Pharyngula

Posted by: lt_zippy2 | April 23, 2011 9:29 AM

We have an old song in England in the Olde Music Hall Style..

#Where did you get that hat, where did you get that tile?
Isn't it a knobby one, and just the proper style!#

..although the eyes say something else!

Posted by: mikka | April 23, 2011 9:31 AM

this business is all about the funny hats

Posted by: Atheist Dave | April 23, 2011 9:34 AM

Obviously atheists are far too silly to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Quidam | April 23, 2011 9:41 AM

It seems a bit under-represented in the leg department?

Posted by: imroykun | April 23, 2011 9:44 AM

Still looking more respectable than the pope.

Posted by: Ken | April 23, 2011 9:47 AM

I'm sorry, but I am now forced to take away your future rights to making jokes about Popes and "funny hats".

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 23, 2011 9:52 AM

Balloon hat, check.
Plate of veggies, check.
Bottle of beer, check.
Sounds like a good dinner.
Hope you gave them a good talk.

Posted by: vrkosk | April 23, 2011 10:17 AM

I am overjoyed that PZ Myers has seen the wisdom and come out of the closet. We all suspected you were a follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, after all.

Posted by: j-brisby | April 23, 2011 10:18 AM

Now that is just itching for a caption contest. "Oh shit! They've found me!"

Posted by: Dust.....spy | April 23, 2011 10:30 AM

My little sis is at the convention, so jealous!

PZ has a lovely baloon hat, so jealous!

My sis may have seen PZ in his lovely hat and heard his talk!

Can't wait to to talk to her next week and get all the yummy details.

Posted by: uke | April 23, 2011 10:33 AM

Our Noodly Master approves. Excellent headgear.

rAmen

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 23, 2011 10:44 AM

You're all jealous now, I know.

well...

that Heineken looks pretty good, I guess.

Where did you get those shoes?

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | April 23, 2011 10:48 AM

Kind of cool that Indiana Jones could make the conference (over PZ's right shoulder). Get to talk to him at all?

Posted by: j-brisby | April 23, 2011 10:59 AM

Are you sure that's Indy? Looks like Adam Savage to me.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE | April 23, 2011 11:09 AM

Wow, PZ's hat is the biggest! He must be the POPE!

(Is there some wired-in thing in humans that makes us submit to people based on their head/hat size?)

Posted by: Emily | April 23, 2011 11:41 AM

What do your badges say?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | April 23, 2011 11:50 AM

That's not a hat. This is a hat! (Antipope Gregory XVII).

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Apropos of Nada | April 23, 2011 12:17 PM

Speaking (er, um, writing) as someone with the same style of facial hair, you could wear nothing at all and still be dignified. The beard is the key.

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | April 23, 2011 1:20 PM

Is that an Orb&trade on PZ's right lapel?

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | April 23, 2011 1:39 PM

Moggie: I'm guessing that you aren't from West Virginia.

Posted by: tacroy | April 23, 2011 1:48 PM

I don't know why, but you look incredibly sneaky in that picture.

Posted by: Marta | April 23, 2011 2:17 PM

Coolest hat ever.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | April 23, 2011 2:24 PM

I don't know why, but you look incredibly sneaky in that picture.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | April 23, 2011 3:08 PM

Needs more legs, but otherwise, a very sniny crown of squidliness.

Posted by: marcus | April 23, 2011 3:48 PM

The elder statesmen head-dress is ORANGE and BLACK BALLOONS !!!11one!!11

Posted by: Ribozyme | April 23, 2011 4:03 PM

Bertrand Russell couldn't have asked for more dignity

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | April 23, 2011 4:05 PM

э̀иэЯ,
Blue? Raspberry, obviously!

Posted by: Nightjar | April 23, 2011 4:28 PM

I love how everyone in the background is not looking at PZ and snickering.

"Yeah, that's just PZ in a squid balloon hat. Nothing extraordinary going on here."

Posted by: Kliwon | April 23, 2011 5:49 PM

Umm, PZ, you need to keep working on that look. You have a loooooooooong way to go.

Posted by: realinterrobang | April 23, 2011 6:48 PM

Dahlink, you're beautiful!

Posted by: cag | April 23, 2011 7:00 PM

Pivar is going to sue, sue, sue.

Posted by: Nick | April 23, 2011 7:26 PM

Inspirational.

As it turns out, YouTube has a clip on how to make octopus animal balloons. I kinda want to try making one now.

Here's the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V_hJEFD9cs

Posted by: Candy | April 23, 2011 8:24 PM

I'm sorry I missed the dinner, and thus missed PZ and his chapeau, but I did get to hear the talk today. Excellent! I had much fun this afternoon, and am looking forward to Dillahunty tomorrow.

Posted by: Spamamander, internet amphibian | April 23, 2011 9:06 PM

@64

I'm sure it was intentional, but I really did have to re-read the comment 'cause it sounded like something the Trophy Wife might have an issue with. ;)

Posted by: Annie | April 23, 2011 9:44 PM

HA ha ha.

Your wife must be a very generous and forbearing woman.

LOL

Posted by: Ribozyme | April 24, 2011 1:19 AM

I'm sure it would go great with a jeweled precious mitre:

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3291/28ju4.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OHxhMMDN73A/Stzb4q81-cI/AAAAAAAAGEQ/HX92U6osGXU/s400/jpi_mitra1.jpg

And jeweled vestments:

http://so4j.com/images/pope-benedict-robe.jpg

Posted by: jcbelfast | April 24, 2011 4:01 AM

My hero! I'm with Sili on this one, you would look totally boss with an imperial. Isn't it time somebody brought it back? I've got the full-face-fuzz myself at the minute, and I understand just how liberating it is not having to shave, but if somebody as cool and rolemodelish as yourself starts sporting the Prussian styles, it could open the door for sheeple like me!

On another note, I'm thinking of going to this world atheist thingumy in Dublin, but I'm a little short on holidays. I love dry, educational stuff, but find myself badly in need of some fun. Are balloon animals typical at these types of things? What I'm trying to say is, can we please have a bouncy-castle?

Posted by: blf | April 24, 2011 6:11 AM

PROFESSOR poopyhead is clearly wondering who substituted that nasty plate of pea wannabes for the proper roast baby.

Posted by: Brass Buttons | April 24, 2011 10:40 AM

WOW! I used to be impressed by the Pope's big, pointy hat, but this one would make even HIM envious!

Posted by: jay.sweet | April 25, 2011 8:14 AM

And that's why you'll always be only a Junior New Atheist.

Posted by: A Bad Idea (♀) | April 25, 2011 8:11 PM

I'll join the other Girl Genius fans in noting that you've just set yourself up as a third contender to be the man-bride of Agatha Heterodyne.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | April 30, 2011 12:07 PM

The issue of purpose: so the purpose of an atheist's life is to better the lives of others around them. I see the meaning in that, but what prevents me from living a full life while being religious? My entire life right now is filled with helping others through community service and other means. That is while i am religious. I see no net gain in purpose moving from religion to atheism.

Some have already touched on this.

One of the consequences of your religious beliefs is that they've (thus far) driven you to apply only to creationist colleges, where you understand that the teaching of "evolution may be stifled". There's a limited amount of class time for science; if some of that time is spent on creationist jabber, then you'll be at a disadvantage relative to other medical students. And if your time in medical school is spent "catching up" then that's time not spent becoming the best doctor you could be, precious time wasted while you're in one of the best environments for learning. (In this case, you still have time to avoid this outcome without becoming an atheist, but you would have to admit that it was your religion which began to lead you astray.)

Also, your retrograde ideas about women are hurtful to women here, who've explained why. But in your own words, "The main reason everyone here differs from my opinion is because you believe we evolved from monkeys. If that were true, then I would hold your opinion as well." So, if we take you at your word, then in order to bring you around to an attitude that isn't condescending to women, we have to get you to abandon some parts of your religion. Your religion may not be hurting you—though I would argue that it is—but it's hurting other people.

Think about the doctrine of hell. Don't you know anyone who has grieved because they think that a dead loved one is probably in hell, or a living loved one is probably on the path to hell? If there is no hell, then all this grief, all this suffering, is an unnecessary tragedy. If you preach this doctrine of hell, then you are partially responsible for the tragedy. And if you do so while knowing that atheism is a rational option, then you are choosing to do evil when you have the knowledge and ability to avoid this evil.

We can't simply pretend that your decision only impacts you. It does affect others. On these issues, believing in your version of God makes it harder for you to do good for others, and easier for you to do wrong to others. So we are morally obliged to at least try to set you right.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | April 30, 2011 12:32 PM

That said, I think I had a small breakthrough in how I am thinking about evolution. Is this correct?: in order to accept evolution, I don't have to accept atheism.

That is correct. Simple polling demonstrates that most people who accept evolution also believe in God. We godless ones are, unfortunately, an exception to the rule.

If you're asking whether it's coherent to believe in both God and evolution, well, we argue about this a lot. You have the aforementioned Ken Miller and Francis Collins on the side of compatability. Many here will argue otherwise. My position is, I am not persuaded that standard beliefs in God are coherent at all. If a creator exists, then as demonstrated by the Euthyphro dilemma, this creator cannot be the source of morality. But that is quite a separate matter from evolution.

To whatever extent it may be coherent to believe in God at all, it is equally coherent to believe in God and accept evolution.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | April 30, 2011 12:55 PM

Strange Gods,
I would not argue that a lack of higher adjudication makes helping others more meaningful, I have tried to make that point earlier in this conversation. But it doesn't follow that said lack means that an individual wants to help others. We can't discount atheists because they are selfish, which is what I thought Kenneth was missing and why I made the point I did.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | April 30, 2011 1:25 PM

SG,
On third reading, I should have been more specific with the inclusion of necessary. Likely an artifact of it running the other way for me.

Posted by: Sastra OM/COR | April 30, 2011 1:52 PM

Kenneth #854 wrote:

Mainly where I see the lack of purpose is in the big picture. When it's all said and done, what is left? A few bones. Absolutely nothing important. My friend wrote this and I think it has an element of what I believe in it: "In perspective...without a God...it's difficult to explain the significance of our existence. Infinite insignificance makes our intelligence and very existence worthless.

I am going to guess that one of reasons you find Christianity so inspiring is the way it emphasizes the concept of agape -- love given not because it is required, not because it is demanded, not because it is earned, but for its own sake. It is not rewarded, it does not confer benefits. Agape has to do with selflessness -- and a willingness to sacrifice.

Consider then someone who loves and cares for others and for life even though, when all is said and done, all that is left is a few bones -- and eventually not even that. It didn't last. It won't endure across the ages. It has no cosmic meaning outside of the people it had meaning to. And yet -- they chose to love and care anyway. Into the very jaws of death, and annihilation.

Babe, tell us again about a love that defies all reason, and sacrifices all -- and how much you value this. And then, explain that you don't think love is significant unless you live forever and there are rewards and somebody officially Important who officially approves.

Maybe atheists are forced to live what theists only worship as an ideal.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 30, 2011 2:17 PM

Another thing is that I must deny my God in order to accept evolution. Here's why: if God exists and evolution is true, then the Bible is wrong. If the Bible is wrong, then my God is a liar (deliberately). If my God is a liar, then I cannot trust him and thus my religion is unfounded.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | April 30, 2011 2:20 PM

"Moving from religion to atheism" is not (or should not be) about a "net gain in purpose".

Deep rifts! I disagree. :)

The doctrine of hell is a tyranny of the mind, and I'm for anything that can free people of it.

So if someone becomes an atheist just because Daniel Radcliffe is an atheist, and adopting atheism helps them approach their purpose of imitating him, then I'm for it.

Regarding whether P equals NP there are probably no moral implications either way, so logic and evidence should be the only consideration.

Freedom from suffering is intrinsically worthwhile, and if people can be freed from fear of hell, even for half-baked reasons, I'm for it.

(This leaves aside the question of whether to believe in universal reconciliation or atheism. Regarding that, logic and evidence should obviously reign.)

Posted by: Emily | April 30, 2011 3:18 PM

@Sastra, 91:

Your comment on agape relates to something I've been thinking about recently: how I don't want to be famous, or rather don't care if I am or not. I do want to make some positive impact on the world, even if not a big one, but I don't care about whether or not anyone will remember me as an individual after I'm gone. I certainly don't care about whether or not my actions have "cosmic" meaning (how could they?). But none of that makes my actions any less meaningful in the here and now, to me and to others.

Consider then someone who loves and cares for others and for life even though, when all is said and done, all that is left is a few bones -- and eventually not even that. It didn't last. It won't endure across the ages. It has no cosmic meaning outside of the people it had meaning to. And yet -- they chose to love and care anyway. Into the very jaws of death, and annihilation.

Babe, tell us again about a love that defies all reason, and sacrifices all -- and how much you value this. And then, explain that you don't think love is significant unless you live forever and there are rewards and somebody officially Important who officially approves.

Maybe atheists are forced to live what theists only worship as an ideal.

Quoted for truth-- and beauty. This is very well said.

Posted by: Kenneth | April 30, 2011 4:38 PM

A question for anyone who is interested: In your mind, which way does the evidence point for "global warming" or "climate change"?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 30, 2011 4:50 PM

Is this a game of bingo here?

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | April 30, 2011 4:55 PM

Kenneth,

Would you agree that I should look over at least some of the facts and examine the system to see if it is indeed truth? I must base my understanding of truth on something. If not then it would be blind faith.

I think you actually need to take a step back from even that. Do you trust facts? Are they truth? Does this act seem like faith to you? If you are going to deny evolution, you need to deny facts, evolution is merely a description of what is actually there. It's a way of unifying diverse threads of fact in a meaningful fashion, not something to be believed, just a tool to help understand reality.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | April 30, 2011 5:01 PM

Kenneth, instead of threadjacking old thread, go to the undead thread. It was started when an other creationist threadjacked a couple threads and PZ kept them going because it was popular. It is only right that a new creationist should move in.

Also, you never answered my question about the suffering of Job's children and Job's wife. Why does a bet should the glory of a deity and why are all of the other suffering not get discussed?

Posted by: Sastra OM/COR | April 30, 2011 5:02 PM

Kenneth #98 wrote:

Many of you have found fault with my statement that if evolution is true, I must deny my God. If I believe evolution and the Bible IS true, then God is a liar. If the Bible is NOT true and I believe evolution, there is no reason to believe that God does exist because there is no evidence of him.^^^ that's the link I see between evolution and God. Where is my logic invalid?

Although I think that evolution is a problem for the existence of God, I don't think the only problem or even the main one is a conflict with Genesis. So there are flaws in your argument.

I'd rephrase it thus:
If I believe evolution and if the Bible was meant by God to be interpreted literally, then God is a liar.

If the Bible is NOT literally true and I believe evolution, then there is no reason to believe that God does exist because the Book of Genesis provides evidence for God.

The main two reasons I think evolution counts against the existence of God have nothing to do with a literal reading of the Bible or creationism at all. It's because

1.) evolution undercuts the Design Argument, which is supposed to be one of the major reasons to believe in God -- making God an unnecessary hypothesis.
2.) evolution demonstrates a bottom-up approach to understanding reality which undercuts the Top-down approach of theism. Because minds evolved from what was mindless, the idea that we started out with Mind is contradicted.

Would you agree that I should look over at least some of the facts and examine the system to see if it is indeed truth? I must base my understanding of truth on something. If not then it would be blind faith.

Of course you should read up on the theory of evolution in order to understand it, since this issue is so important to you -- and it's an exciting and important subject in its own right. But I don't think relying on the scientific consensus of experts alone would ever be considered "blind faith." Not as I understand the term.

Given how many checks and balances there are in science as a system, I'd call going with expert consensus a 'reasonable working assumption." Same thing I'd say if I took my car to a lot of different competing garages and the mechanics all said my transmission is shot. If I kept thinking that no, it was just a problem with my steering wheel and if I keep on trying then sooner or later someone is going to tell me that, I'd be relying on "blind faith." Or, maybe, a massive conspiracy theory about guys who fix cars for a living.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 30, 2011 5:06 PM

The bible gave a NEW LAW to REPLACE the old law.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | April 30, 2011 5:14 PM

Kenneth, instead of threadjacking old thread, go to the undead thread. It was started when an other creationist threadjacked a couple threads and PZ kept them going because it was popular. It is only right that a new creationist should move in.

I've suggested against this, because I expect that many denizens of the endless/undead thread will complain about an infiltration of their social space.

At least this thread isn't being used for anything else, and by moving on from the last thread we save the Overlord the work of shutting down a thread or starting a new iteration of the endless one earlier.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | April 30, 2011 5:27 PM

Kenneth:

The joy that Christians celebrate when a Christian passes on to heaven is very great. If there is no hope of an after-life, that leads me to great grief.

Here's what I have planned before I die:

Wait. No. Here's what I have planned before I die:

I will have a great time with those who love me. Their joy will be almost as great as mine. We're going to spend years celebrating life together.

Now, when I die:

First, I'll get burned up. My ashes will be collected, and put in baggies.

My friends will use a portion of my bank account (assuming my wife is still alive to enjoy the remainder of my bank account) putting on a party. In this party, which will last at least a couple of days, people will listen to my music, select books from my library to take home, and just simply talk about what an amazing guy nigel was. (Only nigel is not my real name.) Or they will talk about what a blowhard I was. Or whatever. They'll view photographs, reminisce, drink beer (my favorite) or wine or whatever they desire as long as its good, and eat food. Lots of food. Pizza, hamburgers, Thai food, Indian food, and so on. Food that I love.

Halibut. And crab.

They will celebrate my life, and what my life meant to them. And hopefully, hopefully, my life has meant something important, something wonderful, to each of them.

Because of of their lives is something important to me.

I would rather spend my joy thinking about the importance of life, rather than the possibilities of an afterlife.

But that's just me.

Posted by: Sastra OM/COR | April 30, 2011 5:36 PM

Janine #114 wrote:

TITANOBOA!

Ok, that's probably not just a battlecry (though it makes a good one): it's an acronym. I'm not even going to try to figure this one out. So, whazzit?

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | April 30, 2011 5:48 PM

nigelTheBold:

My friends will use a portion of my bank account (assuming my wife is still alive to enjoy the remainder of my bank account) putting on a party.

I should clarify, that's our bank account. I started out this tale as something about me, which is my favorite kind of tale. But it's not just me in this whole damned going-through-life-as-best-we-can thing. It's me and my wife.

And I'm selfish enough to hope to die before her. Because I don't know what I'd do without her, other than go on with significantly less joy in my life.

Posted by: Sastra OM/COR | April 30, 2011 6:14 PM

Nightjar #116 wrote:

Sastra, Titanoboa! was the thread where Alan Clarke first showed up. :)

Oh, for crying out loud yes, of course. Duh. For some reason I started out with "There ... Is... Too ...Awesome... no. Maybe "Things ...In.. The...A-something..." no. Is the 'B' for bacon? Ok. I give up."

Never mind.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | April 30, 2011 6:22 PM

Nigel, I was joking using Pete R**ke's ridiculous analogies that he posted during crackergate. Do you remember him of the "knee-roll?"

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | April 30, 2011 6:30 PM

Josh:

Yeah. I was tryin' to roll with it. Half-serious, half-joking. I guess it didn't work. I shoulda gone in whole-hog for the humor potential.

I actually had to go back to see what this R**ke character wrote, though. I only vaguely remembered that he was vitriolic. I didn't even come close to recalling just how evil he was, though. Damn, but he was a fucker.

Ah, a pleasant stroll down memory lane.

I'm kinda contemplating the skin guest-sign-in book, though. I mean, how cool to have people write their stories of me, on me?

I just hope all my moles don't interfere.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | April 30, 2011 6:40 PM

Nerd, everybody else is wrong. It was TITANOBOA! All that is lacking is PZ linking it to Science Of The Watchmen.

Posted by: Rorschach | April 30, 2011 11:00 PM

The counting started with SoW, I'm pretty sure !

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | May 2, 2011 1:36 PM

@Kenneth:

You mention what is left after we pass away. After I die, I cease to exist - but I will forever live in the hearts and memories of those I love. My grandfather (albeit a Christian himself) was a selfless, wonderful man - and I strive to live my life as he once did - to do things for my family and friends to make them happy. I hope that when I die, someone who knew me - perhaps a grandchild or a great-niece or great-nephew - will remember what I was like to them and think to themselves "I want to be like him" and the cycle will continue.

The eternal memories and life that I will live in the hearts of my family and friends is more important to me than an eternity worshiping a monstrous deity like YHWH.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 3, 2011 3:08 PM

Ken Miller devotes a 20 page chapter to it, chapter 3. But I don't know if you want to read the two books in parallel.

Here is a good start. After that introduction, this is what I find most certain as a single method. (More important and more convincing is how the various methods produce results in accordance with each other, but other commenters here are better at bringing these together. Perhaps you'll get lucky.)

That second link covers isochron dating, which Miller also covers in less detail. If you can't get through it, rest assured that Miller makes it accessible when you get there.

Posted by: Brownian | May 3, 2011 3:20 PM

What is the logic and evidence that substantiates the dating methods used?

Kenneth, I'm not a geologist, but I've got a background in both anthropology and earth sciences, so I'm at least familiar with the evidence and rationales underpinning many dating techniques. However, most of the resources I've got are in textbook form, and so would be of no help unless you wanted to pop over to Edmonton, Canada, to borrow a few dusty hardcovers.

You might want to review the Wikipedia page on geochronology for an overview of the multiple disciplines that are used to determine the ages rocks, fossils, and artifacts. The talk origins page on dating is useful as well.

A lot of these lines of evidence come from the field of geology, especially the ones depending on stratigraphy (the idea that rock layers are laid down in succession over vast periods of time, rather than say, all at once as would be expected during a global flood.) These are mostly relative dating techniques, ie: this thing is older than that thing. Absolute techniques, used to measure just how much older this thing is than that thing, tend to depend on principles of physics, such as how certain elements decay into others over regular time intervals.

Keep in mind that while some creationists question the validity of stratigraphic principles (they're spelled out in the talk origins page, and you should be able to google them as well), petrochemical geologists use them to locate and identify deposits, so if you've used something containing or running on oil or natural gas lately, chances are you've used evidence that demonstrates the principles are at least generally held to.

Posted by: Brownian | May 3, 2011 4:11 PM

Thanks. That's what I needed to know. It's a start at least.

I can't promise I'll be able to explain in layperson's terms how all these dating techniques work, Kenneth, but I can certainly try my best. Some of they may require knowledge of physics or chemistry that you haven't yet been exposed to yet as a high school student.

Posted by: Nightjar | May 3, 2011 6:32 PM

So far, Coyne only mentions about one page about the issue, and I think it is a crucial part of evidence for evolution.

Hm. Not sure I'd call it evidence for evolution (the fact), though deep time is crucial for evolution (the theory) to be plausible.

Know what I mean?

Evolution is pretty much established as a fact. It happened. Life on Earth shares a common descent, all organisms are related and the relations between them are accurately described by a tree-shaped diagram. The fossil evidence strongly suggested this, but the molecular data has subsequently removed all doubt. Regardless of what geology has to say about the age of the Earth, common descent and evolution remain true.

The theory of evolution, on the other hand, requires an Old Earth to work as an explanation for what we observe (remember: theories explain observed facts). Without deep time, the mechanisms it proposes would not be able to account for the diversity of life we see today. They're too slow. We'd have to look for another explanation. The theory would have to be modified, but the fact of evolution would stand, even if unexplained.

Oh, don't ask me what explanation could that be. I don't know. It's hard for me to picture such a scenario because it's so unlike reality...

Thankfully, I don't have to spend a lot of time worrying about it. Reality is a lot more congruent than our scenario: the Earth is old, biology and geology are in harmony and the observations made independently by both geologists and biologists fit in nicely. Isn't that amazing?

Posted by: echidna | May 3, 2011 10:28 PM

Kenneth,

There is a lot to absorb at once, and the new information might feel slightly overwhelming. So I'll give you some more ;) But first I want you to notice that top-ranking universities are all unambiguous about the veracity of evolution, and the fact that the age of the earth is over 4 billion years old (just as all non-religious universities are). Also that there is no scientific evidence even suggesting otherwise.

I guess I am trying to say that expecting to acquire the expertise required to evaluate evolution for yourself is a very tall order. It is not impossible, though, because the many lines of evidence are in harmony, the theory is sound, and the resources are abundant.

However, it may be worthwhile taking a breath and asking yourself whether these prestigious universities could be so prestigious if they were peddling easily refutable lies.

I am not saying that these universities are infallible, but they are very, very good.

Berkeley:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

Harvard:
http://www.mcb.harvard.edu/biolinks/evolution.html#General
Note that one of the links recommended by the Harvard site is to talk.origins, which many on Pharyngula have pointed you to.

Cambridge (UK):
http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/darwin200/pages/index.php?page_id=k1
Note that Cambridge endorses Berkeley's site as a resource.

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 4, 2011 1:27 PM

Replies to Kenneth from the other thread, which is now closed:

░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

The issue of purpose:

What I see you all saying is that you must create your own purpose.

If indeed you believe you need to have a purpose. John Morales and I disagree with this premise, too.

Mainly where I see the lack of purpose is in the big picture. When it's all said and done, what is left? A few bones.

And my publications. :-]

My friend wrote this and I think it has an element of what I believe in it: "In perspective...without a God...it's difficult to explain the significance of our existence.

Significance? What significance? We're significant to ourselves and each other, not to some imagined grand scheme of things.

Infinite insignificance makes our intelligence and very existence worthless.

So what? Can't you have fun regardless? :-)

To be worth something...something needs to see the value... there is no possibility of a God observer and thus, at the inevitable end of human history/the universe, no value to existence."

Then let's go to the next level. What value is there to God himself? Isn't his existence pointless? He wasn't created, he doesn't have a purpose... he just is, says theism. And so are you, says atheism.

Why does truth matter if there is no need for truth? What is the need for truth?

I don't know, but I know I care about truth. I don't like being mistaken.

And I know nothing will matter when it's all said and done, but while I'm here I may as well try to take full advantage of all the wonders this universe has to offer. I want to know how the universe works. I want to discover its mysteries. It fills me with wonder, and I enjoy that. That's it. That's enough for me.

Kenneth, do you enjoy learning? Do you enjoy asking questions and finding the answers? Do you enjoy looking for the truth? If you do, why isn't that enough? If not... where did you left your curiosity?

I mean, no one here is going to stop you if you want to believe a lie. But... it's a lie! It's wrong. Don't you care?

QFT!

░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

From this thread:

░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

If the Bible is wrong, then my God is a liar (deliberately).

No, why? That's just one of a long list of options.

1) God exists, the Bible is his word, and it's all true; the contradictions in the Bible are there to give you a headache or something.
2) God exists, and the Bible is his word, it's just all wrong, because God is a liar.
3) God exists, and he never lies; the Bible is not his word at all, it was written by lying humans.
4) God exists, and he never lies; the Bible is not his word at all, it was written by people who were honestly mistaken about God.
5) For parts of the Bible 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 are true.
6) God does not exist, and the Bible was written by lying humans with a political agenda.
7) God does not exist, and the Bible was written by people who were honestly mistaken about it all. (And had, in some cases, a political agenda.)

I'm sure you can come up with even more possibilities.

Science was set up as a cut-throat competition of checks and balances. No idea is ever allowed to slide by on a gentlemanly agreement not to rock the boat or ask inconvenient questions. Science is what you use when you DON'T want to "trust scientists."

QFT!

(...In case you're not familiar with this, Kenneth, it means "quoted for truth". Or "quite fucking true" if you prefer.)

Many of you have found fault with my statement that if evolution is true, I must deny my God. If I believe evolution and the Bible IS true, then God is a liar. If the Bible is NOT true and I believe evolution, there is no reason to believe that God does exist because there is no evidence of him.

^^^ that's the link I see between evolution and God. Where is my logic invalid?

In the fact that evolution is by far not the only fact that the Bible contradicts. Archeology and history contradict all of the Old Testament up to and including the First Book of Kings.

Or, the bible is literature (what cosmic law prohibits the Creator of the Universe from writing fiction intended to teach parable-like lessons to his worshippers (or even just to entertain them!)?) and was never meant to reflect an accurate description of scientific reality.

Indeed, the NT is famously full of parables that are explicitly marked as such*, and the OT contains such things as a love song (called the Song of Solomon because people felt they had to attribute it to someone).

* That's how the word parable has even entered the English language, and why it's the ancestor of the words for "speak" in the Romance languages – Italian parlare, French parler, Portuguese falar, Spanish hablar...

░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

In case mikkoL or Amelia or indeed consciousness razor have come over:

░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Speaking of David-Fuckin'-Marjanović, I've wondered how you pronounce your last name.

Well... ć is between "ts" and English "ch" (Spanish "ch" can come close), j is English "y" in "yes", "you", "year" etc., and the stress goes on the third-to-last syllable.

In short, [maʀˈjanɔvɪtʲ͡ɕ], where [ʀ] is German accent for what ought to be a Spanish-style [r], and [ɪ] (as in English "ship") is actually an exaggeration – it's somewhere between there and [i] as found in French.

Strange gods, get off the grand inquisitor complex.

Why, has somebody come to expect it?

Perfect reply. Day saved.

(But, frankly, yes. Your behavior isn't erratic.)

Well, luckily we have non-religious Soviet Union to show us how unbelievers free from religious superstitions are superior in politics, art, science and even sports.

Like all totalitarian ideologies, Soviet communism was chock full of superstitions that might as well be called religious. Basically, the only difference is the lack of an afterlife; afterlife in any kind of communism is restricted to Kim Il-sung, who is still the president of North Korea.

Yes, back in the day I had to write an essay on this. Huge legal debate. My opinion is that when it gets to that point, it's more about lawyering than morality. In real life only lawyers take lawyering very seriously. If someone kills a burglar, most of us are more interested in the moral questions than the legal definition. It's very telling that when we turn to Iraq, liberals are more interested in lawyering (in which 99% of liberals have NO expertise at all) than in morals. When you have nothing worth saying, pedantry is a useful retort. When you struggle to make a moral case, lawyering is a useful retort.

1) Then what about the hypocrisy? Why remove this particular evil murdering bastard and not all the other evil murdering bastards? And why in 2003 and not in 1988 or even in 1991? Is hypocrisy not immoral?

2) "Huge legal debate" my ass. It's plain as day, and only a few Republicans have ever tried to pretend otherwise. The USA isn't the whole world.

3) We're still beside the biggest moral point: is removing one evil murdering bastard worth several hundred thousand corpses?

4) Let's look at this again:

If someone kills a burglar, most of us are more interested in the moral questions than the legal definition.

In that case, I'm not sure about Texas, but where I come from that's the same thing. Was it immediate self-defense or immediate emergency defense of someone else? If yes, fine. If no, well, excess of self-defense is a crime where I come from. It is evil and illegal to kill a burglar who isn't credibly threatening to kill you or someone else.

a war that killed tens if not hundreds of thousands and cost the American people over a trillion dollars!

Three trillion dollars till 2006 alone.

Did you cover the fact that we sent US forces to guard the oil wells long before we sent them to guard civilians?

Indeed, during the invasion itself, the only building in Baghdad that US forces guarded was the oil ministry. The museums were looted... and so, I bet, was the evidence of the crimes of Saddam's secret service.

How exactly can someone be willfully careless?

Very easily: by believing the issue they're being careless about isn't important enough.

Have you never been lazy? :-)

Science without any commonly shared value system can be a monstrous thing - and continues to be such.

Yes, and?

Science is a tool. You can use it to do good, evil, anything.

Science was never intended as a value system about anything but intellectual honesty.

"Deepest Thought" says that the Ultimate Answer is not 42 but p52.

And there it says...

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Well, what is truth. Is there even a point in caring?

I can tell you what reality is. It is the physical world, that which does not go away when you stop believing in it, that in which the argumentum ad lapidem is not a logical fallacy.

Truth is that in which the argumentum ad lapidem is a logical fallacy. Truth could be that reality is a (remarkably consistent) illusion. Perhaps reality is like the concept of maya in some kinds of Hinduism. Or perhaps I'm the solipsist. Or perhaps God is the solipsist, and we and the rest of reality only exist in His Mind.

Or perhaps reality is truth, there is nothing "behind" reality, there is no truth other than reality, and the argumentum ad lapidem was valid all along.

How are we ever going to decide between these options?

Is there even a point in deciding between these options? Why should we care?

I frankly don't care. But there is one argument that favors the last of these options over all others. It is Ockham's Razor: the things that [are assumed to] exist should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

ENTA NON SUNT MULTIPLICANDA SUPER NECESSITATEM

Does Mr Hitchens not see how the entire Universe sings the majestic glory of its Maker?

A maker, with or without majestic glory, is not required to explain what we know of the universe, including what you interpret as "singing".

A maker is an ens multiplicatum super necessitatem.

Does he not know that the chosen people of God are still living among us and prospering especially in the United States of America?

Evidence?

Other than that old anthology of fiction and fanfiction, I mean.

Does he not know how God is speaking in almost all human languages spoken today

Evidence, or it's not happening.

and how recently two billion people upon earth were celebrating love of Williamd and Kate in the Westminster Abbey build for His honor?

Was that supposed to be an argument???

Has Mr Hitchens really never experienced how the giver of those laws responds to his prayers for help?

Evidently not. Neither have many other people (like myself) – and indeed, there's no evidence that anybody has experienced it as opposed to having experienced confirmation bias, the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, and similar failures of reason.

and lo, his parents gave him such a beautiful name when he was baptized to the wonderful kingdom of God, Χριστόφορος - the one who carries Christ.

what went wrong?

He started to think.

Besides, I don't think it's at all beautiful to give kids names in an attempt to determine their future. I think it's evil.

The letter seems to adopt positions close to August[e] Comte

Wrong. The 19th century is over, even in science theory.

Evolution is the big thing in modern worldview, but it is human concept largely based on the brilliant and difficult to understand work of Hegel

Utter bullshit. The theory of evolution is science, not philosophy.

When human egg becomes pregnant, we do not call the deterministic (teleological) growth and development of the embryo "evolution". But when planet Earth becomes impregnated by life, perhaps by the interstellar sperm in Sir Fred Hoyle's theory of the origins of life, and reaches the peak of biodiversity in Mesozoic era, we do call it "evolution" and try to understand it by observing both living and paleontological evidence like Charles Darwin did in Patagonia and Galapagos Islands.

Of course we don't apply the same term to these two extremely different things.

Evolution is about the frequencies of alleles in populations. Individuals cannot and do not evolve.

Evolution is not predetermined. Mutation is random, and natural selection depends on the vagaries of the environment.

BTW, why do you think biodiversity reached its peak in the Mesozoic? How do you measure biodiversity, and how do you extrapolate from the fossil record to the organisms that were not preserved and those whose fossils haven't been found yet?

Interestingly, the name of his brilliant and revolutionary scientific publication "The Origins of Species" remains - after 150 years of intensive research - an elusive goal. We really do not yet know why chimpanzee brains kept that block which was removed from our ancestors head leading to enormous and fast evolution, growth, development, of human brains.

1) The Origin of Species is not the same book as The Descent of Man.

2) Block? What block? The chimps have simply never needed bigger brains for what they're doing – and trying to duplicate what we're doing would be pointless; we happened to come first.

For Hegel the processes were ultimately pushed by God, a kind of philosopher's God rather than the God of Israel, and Marx relocated this Hegelian emancipating spirit into matter.

Modern evolutionary theory layes on the same foundation - it looks at the processes with modern knowledge of DNA etc and does not really even try to explain, why life evolves.

Modern evolutionary theory does not assume any spirit, emancipating or otherwise, as a property of matter or otherwise, at all.

Why does life evolve? Because at least two miracles would be required to prevent it from evolving: an end to mutations, and an eternally stable environment throughout the entire globe.

The entire Universe makes noise at 2.725K. It's more like infinite cosmic tinnitus than a song.

I love you, God.

Seconded!

History of Science is deeply rooted to philosophy, including the evolution of Natural Sciences.

The history of science is, however, completely irrelevant to science itself.

If I were crazy enough to believe that I had invented the scientific method and done all science that was published before last Thursday, it wouldn't impact my ability to do science at all. (It would only destroy my ability to cite correctly. That's publication, not science.)

The discovery of Archaeopteryx was God-sent

Evidence?

BTW, the International Committee on Zoological Nomenclature strongly recommends to put Archaeopteryx in italics.

KG #1006

you seem to have truly cosmic interest in anal probings - Sigmund Freud (Jewish) might have some useful ideas about this for your consideration before such interest develops into an obsession. If I remember right it has something to do with children growing up as sexual human beings.

1) It didn't – see comment 1016.

2) Have you never heard of "alien abduction"? That's what KG is, sarcastically, alluding to.

for some reason still unknown to science our head engines have grown to 1200-1800 cm3 and are still growing as every mother giving birth to a big headed child can witness.

1) Unknown, yes, but that doesn't mean there aren't good hypotheses on this topic. Sexual selection, the one Darwin suspected in his book The Descent of Man (1871), is still among the strongest contenders.

2) It is not growing anymore. The average brain size of Homo sapiens sapiens, 1400 cm³, hasn't changed in 200,000 years. H. s. neanderthalensis had 1500 cm³...

This concept of "modern science" as being something right now, with no history and past research having no importance is in my opinion a problem and demonstrates general lack of understanding of the meaning of human history.

Why do you switch the topic from science theory to "the meaning of human history" (whatever that's supposed to mean)?

Sigmund Freud, Adler and others are of fundamental importance in our understanding how modern psychiatry has developed

Yes, and?

and Fredu had some pretty powerful ideas about early sexual developments from oral and anal to genital, as you probably know very well.

Powerful perhaps, but they're pseudoscience. Freud made sweeping generalizations from small, highly biased samples (we are not all upperclass ladies from turn-of-the-century Vienna – for instance, most of us aren't repressing our sexuality that badly) and didn't test whether his interpretations were the most parsimonious ones even given only his small, biased samples.

1. כך בחיים - kacha bechayim - Because!

[...]

2. במקרה‎ - bemiqreh - by chance.

See, this is typical. This happens when philosophers only think about nature instead of thinking about nature and then testing their hypotheses – instead of becoming scientists.

Here are the four possible explanations for how anything came to be:

1) chance
2) necessity
3) intelligent design
4) evolution

1) because it could, and nothing stopped it
2) because it had to: the laws of physics required it
3) because somebody wanted it and made it
4) descent with heritable modification

4) works by mutation and selection: chance and reproduction produce variation in a population, and some members of this variable population are better able to have surviving fertile offspring in a given environment than others. Obviously, this only works on entities that can reproduce and inherit – living beings (in the widest definition, including viruses), genetic algorithms, and cultures (in particular languages).

I used to believe only creationists are so ignorant as to believe that 4) is 1).

Order, not chaos, rules in modern Biology as it does in Nuclear Physics.

4) is not 1). 4) is not 2) either!

Besides, quantum physics is chock full of 1). Why didn't you know that?

D.C. Dennett, a human being like me, is convinced that he can scientifically demonstrate that DNA is nothing but a lucky product of random mutations evolving in some rather accurately defined environment.

Wrong. Unlike you and the creationists, he is not so ignorant as to confuse 1) and 4).

God of Israel says

Evidence?

Evidence he says anything?

Evidence he exists at all? Isn't he just an ens multiplicatum super necessitatem?

I do so even I understand very little about [...] evolution

No. You do so because you understand just about nothing about evolution.

Lord Setar, your aggressive style of commenting is somewhat surprising, you must really be out of your brilliant mind.

Did you really believe scientists undergo the full kolinahr as part of their training?

Scientists have trained long and hard to call a spade a spade. Don't be surprised when they call an ignorant moron an ignorant moron.

God of Israel (there is no other God)

The Bible contradicts itself on this.

But after 4000 years Jewish people still remember Abraham by name, that wealthy owner of lambs and goats. (Brilliant Greeks assumed still in Biblical times - the times of Hesiod- that their heroic ancestors were born from dragon teeth sowed into a field).

By all evidence, Abraham is just as fictional as dragon teeth.

As I've shown, uniformitarianism, knowledge that the earth is very old, and notions of biological evolution all predated Hegel, who contributed nothing whatever to science, and whose ludicrous effusions constitute a turning point only in the history of pompous drivel.

Indeed, his idealistic writings were already called "guano" in his lifetime.

And rightly so.

rough materialism

Physicalism. Matter is just one form of energy: E = mc².

Deep Thinking of what in fact is meant by the catchy word evolution

What?

We evolutionary biologists have a definition of evolution. I have already quoted it: descent with heritable modification.

WTF?

Posted by: KG | May 4, 2011 1:50 PM

So far, Coyne only mentions about one page about the issue, and I think it is a crucial part of evidence for evolution. - Kenneth

That's an overstatement, although an understandable one: that evolution is responsible for the complexity, adaptiveness and diversity of life was well-established as the scientific consensus before there were any radioactive dating methods. The relative ages of different rock strata were known, so the main outlines of the history of life, at least since the Cambrian era, were clear; and evidence from biogeography, anatomy, physiology and developmental biology would still be sufficient to establish the fact of evolution even if no-one had ever found a fossil. Of course, fossils and radioactive dating methods are extremely useful, and crucially, they could have falsified evolution by showing that fossils turn up in the wrong strata, or that the relative dates were completely wrong - but they didn't.

Posted by: KG | May 4, 2011 1:55 PM

Basically, is climate change something to fear? - Kenneth

Yes. Go to Start Here if you're really interested. That site is run by climate scientists.

Posted by: llewelly | May 4, 2011 4:12 PM

Kenneth | May 3, 2011 12:23 PM:

As I have been reading Coyne's book, one question has been bugging me. What is the logic and evidence that substantiates the dating methods used?

Thank you for reading Jerry Coyne's book.

I have another book to recommend to you:

Bones, Rocks, and Stars: The Science of When Things Happened, by Chris Turney.

Turney's book is an excellent layman's introduction to the multitudinous dating methods used, how they support each other, how they work, their basis in physics, chemistry, history, and how they were developed.

Beyond that - each of the different books on evolution recommended here has a different focus; they are not 100% interchangeable. Among other things, Evolution: What the Fossils Say, and Why It Matters, by Donald Prothero, has a much more in-depth treatment of dating methods than the others.

Posted by: Brownian | May 4, 2011 5:35 PM

I'm starting to see the appeal religion might hold for some. To understand the universe secularly, you must read libraries' worth of materials. To condemn the world religiously, you need, at the most, one.

Unfortunately, I was interested in understanding, not condemning, and so I found religion held no answers whatsoever, and the responses I got from my religious teachers to my queries were almost offensive in their simplicity.

Posted by: consciousness razor | May 4, 2011 6:19 PM

David Marjanović: Thanks, I had your name about right. I thought my silly question was lost amid all the chaos. 8*/

Brownian:

Our Hegelian visitor dumped a lot of stupid.

In the hope of curtailing more and ever larger dumpings on the subject, I'll note that mikkoL seems to be anti-Hegelian (at least in some sense) and has some fucking delusion that evilutionism is Hegelian for some fucking irrelevant reason. Do you know why all you militant evilutionists don't give a flying fuck about Hegel? Because you're militant evilutionists.

Posted by: Kenneth | September 24, 2011 2:08 PM

Hello again everybody.

Since our discussion on this post, (which originally started here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/hitchens_address_to_american_a.php )
I have learned and read much about atheism and my own faith. I believe that all of your insight has led me to a place of greater intellectual honesty. I still hold true to my faith, but I do so with a much more careful attitude and a much less blind eye.

I still have many questions about Christianity vs atheism, and I am thoroughly enjoying reading some books by prominent atheists such as Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris etc..

I trust you are all doing well and I again thank you for pointing me in the direction of intellectual honesty.

Posted by: Kenneth | September 24, 2011 4:27 PM

Nightjar,

My attitude has changed in one substantial way. I don't view atheists and evolutionists as hypocrites or liars in any way. Their stance is simply one that is based purely on evidence and the scientific method.

I believe I am more intellectually honest in my view of evolution now because I don't view it as utterly false, but as a distinct possibility. I know now that I need to learn about biology and evolution's explanation of what we see in the world before I claim that evolution is false. Currently, I don't believe in evolution, but I have little substantiation for creation. As I further my education, I will analyze what I think is right. Whether that is evolution or creation or somewhere in between will depend on what I learn.

You are right in that I don't wish to continue to argue the points you mentioned because I offer little to nothing to bring to an intellectual debate about the topics. I have little education.

I was hoping someone would see my post and respond. Thanks.

Posted by: Nightjar | September 24, 2011 5:20 PM

As I further my education, I will analyze what I think is right. Whether that is evolution or creation or somewhere in between will depend on what I learn.

You are right in that I don't wish to continue to argue the points you mentioned because I offer little to nothing to bring to an intellectual debate about the topics. I have little education.

Fair enough, Kenneth.

Thanks for the update and best of luck to you.