The president of Baylor, John M. Lilley, was fired abruptly yesterday. He demonstrated insufficient dedication to their "faith mission", so of course he had to go. I'm sure the ID crowd will be pleased — by encouraging a stronger "Christian vision", the next president of the university will probably encourage more Intelligent Design nonsense…which, of course, is an entirely secular concept that is not reliant on faith or Christian visions. Right.
I also have to say that this diagram accompanying the commentary is spot on.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I know there are a few fans of Peter Irons out there — and maybe some of you agree that he ought to have a blog. Since he doesn't, though, I'm posting a little email exchange he had with Denyse O'Leary and William Dembski, by his request and with the permission of the participants.
There's a…
For a scene of pure hilarity and joy, get ye over to Uncommon Descent as they try spin the rejection of a "Evolutionary Informatics Lab" by Baylor University.
Yesterday, the Baylor University administration shut down Prof. Robert Marks's Evolutionary Informatics Lab because the lab's research was…
Baylor President John Lilley has overruled the tenure committee that voted not to give tenure to Francis Beckwith. He was denied tenure several months ago but appealed that denial. The committee reconsidered and took a second vote, which was apparently 6-5 against giving him tenure, much closer…
Poor William Dembski has many thorns in his side. There's that spunky grad student and that guy who knows more math than he does, and there's also been a certain professor of constitutional law who has been quietly plaguing him behind the scenes. I'm on Peter Irons' cc list for these emails, and…
Woah... that diagram is pretty damn good.
Shame about the guy mind you. We're coming down in new dark ages.
It's really a pity they are part of the Big 12. I'd prefer Arkansas. Let the Baptists join w/ the other non-secular Universities.
Good graphic. I still want a Venn-diagram feature for the comments.
Where's the circle in the diagram for LYING or DISHONEST? I believe you can be ID without BS.
Intelligent design can't be the intersection of a trinity. I always thought it's 'first cause' was simply stupidity. Religion and politics being character traits of IDiots.
I thought I heard a faint flushing sound from Waco last night. Things are bleak here in Texas.
This is OT, but I can't resist.
The closing of the "Great Desecration" thread was perfect.
The post #2353 shows that poster Chris Bell is Jesus Christ. He was the First, and the Last. The Alpha and the Omega, and all that jazz.
As our winner*, Chris will receive an eternal lifetime supply of ChristOCrackers
.
ChristOCrackers Now fortified with irony
...
..
.
*Contest void where prohibited by Biblical Law
I imagine all the Baylor biology profs are dusting off their CVs and making sure they're current.
A pity. I grew up in Texas, and while Baylor always had a certain rep for its religiosity and conservatism, it was still well respected for academic excellence. A Baylor degree actually meant something.
Why do the Dark Ages lie outside of stupidity?
Class Venn diagram, takes me back to 70s I can tell you. Instead of ID can we have Hard Vacuum?
Here's some Intelligent Design for you P.Z. and it is not reliant on Christian visions or indeed faith.
http://media.skyandtelescope.com/images/Totality_Carlos_Kern_01_l.jpg
There is a fair bit of evidence for Intelligent Design for those who have eyes to see. . .
I think you'll find it's the union of religion and politics.
Surely the religion bubble should be entirely inside the stupidity one?
The people who caused the dark ages understood politics very well, and used religion to crush free thought and knowledge, thus causing stupidity, but weren't themselves stupid.
Anyone who reads any serious theology quickly finds out that when a quick and clever mind is released from the constraints of falsifiability and hypothesis checking, that mind can do rhetorical loop the loops to support the most evil abominations in the name of good.
To be fair to Baylor and the biology faculty, they've already dealt with a pro-ID president once and came out victorious; I'm sure they can do it again.
was he fired, or was he EXPELLED?
@Robin Edgar #11
Holy crap there's a giant dragon eating the sun!
You're right, that's some good evidence for ID right there!
Oh gee. Are they going to have a witch hunt at Baylor now?
Probably, we're talking Texas after all. There goes the entire biology department. FWIW, they do teach evolution at Baylor, like they do at any good biology department.
That tap tap tap sound you hear in the background is the biology faculty updating their CV's.
Where?
there may have been the issue of "faith mission" but what sinks a president is to have the the faculty turn against him. How do you get a faculty to turn against you? Overrule a faculty committee. In particular overall the faculty committee in charge or recommending tenure:
"The people who caused the dark ages understood politics very well, and used religion to crush free thought and knowledge, thus causing stupidity, but weren't themselves stupid."
Were these by any chance the same people who carefully preserved and hand-copied the works of Plato and Aristotle, among others, to the truly incalculable benefit of us all?
@Robin Edgar: ...Cuz the moon happens to be the same apparent size as the sun? I agree! No way it can be you know... CHANCE.
Obviously God wanted to trick us into studying the Sun's corona! That sneaky bastard, I thought he hated science!
Robin Edgar,
The fact that the sun and the moon have the same apparent size (even if they actually don't really) is proof of ID? How come?
And even then, ever heard the word "coincidence"?
Robin (#11), please read some books on orbital mechanics and lunar theory before posting such an idiotic statement. It really makes you appear rather stupid.
'kay?
p.s. the distance between the earth and the moon is NOT a fixed, unchanging, quantity. As your homework assignment, see if you can figure out what the implications of that are.
Were these by any chance the same people who carefully preserved and hand-copied the works of Plato and Aristotle, among others, to the truly incalculable benefit of us all?
Um, no, they're the people who caused the Dark Ages, yadda yadda. Different bunch altogether. Do pay attention.
Well, the term "Dark Ages" is somewhat misunderstood - these days it simply refers to the lack of historical documentation for the period in question. The people in the "Dark Ages" were no more (and no less) stupid that people before or since. It is also something of an error to place them at the intersection of faith and politics - the Middle Ages would be far more appropriate, as that period is far more typified by a unification of religion and politics. Indeed, for much of the "Dark Ages" most of Europe was not under control of the church (which is precisely why there is so little historical documentation) and had little in the way of formal politics as we would now recognise it. It's the period between the end of Roman rule and the formation of relatively stable (proto-)nation states in the latter part of the first millennium.
However, historical quibbling aside, I still want that diagram on a T-shirt.
Utter, unmitigated, ahistorical bollocks. I don't know what the hell you're talking about, but it's certainly not the "dark ages". The idea that the "dark ages" were a period of deprivation and ignorance was almost entirely a product of church propaganda - as was the term "dark ages" itself, originally.
#11
Wait, what?
@11: If you have to have "special eyes" to see the evidence, then it isn't science.
If you think that the eclipse of the sun is proof of Intelligent Design, can we consider that fact that there are more annular eclipses than total eclipses to be disproof of Intelligent Design? Furthermore, as the moon recedes, we'll get fewer and fewer total eclipses. Is this proof that God is receding from humanity?
When the Bushistas are out of office and the oversight begins, the accredation process may be more than 'you KKKristian'. Faith-based may end up being known as pre-prison.
The only selling point for the higher education business of religio-crazy skools is to niche market to ignorant and racist parents. This is easier with a president that 'shares values'. Let those science-based fools go to Ivy League or Land-Grant colleges. We have the truth here at PatU and StripKlub/LibertylessU/BobJones U and Lube. Four years and $40,000 later, the kids can work in Pat's under-the-table strip club, Pennsacola KKKristian's Abekah homeskooling business (real cheap since the degree is worth less than OJT at a fast food joint), or become a lay preacher with a small, and intensely related, congregation.
The whole Bushista hiring was affirmative action for faith-based knuckle-heads. Soon that will end, along with WingnutWelfare. Obama may purge the civil service rolls of unqualified/political appointee Bushists. That's a lot of stoopids looking for work at the same time.
Oh and Robin?
http://sci.esa.int/science-e-media/img/c0/AnnularEclipse.JPG
There is a fair bit of evidence for Chance for those who have eyes to see. . .
I want that diagram on a t-shirt! :)
John Lilley was a class mate of mine. I remember him as a good and reasonable man. I was pleased to hear he became president of Baylor. It gave me hope he would bring it out of the dark ages, but I'm afraid the spirit of W.A. Criswell is too strong and very much alive. I'm ashamed to tell anyone I graduated from Baylor.
I actually had had some respect for Baylor. The Baylor religious study which came out a few years back was actually remarkably good and is still the only place to go for some bits of data here and there. Although, two things did stand out about it.
1) It was funded by Templeton.
2) The take-away bit of information (by the media) was that 95% of people believed in God because according to the study itself 5% of people were atheists by being "absolutely certain that there is no God" (everybody else was a theist (95%). The study was well enough to give the question sheet they used and it had only one that asked anything of the kind:
26. In your opinion, does each of the following exist?
God -------------- Absolutely, Probably, Probably Not, Absolutely Not.
By that criteria Dawkins is a theist believing in a "distant God". 95% my ass. You still hear the number tossed around and it is, frankly, a really bad number.
Other than that, they seem remarkably reasonable on most of the grounds.
How sad. Baylor used to be a good place to go.
Sounds like Dembski may have a reason to go back.
Apparently Larry, Arnaud and Dinkum don't have eyes to see. . .
Have another look at the Wendy Carlos photo of the 2001 total solar eclipse and maybe you will see what noted American astronomer Jack Zirker perceived in 1980 and what ancient civilizations perceived millennia ago.
:The fact that the sun and the moon have the same apparent size (even if they actually don't really) is proof of ID?
Not proof, just circumstantial evidence, but there is more evidence of ID in the total solar eclipse than the fact that the sun and the moon do have virtually identical apparent sizes when seen from the surface of our planet. Take a proverbial closer look. Or perhaps take a look from several feet back from your monitor screen. . .
:And even then, ever heard the word "coincidence"?
I sure have heard of "coincidence" Arnaud. Have you ever heard of synchronicity? Do you know what Carl Jung said about "coincidences"?
:Robin (#11), please read some books on orbital mechanics and lunar theory before posting such an idiotic statement. It really makes you appear rather stupid.
Actually your statement above makes you look rather ignorant if not a tad stupid Larry. I am quite aware of the orbital mechanics that cause our sun and moon to have virtually identical apparent sizes when viewed from the surface of the Earth. I am perfectly aware that
p.s. I am perfectly aware that the distance between the earth and the moon is NOT a fixed, unchanging, quantity. As *your* homework assignment, see if you can figure out what the theological and Intelligent Design implications of the total solar eclipse distinctly resembling the pupil and iris of an eye are Larry. . .
Is this proof that God is receding from humanity?
As fast as my gums and hairline, if you read the Old Testament. As I remember, by the time we were sitting, kvetching by the waters of Babylon, He had pretty much washed his hands of us. I asked my wife (she's got the Scripture Knowledge in the family) why, and she said "Adultery and whoring after false gods". And has that changed, really?
We're on our own, folks. Now, Jesus claims he knows a way to get in touch with Him. All I can say is: you pays your money and takes your choice.
(.)(.)
Hey Jon D @ #32,
I don't know if you're aware, but you can get that diagram on a t-shirt here:
http://www.cafepress.com/saintgasoline
Iason Ouabache said, "If you have to have "special eyes" to see the evidence, then it isn't science."
You don't need "special eyes" to see the evidence for Intelligent Design that is manifested during total solar eclipses. You just need a pair of eyes that function reasonably well (in fact you can probably get away with just one properly functioning eye) and a brain that can process the "sign language" that is displayed during most if not all total solar eclipses.
"Furthermore, as the moon recedes, we'll get fewer and fewer total eclipses. Is this proof that God is receding from humanity?"
The moon receding is a test of our faith. Although our eyes may perceive more annular eclipses, we must have faith that they are total eclipses. Hint: it's easier if you close your eyes.
Wow, oh, wow, we do have a live one here!
[backs away slowly]
Are we sure that he was fired due to his stance on ID? If so, I think this is a major setback for academia. I don't understand how such schools can call themselves a facility of higher education when they are actually just reteaching Medieval superstition and myth as something to base your BA on.
As usual. . . the fundamentalist atheists aka Atheist Supremacists resort to mockery and ridicule when confronted by something that they cannot easily refute through reasoned and rational debate.
Here Robin, since Google isn't your friend, we'll spell it out for you:
1. Tidal friction is causing the Earth's rotational speed to slow (Ever wonder why we have those pesky leap seconds added every few years? The dino's had a 23 hour day . . .)
2. Enter the "Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum": with these two bodies interacting, Earth's loss of momentum is being transferred to the Moon, and it's orbital speed is increasing and, therefore, the Moon is moving farther away.
3. In ~2 billion years it'll be in geosynchronous orbit. In far less time than that we'll no longer have total eclipses of the Sun.
Let me guess - your "Intelligent Designer" planned all this just for you, eh?
(+)
Robin Edgar:
Please register for a critical thinking class at your local university. Stat. You desperately need help.
Repeating "Coincidence therefore God. Coincidence therefore God. Coincidence therefore God..." ad nauseum (a) will not make it true that coincidences are evidence of intelligent design or an intelligent designer and (b) will not convince anyone but the terminally stupid of the truth of intelligent design.
That's nothing compared to the butterfly alphabet!
Yes you do have a live one Larry. . .
The IDiot said:
Well, actually making shit up has been good enough up until now for the IDiots so why replace a 'winning' formula. Oh wait...
Clearly the solar eclipse is specifically designed to resemble a sliced carrot.
Robin Edgar,
If that annular eclipse is God's eye, then he is frickin stoned. Nice dilated pupils pothead.
"p.s. I am perfectly aware that the distance between the earth and the moon is NOT a fixed, unchanging, quantity. As *your* homework assignment, see if you can figure out what the theological and Intelligent Design implications of the total solar eclipse distinctly resembling the pupil and iris of an eye are Larry. . ."
I once saw a carrot that looked like the baby Jesus.
Intelligent design? I suppose it *must* have been.
Robin Edgar,
You haven't yet put forward anything that could be reasonably and rationally debated. Suppose a total eclipse does resemble the pupil and iris of an eye, what are you asserting follows? There is nothing there to argue with.
I think you need the critical thinking class KM because you are either grossly misinterpreting, or deliberately misrepresenting, what I am saying here.
I have to admit, I'm a little let down that 'Religion' and 'Stupidity' don't overlap just a little more in the diagram.
Let me take care of that assignment for ya...
None and None.
Randy at #20 has an interesting point.
Usually when someone at the top of an organization has to/chooses to overule many recomendations from his/her subordinates, someone starts asking why'd you need to do that? Either you are out of touch with what needs to happen, or the people underneath you were badly supervised.
I did notice that his stats come from Christianity Today, which raises some concerns, but it does not mean that they were wrong.
Anyone got a more detailed run down on who was dennied tenure and what their actual qualifications were or were not?
The payback theory could hold, but I think we need more information on this point.
I read the articles a bit more thoroughly since my first quick post. Although I am sure that the ID issue was a real, if unspoken, one, in fairness there was apparently a lot of unhappiness among the faculty about his tenure decisions. He initially turned down 12 out of 30 that came to him with favorable recommendations. Depending on the exact structure at Baylor that means they survived anywhere from 3-6 (or even more) committees and individuals, all giving favorable recommendations, before they came to the president's desk.
For those unfamiliar with the tenure process, at a typical university, the tenure application goes through some or all of the following steps: peer committee from the applicant's department, department chair, college or division committee and dean, all-university committee, and provost before it ever makes it to the president. The exact structure is different at every college, and some have even more layers. To override all those favorable recommendations is a big step, and to overturn 12 out of 30 is huge.
It may be he was trying to up standards, especially regarding research. While I'm not sure that EVERY college or university really needs to focus on research that heavily, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it's a worthy goal. Nonetheless, there is still an issue of fairness. Some years ago my university hired a new provost, who was, in fact, given the task of upping our research profile. She gave unfavorable recommendations to a number of applications that had gotten through all the various layers with positive reviews. The problem is that those coming up for tenure had been hired with a certain set of expectations, both explicit (i.e. in their contracts) and implicit, and had lived up to those expectations. All of sudden the goalposts were changed. There was a great deal of protest at all levels of the faculty, and she reversed her position on most of them. New faculty, however, were hired with very different expectations. This was fine with everybody, as long as it was clearly understood by the entering faculty what they would have to do to get tenure.
Seemingly there was a lot of unhappiness among the Baylor faculty about this. Maybe this was a genuine concern for the trustees, or maybe they used it as a pretext, but it probably shouldn't be just ignored.
#11: Yup, you make a good point. Perhaps ID really belongs mostly in stupid.
Snark? Surely Robin Edgar is snarking. The delusion level if this is not snark is stupefying.
Robin Edgar:
It is not the so-called "fundamentalist atheists" (you realize that doesn't actually make sense, right?) that are lacking in the reason department. Folks above have attempted to engage you in rational discussion -- e.g., by giving you alternate explanations of the phenomena you've identified as evidence for intelligent design -- and you dismiss them out of hand, without evidence or good reason, simply because they don't blindly accept your claims of "coincidence therefore God". Part of rationality is being open to good evidence and good reasons -- emphasis on *good* -- even if these things challenge your beliefs.
Further proof for ID is that my legs are just long enough to reach the ground! Coincidence? I don't think so!
Diagram originally from saintgasoline.com.
"If that annular eclipse is God's eye, then he is frickin stoned. Nice dilated pupils pothead."
ID stoner: Have you ever looked at a solar eclipse, man? I mean, REALLY looked at it? Ahhhhh, I can't see!
Well Robin, we don't know what you are saying exactly. So, what are the
And what are the theological implications of this
#11
Wow! Random coincidence proves ID?
Well, if thats true, then I guess there is a lot of proof. Or, you're just not that smart.
One of the two.
Regards,
David
I thought the entire diagram was close to perfect. ... I only have one argument with the intersection of Politics and Stupidity. ... It seems to me that that intersection should be called "Fanatics" ... Since there are fanatics in all parties. ...
concentric circles happen a lot. if you're trying to imply that a solar eclipse is actually your god watching us you might want to ponder the inconvenient lack of a second pareidolic eye.
"and a brain that can process the "sign language" that is displayed during most if not all total solar eclipses."
Wow. I thought your original post was a joke. So what, the fact that a solar eclipse vaguely resembles an eye means... what exactly? Your god is watching you in "sign language"? So volcanoes and thunder are him getting angry in "sign language" too? Where to clouds that look like phalluses fit into all of this?
Truthfully now, how many virgins have you sacrificed to the volcano to appease him. Be honest.
It's this kind of stone age thinking that makes me a pessimist about the future of the human race.
Robin Edgar:
No, I'm pretty sure I haven't misrepresented you. You're invoking the supernatural (i.e., intelligent design(er)) to explain coincidental phenomena (i.e., the apparent identical sizes of the sun and the moon).
However, I'll be open to the possibility that I have misunderstood your arguments. Please clearly explain how the apparent identical sizes of the sun and the moon (from Earth) constitute evidence, even circumstantial, for intelligent design.
Holy Barshit Robin. Bang, Pow, Doh!
"...Atheist Supremacists resort to mockery and ridicule when confronted by something that they cannot easily refute through reasoned and rational debate."
No, we only resort to mockery and ridicule when someone has proven themselves immune to reasoned and rational debate, Mr. Poopy-Pants.
Two circles are congruent...almost.
Therefore, Intelligent Design.
Um...
Two concentric circles sort of look like an eye.
Therefore, Intelligent Design.
Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot, over?
That should say Batshit. Takes the initial meaning away to screw up an insult.
And if the Moon didn't nearly cover the Sun at eclipse, the droolers would be saying,"See, the gods are real. They don't want to frighten us by making the Sun seem to go away." A small moon would have interesting ramifications on history and literature, not to mention the tides and whatever that has meant for evolution.
Posted by: Robin Edgar | July 25, 2008 11:34 AM
Where it is proven that you cannot argue with crazy.
I wonder if the Baylor College of Medicine will end up changing its name so people don't think they're teaching ID there.
I don't know when he first made an appearance here, but I find Robin Edgar's classic old-school kook a refreshing change from some of the Catholoons (but then I still love the Juice soundtrack). Jung on, RE. Word.
"The concern, he said, is not that Lilley has taken Baylor in a more secular direction, but that the school needs an even "bolder" Christian vision."
Nothing makes my day faster than a nice helping of double-speak.
"see if you can figure out what the theological and Intelligent Design implications of the total solar eclipse distinctly resembling the pupil and iris of an eye are"
So pareidolia is evidence for ID? Wouldn't it have been easier just to find a picture of that grilled cheese sandwich with Mary on it? Then you wouldn't have to deal with all the inconvenient stuff about the moon moving and stuff. Can't you figure out what the theological and ID implications of grilled cheese resembling Mary are?
These were the same people that burnt libraries. These were the people who allowed nearly all of the works of Sophocles, Aristophanes and Aeschylus to be lost. These are the people who burnt people to death at the stake, or flayed the flesh from their bones, for disagreeing with them. These are the people that saved, out of a science and literature that was the equal to everything and anything up to the 16th century, the few books that supported THEIR case.
Out of huge libraries of hundreds of authors and millions of books, we have Aristotle and Plato.
Yes, I'd say that those indeed were the people I was talking about.
To Robin Edgar,
Let's take it as agreed that the moon is a similar apparent size to the sun, and that during total eclipse they look vaguely like an eye.
Can you proceed from there to explaining why this is any sort of evidence for ID?
In particular, is the fact that Jupiter and the moon have very different apparent sizes evidence against ID? Is the fact that during eclipse they look nothing like ears, lungs or legs also evidence against ID?
Also, I presume you're aware that total eclipses are so rare, from any particular location on the Earth, that the vast majority of humans will never see one. Given that, please explain why total eclipses -- and their odd coincidence that most humans will never even notice -- have any sort of theological significance.
Lastly, you are aware that sensible people grew out of regarding the moon, sun and planets as "gods" (and "all-seeing eyes") several thousand years ago, are you? Just wondering . . .
"You haven't yet put forward anything that could be reasonably and rationally debated. Suppose a total eclipse does resemble the pupil and iris of an eye, what are you asserting follows? There is nothing there to argue with."
Wrong. There is plenty there to argue with and even agree with. . . First of all it is not simply a supposition that the totally eclipsed sun distinctly resembles the pupil and iris of an eye during most total solar eclipses. The distinct similarity of the total solar eclipse to a gigantic eye staring down from the sky has been duly noted by modern astronomers such as Jack Zirker, who was moved to call at least metaphorically call it "the Eye of God" in 1980, and diverse ancient civilizations. Total solar eclipses only occur because very precise celestial mechanics cause the sun and moon to have virtually identical apparent sizes when viewed from the surface of the Earth.
Astronomers like to refer to this reciprocal relationship between the actual sizes of the sun and moon and there respective distances from the Earth as a "coincidence" which implies mere chance but one can just as reasonably, if not more reasonably. . . consider this precise mathematical relationship to be part and parcel of the Intelligent Design of our solar system. When the odds against a "coincidence" occurring by pure random chance are very high it becomes quite reasonable to consider that the alleged "coincidence" is not really a coincidence at all. As Carl Jung said regarding the phenomenon of synchronicity -
What I found were 'coincidences' which were connected so meaningfully that their 'chance' concurrence would represent a degree of improbability that would have to be expressed by an astronomical figure.
Carl Jung, Collected Works vol. 8
It is a readily observable fact that the totally eclipsed sun distinctly resembles the pupil and iris of a gigantic eye staring down from the sky. The degree of improbability that our number one source of light which allows our eyes to see should so distinctly resemble our organ of sight, when it is totally eclipsed by our moon, would have to be expressed by an astronomical figure. The odds against this unusual visual phenomenon occurring by pure random chance are extremely high. It is thus perfectly reasonable and rational for intelligent human beings to consider that the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" is the product of Intelligent Design rather than the result of pure random chance.
Yes, Robin. And this past weekend Rev. Sun Myung Moon's helicopter crashed into a mountain shaped just the same as a mountain. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Still Batshit Crazy Robin!
Robin, you talk a great deal about probability. How about showing your work?
Be on your best behavior, Canada, Greenland, Russia, Mongolia, and China. On August 1, god will be watching...
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEmono/TSE2008/TSE2008.html
Props to Robin for letting us know!
At first I thought Robin Edgar was indulging in satire.
However I have revised that first impression and now think he is just Dagenham.
Of course, when dealing with astronomy, one rather expects to find astronomical figures, what?
Robin Edgar (#85) suggested,
Those are the only options? One can't rationally disagree?
Talk about myopic phenomena.
You could as well say that it looks like a giant arsehole. What would that prove about the nature of god?
But hey! Who am I to argue against an eclipsologist and a syncretistic urban shaman?
(By the way, Robin, you haven't explain away my piece of meat yet and why that is a coincidence while your eclipse isn't...)
To Mostly Uneducated (aka Robin Edgar) at #85:
There is so much that is simply profoundly stupid in this post that, were you here, I would harangue you verbally with reality, facts, and scientific understanding of these phenomena (although someone earlier tried to explain the slightly changing moon orbit to you), such as gravity possibly having something to do with the generally spherical shapes of the stars, moons, planets, etc., such as light gathering and focus having something to do with the spherical shapes of our eyes, etc.
However, I'm too lazy to bother typing it all and don't consider the effort to be worth it. I've wasted my time on the likes of you too many times before. You wouldn't believe shit anyone tells you, even with evidence, unless your version of Jesus grabbed you by the scruff of your neck and stuck your nose in it.
BTW, I notice that God's "eye" from your earlier post seems to be missing some pretty important features. My guess is he can't see us very well.
Robin for the Molly! I have seldom seen such exquisite parody of the loonier aspects of ID. Such satire, such pathos, such bathos. Take a bow Robin!
"When the odds against a "coincidence" occurring by pure random chance are very high it becomes quite reasonable to consider that the alleged "coincidence" is not really a coincidence at all."
OK so everyone who's ever won the lottery must have had supernatural assistance because winning the lottery is incredibly improbable.
No, actually. You can thank the Muslims for that.
I find it amazing how the supposedly ever so rational and intelligent atheists here fall all over themselves to make statements that prove them to be not only quite ignorant but willfully so. Indeed some of the ignorant and foolish statements are probably best explained by outright stupidity on the part of the so-called "Brights". I don't know what is worse, "Brights" stupidly misinterpreting my statements, or "Brights" knowingly and willfully misrepresenting my arguments in underhanded efforts to discredit me. Clearly there are a whole lot of "Brights" who not only lack eyes to see but who also lack the brains to think through the implications of what I am claiming here.
Ha, seeing that diagram, I lol'd.
Thanks for the clarification, Robin. You have confirmed that I did not grossly misrepresent your argument. I had left some parts out, though, for the sake of brevity. Let me revise:
Coincidence + personal incredulity (bolstered by irrelevancies like Jung's thoughts on synchronicity) + ignorance of the relevant sciences = God.
Robin, stop, I am laughing too hard as it is. Don't push the joke to far, brevity is the sole of wit.
Time to head out and grocery shop. I have my eye on a pair of round, luscious cantelopes...yowza for intelligent design.
Ciao
What a coincidence. Some time in the last week or two I happened upon an article detailing how the eclipse = design concept is total bunk. Of course, I can't remember for the life of me where it was and considering how many pages on the web have the words "eclipse" and "design" in them, there's not much hope of finding it. I really do need to start tagging interesting web pages.
Be nice to Robin, KM. Since he obviously cannot use the argument from authority, the only recourse he has is dismissal from the stupid...
Naw. Only when they run across something so stupid, crazy, and ignorant that it is hopeless. About every 20 posts or so on pharyngula.
Actually Robin, it doesn't really matter what size the moon is, within reason, to completely nullify your claim. If the moon were somewhat larger there would still be a glow around it during an eclipse to make it look passingly like an eye. If it were significantly smaller it would ALSO create the appearance of an eye.
Regardless, if it IS the eye of a god looking down on us, then it's clearly Odin, who has only one eye. I expect you to convert now.
Robin Edgar:
If you feel that you are being so maligned, you are free to leave.
All the best,
KM.
Holy Batshit Robin; you're still at it?
Robin "It is thus perfectly reasonable and rational for intelligent human beings to consider that the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" is the product of Intelligent Design rather than the result of pure random chance."
Sure, except the intelligent designer is our brain as always. This like seeing people's faces in clouds. Anyway if "god" really wanted to us to see an eye there would be a white halo around it.
I found another picture here with the footnote:
"Not to scale. Stupidity actually overlaps Religion and Politics much more than depicted."
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbassett/1797503847/
I wonder how much sales of this shirt will increase?
Let's take it as agreed that the moon is a similar apparent size to the sun, and that during total eclipse they look vaguely like an eye. (#84)
It looks more like a squid or an octopus eye than a human eye...which means God is a squid or octopus?
"It looks more like a squid or an octopus eye than a human eye...which means God is a squid or octopus?"
Not to mention that squid and octopus eyes have the optic nerve leaving via the back of the retina rather than the front as in humans.
this is the same sort of tribal-magical thinking that says that eating powdered rhino horn is good for your virility because of the horn's phallic shape.
is it perhaps worth noting the multitude of other circular things which resemble the human eye, but have no superficial connection with sight at all? shall i even start listing balls, marbles, saucers, ripples on water...?
Because who better to discuss astronomical phenomena then a Freudian psychoanalyst whose work has been largely rejected by both the psychiatric and psychological communities?
We see eyes all the time and numerous psychological studies have shown that the eye and other parts of the face are specially processed by the mind. So when we see shapes that are similar in certain ways, we may mistake them for a face or eye or similar shape. It is a simple malfunction of the edge detectors of the eye.
Re Brian comment #59
I simply did a quick internet search (actually followed links beginning with the one PZ posted), but knew of the Baylor tenure flap for months. It was actually here at Scienceblogs first where I noticed it, I think the Chronicle covered it. The numbers are staggering, over 1/3 of those RECOMMENDED for tenure by UNIVERSITY COMMITTEES, were denied tenure, based largely on an awkward way of introducing the Baylor 2012 plan. So, don't worry about the source (or do and do your own damn search).
But clearly, it was among the reasons the trustees lost faith in the pres.
Well the diagram is agood start but you realy should have the three rings of Reglion, Stupidty and Poltics overlapping with Republicans since they're the 'Merkin's answer to the Taliban.
Hail Odin!
Robin, do you know that the planets are coplanar? More evidence of design. That's the REAL reason they changed Pluto to a non-planet. See all the True Planets (TM) are coplanar, so they can all have eclipses more frequently.
QED
When the odds against a "coincidence" occurring by pure random chance are very high it becomes quite reasonable to consider that the alleged "coincidence" is not really a coincidence at all. Robin Edgar
In order for probabilistic reasoning to get off the ground, you first have to specify the set of possible alternatives under consideration. Here, there is no such set, so no numerical probability can be given, astronomical or otherwise. You might still argue that it was "very unlikely" in a qualitative sense that the relationship is a coincidence, so let's suppose for the sake of argument that it is not a coincidence. All this means is that it is unexplained; there is no ground whatever for believing it is the result of intelligent design, rather than purely physical processes. If the intelligent designer had thought to sign his work clearly (The text of Genesis 1 carved in mile-high Hebrew script on the moon's backside, for example), that would be a different matter. Find such a clear message, sufficiently long to rule out coincidence and with unambiguous content, in anything - the digits of pi, the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron, sequences in the "junk" DNA in the genome of the colossal squid - and I'll become a believer in intelligent design.
Robin @ #85:
"When the odds against a "coincidence" occurring by pure random chance are very high it becomes quite reasonable to consider that the alleged "coincidence" is not really a coincidence at all."
I just tossed a coin 20 times. I got TTHHHHTHHHTHHTHTHHHT. The probability of this happening is 1/1048576. Therefore God exists.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
When the odds against a "coincidence" occurring by pure random chance are very high it becomes quite reasonable to consider that the alleged "coincidence" is not really a coincidence at all.
When a known intentional agent or an otherwise unaccounted-for emergent process could be responsible for the given arrangement thought to be coincidental, sure. Nobody categorically denies what you wrote above.
But you're not positing a known agent or an unaccounted for process. IOW, you skipped a crucial step there.
Furthermore, while a given coincidence may be highly improbable (though I'd want to see a calculation rather than taking it on your say so), the universe is vast, and complex. More than enough dynamic arrangements of interacting objects on a planetary scale exist, even just in our galaxy, to make the lottery solution perfectly satisfactory, especially given that you have no explanation for the state of affairs beyond "magic man dun it!"
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
I had a friend who taught anthropology at Baylor - for a year and then he fled.
He said the students would walk into class and loudly bang their bibles down on their desks at the start of class :)
@Robin and #11
You are aware that the pretty total eclipse is a relative rarity among all solar eclipses that occur? The overwhelming majority are partial eclipses where the moon doesn't pass fully in front of the sun. Of the rest, most are annular where the moon passes in front of the sun fully, but is far enough out from the Earth that it doesn't cover the sun.
Eclipses have been observed on other planets - look at Jupiter every night for a week with even a small telescope and you'll eventually see the shadow of a moon on the planet... that's an eclipse in progress.
There is *NOTHING* magical or even slightly "designed" about eclipses.
Saros 126, the cycle of which the next solar eclipse (1 Aug 2008) is part, is comprised as follows:
All Eclipses - 72100.0%
Partial3143.1%
Annular2838.9%
Total1013.9%
Hybrid34.2%
( http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros126.html )
If we look at that all the data for the solar eclipses between now and 2010, they represent 6 eclipse cycles (covering time from 944 CE to 2893 CE), and they break down as follows:
All Eclipses430100%
Partial15536%
Annular14031%
Total11525%
Hybrid204%
(percentages don't add up to 100 due to rounding)
There are other cycles, but I don't have time to add them all up, and all that would do is jiggle those numbers a bit. There's nothing magic about it. Those "intelligently designed" total eclipses don't even have a good "batting average"
Robin Edgar #85 wrote:
I'm trying to figure out what this argument is supposed to imply about God -- or, rather, what, if true, such actions on the part of an Intelligent Designer would imply about said Intelligent Designer.
God wants human beings to think of Him as a great, big, giant person in the sky, looking down and watching what they do. Therefore, in order to appeal to the simplistic thought processes and reactions of primitive people and small children, he literally puts up something that looks just like a giant eye. Human beings are meant to see this, and reason in primitive fashion that God is a great, big, giant person with an actual eye.
One of the disparaging terms atheists sometimes use to refer to God is "sky daddy." This immediately draws the protests and scorn of modern theists and theologians, who are quick to call this a 'straw man' version of God. Richard Dawkins spent some time in his intro to God Delusion trying to forstal the objection that he thought of God as "an old man in the sky with a beard." No, of course not. That's not how theists today think of God. We understand, it's a much more sophisticated concept than that.
Robin Edgar's argument then is almost refreshing in its back-to-basics simplicity. No, we're not finding God in the gaps in quantum indeterminacy or waxing eloquent on the Ground of Being. There's an EYE UP IN THE SKY. LOOK!
God wants us to think of Him like that. Uh huh. Sky-daddy indeed.
God's a pervert. At that time I'll be naked and most likely asleep!
That's the only reason he's omnipotent. He wants to check out girl asses.
Ah yes..the cries and demands for "fair and balanced
criticism" of opponents (religious and secular) when
they cannot enforce their will, until the time comes
when the Jewish/Moslem/Christian Kult Krazies have
the upper hand, at which point they will yield nothing, ever.
Religion is the world's oldest entitlement program.
@28 @11: If you have to have "special eyes" to see the evidence, then it isn't science.
lmao! :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PIA05553.gif
So here we have Phobos transiting Sol as seen from Mars. To me, it looks like one of the eye-orbs of the Flying Spaghetti Monster staring down on the Opportunity Rover.
Earth may be created by God, but surely FSM made Mars - meatball-shaped, and coloured like tomato sauce.
Yum!
Now if there really were some god wanting us to know he was watching us, wouldn't he have designed the MOON to look like an eye? FFS, it always presents the same side to us. How hard would that be for the Great & Powerful Oz Big Sky Daddy? Besides nobody thinks Gladys Kravitz is a god.
Oh BTW, bizarre form of protest
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2008/07/woman_on_cross_in_protest_over.html
Quote:I got TTHHHHTHHHTHHTHTHHHT. The probability of this happening is 1/1048576. Therefore God exists.
Pure BS what does the odd of tossing a coin have to do with the supernatural. Similarly a man & women could beget 14 trillion children and not have 2 with the same chromosome arrangement. This is just chance. Tossing a coin give 2 possiblities head or tail the same for each throw. 2 throws have 4 possibilities 2 hesds, 2 tails or head/tail or tail/head. Thus 2 heads is one in 4 but getting two heads does not alter the probability. any of the 4 throws have an eqeal chance of happening, just that head/tail can occur in 2 ways therfore ig 10 people each thrw 2 coins the odds would favor head/tail should occur about twice a many times as either 2 heads or 2 tails. Sill it would not be anything more than coincidence if all 10 threw 2 heads, 2 tails or 2 head/tails.
The best evidence against intelligent design to my knowledge (beyond the obvious arguments, where did the designer come from? where is the designer?) is the existence of vestigial parts.
Surely an all-powerful designer wouldn't stuff an appendix in there for no good reason.
I guess ID-ers will just say "God, erm, the Designer works in mysterious (incompetent) ways."
"see if you can figure out what the theological and Intelligent Design implications of the total solar eclipse distinctly resembling the pupil and iris of an eye are Larry. . ."
Dude, it's an object in front of a light source; casting a shadow. It happens ALL THE TIME in the natural world (ex: Sun and tree; Sun and rock; Sun and you). You are giving it significance because the objects are so BIG and ROUND that it boggles your mind. Nothing special.
Stop the pseudo-magical thinking before you post again.
bluescat48: hint - that was the point. It's the same argument Robin is using.
The distinct similarity of the total solar eclipse to a gigantic eye staring down from the sky has been duly noted by modern astronomers such as Jack Zirker, who was moved to call at least metaphorically call it "the Eye of God" in 1980
Does this mean that if I watch the eclipse while eating a cracker that God will see and strike me dead? Just wondering.
Robin -
Why do you fail to see that basic logic that "because it looks like it to me" is not a reason for believing anything.
Other things this eclipse looks an awful lot like:
- Several various species of jellyfish.
- The burner on my stove with the flame on.
- One of those "static electricity" novelty balls you can buy at the Discovery Channel Store.
- Soapy water going down a drain.
- A splatter of bird shit.
Prove to me why your insisntence that what it really looks like is an iris is more credible.
'The Great Desecration'
Is the troll banquette really over ... (hic)..., shit my head hurts? Don't want to sound rude but when is the next one?
Ok, Robin, we will allow you to claim that a solar eclipse is evidence for intelligent design, if you allow us to claim that the 57 million people in 2003 that died, often horrible, needless, painful deaths, due these illnesses, are evidence that you are talking through your backside:
Now, what are the theological consequences of this design, Robin? And if you use "loves" and "for a reason" in the same sentence, I will be physically sick, and you don't want that to happen, do you?
"God's a pervert. At that time I'll be naked and most likely asleep! That's the only reason he's omnipotent. He wants to check out girl asses"
Ha ha ha, well it's been a couple of thousand years since he had himself some back with Mary...
WHOOOSH! Went right over, didn't it?
I love the coin analogy, directly to the "improbability" point.
I'm not surprised a pro-science president was fired from a Baptist University. There is nobody in America more against evolution than the Baptists. I think that's why Baptists become Baptists. Because religious people tend to choose the religion that most agrees with their idiotic beliefs.
What bugs me almost as much as the evolution deniers are the people who attach the worthless word 'theistic' to evolution, as if evolution, and only evolution, is the only natural process that requires supernatural magic. I was just looking at a Christian blog and somebody wrote this nonsense: Those of us that believe in theistic evolution believe that evolution happened exactly the way scientists are finding it happened - just with the help of God's guiding hand.
Polls show that most of the Americans who accept evolution stick God in there somewhere. I think that's disgusting. The creationists are hopeless. They're a complete waste of time. But more effort should be made to make pro-science Americans understand their god-of-the-gaps is not necessary for any natural process, including the development of new species.
Michelle @ 126
At that time I'll be naked and most likely asleep!
............. wait... what... what was I doing? Where am I?
Damn you, Michelle... it'll take me hours to remember what the heck it was I was doing... thanks...
And if you use "loves" and "for a reason" in the same sentence, I will be physically sick,
It's "for a reason", that reason being that God "loves" these diseases more than he "loves" humans.
Oh, no, now I've done it! Gaston! Another bucket for Monsieur. And ze cleaning woman!
Robin Edgar #11:
Here ya go
Does this qualify for that real expelled list someone was keeping (ie happening the reverse way round than the fundies claim in their atrocious film of that name)? Is there sufficient evidence that he was expelled for having insufficient (fundamentalist) faith and too much sanity?
*spews coffee*
the name at #144 should have warned me. really, it should have
PZ, this chart made my day.
Thanks for that.
Eye of god?
Does that mean god has only one eye and therefore no depth perception?
I always thought an eclipse looked more like a sphincter.
Bob L. said - Anyway if "god" really wanted to us to see an eye there would be a white halo around it.
ROTFLMAO! And what do you suppose the sun's corona is Bob, if not a white halo? BTW You'll never guess what celestial phenomena inspired ancient cultures to depict their gods or holy men with halos around their heads. . .
#146 SkyOtter, your comment was really funny, I had a good laugh, thank you.
To be honest I don't think that site you linked to is nearly telling the whole story, they really don't have much to go on and over half of it was just the author's opinion that somehow we are suppose to accept at face value as "fact". I suspect many people are talking his word at fact only because it fits so easily in their created views and stereotypes of other people and groups who they disagree with.
Me, I am too skeptical, there is likely more of a reason they what was cited.
Hold up. The corona is the iris, not the sclera. Has to be, what with all those radial lines.
@ #149
Comets? Halo around the moon? Aurora Borealis? You sure it wasn't any of these?
Good job cherry-picking and ignoring any actual relevant arguments, though...
Well done.
Damian asked, "Now, what are the theological consequences of this design, Robin? And if you use "loves" and "for a reason" in the same sentence, I will be physically sick, and you don't want that to happen, do you?"
I do believe I spoke about the theological implications of the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" symbolism not "consequences" Damian. As far as the theological implications of God being responsible for various diseases, to say nothing of other unpleasnat things, I am sure that you can figure them out for yourself if you set your mind to it. Indeed I am confident that you can figure out some of the theological implications of the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" symbolism if you set your mind to it. Look at that, I managed to answer your question without using "loves" and "for a reason" in the same sentence. Indeed I didn't need to use them at all.
Yes. And you are correct, it is a good way to annoy faculty. However, from Lilley's perspective, he was brought in to increase the research stature of Baylor, and consequently held these faculty to higher standards than they were being held by their senior colleagues, who, if you think about it, are the reason why Lilley was brought in to improve the school's research stature (because they aren't cutting it).
It's certainly not a great political situation to be in, but if he was going to actually make a difference and do what they brought him in to do, he was going to have to go against the current culture of the institution.
He tried to raise the standards. Good for him. I'm not surprised there was a huge backlash. Those who are accustomed to the current situation are certainly feeling threatened, because they are going to lose power, and it was going to go to people who are going to advance the research goals of the institution.
Clearly Baylor has given up on its goal. I don't think they realized what it was going to take to change their focus.
#154
Look at that, I managed to answer your question without using "loves" and "for a reason" in the same sentence. Indeed I didn't need to use them at all.
NO YOU DIDN'T you deluded liar! How, in any way, is "you can figure it out for yourself" an answer to anything?
What the heck backwards school did you ever go to where putting "you can figure it out for yourself" was a passing answer to a question?
You are a real piece of work...
#154--
You didn't answer anything, that's a bunch of gibberish.
Sastra@125,
On the nature of the creator, it's unfortunately all too easy to imagine that a teenage boy playing Sim Universe would put in something as downright tacky as an eye-in-the-sky, and would probably delight in teasing his creations about his (non)existence! The "Teenage Creator" hypothesis might also explain the remarkable prevalence of sex and violence in the world.
That's because you didn't answer the question, Robin.
I get it! I get it! It's now a dead giveaway! RE@#154 is stoned, absolutely, totally, chronically stoned! Raiding the fridge stoned! Seeing little monks running across the countertop stoned. That's what he's been trying to tell us!
Do I get a cosmic, karmic, iris-shaped Catholic cracker for a prize?
re #155
I have no problem with "raising the bar" but you don't raise the bar (if you are honest) during the year tenure files are being prepared on those people coming up for tenure. YOu don't start judging a game according fast pitch softball rules in the middle of a batters at bat if your started playing slow pitch. So he showed great vision (perhaps) but poor implementation. this is indicated by the fact that 7 or 10 appeals were granted (which is, in my experience, an unheard of success rate for appeals).
*sigh*
Yes, please make sure to lump republicans in with the unenlightened.
I am sure there are no democrats who give credence to any unsubstantiated, faith based ideology.
BTW - Anyone read Oprah's reading list? A veritbale who's who in woo...
Well Michelle, I'm sure god knows where all the perfect asses are...
re #155
I have no problem with "raising the bar" but you don't raise the bar (if you are honest) during the year tenure files are being prepared on those people coming up for tenure. YOu don't start judging a game according fast pitch softball rules in the middle of a batters at bat if your started playing slow pitch. So he showed great vision (perhaps) but poor implementation. this is indicated by the fact that 7 or 10 appeals were granted (which is, in my experience, an unheard of success rate for appeals). Which makes his leadership suspect. I do worry about the direction Baylor may take with the next pres. But we will have to wait and see.
dinkum said, "Hold up. The corona is the iris, not the sclera. Has to be, what with all those radial lines."
Well done dinkum!
Not that I didn't expressly say that in post #37 of course. . .
So just to remind everyone - the black occulting disc of the moon forms the "pupil" of the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" while the "radial lines" the sun's coronal streamers aka "rays" distinctly resembles the muscle structure of the iris of the eye. I have never at any time suggested that the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" is an actual eye, I have only pointed out that it "distinctly resembles" an eye, so all the atheists here who are responding as though I am saying that the total solar eclipse is an actual "Eye of God" are not so bright aka stupid. . . or they are deliberately misrepresenting what I have said in their misguided efforts to try to discredit me.
Why yes, a total eclipse does resemble a very big staring eye. And an annular eclipse resembles a ring (that's what "annular" means, no?) So these are signs that the universe was created by... Sauron?!? * Gasp *
Holy Batshit Robin. You do well enough discrediting yourself Robin.
#162--
Yeah, there are some good skeptical conservative Republicans (I think Michael Shermer is one). But I don't think you can deny that on balance the Democratic Party is far more secular than the Republican Party. The latter is the party of the Robertsons, Falwells, and Hagees of the country. And no, I don't think Al Sharpton is as menacing as those people.
@ Robin #165
I have never at any time suggested that the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" is an actual eye, I have only pointed out that it "distinctly resembles" an eye, so all the atheists here who are responding as though I am saying that the total solar eclipse is an actual "Eye of God" are not so bright aka stupid. . . or they are deliberately misrepresenting what I have said in their misguided efforts to try to discredit me.
Great... OK... so you've established that all you are saying is that is resembles an eye. Good. Glad we cleared that up.
So, answer the question we've posed to you over and over again: So what?
How does that make it indicative of anything more special than any of the other things we've stated that it "clearly resembles"? Why is your interpretation more relevant than any other?
Still waiting for that conversion to Odin, Robin. Because if we had a two-eyed god, he'd surely make sure his chosen people were plopped down in a binary star system with two moons, perfectly aligned to look like two staring eyes in a double eclipse every so often.
Personally, I think he'd come down and say 'hi' every generation or so too, but Odin works in mysterious ways.
Great Robin, now I got the Alan Parsons Project rolling around in my head..
Makes me oh-so-proud to be a Texan (who got out), yessiree, Bob.
bluescat48 @ #131: Next time I post something like this, I'll put
**** SARCASM **** SARCASM **** SARCASM **** SARCASM ****
at the top, bottom and between each sentence. Will that help?
Robin,
Nobody is really confused that the corona "distinctly resembles" the iris (at least to some people). The thing that doesn't make sense is how one can jump from "this natural occurrence resembles a body part" to "God exists."
I'm curious, does this resemblance prove the existence of God as well?
"Great Robin, now I got the Alan Parsons Project rolling around in my head.."
Which part of the lyrics caused that? Was it "eye in the sky" part, or the "dealing with fools" part?
That's the only reason he's omnipotent. He wants to check out girl asses.
If only it were true. It would be a better world if God would stick to scoping out hot girls and less with the smiting and damning and telling his followers to burn heretics.
Robin, if my eye looked like that I'd be having a problem with my iris. The corona isn't always 100% radial, it often does weird stretches on the sides like that
http://www.astropix.com/HTML/SHOWCASE/TOTAL1.HTM
So stop your pareidolia. Pareidolia just means that you see what you wanna see. You think it resembles an eye, I think it resembles a flower. Ad that cloud outside my workplace's window right now resembles a butt. Does that mean God's mooning Quebec right now?
I don't know what you mean by this. Is there any evidence that he "raised the bar...during the year tenure files are being prepared"? He's only been there for three years, he didn't hire those people. He didn't change his standards. the university did. That's why they brought him in, to create a new standard. Tenure is an important decision, because there is no getting out of it. So if you really want to change the makeup of your institution, you don't tenure those who perpetuate the old system, regardless of whether they were previously in the system or not. They are getting in the way of the progress you want to make.
And the fact that these cases are being overturned doesn't mean much. That, and the fact that he was canned, tells me they weren't all that serious about really wanting to change.
Actually, Robin, I was hoping you'd opt for internal consistency; my mistake.
Bob L was looking for the Sclera in the Sky. You declared that to be the corona.
Now you're claiming that the corona is the iris.
Of course,
which is fine, but you're only talking about a particular photograph of an eclipse, nicely filtered and framed. I've seen two eclipses. Didn't look anything like an eye to me or anyone else. Looked like an eclipse.
"Which part of the lyrics caused that? Was it "eye in the sky" part, or the "dealing with fools" part?"
Yes.
The eye in the sky proves theres a god. And the face on mars proves theres... I dunno, martians. And the face of Einstein I can see in the linoleum proves that Einstein liked flooring. And the image if Mary that appeared in the oil streaks in the bank window in Clearwater, FL proves that Jesus' mom likes money.
Man, there's a whole lot of proof of amazing crazy shit out there.
People see god in such coincidences for the same reason that kids see a recognizable shape in the clouds, they want to see it. It doesn't matter to them that there are 30 clouds in the same sky that don't look like anything. Coincidences are just that coincidences they don't mean anything.
But wait! ID can just as easily be about aliens and panspermia right? After all, that's what IDers tell me. So why the obvious christian preference? (therein squats the toad)
"The corona isn't always 100% radial, it often does weird stretches on the sides like that
http://www.astropix.com/HTML/SHOWCASE/TOTAL1.HTM
Oh shit, God's winking! I'm gonna get down on my knees for sure now!
Isn't this a much better argument for an intelligent designer?
Does that mean God's mooning Quebec right now?
Since you sold the Expos to Washington, I would say the answer is probably yes.
The idea that a total eclipse 'looks' like an eye - be it the eye of God or whomever, does nothing to prove or even suggest that it is the result of ID. But...I do think that as the probablity of a certain occurance decreases, a rational, open-minded person would have to at least entertain the possiblity of the coincedence not being a coincedence at all but rather the result of something/someone bigger and beyond our comprehension. I can't prove to you that God exists and you can't prove to me that he doesn't. If that is in fact the case, then does PZ's 'desecration', the UCF student being harassed/restrained/ridiculed by churchgoers, the threating emails PZ has received, the thoughtless and tasteless attacks from boths sides of this 'issue'...do they really get us anywhere? Dare I say it...I'm Catholic and am very much intrigued by the few legitimate discussions that take place in this forum, but the lack of consideration for others from people on both sides of the fence is extremely disappointing. And I'm sure someone will find reason to jump all over me for something in this post...bring it on, I guess.
Damn, screwed up the html tags. My last post should have referred to this
http://www.blogcadre.com/files/images/jesusdog_0.jpg
Quebec as in Quebec City! Who cares about Montreal. :P
Lots of snobs there, with their big stadium shaped like a giant toilet... Oh well, our city's way prettier!
Celtic_Evolution asked, "Why is your interpretation more relevant than any other?"
Well for starters because I would not even be aware of the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" if a very profound revelatory religious experience that convinced me of God's existence, God's omniscience, and the fact that God can and does influence events to produce the meaningful "coincidences" of what Carl Jung called synchronicity, did not put me onto this "Sign in the Heavens" in the first place. If I wanted to make a long and somewhat complex story shorter and simpler I could honestly say that I have very good reason to believe that God communicated to me that it is not just a "coincidence" that our moon is *just* able to totally eclipse our vastly larger sun and that, when it does so, it produces a visual phenomenon aka optical illusion that distinctly resembles the pupil and iris of an eye.
OTOH Even if I had not undergone that revelatory mystical experience that revealed the symbolism of the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" I, or anyone else for that matter, presented with or confronted by the same basic information that I have previously provided here could quite rationally come to the conclusion that it is probably not just a random chance "coincidence" that the total solar eclipse forms a symbolic "Eye of God". All of the major theistic religions, and plenty of smaller ones, attest to the Creator being omniscient aka all-knowing. The "All-Seeing Eye of God" is a religious concept that is quite universal and by no means limited to Christianity. Heck, it is even depicted on the Great Seal of the United States of America and reproduced on the back of your devalued "Almighty Dollar". . . From the standpoint of belief in an omniscient Creator of the Universe, who employed a certain amount of Intelligent Design in creating the Universe, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that this "Eye of God" is a "Sign In The Heavens" that symbolizes God's attribute of divine omnisience. In fact it would be somewhat irrational for a God believing person to mot believe that God is responsible for the fact that the total solar eclipse distinctly resembles an "Eye in the Sky" and that it does not symbolize God's omniscience. Only someone who is in complete denial of the possibility of God and Intelligent Design, i.e. an ever so devout fundamentalist atheist, can pretend that this spectacular cosmic symbolism that results from very precise celestial mechanics is nothing but a random chance coincidence that is utterly meaningless. I do have the advantage of having undergone an experience that is comparable to those claimed by prophets and mystics in the past but even without such an experience many intelligent people can come to the same conclusion after a rational assessment of the facts that are available to them.
"But...I do think that as the probablity of a certain occurance decreases, a rational, open-minded person would have to at least entertain the possiblity of the coincedence not being a coincedence at all but rather the result of something/someone bigger and beyond our comprehension."
If something doesn't seem probable given what you currently know, then you certainly might start looking for more information to better understand what's going on. That's logical.
That's not the same thing as just saying "there must be a powerful magical being making it happen." If you don't know what's causing something, you just say "I don't know," and try to find the cause. And if you think of possible causes, you think of ones that most closely fit within what you do know and require less unknown mechanisms rather than invent random and untestable ones that require the existence of much more that is unproven by or even contradicted by what you know.
For example, if you look in the fridge and see milk in there you know you didn't buy, it makes more sense to first assume that someone else put it there rather than to assume milk elves live in your ice cube trays.
None of which really has anything to do with the eclipse, since the explanation of the fact that eclipses look to some people like the human eye requires NO NEW information. It is NOT improbable, but rather thoroughly and completely understandable and explainable by what we know and understand right now. No new mechanisms needed - including gods.
There's an interesting comment (in an unrelated context) about arguing on the net here: http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=625181&cid=24328889
Um... I'm pretty sure religion should be fully inside the stupidity circle.
J Adam #187--
"I can't prove to you that God exists and you can't prove to me that he doesn't"
You can say the same thing about leprechauns and fairies. The burden of evidence is on you since you're the person asserting that God exists.
"the lack of consideration for others from people on both sides of the fence is extremely disappointing."
Don't you get it? None of this has to be personal. Strong, vigorous disagreement often occurs in the course of rational discussion. Intellectually honest people earnestly seeking what's true in the universe don't get offended when someone disagrees with them, even in strong tones.
If I disagreed with your thesis on why WWI started, would you be offended? No, you'd present a fact-based argument in support of your ideas. Religious claims should be no different. You have good support for them or you don't. It's not personal, or at least it doesn't have to be.
"Well for starters because I would not even be aware of the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" if a very profound revelatory religious experience that convinced me of God's existence, God's omniscience, and the fact that God can and does influence events to produce the meaningful "coincidences" of what Carl Jung called synchronicity, did not put me onto this "Sign in the Heavens" in the first place."
You're doing things backwards. You do not decide there's a god and then go looking for things that seem to you like proof.
You're supposed look at things that are, and then look for the simplest most plausible explanation.
Others have said you see evidence for God because you WANT to... and you counter their argument by essentially saying that very thing - you see evidence for God because you want to.
Robin Edgar,
Are you aware that looking at an eclipse is very dangerous? None of the ways that ancient people imagined god are related to a total eclipse, as anyone looking at one would severely damage their retinas. It is only in the last century that reliable imaging techniques have allowed humans to view pictures such as the one you cite (which is nothing like what you would see if you were dumb enough to try and look directly at a total eclipse).
Oh, and isn't a visible sclera unique to humans? Is god a chimp?
J Adam,
I'm sure someone will find reason to jump all over me for something in this post...bring it on, I guess.
Since you asked...
There are two kinds of "civility" (or "consideration," if you prefer). There's the civility that's positive (and necessary) for a functional society. It's a mutually beneficial force that keeps people from going around being despicable all the time.
Then there's a second type of "civility" (again, or "consideration"). It has nothing to do with the first type and is primarily appealed to in an attempt to stifle discourse. If someone has a ridiculous idea and you mock it for being ridiculous it's not considered "civil" or "considerate," but that isn't really relevant to the matter being discussed. Many beliefs are ridiculous, and mockery is simply a style used to demonstrate that.
The appeal to civility is at its core an attempt to force self-censorship by those who are unable to impose censorship from outside (as is generally the case on the internet). It's a way of ignoring the substance by focusing on the style.
So when you say "the lack of consideration for others... is extremely disappointing" it comes across merely as a plea for people to impose that self-censorship, and to not say what they mean. It doesn't further the discussion one bit, and in fact only serves to impede it.
In the eyes of many here, truth trumps civility. Civility, not patriotism, is the true last refuge of the scoundrel.
So there you have it. Consider yourself jumped all over.
@119
You're going to have to hit at LEAST 1 in a trillion before I'll believe your proof. So, uh . . . keep tossing.
Quebec as in Quebec City! Who cares about Montreal. :P
Lots of snobs there, with their big stadium shaped like a giant toilet... Oh well, our city's way prettier!
Apologies. Do you think God is still pissed over the Nordiques going to Colorado?
Pablo, quick search pulls up this article. I remember one that was more complete regarding lack of information being given to faculty coming up for tenure.
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/04/22/04222008wa…
but more pertinent, 7 or 10 appeals were resolved with a reversal, with tenure being granted. This, to me, indicate a pretty strong case that folks were not told what the rules were, and when informed and able to state their case, they could do so.
if I get a chance I will try to dig up the original articles from last spring.
Michelle @126 (you started it!)--
We are willing to accept (on Faith) that you have a nice ass BUT was it intelligently designed?
;)
Are you aware that looking at an eclipse is very dangerous?
Contrary to popular belief, it is perfectly safe to look at a total solar eclipse during totality. Looking during the partial phases, however, when part of the sun is visible can lead to eye damage and should only be done through an approved solar filter.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/safety2.html
Re #201,
Well, a lot of people have intelligently redesigned arses these days!
Well, I know I'm not... But about 90% of the folks here still are, with all these nearly weekly talks of foolish plans to bring back a team here. It's a running gag. I'm the kind that is content with watching the playoffs and see the Canadiens humiliate themselves year after year.
Well like folks said you can't just believe in something THEN looks for the signs. Second... Why is it a SIGN? Why isn't it just... I dunno... um, the moon over the sun? The corona's made that way, it's not an eye. OGod could be pretty pissed off about you trying to overthink such simple things and trying to see his eyes all the time.
Or worse! What if his artistic direction was to make a flower and not an eye?
You know, going "It's a rabbit" at a drawing of an octopus is gonna piss an artist right off!
Actually, Randy, I think your article reflects EXACTLY what I have been saying.
I don't deny that the standards now are different from what they were when the current round of candidates were hired. That's because they hired a new president, and gave him a charge to take the university in a new direction. He can't do that if he is bound to satiate the old policies.
If you want to change the makeup of the university, you don't do it by promoting people who conform to the old look.
Baylor just doesn't have the cajones to admit they don't really want to change.
J Adam, you got a particular view of this blog because there was a gnat attack, and everyone was annoyed.
I would agree that other causes should be examined if the probability of coincidence was very small but the actual occurence was very large. However, as was pointed out and/or implied, solar systems like galaxies are flattened out, and over time will become coplanar. This means there will be numerous occurences of eclipses for every planet with a moon(s). As was also mentioned, you'd need a very large moon to prevent at least a glow from around the perimeter.
That examination does not necessarily lead to something greater or bigger or impossible to understand. Examination leads to understanding. The etymology of planet even reflects this. "Planet"'s etymology comes from a word for "wanderer". This is because they weren't "fixed" in the sky to an observer. They also appear to change direction, from a ground-based observer perspective. However, those early observers were wrong. Not only do stars, galaxies and nebulae move, planets move predictably and in regular paths. The changes in direction are an illusion caused by our's and their's relative motions. Not a god pushing them around, "correcting" their positions, but natural orbital mechanics. Better understanding.
Dinkum said,"Actually, Robin, I was hoping you'd opt for internal consistency; my mistake. Bob L was looking for the Sclera in the Sky. You declared that to be the corona. Now you're claiming that the corona is the iris."
Nope. I have been very consistent Dinkum. Your mistake. amongst others. . . is being quite mistaken about what Bob L was looking for. I never at any time declared that the sun's corona was the sclera of the TSE "Eye of God" I have always stated that it resembles the iris of an eye, as I did early in this thread before Bob L even posted a comment. See comment #37. In fact you are the first to use the word sclera. . .
:"which is fine, but you're only talking about a particular photograph of an eclipse, nicely filtered and framed."
Actually most good photos of total solar eclipses that properly show the sun's corona as it would appear to the human eye during totality closely resemble an eye. It is true that the sun's corona does change its pattern and that it can become quite condensed in its equatorial regions but even then the overall appearance still closely resembles an eye. That being said, another quite remarkable pattern that holds symbolic value is revealed during such total solar eclipses. . . In fact, I was confronted by the TSE "Eye of God" in a very good photograph of the 1991 TSE taken by French astronomer Serge Koutchmy that was published in National Geographic in May of 1992. (Three months after my initial revelatory experience that placed a very strong emphasis on God's omniscience and the concept of the "Eye of God".) That particular eclipse was one where the sun's corona was condensed into wing-like streamers on either side of the sun, but it still had the overall appearance of the pupil and iris of an eye.
:I've seen two eclipses. Didn't look anything like an eye to me or anyone else. Looked like an eclipse.
Are you quite sure that you saw *total* solar eclipses? Unless you see totality you are not going to see the TSE "Eye of God" or the much rarer appearance of the occasional "Phoenix". . .
http://www.mreclipse.com/SEphoto/TSE1991/image/TSE91-4cmp1w.JPG
Well hon, all I can reply to that is that a plastic surgeon never worked on my ass, so no. :P
If I wanted to make a long and somewhat complex story shorter and simpler I could honestly say that I have very good reason to believe that God communicated to me that it is not just a "coincidence" that our moon is *just* able to totally eclipse our vastly larger sun - Robin Edgar
I'm very wary of people who think they get direct communications from God. A lot of serial killers have very good reason (as they see it) to believe God has communicated to them telling them to murder. In any case, why should anyone else take your "messages from God" seriously? The evidential support for your case for ID comes down in the end to a private experience of your own.
Wish we could get the backstory of the Baylor story...I'm betting it was political war with the tenure committee, mostly.
Oh Lingua Franca, how we miss you.
Lilley denied 12 of 30 tenure applications this spring...
How many of that dangerous dozen disrespected crackers?
Mushroooms look like little dicks, therfore... God?
Um... I'm not sure myself, how I got to this conclusion, but it HAS to be more than just coincidence that mushrooms look like little dicks, right?!
"me" @135...
Well, he might strike your retinas dead, so be careful there, pal!
Funk, if your dick looks like a mushroom, see a doctor.
TrueBob said, "This means there will be numerous occurences of eclipses for every planet with a moon(s)."
*Total* solar eclipses Bob? I don't think so. If that were actually *true* astronomy text books and other scientific astronomical texts would not be going on and on about what an "amazing" "astonishing" "lucky" "fortuitous" "extraordinary" alleged "coincidence" it is that our moon is able to totally eclipse our sun. From what *scientists* have been telling me and other people for decades now total solar eclipses are very unusual occurrences in any solar system. This is even more true of solar systems that might actually have intelligent life on planets that mights "have the eyes to see" total solar eclipses if you catch my drift.
I bet someone out there is eagerly awaiting his triumphant return to Baylor. He'll be reinstated with back pay as a fully tenured professor, but only after he gets a public apology from the provost, president, and board of governors for past mistreatment by Baylor.
Hey--a guy can dream, can't he?
#209--
I'm waiting for him to put forward an argument to refute. All he's saying is that the eclipse looks like a big eye. Great. So what?
It doesn't verify the claims of any specific religious tradition, that's for sure.
I guess he has his "personal experience" to tie up the loose ends.
Robin, your powerful emotional experience is evidence of nothing other than the already-known fact that humans have powerful emotional experiences whether based on reality or not.
Many people have felt deeply that Allah has spoken to them. Many people feel they were abducted by UFOs.
My friend Jeff Weaver heard the "future people" talking to him through his TV. He was so overwhelmed by what he kept experiencing that he blew his head off with a shotgun.
None of this is evidence for the evidence of God, Allah, or the ability of people in the future to communicate to us through our TVs.
Er, evidence for the existence of, I meant
"Why do the Dark Ages lie outside of stupidity?"
Ignorance alone is not stupidity. Stupidity is when you are exposed to facts that are supposed to educate you and you remain ignorant by willful effort. Most people in the Dark Ages had no such exposure, thus they could not be blamed for the things they did, which we call stupid only by hindsight.
good grief, conjunctivitis, no?
i think you have a discrepancy in claiming that the relatively rare occurrence of total eclipse is symbolic for eternal omniscience. does God watch everything all the time, or doesn't he?
i would also point to the continuous presence of the stars (at night) as evidence for polytheism. millions of eyes, that are alway there, winking away cheekily. hell, why not say that the sun is evidence for the eye of Ra too and be done with it?
Robin #207
Nice.
Really?
White halo, huh? Not referring to, oh, the white part of the eye, or anything, huh? Okay, sport, we'll pretend the goalpost was always there.
Plural? Name two, or rather two more.
Dev: Were these by any chance the same people who carefully preserved and hand-copied the works of Plato and Aristotle, among others, to the truly incalculable benefit of us all?
Yes, they picked and chose some of the worst of ancient philosophy and science, and desecrated by overwriting with their pablum any material that didn't fit their mind-numbingly limited thought.
Why not save Heracleitus? Why was there only one secreted copy of the Golden Ass? No, instead we get Socrates school -- a school that lost it's founder for good reason: he was a legalistic ass (on top of his authoritarian leanings).
The only unfortunate part of Socrates sentence was that it was public, creating a martyr -- rather than the Aristophanean fantasy of just burning his house down and kicking his ass.
Your heroes destroyed so much more than they ever saved.
That's not conjuctivitis... That's cherry eye! Poor dog in the sky!
Please link to this information! I'm very curious to find out about solar eclipses in other solar systems.
Robin Edgar:
You have cited a number of highly personal experiences to which your interlocutors do not have access. These do not constitute compelling evidence or reason for anyone but you to believe in God. Repetition does not make you right or your reasons any more compelling, but simply serves to make you highly annoying.
Also since there are billions of stars in our galaxy, and billions of other galaxies each with billions of stars, it's entirely possible that there are many inhabited planets which have moons just the right size to make the eclipse of the local star vaguely resemble whatever it is that life forms on that planet use to detect the eclipse.
And possibly many that have no moons but have creatures with imaging organs. And possibly many that have eclipses vaguely resembling human eyes, but no life forms to see them.
That's the thing... we don't know if our eclipses are unusual or common. Not enough data.
This is a creepy parallel to just a few months back in my northeast Texas hometown where an elementary school principal named Jon Lilley was fired because he was gay (not officially, of course, though if it were, it wouldn't matter given that TX has no law against that type of discrimination). But no thinking person thought that it was for any other reason. The timing was a little too coincidental.
# 190
Nice speech. But for the second time, you didn't actually answer the question. You gave anectodotal reasoning as to your experience and why it's relevant to YOU. Thanks, but we are already pretty well aware of why it's relevant to you.
What I asked you, and what you have still failed to answer, is why your belief that it resembles an eye is any more correct or relevant to anyone else than any of the other forms it clearly resembles.
Once again, you're using the argument: "looks like an eye to me... i had a "mystic revalation"... therefor god."
How can you not see the flaw in these jumps of logic?
I could just as easily say, "I was watching a thunderstorm, saw a cloud that resembled a hammer. I got hit by lightening and swore I saw Valhalla before I came to, therfor Thor". Tell my what's at all different about my story than yours?
Where to begin? Other solar systems? Evidence of planets around other stars has been available for only 10 years or so. Unless your *scientists* have some form of intergalactic travel that allows them to observe other stars that have planets which orbit them, it is impossible for them to state anything about occurrences in other systems, especially dating back decades.
Detection of systems with planets is currently limited to those that have Jupiter-size or larger planets. The state-of-the-art techniques employed today do not allow for the detection of moons orbiting said planets. Its therefore absurd to speculate about the probabilities of total eclipses in these situations as well.
So, basically, its my opinion that you pulled this statement out of your ass and your *scientists* are as fictious as your god.
"If I wanted to make a long and somewhat complex story shorter and simpler I could honestly say that I have very good reason to believe that God communicated to me that it is not just a "coincidence" that our moon is *just* able to totally eclipse our vastly larger sun and that, when it does so, it produces a visual phenomenon aka optical illusion that distinctly resembles the pupil and iris of an eye."
I'm assuming you're not going to tell about this actual experience. Probably because you want to keep pretending that it wasn't completely subjective, and since it's completely subjective, then there's NO reason why any of us should put any stock it whatsoever.
"Even if I had not undergone that revelatory mystical experience that revealed the symbolism of the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" I, or anyone else for that matter, presented with or confronted by the same basic information that I have previously provided here could quite rationally come to the conclusion that it is probably not just a random chance "coincidence" that the total solar eclipse forms a symbolic "Eye of God"."
I have never seen an eye in a solar eclipse until today. Probably because I have been taught from the very beginning what exactly it is, and therefore have had no reason to read any subjective interpretation into it. Anyone confronted with the basic information of their senses would conclude that the earth is flat and covered by a large dome. Thank heaven we have science, and thus don't have to be ruled by everyone's subjective gut feelings.
"In fact it would be somewhat irrational for a God believing person to mot believe that God is responsible for the fact that the total solar eclipse distinctly resembles an "Eye in the Sky" and that it does not symbolize God's omniscience."
Cart before horse. If one believes in an infinite cosmic cheater, one can justify any belief. That's precisely why it's bollocks.
Don't you all see! Robin is telling us Sauron is god. Makes prefect sense now, Orcs are intelligently designed after all.
"Detection of systems with planets is currently limited to those that have Jupiter-size or larger planets. The state-of-the-art techniques employed today do not allow for the detection of moons orbiting said planets."
Actually we've made advances in the couple of years and recently they detected a planet with a size of just several earth masses, and I believe at least one planet with a known moon.
But your point is still valid.
Because Jupiter is a much larger planet than the earth, it has a much better chance of "catching" the shadows, so total eclipses there are a dime a dozen. Checking my always handy RASC Observers Handbook, I count 32 Jovian solar eclipses in August, including 3 double eclipses - 2 moons casting shadows on Jupiter at the same time. Sounds about as special as finding 3 stars that form a triangle.
...I do have the advantage of having undergone an experience that is comparable to those claimed by prophets and mystics in the past... - Robin, #190
Was this "experience" mediated in any way by chemicals or electricity or sleep deprivation or starvation or really great sex or what? Inquiring minds want to know.
#234: Sounds about as special as finding 3 stars that form a triangle.
Waitaminute - how could 3 stars not form a triangle?
Robin Edgar is stupid. There IS no god, no heaven , no hell, no river Styx, no angels, once you get past the childish superstitions you can live a nice civilized life free from the fears instilled by religion.
By being in a straight line? :)
Robin Edgar said:
"In fact it would be somewhat irrational for a God believing person to mot believe that God is responsible for the fact that the total solar eclipse distinctly resembles an "Eye in the Sky" and that it does not symbolize God's omniscience."
Circular. Try again.
Robin #190
...I do have the advantage of having undergone an experience that is comparable to those claimed by prophets and mystics in the past...
*sigh*
only just now saw the "prophet complex" with Robin. Oh well... another afternoon of wasted arguments with a person who simply can not and will not accept that they just aren't any more freakin special than anyone else.
Robin... false prophets make baby jesus cry...
"Sounds about as special as finding 3 stars that form a triangle."
Indeed it does. Tell me more about this triangular shaped God of yours. I would like to learn to worship him.
Ditch the god crap and be free!!!
@aiabx #234
A triangle? The Triangle Of Zinthar?
;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecha-Streisand
Celtic_Evolution:
Yikes. I hadn't noticed that until you pointed it out. That certainly confirms the not-so-subtle scent of delusion in the air and explains why Robin thinks we should all take his (her?) word for it and worship the eye in the sky.
I think I'll bow out now before I waste anymore time attempting to reason with the unreasonable.
God is clearly a man.
Oh no, maybe god is a woman instead.
And this is sign that god hates us all.
Michelle #238
Sheesh, Zorb... haven't you ever watched Hollywood squares? 8^)
I think we have established that Robin Edgar has no idea what he is talking about.
I was thinking about something after the whole crackergate thread discussion. Some of the catholics dropping by were commenting on how mean we atheists are and unfriendly. Which of course is just code for "Be nice to our mysticism and stop pointing out it's flaws". But we do like to pounce on stupidity. I think the thing we should consider is many of those we are trying to challenge, take Robin here for example, are not going to change their beliefs because we can counter their argument.
I think we sometimes can risk spending too much time having exchanges with people who are never going to understand what we are telling them. Again with Robin his statement about *scientists* talking about solar eclipses in other solar systems means to me he has NO idea what he is talking about. So, at what point do we dismiss him because he's not listening and not coming up with anything new?
I guess my point is that as fun as it is to tear down their stupidity we need to figure out when enough is enough or we risk letting these people shape our discussions too often. I'm not suggesting anyone should change their behaviour but that it's something to consider especially since we probably haven't seen the last of some of those nutjobs. I'm sure Pete would have a useful analogy here something about a mini-skirt made of human skin...
Ya know, I've just been thinking about Jupiter.
Since it has bunches of moons ranging from planet-sized down to about the size of a bus, and some in odd orbits, it seems like there might be a very good chance that there are sometimes eclipses that from the surface (depending on how your define that on a gas giant) of Jupiter might be just about the right size to have a similar effect.
Wonder if anyone has calculated that?
Jonathan, I think the easiest way to deal with that is simply to go with the "is it boring yet?" method of determining whether it's worth continuing a discussion.
Since there's no way to know whether talking to these people does any good, and it's a good guess that no amount of talking does ANY good, sticking with doing only so much as you find personally entertaining is as good a method as any.
To Robin Edgar:
Your eclipse-resembles-eye idea depends largely on high-quality photos that show a much greater extent of the corona, and the detail of the radial structure, than is visible to the naked eye. Thus eclipses seen visually simply do not look like an eye. Have you ever actually seen one, or just seen photos in National Geographical?
Second, if a total eclipse were some sort of sign designed by God, why would he make them so rare that >99% of people never see one?
And suppose the moon were a different size so that 100% of people, rather than 99%, never saw one. Err, so what? What difference would that make to anything? It's just an odd little coincidence signifying nothing; such coincidences are allover the place if you go searching for them.
"I do have the advantage of having undergone an experience that is comparable to those claimed by prophets and mystics in the past"
Put down the blotter acid. I repeat, put down the blotter acid. You have reached your limit.
Indeed it does. Tell me more about this triangular shaped God of yours. I would like to learn to worship him.
Please send me $19.95, and I will send you an informative pamphlet and a bottle of Holy Star Oil. You can use it to anoint your Triscuit box, for superior tasting triangular holy crackers. I guarantee* they will not result in the creation of Mecha-Streisand.
*by which I mean they might not.
Kenny, is that you? Maybe a Kenny-bot?
To Craig (#248):
I've just done a quick calculation, and find that you are right: both Jupiter and Saturn have moons large enough to produce total solar eclipses.
This confirms (as if it were needed) that Robin is talking total nonsense when he claims that "scientists" have been telling him how rare total eclipses are in planetary systems.
Not too many more though; 40 tosses (total) should do it.
...
Has everyone seen "If We Had No Moon" on the Science Channel? It could well be that it really is not a coincidence that we have a moon the right size to form total eclipses. But only in that it may be necessary to have such a large moon to give rise to life. But even that is quite speculative and in no way supports the ID hypothesis.
"Put down the blotter acid. I repeat, put down the blotter acid. You have reached your limit.
You know, in the several times I did acid I never once lost the ability to think rationally.
Sure, I saw freaky hallucinations, but the whole time I was simply thinking "cool, that's a freaky hallucination!"
SteveM #256
No THAT is a discussion worth having... it's a really interesting topic...
@Coel: to Robin's defense (sake of fairness here), is it a full eclipse as in it has the exact same apparent size as the Sun or because they are wider than the Sun's apparent size?
Oh, I agree. And I do find many of the comments hilarious, some of the Pete analogies replies in crackergate were priceless. My only concern would be that if we do see more trolls we may see discussions that could quite interesting getting sidetracked by one of them posting one stupid comment. The discussion might still be interesting but we might lose the real discussion we were trying to have.
"I've just done a quick calculation, and find that you are right: both Jupiter and Saturn have moons large enough to produce total solar eclipses."
Is that accounting for the smaller appearance of the sun from that distance, and the various distances of the moons from Jupiter, etc?
I mean, give the range of sizes of moons, the ranges of distances of their orbits from Jupiter, and the variations in their individual orbits, I figured it was a pretty good shot that they would have close to total without going vastly over total eclipses, etc.
"I'm sure Pete would have a useful analogy here something about a mini-skirt made of human skin..."
LOL
Celtic_Evolution said, "Nice speech. But for the second time, you didn't actually answer the question."
Wrong. Actually I answered the questions posed both times, albeit not to the satisfaction of the questioners. . .
:You gave anectodotal reasoning as to your experience and why it's relevant to YOU.
Maybe that's because you asked, "Why is *your* interpretation more relevant than any other?" CE. I told you why *my* interpretation is more relevant than others.
:Thanks, but we are already pretty well aware of why it's relevant to you.
If my interpretation is correct, and I have very good reason to believe taht it is a correct interpretation, it is relevant to everyone whether they chose to believe it or not.
:What I asked you, and what you have still failed to answer, is why your belief that it resembles an eye is any more correct or relevant to anyone else than any of the other forms it clearly resembles.
That is not quite what you asked me but my original answer still goes a long way towards answering this version of your question. My revelatory mystical experience which I have good reason to believe was caused by God put a strong emphasis on the "Eye of God" as a symbol of God's omsiscience. It was only three months later, after a series (indeed seemingly orchestrated sequence) of "coincidences" that were very meaningful and reinforced the message that God is aware of what happens in this world that I was confronted by the alleged "coincidence" of the total solar eclipse and the even stranger "coincidence" that it distinctly resembled the pupil and iris of an "Eye of God". In fact I was so attuned to the concept of the "Eye of God" as a result of my revelatory experience that I did not immediately see the bird-like form that was visible within the corona. It did not help that it was
:Once again, you're using the argument: "looks like an eye to me... i had a "mystic revalation"... therefor god."
You are oversimplifying my "mystic revelation" aka "emotional experience". The revelatory experience was of a nature that convinced me not only of God's existence but which placed a very strong emphasis on God's omniscience and the concept of the "Eye of God". The highly unusual meaningful "coincidences" aka synchronicity that I experienced over a period of several months reinforced the emphasis on God being very aware of what is happening in the world. I was then confronted by the "coincidence" that the total solar eclipse distinctly resembles the pupil and iris of an eye. As I said, from a theistic perspective what I am claiming makes perfect sense. If you are totally in denial of even the possibility of God's existence nothing that I am going to say will convince you that it is true. I find it interesting that atheists can see the operation of human intelligence behind human events that are "too coincidental" but deny any intelligence behind non-human events that are just a tad "too coincidental."
:How can you not see the flaw in these jumps of logic?
You are the one making flawed jumps of logic, partly because you do not know the whole story involved as I have provided only the minmal basics of it. My logic is more of an evolution of logic than a leap of logic. or indeed a leap of faith. I had plenty of time to analyze what I was experiencing at the time that it was occurring and I have had more than a decade to further analyze it. Considering just how unusual it is that the totally eclipsed sun does resemble an eye it actually makes as much sense, if not more sense, to believe that this "optical illusion" is the result of Intelligent Design than pure random chance.
:I could just as easily say, "I was watching a thunderstorm, saw a cloud that resembled a hammer. I got hit by lightening and swore I saw Valhalla before I came to, therfor Thor". Tell my what's at all different about my story than yours?
Yours is somewhat assbackwards. Try this on for size. An ancient Viking has a vision of Woden in which Woden speaks at length about the eye that he exchanged for wisdom and relating it to the sun. He notices that Woden's raven is pure white. Following this mystical experience he experiences a series of unusual portentous "coincidences. that he has reason to believe are guided by the spirit of Woden. These "coincidences" make it clear that Woden sees all and knows all and can influence events. Three months after his initial mystical experience and numerous portentous "coincidences" he witnesses an actual total solar eclipse. He immediately notices the striking similarity to an eye but he also notices a white bird-like form within the sun's corona. Don't you think that it is fairly logical for him to perceive the total solar eclipse as a sign of Woden, and one that has signioficance for all Vikings, not just himself? That is a much closer analogy to what I actually experienced than your self-serving analogy that misrepresents my case.
Y'know, even we fellow Texans will intentionally mis-pronounce "Waco" (Way-koh) as "Whacko" when mocking the place.
That diagram captures it so well I'm going to use it myself.
@256
Congratulations, you're good at simple math operations. Not so good at getting tossing jokes though, eh? :)
"You are the one making flawed jumps of logic, partly because you do not know the whole story involved as I have provided only the minmal basics of it."
It's a flawed jump in logic to NOT include in an analysis data which we don't have, the nature of which we've not been told?
Robin, if you think 4 plus 4 equals 8, your logic is flawed, because you're not taking into account my reasons for thinking it equals 12 which I'm not telling you about.
I only calculated that at least some moons had a larger apparent size. This holds for Juptier, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. I haven't bothered checking all the moons for a close match, because that fact alone refutes Robin's claims above about the rarity of "total" eclipses. But given how many moons these planets have, I bet close matches are fairly common for these sort of gas giants.
Robin, the entire body of your evidence is "because I said so."
You imagined that God told you he was going to make the sun look like an eye... and miracle of miracles, when you looked at the sun it looked like an eye.
Seek help. Seriously.
Yes it is. I simply calculated the ratio of the radius of the largest moon to its orbital distance, and compared that to ratio of the radius of the sun to the planet's orbital distance. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune (and indeed Pluto if you count that), all have moons large enough to produce total eclipses.
I'm not actually posting this for Robin's sake, since he's a wackaloon who's beyond hope, but an old post of Phil Plait's in Discover is similar evidence of intelligent design (for those who have eyes to see), and indisputable proof that Hanuman created the cosmos.
Deny that, atheists!
Oops, silly me. Hanuman didn't design the cosmos, Allah did. And He left His Divine signature everywhere, for those who can see.
Coel said, "I've just done a quick calculation, and find that you are right: both Jupiter and Saturn have moons large enough to produce total solar eclipses.
This confirms (as if it were needed) that Robin is talking total nonsense when he claims that "scientists" have been telling him how rare total eclipses are in planetary systems."
Well that's some leap of logic Coel. . . Just because someone posting here does "a quick calculation" that suggests that Jupiter and Saturn have moons large enough to produce total solar eclipses in no way means that professional astronomers aka *scientists* have not been telling the public that *our* total solar eclipse is a "coincidence" (usally prefixed with adjectives like "amazing", "astonishing", "extraordinary" etc.) that is "unmatched" or "unique" in our solar system. Here are just a few online examples gleaned from a quick Google search -
Total eclipses of the Sun are the result of an *amazing coincidence*. The Sun's diameter is about 1,394,000 km or 400 times larger than that of the Moon (3,476 km), but the average distance to the Sun is also about 400 times larger than that of the Moon. So, the two objects appear in the sky with nearly the same size.
Due to this *coincidence*, we enjoy the marvelous phenomena of the total solar eclipses, which we explore in this article. This *coincidence* is also *unique in our Solar System*; there are over 150 moons in the Solar System; but *none* looks similar in size to the Sun as seen in the sky of its parent planet!
Well, through an *amazing coincidence* in geometry, every few years the Moon blocks out the Sun creating a solar eclipse. The Sun is 400 times the size of the Moon, and 400 times as distant, so they appear to be the same size when viewed from Earth.
An eclipse reveals one of the more *astonishing coincidences* in the natural world: seen from Earth, the Moon's disk almost perfectly matches the size of the Sun's disk. - from the Planetary Society no less)
The diameter of the Sun is approximately 400 times larger than that of the Moon, but when you look at the Sun or the Moon from Earth, they appear to be the same size. This is because the Sun is almost 400 times farther away. A strange *cosmic coincidence*. - from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
I could provide dozens of such examples including plenty from university level astronoimy text-books. It looks like someone has miscalculated or is misinformed. If it is all of these scientific publications then they have been misinforming the public for decades. . .
Hey I've been away from the computer for a few days. Anything interesting happen?
Nope, I was right the first time. Hanuman is The One.
Actually come to think of it, the fact that the positions of the sun, moon and earth line up precisely as needed to make the moon look like a crescent from earth for several days each month, from everywhere on Earth, is powerful evidence of the existence of Allah.
Allah sneezes on your pathetic fleeting solar eclipses.
To Robin Edgar,
Sure, some astronomy texts do remark on the coincidence of the moon and sun's apparent size being similar. But so what? It's not that unlikely a coincidence, just a little quirk. And some of the moons of Jupiter are indeed fairly close also. Big deal.
Oh yeah, and it still doesn't look like an eye. Have you actually seen a total eclipse? Not just looked at photos?
My revelatory mystical experience which I have good reason to believe was caused by God put a strong emphasis on the "Eye of God" as a symbol of God's omsiscience.
People, please stay away from the brown acid!!!!
And still robin, it is not evidence of ID.
Please provide them. We've got the time and the forum.
Sorry, but I must disagree with the diagram. I think stupidity overlaps the other two much more than shown. :P
Holy Batshit Robin!
Coel said, "I've just done a quick calculation, and find that you are right: both Jupiter and Saturn have moons large enough to produce total solar eclipses.
This confirms (as if it were needed) that Robin is talking total nonsense when he claims that "scientists" have been telling him how rare total eclipses are in planetary systems."
Well that's some leap of logic Coel. . . Just because someone posting here does "a quick calculation" that suggests that Jupiter and Saturn have moons large enough to produce total solar eclipses in no way means that I am "talking total nonsense" when I assert that professional astronomers aka *scientists* have been repeatedly telling the public that *our* total solar eclipse is a "coincidence" (usally prefixed with adjectives like "amazing", "astonishing", "extraordinary" etc.) that is "unmatched" or "unique" in our solar system. Here are just a few online examples gleaned from a quick Google search -
Total eclipses of the Sun are the result of an *amazing coincidence*. The Sun's diameter is about 1,394,000 km or 400 times larger than that of the Moon (3,476 km), but the average distance to the Sun is also about 400 times larger than that of the Moon. So, the two objects appear in the sky with nearly the same size.
Due to this *coincidence*, we enjoy the marvelous phenomena of the total solar eclipses, which we explore in this article. This *coincidence* is also *unique in our Solar System*; there are over 150 moons in the Solar System; but *none* looks similar in size to the Sun as seen in the sky of its parent planet!
Well, through an *amazing coincidence* in geometry, every few years the Moon blocks out the Sun creating a solar eclipse. The Sun is 400 times the size of the Moon, and 400 times as distant, so they appear to be the same size when viewed from Earth.
An eclipse reveals one of the more *astonishing coincidences* in the natural world: seen from Earth, the Moon's disk almost perfectly matches the size of the Sun's disk. - from the Planetary Society no less)
The diameter of the Sun is approximately 400 times larger than that of the Moon, but when you look at the Sun or the Moon from Earth, they appear to be the same size. This is because the Sun is almost 400 times farther away. A strange *cosmic coincidence*. - from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
I could provide dozens more such examples, including plenty from university level astronomy text-books. It is not me who is "talking total nonsense", it is either you or it is all of these scientific publications. . . If it is in fact the latter scenario then astronomers have been misinforming the public for decades. Of course it would not be the first time that scientists have been found to be "talking total nonsense" would it Coel? For myself I will continue to take the word of the astronomers that the total solar eclipse is an "amazing coincidence" that is "unique in our Solar System" until such a time as they are proven to be "talking total nonsense". . .
Since there is only one Sun and one Moon involved in the eclipse God's Eye miracle, the god who created them cannot be Yahweh, since He is said to have two (made in Man's image, or something like that). Further, since eclipses often caused fear and terror in ancient peoples, even Robin cannot deny that those who have eyes to see cannot mistake the eclipse for anything but evidence of the intelligent design of Deino (Hesiod, who actually existed unlike some other 'historians' I could name, reports that Deino means 'dread'), sister of Enys, Pemphredo, who together make up the Graeae. Further evidence of the Graeae? How about the trifoil shamrock, or clover? The three lobes of the trilobite? Look, even the Nazca of Peru were aware of the trinary nature of the Intelligent Designer, hence this.
Sounds like Robin stepped right out of a Niven and Pournelle novel...
Robin, if your comment looks like it was rejected, don't post it again. Hit the back arrow and refresh. it will show up.
Reading your same comment twice could induce headaches.
Holy Sonshine, Robin is RIGHT!!!, check it out
It can't all be coincident, things are getting creepy around here.
I'm off to see the Dark Knight. I love Texas, our movie megaplex serves drinks, no shit!!!
-------------------------
Bill Donahue pwn3d, Sam Harris critiqued, New Atheists
for Dummies pt 6
Look Robin, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune all have some moons that are big enough to produce total solar eclipses, and some moons that are too small for this. So what's the big deal that one planet happens to have a moon that is just big enough to produce a total eclipse? A quirky coincidence, yes. A very unlikely coincide, no. A significant coincidence, no.
Robin Edgar:
I can't bring myself to try to "debate" you anymore as you are, it is now quite obvious, actually mentally ill. I'm sincere when I say this: please seek professional psychiatric help. You need it desperately.
Best of luck in future,
KM.
I first heard this on UD while looking for a story to troll. Dembski has got what is, by his standards only, a gigantic hard-on over this story.
Perhaps it's another example of someone being "expelled" as a way of not allowing intelligence.
Robin "ROTFLMAO! And what do you suppose the sun's corona is Bob, if not a white halo?"
The eye white Robin, I was talking about the eye whites. Do keep up here. Last I checked eye whites are _outside_ the iris.
Robin "BTW You'll never guess what celestial phenomena inspired ancient cultures to depict their gods or holy men with halos around their heads. . ."
(rolls eyes) Probably better than you; Sun dogs/ parhelion. That's why I mentioned a halo Robin; if a solar eclipse is a sign from God by your logic there would be a sun dog around it.
Or maybe just religious?
Robin -
Ditto KM #288.
Filing under "prophet complex", lack of reasoning skills beyond "looks like it to me" and "cause god said so", and "thinks 'figure it out yourself' is an answer".
Filed. Moving on.
Hot damn! Robin is a gushing geyser of fresh 'tard! I've submitted several of his nuggets (gobbets?) to Fundies Say the Darndest Things. :)
To give a total eclipse, the moon must cross the plane containing the planet and sun and have an angular size greater than that of the sun.
No magic there, doofus. You want a magic eye, buy a poster.
If acid wasn't too much, try smoking Salvia divinorum. Extra-extra-ordinary hallucinations of short duration. At your own risk. You might conceive of multiple realities, but in the end, it's all back to the observable reality. Another fine reason to discount personal revelation.
And something else, Robin, even if there was a sundog around a eclipse it still would mean nothing. Human brains are wired up to look for faces so we will see them even when they are aren't there.
Doofus. Hot springs aren't celestial.
::Robin "ROTFLMAO! And what do you suppose the sun's corona is Bob, if not a white halo?"
:The eye white Robin, I was talking about the eye whites. Do keep up here. Last I checked eye whites are _outside_ the iris.
The last time I checked the sclera aka the white of the eye does not look much like a halo Bob. . . You said, "Anyway if "god" really wanted to us to see an eye there would be a white halo around it." If you meant really meant "eye whites" "outside the iris" perhaps you should have said so instead of referring to a "white halo" which is a common way to describe the sun's corona which forms the "iris" of the total solar eclipse "Eye of God".
::Robin "BTW You'll never guess what celestial phenomena inspired ancient cultures to depict their gods or holy men with halos around their heads. . ."
:(rolls eyes) Probably better than you; Sun dogs/ parhelion. That's why I mentioned a halo Robin; if a solar eclipse is a sign from God by your logic there would be a sun dog around it.
No that would be your bizarre logic Bob. Sun dogs did not inspire the halos of gods or saints etc. Anyone who responsibly researches the subject will see that the sun's corona is the primary inspiration for the spikey rayed halos of ancient sun gods which were later transferred onto Christian saints. In fact I have seen a portrait of a Christain saint with a spikey rayed halo around his head in which a total solar eclipse with identical rays is depicted in the background. I will concede that the full circle halo that is sometimes seen surrounding the sun at a considerable distance from it may have had some influence on halo iconography but that kind of halo looks nothing like the white of an eye and is too far away for the sun to fit into your sclera-halo BS even if it was white.
What the heck is going on here? I mean, ok: there's been plenty of crazy stuff fly by these parts, and no doubt, in the minds of some, I've been the author of some of it, but something has seriously changed. Even by internet standards the volume of crazy has gone way way up. Within one week I've seen bouncy suns, solar eyes, and zombie crackers. I don't know how much more I can take. I'm having a serious "chariot of the gods" kind of moment. I swear I just saw an astronaut "confirm" that the NASA is concealing alien corpses for the U.S. government. WTF? It's like someone dropped a crazy-making version of the neutron bomb.
I need a nap.
I swear I just saw an astronaut "confirm" that the NASA is concealing alien corpses for the U.S. government. WTF?
That's Edgar Mitchell. He's always been a nutcase. In Eugene Cernan's memoir he reportedly reveals (I haven't read it yet) that they even talked about dumping him from his Apollo mission because they all felt he was a nutcase, since he was wanting to conduct ESP experiments, etc.
As a student at Baylor for the past two years, I witnessed the uproar that the tenure denials caused all across the university, and I immediately expected Lilley to lose his job as a result of them. I doubt ID was much of an issue, and even if the new president is sympathetic to it, I trust my school's science professors to stand for science just as firmly as they have before.
That would be Pinhead from "Hellraiser".
Dagenham? Robin is completely Upminster...
Personally the only giant sky eye I'd be worried about is the nasty mind controlling one from the planet Triton, but fortunately my man John Koenig confuzzled it so much it went and blew up. http://tinyurl.com/6zrftb Funnily enough Mr. Edgar's increasingly teal deer posts made me think of Petter Ogland, a Space: 1999 fan who would go on and on about how the episode "Ring Around the Moon" was the highlight of the series, while most other fans thought it was a half baked offering that needed another script rewrite or two.
I am guessing Robin read Philip K Dick's "Fair Game" and imagined it's happening to him.
Re # 205. First, don't take this as a spelling flame, but the word you want is "cojones." "Cajones" are drawers, the kind that desks and filing cabinets have. Believe me, I made much worse errors when I was first learning Spanish (one involving the word for comb and its near homonym).
Second, there is still a very real fairness issue. At every university I know of, you get a review every year. If you're on a tenure track, in the third or fourth year you get a comprehensive pre-tenure review and are told that 1) you're on track for tenure, 2) you're doing OK, but need to improve in certain areas, or 3) you should think about seeking another job before you come up for tenure, because it's a real long shot. Every university worth its salt has handbooks with the basic requirements for tenure spelled out (with a lot of wriggle room, to be sure). I'm not a lawyer, but this seems to me to create an implicit contract (actually, at heavily unionized schools, which I assume Baylor is not, the tenure expectations might literally be in your contract). If you get positive reviews, especially a positive pre-tenure review, then when you come up for tenure, find that the rules have changed overnight, this is fundamentally unfair and in some cases at least, probably illegal.
That such a high percentage of the appeals was succesful indicates to me that the president probably screwed up. If you want hold new hires to a higher standard, that is fine, as long as it is spelled out, but you can't ethically break what amounts to your promises to a faculty member at the last minute.
All that said, I suspect that this issue might have been in part a pretext on the part of the trustees to oust him and replace with him with someone of a more fundamentalist mindsight. But that doesn't render the issue unimportant. I am sensitive to this in part because my first academic job was a disaster; I was hired to do certain things, but judged by very different criteria when I actually got there. I left involuntarily after two years, and probably would have grounds for a lawsuit, but finally decided not to press it, for a number of reasons (not the least of which is having a reputation for suing is the kiss of death when you're looking for jobs, and I probably couldn't have gotten a settlement large enough to live on for the rest of my life, even if I had won). Some faculty members didn't speak to each other for quite a while over the way I was treated and it took a long time for the bitterness there to heal and for me to get over it. Multiply that by by 12 and you get some idea of the kind of problems that could arise in such a situation. Denying tenure at the presidential level, if all recommendations leading up to it are positive, is a very serious step, indeed.
Congratulations, you're good at simple math operations. Not so good at getting tossing jokes though, eh? :)
I got the joke, and didn't think it would hurt to contribute the simple math to it.
Can anyone determine whether the solar eclipse Robin linked to in comment #11 is due to a solar eclipse by the moon or to a chronograph? If the latter, then it is definitely evidence of intelligent design.
"If acid wasn't too much, try smoking Salvia divinorum. Extra-extra-ordinary hallucinations of short duration. At your own risk."
Believe it or not there is a place called 'Les Mentheurs' around the corner from where I live in the Plateau area of Montreal where one can smoke Salvia. They will be closing down at the end of August. For the record my revelatory religious experience did not include any hallucinations of any kind. Besides the initial "emotional experience" as someone put it the main phenomenon was synchronicity. Some of those "coincidences" would convince some of the most skeptical people posting here that there was an intelligence behind them if they experienced the same "coincidences" themselves. On an individual basis each "coincidence" was quite extraordinary but there was an actual sequence to the incidences of synchronicity that was quite beyond chance.
My dear Robin Edgar,
I must regretfully inform you that you have devoted an obviously enormous amount of thought and effort to constructing an enormous edifice of logic based on an erroneous primary assumption.
The iris of an eye is an opaque structure that blocks light out. The pupil of an eye is a transparent structure that lets light in.
The sun/moon alignment of which you speak acts in the opposite manner.
It is therefore nothing like an eye. It does not look like an eye. It does not look like a metaphor of an eye. It does not look like a simile of a metaphor of an allegory of an oblique reference to an eye.
I am sorry to have to tell you this, but you have wasted your life. Fortunately, it is not too late for you. You have many more years remaining to pursue more fruitful intellectual adventures. I wish you luck.
Robin,
This is too much to be mere "coincidence", it's another synchronicity. The likelihood of you posting here, that I would follow the thread, the discussion wandering into hallucinations, my recommendation for salvia, and the ready availability of same in your proximity tells me that god wants you to go smoke some there, ASAP, then stare at the sun. I mean really, what are the odds?
That picture is proof that gawd sent PZ a cracker. See it falling out of the sky. Silly wabbits!
Robin Edgar at 37 said:
"see if you can figure out what the theological and Intelligent Design implications of the total solar eclipse distinctly resembling the pupil and iris of an eye are Larry."
There are none. It is simply the effect of light scattering, and the evolved human brain chalking up a false positive, "seeing" something which isn't there. A healthy dose of reading some psychology, and perhaps evolutionary theory might be in order. Definitely something on the optics of lenses.
Pablo, (sorry all the id crap interrupts our conversation)
yes, the pres needed to move the university in a new direction, but clearly he did a very bad job of getting departments on board and helping mentor NEW faculty to be successful. If the pres feels the need to overrule 40% of the decisions, something is wrong. He even admitted something was wrong. I am sure there would have been ways to implement changes (even denying tenure conditionally to allow those folks to come along). He failed in his leadership of the faculty.
Robin: "As *your* homework assignment, see if you can figure out what the theological and Intelligent Design implications of the total solar eclipse distinctly resembling the pupil and iris of an eye are Larry. . ."
Robin...you don't think your god is watching you...do you?
amphiox #310
Flame of the Month, ROTFLMAO
thanks
There is only one Supreme Being aka Creator of the Universe and I have good reason to believe that it is very much aware of everyone. Divine omniscience goes well beyond just "watching".
BTW There wouldn't be any "id crap" posted here if P. Z. Myers had refrained from posting the diagram that crapped on ID. . .
@amphiox Most people see and acknowledge the distinct similarity in appearance of the totally eclipsed sun to the pupil and iris of an eye when it is pointed out to them. Being purely symbolic "eye" it doesn't have to function like an eye. It just has to look like one, and it does, no matter how much you would like to deny that fact that is staring you in the face.
:I am sorry to have to tell you this, but you have wasted your life.
Oh really. And what do you know about my life to brazenly assert that I have wasted it?
:Fortunately, it is not too late for you. You have many more years remaining to pursue more fruitful intellectual adventures. I wish you luck.
You'd be surprised just what a fruitful intellectual adventure it is to study how total solar eclipses have influenced human culture for thousands of years, regardless of whether or not God is part of that equation. The religious symbolism that is perceivable during total solar eclipses had a very significant influence on the religious beliefs and practices of ancient humanity and the study of this can be smething of a science unto itself even though it is probably best seen as a branch of anthropology. I like to call it eclipsology. There is no more waste in pursuing the intellectual adventure of eclipsology than a good any other academic pursuits.
Correction - There is no more waste in pursuing the intellectual adventure of eclipsology than a good number of other academic pursuits.
Robin -
I think you need more corrections... that still doesn't make any sense...
Ind Dr. Myers wouldn't have crapped on ID if creationists hadn't been wasting the last few years crapping ID on reality.
I don't know about Robin's big eye in the sky, but that Ceiling Cat seriously creeps me out.
Agreed.
Agreed.
If you ended things there, you'd be fine. Going from that to the absolutely bonkers conclusion that "eclipse proves god", not so much.
The perhaps equally and unintentional symbolic reference to "DIM Thinking" on Robin's page is what blew up my irony meter after reading this thread. That and the noted (but denied "psychotic" experience that set all this off). I too would cal Poe but....
Show me where I have said that the total solar eclipse *proves* the existence of God Rob. I have not done so. It can however be quite legitimately seen as *evidence* for Intelligent Design and a "Sign of God".
@ szqc The "DIM Thinking" referred to on my Emerson Avenger blog refers to the Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of unethical behaviors. There is no dim thinking in what I am proposing about the total solar eclipse "Eye of God". I expect that if P.Z. Myers or Richard Dawkins underwent the same experience that I did that they would come to very similar conclusions about it. The "psychotic experience" was not "noted". It was falsely and maliciously alleged by a fundamentalist atheist bigot of a "Humanist" U*U minister who had neither the grounds nor the qualifications to make such a diagnosis. This insulting and defamatory slur had no more validity than other aspersions cast on my sanity in this forum by people whose minds are too small to wrap their brains around the possibility that I might just be right. In fact, as a result of that malicious attack on me I made a point of being thoroughly examined by a qualified psychiatrist who could find no traces of psychoses in me and provided a letter to that effect. I might add that previous and subsequent interactions with mental health professionals, including some that were much closer in time to the revelatory experience itself, i.e. 1992 and 1993 rather than late 1995, never resulted in any diagnosis of any serious mental illness. Nobody here is in any position to diagnos me with a serious mental illness. Casting aspersions on my sanity only proves the intolerance and narrow-mindedness of some of the atheist supremacists posting here. I am not aware of any person who knows me well who believes that I am suffering from a serious mental illness of any kind let alone psychosis.
Pure Gold, Pz myers is well known for his black belt in debate. So powerful is his art he could defeat Chuck Norris in a fight by convincing him to become an atheist who would then burst into tears at the thought of life without after-life. Such Powers he uses to defeat his foes, more powerful than the most massive of exaggerated warrior codpieces. With the gift of knowledge and reason he is immortalized as the most manliest of men brought out physically by the shear number, breadth and length of the hair on his knuckles. A man being of the greatest example of masculine beauty. He exerts power over women using his pheromones exuded from his beard to make women throw rose petals at his path. Him being the same man that Stephen Hawking theorized if he were cloned and played a chess match with himself the universe would explode. During Halloween he retreats to his fall home which is a flying saucer running on the broken dreams of his fallen enemies. You are only allowed to get candy if you are dressed as any cephalopod. You are never allowed to look at his face because your head would explode because the human mind cannot conceive the level handsomeness and great hair.
The 'eye' thing is simply contemptible - circles look like circles. So?
If the apparent size of the moon were larger than the apparent size of the sun, I suppose that astronomers would still be able to study the corona. It would be visible as the sun went behind the moon and again as it emerged.
If one WANTED to think in the 'God did it' mode, here's another. The north celestial pole happened to come close to a visible star at the right time to make things easy for navigators during the European age of exploration. I probably shouldn't state such ideas openly, fundis might pick up on them. (want to know where Cain's wife came from?)
Why are people responding to the new (to me) crank/kook/troll R.E. who has engaged in wanton OT bullshit?
I scrolled all the way through, and this obviously disturbed mental onanist's used tissues of litter the entire thread - now over 300 posts!
I'm being to restrained. Dear Mr. Edwards, you are a religious wacko-fuckwit, which is your right under our laws, but is not to be encouraged and impossible to respect in even the slightest manner when offered up like some particularly loud and smelly bum in front of a subway station.
Stay at your own worthless site and leave decent people who aren't interested in your crazyass bullshit alone!
The shorter Robin Edgar: I hear voices.
"see if you can figure out what the theological and Intelligent Design implications of the total solar eclipse distinctly resembling the pupil and iris of an eye are Larry. . ."
Depends which fairy tale you're using as a frame of reference.
Maybe The Intelligent Designer wanted stoned college kids to go, "WOW!!! The sun looks like an EYE, man!!!" :^P
"Intelligent Design ... is an entirely secular concept that is not reliant on faith or Christian visions."
"I also have to say that this diagram accompanying the commentary is spot on."
Did you happen to notice that, in the diagram, Intelligent Design fits entirely within the category of religion? Maybe not.
Robin - "I am not aware of any person who knows me well who believes that I am suffering from a serious mental illness of any kind let alone psychosis." If you were mentally ill, such a declaration would be meaningless.
And since you have devoted so much of your life to this arid, intellectually sterile, and theologically meaningless study, perhaps you can answer the basic question:
what are the odds that such an eclipse image could occur naturally? If you cannot answer, then you are not providing any valid support for your claim that it is unlikely - except to cite authorities you clearly do not understand. Logical fallacies abound in your posts.
Hence the accusations of a mentally disturbed brain.
Professor Myers:
Your 3 interlocking circles bears an uncanny resemblance to a graphic my favorite uncle has usedfor years to illustrate his personal credo.
He dubs it his "trinity for living."
http://jimmichie.com/a_trinity.htm
To anyone who visits his site, please note: my uncle is 72 years old.
72.
seriously, you come here with a *fairly* crazy idea, knowing full well that the majority of pharyngula readers are sceptics, atheists, scientists and the like and you expect us to accept such an idea with literally no reason to? (and you rant at us when we don't accept it)
if you expect tolerance and open-mindedness, try taking dowsing to the james randi forums.
BMS #332
The uncanny resemblance is because they're both Venn Diagrams which have been around since 1881.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram
Robin Edgar wow! I wonder why you seem to have consulted (or been refered to) so many mental health specialists? I don't think very many people have a piece of paper saying that they're sane.
Actually the "Trinity for Living" thing isn't a Venn diagram, it's something made by someone who apparently saw a Venn diagram once and didn't quite get how it was supposed to work. No shame in that though.
There's plenty of open minds here who will gladly go over any evidence you present here Robin. The only closed mind here is yours, you seem unable to cope with the idea that you might be wrong.
as a result of that malicious attack on me I made a point of being thoroughly examined by a qualified psychiatrist who could find no traces of psychoses in me and provided a letter to that effect. Robin Edgar@324
Interestingly, according to Russell Miller's biography of L. Ron Hubbard, Bare-Faced Messiah (thoroughly recommended), Hubbard obtained a similar letter, shortly after abducting his daughter (and briefly his estranged wife) and fleeing to Havana. Richard de Mille (son of Cecil B. IIRC), who was a Hubbardista at the time but later escaped, told Miller that he accompanied Hubbard first to a psychiatrist, who smelled a rat, then to "a prominent diagnostic psychologist" who did some projective testing and produced an upbeat report.
Seriously though, folks, Robin clearly has bats in his belfry, but they seem to be pretty harmless ones, and as he says, the historical and cross-cultural study of reactions to eclipses (including, of course, efforts to predict and understand them) could be of considerable interest and broader significance. Quite possibly this study is a kind of self-therapy in his case.
He wasn't qualified?
Robin, please explain the difference between the following statements:
"I saw/talked with fuzzy pink unicorns"
"I saw/talked with god"
Why is one commonly considered sane and the other insane? If they're different, why isn't god a fuzzy pink unicorn making them both sane?
A hint: Most people do not hear voices in their head.
Probably because they're too nice (or too scared) to come out & say so.
Now, I have no degree in the field, but I don't think they have interventions for that sort of thing.
A fox can't smell it's own lair, as they say...
Certainly Robin appears to be a pretty harmless nutter, but he's still a sad example of the complete and totally inability to REASON that characterizes religious fanatics. It's that inability to reason, that startling lack of logic, that amuses me.
He's harmless. An illogical nutcase, perhaps, but harmless.
Oooops! Better take it all back, folks. Looks like Robin's right.
Coincidence? How could you think so?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/07/photogalleries/wip-week…
A planetary nebula, NGC 7293, is sometimes referred to God's Eye.
http://www.ucws.org/Images/GodsEye.gif
Mikewot-
No shit.
Thanks for the condescension.
And for assuming I'm a dolt instead of perhaps maybe making a point that you didn't get.
Shouldn't the Religion circle be located entirely within the stupidity circle?
Akheloios:
"These were the same people that burnt libraries."
If you mean the Library at Alexandria, the likeliest culprit seems to have been the Emperor Aurelian, while suppressing a revolt during the third century. The Decree of Theophilus in 391 mandated the destruction of pagan temples, but it is not known whether any books were actually destroyed at this time (and the claim the Muslims were responsible is a canard). Perhaps you meant other libraries? Which ones?
"These were the people who allowed nearly all of the works of Sophocles, Aristophanes and Aeschylus to be lost."
Who says? The Platonic and Aristotelian writings survived because they were studied, which is not likely to have been the case with the works of playwrights. It's easier to find what the culture most highly values, which is why you can locate Moby Dick far more readily than Israel Potter.
"These are the people who burnt people to death at the stake, or flayed the flesh from their bones, for disagreeing with them."
They may not technically have been the exact same people, living at the exact same time, but who denies such acts took place? By the way, when were the last recorded incidents?
"Out of huge libraries of hundreds of authors and millions of books, we have Aristotle and Plato."
Your reference to books is anachronistic. The material destroyed would have been scrolls; if I remember correctly the Bible was the first true book.
They saved more than those two, but even if that was all they saved, we are in their debt, since Western civilization would be inconceivable without them.
SteveM:
If it was the Muslims who preserved ancient Greek and Roman texts, then that's a debt we owe them. Nevertheless, it's beyond dispute that it was the Church that promoted such texts as part of advanced education, such that no educated man was unfamiliar with either Socrates or Aristotle.
frog:
If you're going to address me by handle, spell it right. And don't make unwarranted assumptions. The point, which appears to be enirely lost on you anti-theists, is that religion wasn't all bad, and is not all bad. Some are better than they used to be, and some are worse.
Webster Cook is alive and well; Theo van Gogh is dead.
Enough of Heraclitus was preserved to make you think he, not Socrates, should have pride of place, although I can't imagine why. I'm an Epicurean myself.
"I saw/talked with fuzzy pink unicorns"
Haaahahahaha! There's no such thing! You thought you could get someone with that? You silly person.
Pink unicorns are never fuzzy, the ones in my breadbasket told me.
I once made a similar diagram: http://jeffthefish.com/2007/12/19/inspired-by-indexed/
...the Bible was the first true book. - Dav Laurel, #346
Actually "bible" originally meant a library, or a collection of "books" - the word has the same root as "bibliography." It would be more correct, for instance, to call the Epic of Gilgamesh the first true book.
As to the truthiness of your "first true book" - a talking snake, a talking donkey, stopping the sun in the sky, a "worldwide" flood that was not noticed or reported by other pre-existing civilizations...the list goes on, but does not lend credibility to a "true" book.
Here's the e-mail that they sent out regarding the issue:
Baylor Board Votes to Seek New President
GRAPEVINE, Texas - The Baylor University Board of Regents voted today to begin the search for a new University President. Board Chairman Dr. Howard K. Batson said the decision was necessary in order to unite Baylor's many constituencies and move the University forward in its next period of growth and renewal. Batson said the move represents the Regents' acknowledgement of a need for unifying leadership as Baylor strives to achieve its goals under Baylor 2012.
The Board had hoped to transition to a new president gradually, officially beginning the presidential search in January 2009 and eventually replacing Baylor President John M. Lilley during the final portion of his five-year contract. Because plans for a gradual transition were rejected by Dr. Lilley, the Board will immediately seek a new president.
The decision came during the Board of Regents annual summer retreat, which this year is being held in Grapevine, Texas.
"I'm not a liberty to discuss the specifics of this personnel decision," Batson said, "but we believe that Baylor must demonstrate its commitment to excellence in all areas, including communication and the building of relationships within the Baylor family. Change is always difficult, but Baylor has a solid leadership team in place and the university continues to experience unprecedented success in many areas. The Board is confident that the university will be able to press forward and continue its progress during this time of transition. The Board is appreciative of Dr. Lilley's service to Baylor, which includes a variety of significant accomplishments."
Harold Cunningham, a member of the Board of Regents who was previously board chair, will assume the role of acting president until such time as an interim president is named. According to Batson, "Harold has a track record of proven leadership and is well respected within the Baylor family. He has served Baylor previously in two different vice-presidential roles, including Vice President for Special Projects and Vice President for Finance and Administration, and as Acting Director of Operations. He has also done an outstanding job in his work on the Board of Regents."
It is expected that Cunningham will serve a brief period until an interim president is appointed. After an interim is chosen, the Board, in consultation with other constituencies of the Baylor family, will begin a comprehensive search for a new president.
"For 160 years," Batson said, "the University's success has been based upon the collective efforts of the entire university community working together. In this time of transition, we know that all members of the Baylor family will ensure that Baylor continues to do what it does best - provide an outstanding education in an environment that embraces both faith and learning, delivered by the best faculty."
The Board will conclude its three-day meeting on Friday.
Paul Burnett:
It is apparently necessary to state the obvious: in calling the Bible perhaps the first true book, I meant the first collection of texts physically assembled in a way that resembles what we recognize as a book. The Epic of Gilgamesh may have been the first true recorded narrative.
I make no claim whatsoever as to the "truthiness" of the Bible.