shale of the ancient flood plain. The exhumed palaeochannels are now seen as sinuous ridges on the surface. The lowest parts of the ancient landscape (the river channels) have now become the highest parts. The ridges can be traced for 5 miles or more and are up to 130 above the general level and between 30 and 100 feet wide.

But we still have to talk about oil, natural gas and Mars ...

It looks like there will have to be a Part 4!
(As an incentive to download the ugs/utah/surveynotes file, it will be a reference to Part 4!)

Posted by: Lynna | August 27, 2009 6:58 PM

Yay! Part 3. I was checking back once in awhile to see if it was here. I downloaded the 20 MB PDF about Utah and it was well worth it.

I've hiked all over the terrain in southeastern and eastern Utah, so it was lovely to see this geological explanation of some of ridges that used to be stream/river beds.

I see the PDF also speculates on the connection to formations on Mars, by extrapolating from some formations in Utah. I have a little bucket full of "Moki Marbles," concretions that are as round as marbles, that were lying on top of hardpan on BLM land in southern Utah. They look just like the concretions photographed on Mars.

Thanks, Alan B.

Posted by: Alan B | August 27, 2009 7:33 PM

#689 Lynna

"Moki Marbles"

Try

http://geology.utah.gov/online/pdf/pi-77.pdf

(only 467 kb this time!)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 27, 2009 7:50 PM

Alan B, I read your part I and will tackle the Utah .pdf. I almost get the feeling that the inverted topography would be similar in appearance to glacial eskers, where they stick up above the "surface". Glacial features, like morains, eskers, and till plains are all over Michigan, so I am familiar with the concept.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 27, 2009 9:26 PM

Thany you, 'Tis, for correctly referring to U.S. "public land." All of that acreage is owned by us, all U.S. citizens (from Brooklyn or Cleveland as well as Bozeman and Reno), and it always pisses me off to hear people talk about "government land" instead.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 27, 2009 9:32 PM

sorry if this double-posts. I tried to save a typo

I would give my left hand to be able to edit(or even,ahem,delete) comments after posting...:-)

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 27, 2009 10:13 PM

Smoggy [or, rather, I sense, Happy]:
Well, one of the interesting things about "our" public land here in the U.S. is that mineral exploitation by individuals (which, handily, includes "corporations") is still encouraged by the Mining Law of 1872 (seriously).

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 27, 2009 10:27 PM

I miss Miles

Posted by: Alan B | August 28, 2009 3:35 AM

Thank you for the comments on BLM.

Hardly any land in the UK is owned by the people. In fact, I am struggling to think of any substantial area which is actually OWNED by the people. There are large tracts owned by major land-owners including the Government (typically Ministry of Defense); the Queen (Royal estates); major estates owned by Lord such & such (Duke of Westminster comes to mind);etc.

There is a "Right to Roam" on much of the land provided it is not arable land but the ability to go out, stake a claim and fill in the paperwork which says you can have what you get from it simply does not exist. The closest is the ancient rights of the Free Miners of the Forest of Dean and wouldn't the Government like to end that!

Posted by: Lynna | August 28, 2009 3:46 AM

Thanks, Alan, for the link to the article that describes Moki Marbles. Some of them have quite a bit of moisture inside, so don't ever throw them in a campfire -- they might explode like primitive fireworks. They make pretty good marbles for games.

"Tis is correct that the Department of Interior manages public land in the USA, but there is a lot of difference between the BLM (Bureau of Land Management), National Forest Service, National Park Service, Wildlife Service, etc. There are fewer rules to follow on BLM land, and usually no fees of any kind (but there may also be few road signs or no road signs, unmaintained roads, few or no campgrounds, etc. -- BLM land is a take-care-or-yourself kind of place).

     The Wilderness Act of 1964 left the BLM out of the picture. The U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were included, but the BLM managed 22,932,588 million acres in Utah (just to give one example of how enormous BLM lands are in the western states) that were not considered—that’s 42 percent of Utah’s total land area. The BLM manages the most arid regions in western states, and this might have been part of the reason for overlooking their wilderness value.

     In 1976, the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) passed, initiating an inventory of BLM lands. Most of the current Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) were identified in 1978–1980. By October 1993, in compliance with the law, the BLM submitted a wilderness proposal to Congress. Instant Study Areas (ISAs) previously identified as natural or primitive got top priority when it came to inclusion in wilderness proposals. Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) also met wilderness criteria. One of the ISAs in Utah was Grand Gulch, which is on Cedar Mesa in the Four Corners area, and this is one place that exhibits inverted topography, like Alan mentioned in the previous comments.

     Not all Wilderness Study Areas became designated wilderness. The most recent designation was in Idaho, when President Obama signed the wilderness bill for the Owyhee Canyonlands. A rancher in Idaho said to us once, "They been studyin' a long time." [laconic delivery, followed by tobacco spit -- indications that, for the most part, nothing changes for decades at a time, and there ain't no need to be changin' it].

     In Utah there have been huge political battles between land managers and citizen groups. Everybody has their own idea of what a wilderness should be, so they fight a lot.

    Ironically, BLM land that has not been designated as wilderness often feels more like a true wilderness just because it is so primitive, receives so few visitors, has fewer road and trail signs, etc.

Posted by: Alan B | August 28, 2009 4:19 AM

#693 Nerd of Redhead

There may be some superficial similarities of appearance with eskers and moraines although over here both tend to be very well rounded. Many of the pictures I have seen from the US show inverted topography that is sharply defined but that is probably a result of the Mediterranean or even semi-arid climate.

The process, of course, is totally different, as I am sure you are aware. Thus glacial features are dumped on the surface of the landscape while inverted topology results from extensive erosion and exhuming of latent features.

"The second .pdf had a short article on a combined titanium sponge and magnesium plant near Salt Lake that I found interesting."

If you care to look further you can waste a lot of time and bandwith prospecting on the public land of the Utah geology site!

Posted by: Lynna | August 28, 2009 11:59 AM

Sven @708

It "works" to allow any Joe Bonehead to rent a bulldozer for a weekend and go out and completely thrash public land at random on the off chance that he might find some exploitable mineral, in which case the gov't would be obligated to essentially give away the mineral rights to this public land for Joe's personal profit.

It doesn't work quite like you describe. At least it did *not* work like that for me and for my brother who also has a small mining claim on public land. We were allowed to dig by hand a very small trench (smaller than a bathtub) in order to explore the potential of the veins we found. Then we filled out massive amounts of paperwork and submitted proposals to the agency in charge of the land (in our case, the National Forest Service). At least seven land management officials visited the site, including officials concerned about recreation, water sources, local ranchers, the people who oversee mines, non-governmental environmental organizations, etc. We were through a public-comment process in which the land managers were required to address all concerns sent to them by the public (we got copies of the submitted concerns).

After our plan of operation was approved for one year only, we were allowed to expand the trench by hand, but bulldozers and other big equipment were specifically forbidden. Before we could expand, we also had to put up thousands of dollars of reclamation money (for big mining companies, reclamation money may be more like millions). We also had to put up a fence to make sure the local cattle (grazing on public land under a leased-land program) would not fall into the hole. The Challis Volcanics, in which we are digging are surrounded by limestone, which is full of holes, but a manmade hole is more of a threat to cattle.

Before digging, we have to remove and save, by hand, the tiny bits of vegetation that manage to grow in the desert area. We also have to save any woody matter so that it can be used on top of the reclaimed area.

We are under supervision still, with frequent visits from land managers. They take pictures, make sure we're following the plan of operation, etc. We're already reclaiming the first trench (which was only one-man wide) before digging along a parallel vein. Our plan of operation has to be repeatedly approved.

We pay fees for listing the claims, and more fees each year. I personally, am broke, so I haven't ripped off public lands to make big bucks, that's for sure.

Huge, toxic sites remain from old mines all over the West. Land managers and environmentalists are right to be concerned. We were glad to comply will all regulations, and we have a vested interest ourselves in leaving no trace when we're gone.

We are unusual in that there are very few individual miners left who work claims by hand. I really am not up to date on the damage done by big mining companies.

I advise you not to bulldoze on public land without an approved claim, plan of operation, and permission to use heavy equipment. You would be arrested and fined.

Posted by: Lynna | August 28, 2009 12:09 PM

For visitors, the divisions of public land into various types (with various rules for use) can be confusing. Here's a summary of some of the differences (not complete, but a general overview):
LAND HIERARCHY
National Parks are some of the most scenic and most frequently visited public lands in the Western United States. For example, Zion National Park may receive 3 million visitors per year while nearby wilderness study areas on BLM land average about 500 visitors annually. Administered by the National Park Service, national parks provide a significant number of amenities, usually including paved roads, visitor centers, improved campgrounds, tour bus facilities, and more. Fees and reservations are required for *all* uses, including hiking in the backcountry. Backcountry portions of national parks have been recommended for wilderness designation. The National Park Service also manages national recreation areas (like Lake Powell) and national monuments (like the Grand Staircase-Escalante NM, Craters of the Moon, etc.).

Designated Wilderness areas are, for the most part, defined by Grade A scenery, but might not have the knock-’em-to-their-knees impact of national parks. Designated wilderness is managed to maintain a roadless and primitive character. It is more difficult to access and has fewer amenities than national parks.

National Forest lands cover mostly higher terrain, where forests of trees define the landscape. National forest lands that are not designated wilderness areas provide access for hunting, camping, hiking, boating, and other recreational uses via a system of forest roads, usually improved dirt or gravel. Both improved and unimproved camping sites exist on these public lands, which might also encompass ski resorts and reservoirs. The Forest Service leases limited logging, mining, guided tours, and grazing rights on these lands to individuals.

Bureau of Land Management lands are generally more arid than Forest Service lands. Cattle and sheep grazing, along with mining and gas/oil development, used to play major parts in the BLM’s focus. In recent decades, recreational use has greatly increased on BLM lands, and an appreciation for the unique character of desert and near-desert environments has emerged. Most of the proposed wilderness areas in Utah, for example, are on BLM land. Visiting BLM land, with its lack of amenities, signs, trails, and water, makes a different kind of wilderness experience. BLM land often offers unimproved camping and hiking at no or minimal cost.

Proposed wilderness can be found on any of the above lands, and it is managed to protect wilderness values in case of future designation as a wilderness.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 28, 2009 12:25 PM

Of course, I do appreciate what little the BLM does for the West Mojave, because all of the private land is long-since trashed. Check out the pitifully optimistic abandoned development northeast of California City. Zoom on out for context.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 28, 2009 12:33 PM

One would also be remiss in not noting the BLM's history of usage by the public-subsidized public-lands ranching industries made possible by the Taylor Act and the fusion of the Grazing Service with the General Land Office. Cattle and sheep have done at least as much damage to Western native habitat as development and mining.