General Debate 22 August 2012

August 22nd, 2012 at 8:00 am by Kokila Patel
Tags:

313 Responses to “General Debate 22 August 2012”

  1. Dave Mann (1,224 comments) says:

    Good morning all

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    The Greens have had a pretty good run in the House since the election, but Russel Norman undid most of the good work yesterday by trying to politicise the deaths of New Zealand soldiers in Afghanistan. The sneaky way he went about it does him and the Greens no credit whatsoever.

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/shame-on-greens.html

    If Norman had genuinely wanted to pay tribute to the service of the three soldiers and the sacrifice they have made, he would have joined other party leaders (apart from Peters) in speaking to the Notice of Motion moved by the PM. But no; he wanted a second bite. Not his finest hour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. MT_Tinman (3,205 comments) says:

    The day I saw the headline “Rosie O’Donnell suffers heart attack” I also read “Star is caught devouring planet“.

    Who would not put the two together?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Regardless of political leaning, I would prefer if all debate relating to the fallen soldiers is suspended until the funerals have past.

    I believe we should all do this out of respect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    I agree Hamnida; it’s a shame that Russel Norman doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Time to question the Afghan mission

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. nasska (11,589 comments) says:

    Hamnida (426) Says:
    August 21st, 2012 at 8:46 pm

    Debate the issue, not the man.

    Hamnida (426) Says:
    August 21st, 2012 at 8:55 pm

    Yes, play the issue, not the man.

    Hamnida (426) Says:
    August 21st, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    Hey, just a thought – Until the funerals are held, could we suspend all political debate and judgement on this issue?

    Hamnida (426) Says:
    August 22nd, 2012 at 8:26 am

    thedavincimode – Remember, play the issue, not the man.

    But??????

    Hamnida (427) Says:
    August 12th, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    I don’t know whether I would take advice from David Garrett on matters related to criminal law.

    Will the real Haminda stand up?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    I had a wee lesson in political grace recently, and was reminded why it’s not a good idea to jump in with a half cocked political jibe based on misconceptions.

    Darien Fenton posted at Red Alert on the migrant worker issue, and I had a dig based on “worker good, employer bad” assumptions. I was gracefully and fairly called out on this.

    And Darien offered a good explanation of ver view on business:

    Just so you know, I always defend good employers and businesses. We need them. That was one point in my post – much of the contact I’ve had has been from small business who are concerned that they can’t compete with employers who break the law. They were supporting the comments I have made in the media and asking me to keep at it.

    It ended up being one of the better exchanges I’ve had with an MP (including a couple of emails).

    So I learnt from this, I’ve extracted myself some more from Standard muck. and posted some humble pie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Carlos (683 comments) says:

    Boy Raped in Manchester Department Store.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19331202

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    Creationism is the worst kind of pseudoscience – disproven by every scientific discipline yet we have to put up with this bullshit in this day and age?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/7505051/School-faith-plan-raises-doubts

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Yes, there is no doubt New Zealand needs employers. Society might be a bit strange without them.

    I think we will still be debating employer/employee rights in a 100 years time given the inherent imbalance of power.

    I’ve only had a couple of bad employers, 90% have been great. From my experience, the problems often occur in middle management, where people have been promoted and power has gone to their heads. Far less issues with senior management and business owners.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Scott Chris (6,155 comments) says:

    I believe we should all do this out of respect.

    Pfft. Death is a tragic thing but a soldier’s death is no different from any other’s. Hell, that’s the business they’re in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    Re TC’s link…

    The philosophy, used at other Christian schools, encourages every subject to be taught so students discover how God made the world, and upholds and governs it.

    Science and culture modules are taught to equip students to recognise what the In God’s World document calls the wonder of God’s creation, and that God is the God of history.

    This deserves repeating: “encourages every subject to be taught so students discover how God made the world”.

    How can they teach science so students ‘discover’ that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    Further to that:

    Education Minister Hekia Parata would not comment, but associate minister John Banks said the ministry had received a lot of correspondence, including complaints about public funding of faith-based education.

    He would not comment on the trust’s charter plans.

    There is a potential issue if John Banks’ religious and (non) scientitific beliefs flavour his approach to charter schools and faith based education.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    @Carlos. Police are looking for two Methodists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    Creationism in school is an affront to education and borders on child abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    Interesting ????
    (source: Jo Nova)

    Big Green Machine – GE makes $21 billion a year on “clean energy”

    GE — A clean energy revenue machine

    GE is so large that its annual revenue ($150 billion) is greater than New Zealand’s gross domestic product ($140.43 billion). But GE stands to profit in solving man-man global warming, whereas New Zealand will just pay.

    In 2011 GE generated $21 billion in “clean energy revenue”. (GE Annual Report 2011, p 3).

    GE boast that their “technology helps deliver a quarter of the world’s electricity”. “We are one of the largest clean energy companies in the world” (page 18) “GE wind turbines, among the most widely used in the world, will soon power the largest wind farm in the U.S ”

    Not just a whitegoods company any more.

    In other words, they are one of the largest companies in the world which makes profits that depend on a climate of fear. How much would their wind turbines be worth if western governments pulled the pins on all the subsidies?

    Here’s how much:

    “Manufacturers of turbines and other components will shed an estimated 10,000 workers in the U.S. this year in anticipation of a slowdown in orders, says the AWEA. If Congress doesn’t extend the production tax credit, that figure will hit 37,000 next year—about half the industry’s workforce. The incentive, first offered in 1992, grants owners of wind farms a credit equal to 2.2¢ per kilowatt-hour for electricity produced over a 10-year period. Extending the break for just one more year would cost $4.1 billion in forgone tax revenue over a decade,…” [Businessweek, June 7th 2012]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    I believe Jon Banks’ views and influence on education policy are dangerous, especially given the importance of science and technology in building a future economy.

    I also believe charter schools do not have a mandate: They were not in ACT’s pre-election education policy (just some teacher bashing and stuff about ‘choice’); He wants them in South Auckland and East Christchurch, not exactly an ACT stronghold; and his personal religious views are no mixed into the policy debate.

    Why didn’t National offer him something like Minister for Auckland, Associate Minister of Transport, or Associate Minister of Police? I believe he could make a positive contribution in a different portfolio.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Carlos (683 comments) says:

    @ Brian Smaller Ha ha ha ha ha ha! I was thinking Baha’is. Ha ha!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Sofia (858 comments) says:

    Which is more unhelpful – Creationism taught in schools or revisionist Maori history?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    Creationism is far worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. cha (4,036 comments) says:

    Which is more unhelpful – Creationism taught in schools or revisionist Maori history?

    There’s been a link to the teaching of creationism supplied up page so you’ll be able to provide a reference to support your assertion that revisionist Maori history is being taught.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    I’m a little troubled. I began to realise yesterday that I’m starting to like Hamnida.

    Oh I know he’s annoying and tries his hardest to wind up ‘neolibs’ and can be deliberately provocative, but I’m finding it increasingly difficult to dislike him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    Having private beliefs in things like creationism is fine, we all believe in stuff that may not pass scientific scrutiny.

    But teaching creationism in New Zealand education system would be terrible, especially when dishonestly teaching alongside science purportedly with equal weight but with one overriding the other.

    It really is flat earth belief territory. Students deserve much better.

    John Banks should make it clear he keeps his beliefs separate from his charter schools crusade.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. backster (2,174 comments) says:

    HANNIDA:….. I understand that the purpose of Charter Schools is to teach the 20% illiterates to read and write. It is not anticipated that many will be thwarted from becoming astronauts and brain surgeons. If they also come to appreciate and live by the ten commandments then that is a bonus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    Teaching creationism is to either knowingly lie or unknowingly teach a falsehood. Either way – whomever teaching it shouldn’t be in the position to teach. They are either liars or, respectfully, too uneducated to be teachers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Scott (1,805 comments) says:

    The Contrarian- “Creationism in school is an affront to education and borders on child abuse.”
    “whomever teaching it shouldn’t be in the position to teach. They are either liars or, respectfully, too uneducated to be teachers.”

    Who is it that is hurling out abuse again? Oh surprise. It is the atheists.So much for liberals and atheists being the reasonable people in any debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    lol god forbid kids learn some morals and maybe some faith.

    a lot of people need faith to get through life. no reason to mock said people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    Scott, that’s not abuse, no one is even being addressed. It’s saying it as it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. James Stephenson (2,191 comments) says:

    lol @ dime talking about “morals”…

    Schools should be places of learning, not psychological crutch suppliers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. nasska (11,589 comments) says:

    Scott

    …”Who is it that is hurling out abuse again?”…..

    Read “The Contrarian’s” comment again. It wasn’t abuse….all he was doing was pointing out that teachers should have a grounding in fact as opposed to magic or voodoo. How would you feel as a parent if you were forced to have your child brainwashed with flat earth theories or naked tribal superstition?

    Facts & science Monday to Friday…..Sundays are for the sky pixies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    nasska – so true. Monday to Friday for maths, English, science – real teaching and learning.

    Sundays for church.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “lol god forbid kids learn some morals and maybe some faith.”

    So teaching the world was created 6000 years ago in 6 days by an uncreated creator teaches morals? Learning something that every scientific discpline has proven false is good for ones moral development?

    Interesting

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    james – how do you know what morals i have? cause because i fuck randoms and hookers does not mean i lack morals in other areas.

    creationism – is this actually being taught in a science class? or in religious studies?

    if it is being taught in science then yes, there is a problem. if its part of religious studies then its all good.

    i dont know what is worse, a rabid religious nutter or a smug, painful as fuck atheist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    @Dime
    They are as bad as each other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    @ Pete George – Banks DID make it abundantly clear that his views on creation were his own personal beliefs, and that he was not trying to force them on anyone, especially via his role as Associate Minister of Education. Of course, those who don’t like Banks or don’t like religion have chosen to ignore that part.

    Here’s the actual interview, courtesy of Rhema host Pat Brittenden:

    http://soundcloud.com/pat-brittenden/john-banks-is-a-creationist

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “his views on creation were his own personal beliefs and that he was not trying to force them on anyone”

    Yeah maybe HE isn’t but is OK allowing others to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock,

    But even after a sound sleep, we do not resile from our criticism of Russel Norman for a callous attempt to politicise the deaths of three brave young New Zealanders, before their bodies had even left Afghanistan on their journey to their final resting place. There is a time and a place for everything, and yesterday was neither the time nor the place.

    Why not?

    The lives of NZ soldiers are continuously on the line as long as they remain in Afghanistan. If one is of the view that no more of them should have to sacrifice their lives for what is arguably a futile effort and a mere gesture to our geopolitical superiors, then it is important that debate be undertaken immediately on the issue. To delay debate is to negate the legitimacy of simply holding the view that withdrawal should commence as soon as possible. While I’m ambivalent on what the government should do at this very point in time, it is nevertheless arguable that no more soldiers lives should be sacrificed in this campaign on our behalf for a campaign where voices on all sides question the long-term benefits of this campaign.

    Debate is not disrespectful: it is the defining feature of our democracy and way of life. It should not be cast aside on the specious pretense that it is not the right time. Now is the best time. If their lives are to remain on the line then our leaders should have the courtesy to debate the issue and if following such a debate it is concluded that they should remain then so be it. But they should not remain, and have their lives put at risk, simply because Parliament is unwilling to turn its mind to the question. Nor should their lives remain at risk simply because the government wishes to avoid the appearance of public disquiet.

    Whatever one thinks about our responsibilities to our friends and allies, military soldiers represent the people of this country and their elected representatives should at the very least be able to consider if those soldiers should be brought home. Respect for their lives is demonstrated by robust debate and full and ongoing consideration of the merits of their continued service in a foreign country. In my view the best tribute soldiers can receive is the continued dedication of MPs to ensuring no wrong decisions are undertaken for mere lack of consideration. No respect is demonstrated by restraining those voices which speak of behalf of people who are increasingly uncomfortable with these soldiers sacrificing their lives on our behalf.

    … in my humble opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. James Stephenson (2,191 comments) says:

    @dime – that’s not the point, and I really don’t care, but you must admit that whatever your personal morals are they wouldn’t pass muster by any of the god-botherers standards. Just made me laugh, given the context of the discussion…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. nasska (11,589 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock

    Given that the God fearing tout religious beliefs as having a ‘positive’ influence over the way a person sees & interacts with the world how can you be so certain that Mr Banks’ can treat his ministerial tasks in a totally secular manner?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    did you get touched by a priest or something?

    cant understand why religion upsets so many people so badly.

    did you pray to have your dad stop touching you and it didnt work!? whats the reason?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    James – i wasnt banging hookers as a kid. ya generally learn morals then and make life choices as ya grow up.

    Dime is an upstanding member of the community :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    Education .

    Following an earlier discussion I’ve found my sons’ Year 13History NCEA Level3 Study Guide.2007,ESA Publications.

    on war and race relations
    “The Revisionist Interpretation.
    More recently,a number of historians(such as Alan Ward and most prominently James Belich in the New Zealand Wars 1986) have challenged and overturned the traditional interpretation.They have shown that much of this view put forward by the dominant culture in New Zealand was false or mistaken”.

    “The Later 19th Century
    Marginalisation of Maori
    Maori were marginalised in the developing Pakeha society,that is,they were kept on the fringes of society,and excluded from real economic and political power,even for themselves.
    *Maori population and culture appeared bound for extinction,so could be ignored by Pakeha
    *Maori economic independence was destroyed by Pakeha confiscations and land purchases
    *On the whole,Maori were excluded from “mainstream” Pakeha settler society and government.”

    The tenor of the “history” as taught follows the black man good,white man bad theme.

    If anyone is worried about false hoods in education and child abuse re creationism I’d suggest there is a larger problem in the history department.

    No mainstream Christian denomination subscribes to literal creationism ,so I don’t see what the fuss is about. Other than to provide the usual suspects with a platform for their tedious anti Christian opinions.

    Bible study can provide a useful background to education and western philosophy/history. It’s part of our everyday discourse and history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Jinky (185 comments) says:

    weihana +1 Well said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. tom hunter (4,899 comments) says:

    +1 to Weihana

    ++1 to Dime – even though I don’t agree with the morality of fucking hookers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Scott (1,805 comments) says:

    I love creationism and I think it is all true. I must admit I wasn’t interested in this question as a new Christian. Then for some reason, probably divine intervention, I started reading a book by Ken Ham called “Evolution the Lie”. I thought he was a bit over the top to be honest. But anyway I read for the next six months everything I could on both sides of the fence. Now this is true. So don’t call me a liar (Courage wolf or whoever).

    I read stuff by Stephen Jay Gould, Dawkins and other books by evolutionists. I also read creation science and intelligent design materials. My conclusion is that evolution has not occurred. I often now ask people this question. Give me one good example, one well proven example of evolution? Something becoming something else. Something attaining new information and becoming a difference species. Something really different that would show the whole molecules to man idea is true.

    It is difficult to do. There are very few even plausible examples of evolution in action. So I think evolution is not true.

    On the other hand the notion that the universe requires an intelligent designer is very plausible. All around us we see design, we see life, we see complexity. The idea that this is all a product of an intelligent mind is very plausible. Indeed the idea that somehow it all randomly came into being is very difficult to prove.

    So I think creationism should be taught in schools. Evolution and creation. That would give young minds something to chew on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    Contrarian et all
    what is creationism anyway?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    “Give me one good example, one well proven example of evolution? Something becoming something else.”

    The fact you wrote those 2 sentences show you either didnt read anything about evolution, or, having read it, failed to understand it. No wonder you defaulted to “god did it”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. cha (4,036 comments) says:

    Ken Ham

    ~snort~ and Ray ‘banana man’Comfort is right too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    Creationism has failed every scientific test, produces no testable hypothesis and has produced no evidence.
    Check the link at the bottom of this posting for more info:

    http://thenzcontrarian.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/creationism-in-classroom.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. thedavincimode (6,803 comments) says:

    my 2 cents

    It’s a load of rubbish. I can’t really recommend that you take the time to enquire further.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “So I think creationism should be taught in schools. Evolution and creation. That would give young minds something to chew on.”

    Why would we teach something known to be false against something scientifically valid?

    “Give me one good example, one well proven example of evolution? Something becoming something else. Something attaining new information and becoming a difference species. Something really different that would show the whole molecules to man idea is true.”

    Evolution has occurred hundreds of times in the lab and in nature. The fossil record beautifully shows evolution as does genetics

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    Debate is not disrespectful: it is the defining feature of our democracy and way of life. It should not be cast aside on the specious pretense that it is not the right time. Now is the best time.

    If their lives are to remain on the line then our leaders should have the courtesy to debate the issue and if following such a debate it is concluded that they should remain then so be it. But they should not remain, and have their lives put at risk, simply because Parliament is unwilling to turn its mind to the question.

    This was fairly well covered in parliament yesterday, by Key and with Shearer in apparent agreement.

    http://yournz.org/2012/08/21/key-and-shearer-put-norman-in-his-place/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. James Stephenson (2,191 comments) says:

    That would give young minds something to chew on.

    I’ve got a six year old who would love to explain to you how modern birds are descended from dinosaurs…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. tom hunter (4,899 comments) says:

    So I think creationism should be taught in schools. Evolution and creation. That would give young minds something to chew on.

    Or perhaps a course in Comparative Creation Stories:
    Iroquois

    Long before the world was created there was an island, floating in the sky, upon which the Sky People lived. They lived quietly and happily. No one ever died or was born or experienced sadness. However one day one of the Sky Women realized she was going to give birth to twins….

    Australian Aborigine

    There was a time when everything was still. All the spirits of the earth were asleep – or almost all. The great Father of All Spirits was the only one awake. Gently he awoke the Sun Mother. As she opened her eyes a warm ray of light spread out towards the sleeping earth. The Father of All Spirits said to the Sun Mother,
    “Mother, I have work for you. Go down to the Earth and awake the sleeping spirits. Give them forms.”

    African Bushmen

    People did not always live on the surface of the earth. At one time people and animals lived underneath the earth with Kaang (Käng), the Great Master and Lord of All Life. In this place people and animals lived together peacefully. They understood each other. No one ever wanted for anything and it was always light even though there wasn’t any sun. During this time of bliss Kaang began to plan the wonders he would put in the world above.

    First Kaang created a wondrous tree, with branches stretching over the entire country. At the base of the tree he dug a hole that reached all the way down into the world where the people and animals lived. After he had finished furnishing the world as he pleased he led the first man up the hole.

    Greek

    In the beginning there was an empty darkness. The only thing in this void was Nyx, a bird with black wings. With the wind she laid a golden egg and for ages she sat upon this egg. Finally life began to stir in the egg and out of it rose Eros, the god of love. One half of the shell rose into the air and became the sky and the other became the Earth. Eros named the sky Uranus and the Earth he named Gaia. Then Eros made them fall in love.

    Japanese

    Long ago all the elements were mixed together with one germ of life. This germ began to mix things around and around until the heavier part sank and the lighter part rose. A muddy sea that covered the entire earth was created. From this ocean grew a green shoot. It grew and grew until it reached the clouds and there it was tranformed into a god. Soon this god grew lonely and it began to create other gods. The last two gods it made, Izanagi anf Izanami, were the most remarkable.

    There would be certainly be a lot for young minds to chew on their, particularly if the advocates of each were in the classroom together.

    Funnily enough none of those Creationist theories are used by scientists to develop new GE-based drugs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. tom hunter (4,899 comments) says:

    ick – bloody edit timing …

    There would be certainly be a lot for young minds to chew on their there, particularly if the advocates of each were in the classroom together.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    Heh; DPF goes skiing and driving a Beemer, and whilst his back’s turned for a moment Trevor Mallard score the SMOG (Social Media Own Goal) to end all SMOG’s; that’ll learn ‘im!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    Well if there must be a thread in religion, answer this:

    Please define false religion – Or better yet, define true religion.
    ~ Anonymous

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. cha (4,036 comments) says:

    Funnily enough none of those Creationist theories are used by scientists to develop new GE-based drugs.

    Or zap a Martian rock so that the emitted light can be analysed to determine its exact composition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. b1gdaddynz (279 comments) says:

    James Stephenson – That’s what got me kicked out of Sunday school as a kid; I kept asking about carbon dating and fossil records!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    “Creationism has failed every scientific test, produces no testable hypothesis and has produced no evidence.”

    If life is found on mars, creationism is false.

    Explain to me how that is not a testable hypothesis?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Also, you people do know that it’s perfectly legal to teach creationism as science, and that there are plenty of schools that do, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. James Stephenson (2,191 comments) says:

    If life is found on mars, creationists will simply say that god created it there too, since god created the entire universe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    James, ID would pull that off but creationism can’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    Just to play Devil’s advocate, ignoring the separation of church/state issues, etc…

    Purely functionally, what’s the harm of kids being taught creationism? If they end up studying biology or geology at a tertiary level, they’ll soon be put right. Even if they don’t, they’ll probably catch up. And if they don’t catch up, what’s the harm? An accountant who believes in creationism is not exactly professionally hamstrung by it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    Creationists et al emanate from religion. Time to go back to basics:

    When one person suffers from a delusion It is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion It is called Religion.
    ~ Robert M. Pirsig

    If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion.
    ~ Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard

    It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    ~ Robert A. Heinlein

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock, on a scale of dumb to mindblowingly stupid that quack is double barreled both feet right off the scale.

    It suggests that Mallard isn’t in the big team, they all can’t be that out of touch. Seems like a ‘look at me too’ from the outside.

    Shearer either endorses it with silence, or this is a prime excuse to deal with one of Labour’s biggest anchors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. cha (4,036 comments) says:

    Yup James, the fools will tie themselves in knots to support the stupidity of their biblical inerrancy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Ryan: was going to ask the same thing myself.

    I know of one Christian school that has had to start a class on evolution because some kids go onto medical school where it’s the basis of some theories. But other than that, you pick up the basics from the mass media and the sneers of your peers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “If life is found on mars, creationists will simply say that god created it there too, since god created the entire universe.”

    No, some creationists have already said a find of water and/or life on Mars is due to the Great Flood and water from earth leaving the atmosphere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Scott (1,805 comments) says:

    The contrarian – “Evolution has occurred hundreds of times in the lab and in nature. The fossil record beautifully shows evolution as does genetics”

    Well not really my friend. The fossil record for example doesn’t show evolution beautifully at all. In fact Stephen Jay Gould, an ardent atheist if there ever was one, used to despair of the fossil record. He said the gaps in the fossil record were the trade secret of evolutionary theory. He proposed that maybe evolution acts really really quickly in short bursts at certain times. He just didn’t see the Darwinian idea of slow and gradual change in the fossil record of all. You can look up his theory – “punctuated equilibrium”. Long periods of equilibrium with nothing much happening, punctuated by sudden bursts of change.

    Indeed the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record is very consistent with six days of creation. If God created all of the lifeforms in six days then you would expect to see in the fossil record the basic forms just appear. Like they do. Even Time magazine had a famous cover article on this a few years ago.

    Anyway God is real. He created the universe. We are all have to account to him on judgement day. Jesus is coming back. Get ready people.

    Have to go now. Lots of work to do.

    God bless – Scott out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Yup James, the fools will tie themselves in knots to support the stupidity of their biblical inerrancy

    Funny story, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy was so named so as to get a response like that from people who don’t believe in it. It’s called a shibboleth. The actual doctrine is much more subtle than the title suggests.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    Creationism always starts with the deceit that evolution means something other than what scientists mean.

    Darwin described a process of descent with modification. Nowever, creationists require new features to appear de novo. Evolution is the change in gene-frequency changes in populations due to selection, drift (and some other processes). You want to refute evolution, start with that. Not some creationist parody. Changes in gene frequency are easy to identify- and the advances in molecular biology mean we can highlight the exact gene changes in some cases.

    Evolution occurs at a molecular level, and because genes are highly conserved (unlike fossils which are rarely preserved), we have very good records of evolution occurring. Gene duplications are a common way for Kolmogorov information to increase. We have both experimental and empircal evidence confirming this.

    There is no magic species barrier. We have replicated the speciation of various organisms (e.g. Helianthus anomalus) in labs.

    The denial of evolution is an irrational act because it an observable natural phenomen. There is no honest way to refute this fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    Ryan: was going to ask the same thing myself.

    I know of one Christian school that has had to start a class on evolution because some kids go onto medical school where it’s the basis of some theories. But other than that, you pick up the basics from the mass media and the sneers of your peers.

    There might be some resentment at their teachers for having misled them, but then the same thing happens to people who discover socialism after being taught capitalist economics throughout the state-funded high schools.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    @ Pete – Mallard has now deleted his FB post, but he did so just a little too late. He was taking an absolute kicking in the comments section from a number of well-known left-leaning commenters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    I never cease to be amused by totalitarian fundamentalist atheists who want to replace freedom of religion with freedom from religion.

    Funny thing is, none of these idiots can tell you how the world and the universe began. Hell they can’t even measure historic global temperatures accurately or predict the weather from one week to the next. They labour under the delusion that all Christians take every word in the Bible literally.

    I’m reminded of them whenever I sit in the pews alongside a devout, eminent and respected Professor of Physics and an equally intelligent Emeritus Professor of Chemistry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    Purely functionally, what’s the harm of kids being taught creationism?

    Depends on how it’s done. If it is a part of religious studies, with the opportunity for kids to examine it and question it then fine.

    But if the article is accurate…

    The philosophy, used at other Christian schools, encourages every subject to be taught so students discover how God made the world, and upholds and governs it.

    …that suggests the intent is to place the belief on a pedestal above science. That’s harmful.

    Parents can and will teach their kids what they want at home. This seems to be trying to eliminate the scientific alternative at school from competition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    ” In fact Stephen Jay Gould, an ardent atheist if there ever was one, used to despair of the fossil record. He said the gaps in the fossil record were the trade secret of evolutionary theory. ”

    yes he “used” too (in 1977) but later in life he remarked at all the fossils that had been found since (1997)

    “If God created all of the lifeforms in six days then you would expect to see in the fossil record the basic forms just appear. Like they do.”

    The Cambrian explosion took place over millions of years – they didn’t ‘just appear’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “freedom of religion with freedom from religion.”

    You can’t have freedom of religion without freedom from religion.

    “Funny thing is, none of these idiots can tell you how the world and the universe began”

    I can – where do you want to start? Inflation theory? How the solar system formed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    I can’t believe that creationists still try the Cambrian explosion argument…

    Molecular phylogenies have repeatedly shown that Cambrian life forms originated in pre-Cambrian eras. We have pre-Cambrian rocks in Australia, Namibia and Russia that show animal life originated tens-of-millions of years before the ‘Cambrian explosion’.

    The open and empty landcapes of the Camrian, and the associated rises in sea-oxygen levels accounts for much of the proliferation of new life. Likewise the explosion properly is a metaphor for the diversity of animals that occurred, not its speed. That still took 50-80my to play out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. cha (4,036 comments) says:

    It’s called a shibboleth.

    http://pigeonchess.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    …that suggests the intent is to place the belief on a pedestal above science. That’s harmful.

    Er, no.

    What they are saying is that we take observable, testable science and place it in a framework where God is our first assumption, as opposed to taking observable, testable science and placing it in a framework where our first assumption is that there is only nature and nothing outside the universe.

    What is disturbing is the increasing tendency of non-religious people to misunderstand what it actually means to believe in God.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “What they are saying is that we take observable, testable science and place it in a framework where God is our first assumption”

    Then it isn’t science.

    What is disturbing is the increasing tendency of religious people to misunderstand what it actually means to do science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Adolf Fiinkensein: I know of a nation-wide church that had many of it’s pastors trained by a PHD scientist :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    TheContrarian: what does it mean to do science then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. James Stephenson (2,191 comments) says:

    I can’t believe that creationists still try the Cambrian explosion argument…

    I think Scott is operating off an out-of-date version of “How to argue against Evolution”, the latest revision seems to be based on “Science can’t show how life began”, Miller-Urey being proof that actually it’s impossible without god, and therefore Evolution never happened (or something).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    “Purely functionally, what’s the harm of kids being taught creationism? ”

    You mean apart from the fact it’s nonsense? You really think there is that much spare time in the curriculum? How do you “teach” falsehoods? And why would you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “what does it mean to do science then?”

    Tacking “god did it” on to something is not science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Tacking “god did it” on to something is not science.

    Neither is putting up straw men an arguement. I’d like a real answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. James Stephenson (2,191 comments) says:

    They labour under the delusion that all Christians take every word in the Bible literally.

    No, I don’t think we do, we just recognise that there are a vocal, well-funded and dangerous* subset of christians who absolutely take the Bible literally.

    Did you know there’s an organisation called “Atheists for Jesus”?

    *Obviously not as dangerous as the other “People of the Book” who blow themselves up with depressing frequency.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    You mean apart from the fact it’s nonsense?

    Yes. Give us the real-life consequences of people being taught creationism. I’m happy to sit here and let you know if your theories on the results tally with an actual experience if you really wish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    Taking observable, testable science and putting into a framework where god is the first assumption is begging the question for a start. Secondly it adds no explanatory power. Thirdly it puts it into an un-testable and un-falsifiable framework which isn’t science.

    “God did it” as a first assumption is not nor can ever be scientific.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. James Stephenson (2,191 comments) says:

    I’d like a real answer.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Joris de Bres serves someone’s arse to them on a platter:

    http://nowoccupy.blogspot.com/2012/08/joris-de-bres.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    I can – where do you want to start? Inflation theory? How the solar system formed?

    Well, if you can tell me what changed to cause an eternally-existent particle to explode, that’d be a good start.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    “What is disturbing is the increasing tendency of religious people to misunderstand what it actually means to do science.”

    Seriously, can no one explain how religious people misunderstand what it actually means to do science? I’m not after an explanation of how you think creationists aren’t doing science. I’m wanting to know how I misunderstand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    “God did it” as a first assumption is not nor can ever be scientific.

    I think we can agree that starting from assumptions that are not facts is not good science, or good debating.

    “God exists and is the first cause” is quite different to “God did it”. Creationists no more say “God did it” than evolutionists say “Evolution did it”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “Seriously, can no one explain how religious people misunderstand what it actually means to do science?”

    Taking observable, testable science and putting into a framework where god is the first assumption is begging the question for a start. Secondly it adds no explanatory power. Thirdly it puts it into an un-testable and un-falsifiable framework which isn’t science.

    “Well, if you can tell me what changed to cause an eternally-existent particle to explode, that’d be a good start.”

    That’s isn’t what happened so that isn’t a good start.

    “God exists and is the first cause”

    What created God?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    Trevor update:

    I put up a post earlier in the day that one of my colleagues, whose views I respect, thought wasn’t helpful. The nice thing about Facebook is that i can choose to delete my own posts. I have.

    https://twitter.com/TrevorMallard/status/238055787820376064
    https://www.facebook.com/trevor.mallard1/posts/273458876100036

    The not so nice thing about Facebook is that many people took copies of what he posted before he deleted it.

    I wonder who the colleague was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    “God did everything” isn’t really functionally different from “God did nothing”. It’s a bit like saying “everything is two inches to the left”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    That’s isn’t what happened so that isn’t a good start.

    Well, then explain what existed before the big bang.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    “What created God?”

    God is eternal – nothing “caused” God, God has always been.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “Well, then explain what existed before the big bang.”

    You question doesn’t make sense – there is no ‘before’ the big bang. Time itself was created at the big bang. Your question is meaningless.

    “God is eternal – nothing “caused” God, God has always been.”

    Then why does the universe need a cause? Why not just say the universe has always been?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    TheContrarian: your average scientist doesn’t do that. I’m asking what they do that I somehow don’t understand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    I@Scrubone – I am going out for an hour but I am happy to continue with this when i get back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    “Well, then explain what existed before the big bang.”

    You question doesn’t make sense – there is no ‘before’ the big bang. Time itself was created at the big bang. Your question is meaningless.

    Oh I see. Time and matter was created at the big bang. Before that there was neither time nor matter.

    “God is eternal – nothing “caused” God, God has always been.”

    Then why does the universe need a cause?

    Every effect needs a cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    Every effect needs a cause.

    Before everyone else asks… What caused God?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. James Stephenson (2,191 comments) says:

    @Ryan – no, in fact completely backwards.

    “God did everything” is a starting point, “God did nothing” is the extrapolated end-point when you see godless explanations for so much of the world around you.

    The only logically tenable place for god to influence the process is prior to the “big bang”, setting the balance of gravity and electomagnetic forces to allow the universe to function etc. Of course, one is still left with the problem of where an unimaginably powerful and complex being came from in the first place…

    Evolution is absolutely the only explanation on the table for how we came to have complex life from simple origins, ID/Creationism requires the pre-existence of fantastically greater levels of complexity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. James Stephenson (2,191 comments) says:

    What caused god?

    Well I’m aware of the Pratchettian explanation that sufficient levels of belief cause gods to exist, otherwise…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    “God did everything” is a starting point, “God did nothing” is the extrapolated end-point when you see godless explanations for so much of the world around you.

    If God did everything, then there is nothing that God did not do against which to contrast it, and so it has no meaning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    Well I’m aware of the Pratchettian explanation that sufficient levels of belief cause gods to exist, otherwise…

    No plummeting turtles here, please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    “Before everyone else asks… What caused God?”

    God is not an effect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    @KiwiGreg

    “Purely functionally, what’s the harm of kids being taught creationism? ”

    You mean apart from the fact it’s nonsense? You really think there is that much spare time in the curriculum? How do you “teach” falsehoods? And why would you?

    Or to put it another way, why do we never see the headline “Creationist Institute Finds a Cure for Cancer”.

    The rigorous quest to understand evolutionary mechanisms has on the other hand, resulted in millions of lives being saved. The predicted insulin catastrophe (rising human populations & diabetes rates was starting to outstrip insulin production form slaughtered animals) was averted basically becase we figured out to manufacture medical insulin with bacteria.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    “On the other hand, evolutionary ideas have been a positive hindrance to science. Evolutionary ideas about the development of our posture led to back treatments that worsened patients’ problems. Evolutionary ideas led to 198 human organs’ being labelled vestigial. Now, all are known to be useful or even essential. In the same way, evolutionists label large areas of DNA as junk, thus greatly hindering investigation of what it actually does. “

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    @scrubone

    That’s a complete and despicable lie. It’s also a gross mispresentation. Vestigial has never meant not having a function. Similarly biologists (not evolutionists) have been working on what functions different non-coding sections of DNA has for decades.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Chthoniid: I suspect you’re right regarading so-called junk DNA. Not an area I’m very familiar with, and the science has come a long way in the last few years.

    Vestigial organs – it would be interesting to dig out an old source and see what the origional claim was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. SGA (1,076 comments) says:

    @Chthoniid

    Srubone’s post is just a cut and paste from the CreationWiki – expect apologetics from AnswersInGenesis next :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    SGA: wow, you can use google. Yes, It’s from there – and for the record it’s a crap site.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    Pete George

    What was Trev’s original post?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. James Stephenson (2,191 comments) says:

    Science takes wrong turnings occasionally, not exactly big news is it? How many people died because people believed that bad smells (“miasma”) caused disease, before we cottoned on to the idea of “germs”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. KevinH (1,229 comments) says:

    Only in America:

    June 1, 2012
    In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins
    Highly religious Americans most likely to believe in creationism
    by Frank NewportPRINCETON, NJ — Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God’s guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

    Commentator Katha Pollitt says:

    Why does it matter that almost half the country rejects the overwhelming evidence of evolution, with or without the hand of God? After all, Americans are famously ignorant of many things—like where Iran is or when World War II took place—and we are still here. One reason is that rejecting evolution expresses more than an inability to think critically; it relies on a fundamentally paranoid worldview. Think what the world would have to be like for evolution to be false. Almost every scientist on earth would have to be engaged in a fraud so complex and extensive it involved every field from archaeology, paleontology, geology and genetics to biology, chemistry and physics. And yet this massive concatenation of lies and delusion is so full of obvious holes that a pastor with a Bible-college degree or a homeschooling parent with no degree at all can see right through it. A flute discovered in southern Germany is 43,000 years old? Not bloody likely. It’s probably some old bone left over from an ancient barbecue. To celebrate its fifth anniversary, the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, has installed a holographic exhibit of Lucy, the famous proto-human fossil, showing how she was really just a few-thousand-year-old ape after all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. James Stephenson (2,191 comments) says:

    @zapper – Keeping Stock has the screen shot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    Okay, I expected something far worse. I completely agree with the image he linked to. The fact that Labour Party members advised him to remove it says it all about the Labour Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    Now Trevor Malady says:

    Settle down people. Of course high income people use trusts and a pile of rorts to avoid paying their tax. It really pisses me off that people on not much more than the minimum wage sometimes pay more tax than millionaires.

    I’d like to see him try and substantiate that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    If God needs no cause then why does the universe need a cause?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    I Misspoke—What I Meant To Say Is ‘I Am Dumb As Dog Shit And I Am A Terrible Human Being’
    By Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-misspokewhat-i-meant-to-say-is-i-am-dumb-as-dog,29256/

    Seems to be something about people with names starting with T at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. James Stephenson (2,191 comments) says:

    What’s your point scrub?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    If God needs no cause then why does the universe need a cause?

    You satated it did when you used the word “created”, which implies an effect.

    Besides, I don’t think anyone seriously considers that the universe did *not* need a cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Probably the most sensible thing Trevor has put out for many a year

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    The universe, for all intents and purposes, created itself. It was it’s own ‘first cause’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    One reason is that rejecting evolution expresses more than an inability to think critically; it relies on a fundamentally paranoid worldview…. Almost every scientist on earth would have to be engaged in a fraud so complex and extensive it involved every field from archaeology, paleontology, geology and genetics to biology, chemistry and physics.

    As someone above said “Science takes wrong turnings occasionally, not exactly big news is it?”

    Indeed, the quote acusing other people of paranoia is pretty ironic when it theorises a conspiracy theory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    The universe, for all intents and purposes, created itself. It was it’s own ‘first cause’.

    Wow, that’s spooky.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “Wow, that’s spooky.”

    Not really, we understand the physics of it and the uncertainty of quantum mechanics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “evolutionary ideas have been a positive hindrance to science”

    Complete garbage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    What did it create itself from? And how did that ‘from’ come to be in the first place?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “What did it create itself from?”

    At the basic level of existence space itself is a quantum field of probability. The very fabric of existence is a quantum field (sometimes called the Higgs field) in which particles, known as virtual particles, are continually being created and destroyed. The universe was born from this field and under went a rapid phase of inflation.

    (This is extremely generalised as to be almost worthless but this video – if you have an hour or two to spare is a good start http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    “Not really, we understand the physics of it and the uncertainty of quantum mechanics.”

    Actually, I was referring to the way you walked right into this prediction:

    ” How do the opponents of theism establish their negative case against the Christian faith? Almost all attack four foundational principles of knowing:-
    i. Law of Non-Contradiction
    ii. Law of Causality
    iii. Basic Reliability of Sense Perception
    iv. Analogical Use of Language”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “w do the opponents of theism establish their negative case against the Christian faith?”

    Therein lies the problem, establishing a negative case isn’t worthwhile when you haven’t demonstrated the positive claim that there is a creator.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    TheContrarian,

    That doesn’t answer the how the ‘from’ came to be in the first place? (Nor how the Higgs-Boson particles are able to come to be either)

    I thought that science had not yet reconciled the partial theories of gravity and quantum physics in order to arrive at the theory of everything.

    [Not that I am arguing creationism - just pointing out that science has got a lot of answers to uncover yet]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    What christians believe

    satan is either more powerful or more intelligent than god.

    proof at http://www.thinkatheist.com/photo/satan-more-powerful-than-god

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “That doesn’t answer the how the ‘from’ came to be in the first place?”

    That is something that is unknown and possibly unknowable…though that is no reason to just insert a supernatural being.

    “I thought that science had not yet reconciled the partial theories of gravity and quantum physics in order to arrive at the theory of everything.”

    They haven’t.

    Here is an essay which I found helpful for a general overview:
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Inflation_theory_101

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    Will David Shearer cure Labour of a major Mallardy? Not a brain fart.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. SGA (1,076 comments) says:

    @bhudson “just pointing out that science has got a lot of answers to uncover yet”

    Yep, always probably will. Science is a journey rather than a destination. It’s ok to say we don’t know everything about everything, but we learn more everyday – including what we don’t know yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “It’s ok to say we don’t know everything about everything”

    Not only OK but honest, brave and inquiring.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Mallard is well past his used by date.

    One option could be to stand Stuart Nash in Hutt South.

    I also think Nash would win Wairarapa, as the National candidate is very weak there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    I believe Jon Banks’ views and influence on education policy are dangerous, especially given the importance of science and technology in building a future economy.

    That has to be the dumbest comment of the day.

    I don’t think John Banks views make a blind bit of difference actually…haha.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    I see The Contrarian is the new spam troller…Penny Bright run out of causes to pollute GD then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Firstly, apologies for the ‘Jon/John’ typo.

    I disagree, Banks is Associate Minister of Education. In this portfolio, he is trying to implement a charter schools policy that would make it much easier for religious fringe groups to run schools using public money.

    I don’t like the idea of this – I think there should be less of a focus on religion in schools and more of a focus on science and technology.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “I see The Contrarian is the new spam troller”

    Linked to off site resources relevant to the topic of discussion =/= spamming

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @Hamnida,

    John Hayes beat Michael Bott by 7,135 votes last year. Doesn’t seem like a weak candidate to me. What are you saying about mild Michael?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    Evolution makes you gay and commit suicide

    http://loltheists.com/?attachment_id=707

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Scrubone said…
    Every effect needs a cause.

    You are correct, BUT physicists say that we (material universe) doesn’t need a cause for it to pop-into existence. A proponent of this idea is Dr. Krauss.

    A Universe From Nothing

    I saw Dr. Krauss’s public lecture on this very same topic about 3 months ago at University of Auckland.

    Personally, I wasn’t convinced about his argument that if one waits long enough (ie, in billions of years), the the nothingness will produce quantum foam then therefore pop into existence the all the matter & energy that made up the whole universe.

    His argument is no different to biblical creation. Their differences is that biblical creation started about 6,000 years ago, while the big-bang creation occurred more than 10 billions ago.

    What Dr. Krauss is saying is that you don’t need a cause for an effect to take place. Any scientist who believes that effects can materialize with no causes, then he/she is fact is not engaged in scientific debates but religious debates, because it is exactly the kinds of debates that religious proponents are engaged in. You see the similarity here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. niggly (830 comments) says:

    Weihana @ 10.36am. As usual, another thoughtful and well considered opinion from you.

    And of course there is no right or wrong answer (to the questions you pose) because it depends on one’s stance on the issue. Which is why, I assume, you believe Russel Norman has the right to call for a snap debate. And that is fine, as an MP, Russel Norman has that right. So be it.

    Personally I’m with Keeping Stock on this issue. In my mind it is a matter of timing. To call for such a debate on the same day as the House had paid its respects does seem inappropriate to me. By way of a hypothetcial example, what if there had been some building renovations at Parliament and a ceiling collapsed a couple of days ago killing some parliamentary employees. The House then pays its respects and then a couple of hours later an opposition politician calls for an urgent debate on the deaths of the employees and the situation they were working in. Does the opposition politican have the right to call for a snap debate? Yes (sure). But would it be appropriate? Especially as all the facts need to be gathered and assessed? And families are still very much grieving and funerals have yet to be held? Personally I don’t think it would be appropriate at that point in time. There will always be another day for playing the blame game.

    Which is another bug bear. How many debates on Afghanistan does the opposition parties want? There have been debates in the past, so why another one – what’s so different this time? The deaths? Since when do the Greens actually care about the lives of soldiers (or for that matter, the lives of Bamyan civilians who will face increased threats once the NZ’ers depart)?

    The other thing is, Russel Norman has had many opportunities via Foreign Affairs Select committee meetings to ask these operational questions he posed yesterday. And what would his point be anyway? Have the Greens ever called for increased and better protection for NZ soldiers when on deployment? Ever? Of course not, they simply want NZ to withdrawal. So why Russel’s false insincerity now? I think KS’s commentary on his blog sums up Russel Norman rather well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @TheContrarian,

    Thanks. Interesting read and interesting – if, perhaps, somewhat bizarre – anecdotes as to how the conditions for the big bang might have come about.

    We owe Mexico a great deal!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    What a lot of the creationist type nonsense does highlight is the incredibly poor understanding of basic science.

    Mate of mine is a creationist and we spent many an hour after squash where I enjoyed poking fun at his arguments. He started bringing “scientific” documents and evidence etc. Of interest they had to actually start their own publishing companies to get the crap published and not a scientifically peer reviewed paper in sight. Poor bugger – he still believes.

    There is no need for a 1st cause btw – it can just be – nothing wrong with that in physics. Even Aquinas admitted the 1st cause argument was no evidence of god’s existence.

    Creationism requires all of astronomy to be pretty much b*****s.

    Evolution as a principle is so interwoven in to the biological sciences that to remove it would render great swathes of theory unworkable – ask an evolutionary biologist.

    There is no evidence of a god (or gods depending your faith) and there is an awful lot of evidence pointing out creationism is barmy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    maybe there was no big bang after all, more like a big thaw and a slow melt.

    “Think of the early universe as being like a liquid,” Melbourne University theoretical physics researcher James Quach said.
    Advertisement

    “Then as the universe cools, it ‘crystalises’.

    “The reason we use the water analogy is water is without form.

    “In the beginning there wasn’t even space, space did not exist because there was no form.”

    Their research rests on a school of thought that has emerged recently to suggest space is made of indivisible building blocks, such as atoms, that can be thought of as similar to pixels that make up images on a computer screen.

    Mr Quach said the standing model for the origins of the universe, the big bang, needed to be rewritten.

    He hoped experimentalists would be able to find evidence to support the theory put forward by the Melbourne team of researchers, that would replace it.

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/sci-tech/melbourne-researchers-rewrite-big-bang-theory-20120821-24j5z.html#ixzz24Envbf4C

    And that’s the beauty of science, it is always prepared to evaluate the evidence, look for new ideas and test them. Contrast that with religion which cannot, by its very nature, question itself and change in the light of new information.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    @Falafulu Fisi

    I linked to that same lecture above. It’s brilliant. Lawrence Krauss is great.

    @bhudson

    Yes, it is quite a read (I know because i wrote it :-) )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Contrast that with religion which cannot, by its very nature, question itself and change in the light of new information.

    Can’t tell if ignorant or troll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “Can’t tell if ignorant or troll.”

    Do you question the authority of the bible scrubone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Evolution as a principle is so interwoven in to the biological sciences that to remove it would render great swathes of theory unworkable – ask an evolutionary biologist.

    I know a guy who’s a PHD microbiologist. He tells me that evolution brings very little to his work. So no.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    dhimmi alert from Toronto. From the excellent Ezra Levant.

    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2012/08/20/police-politicization

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “He tells me that evolution brings very little to his work.”

    maybe not his current work but he is still standing on the shoulders of giants.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Still waiting for someone to explain how I don’t understand science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    TheContrarian (223) Says:
    August 22nd, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    “Can’t tell if ignorant or troll.”

    Do you question the authority of the bible scrubone?

    Of course he does, he just won’t admit to being a cafeteria christian.

    He no longer owns slaves, but can rationalise that away.

    He eats ham and bacon, but there’s this new covenant somewhere that no one’s ever seen, that excuses that.

    And, long after scholarship has proven a mistranslation that had “young woman” mistranslated as “virgin”, he is still wedded to the virgin birth myth.

    He still thinks Jesus was right to curse the fig tree, thus proving that neither he nor Jesus understand basic plant biology.

    And he is in awe of turning water in to wine, a trick any second rate conjuror can manage.

    He is definately not a troll, but he sure is ignorant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. wreck1080 (3,924 comments) says:

    I have to laugh at John Banks believing the world was created in 6 days.

    He is equally welcome to laugh at me not believing this.

    I once knew a ‘christian’ person who argued that dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to trick people from believing in god.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “Still waiting for someone to explain how I don’t understand science.”

    it has been explained to you twice. Attaching an unproven, untestable, unobserved supernatural being to your scientific framework is by definition, not science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    scrubone (1,271) Says:
    August 22nd, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    You mean apart from the fact it’s nonsense?

    Yes. Give us the real-life consequences of people being taught creationism. I’m happy to sit here and let you know if your theories on the results tally with an actual experience if you really wish.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing blood transfusions.

    Myriad examples of people substituting prayer for medical care.

    Justin Barnhart

    Age: 2
    Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania

    Died (untreated Wilm’s tumor)
    September 1981
    Justin’s parents belonged to Faith Tabernacle. They withheld medical care for his abdominal tumor until grew larger than a volleyball. Caught early, this type of tumor is curable 90% of the time.

    shmael Berger Belebbas

    Olathe, Colorado

    Died at birth (stuck in birth canal)
    2000
    Complications during birth can be dealt with, provided medical practitioners are present. Unfortunately Ishmael’s parents belonged to the Church of the First Born, which believes in prayer instead of medicine.

    Michael David Boehmer

    Age: 4 days
    Lake City, Florida

    Died
    March 15, 1990
    Michael suffered a hemorrhage, and lost at least a quarter of his blood. His parents put cotton in his nose and prayed for him. The medical examiner later said he had a 90% survival chance if he had just been given a Vitamin K shot.

    Desiree Camren

    Age: 3
    Cushing, Oklahoma

    Died
    February 1987
    The medical examiner said that her life could have been saved with medical help, but her parents claimed their religious beliefs prevented that.

    In every case, their parenst believed in creationism, along with a whole host of other religious stupidity.

    Real life (and death) consequences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    TheContrarian…

    I didn’t read all the comments before I made my comment. But it does highlight the absurdity of the physics of effects with no causes, which is no difference to religious believers. God had no cause but it had an effect in the creation.

    This absurdity in Physics originated because mathematics has taken over and philosophy has been shafted long time ago. Physics should be guided by philosophy first and not mathematics. When mathematics guides physics then one ends up with contradictions and that’s exactly what Dr. Krauss’s has ended up with. He is convinced that we (universe) just popped into existence from nothing. It means we had no causes. It is a contradiction.

    The mistake that physicists made is they treat space as some kind of rarefied object. Space is nothing. It is not an object, but just a concept. Einstein himself fell into this trap as well. He regarded space & time as objects (that it can curve), but they’re really not objects at all. They’re tool of cognition only, because they don’t exist. Can someone tell me what curve 2 minutes look like? How about curve 3 milli-seconds? Can you all see how stupid the idea of rarefying space & time as some kind of material object? This is the mistake that physicists made long time ago, and there is no such effort to correct this mistake. Rarefying space & time leads to equation that predicts time-traveling, which is nonsense.

    Here is a philosophical argument about the absurdity in rarefying space & time by physicists as some kind of object. Its a mistake and its wrong to view space & time as objects.

    What is Space?

    One has to differentiate between scientific speculation and factual observation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    I once knew a ‘christian’ person who argued that dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to trick people from believing in god.

    I think something like that’s been mentioned here before. Fossils are a trick to test your faith sort of thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    TheContrarian: you said, “What is disturbing is the increasing tendency of religious people to misunderstand what it actually means to do science.”

    You keep replying, “Attaching an unproven, untestable, unobserved supernatural being to your scientific framework is by definition, not science.” So what? Really, so freaking what?

    Answer the question – what does it actually mean to “do science”? What part of it don’t I understand?!?!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. tom hunter (4,899 comments) says:

    Gosh, GD really has taken a turn for the better today, with theology and evolution expanding to philosophy and physics.

    So on that note may I humbly add the following link to a review in Slate by Ron Rosenbaum, of a book called Why Does the World Exist?., by Jim Holt.

    Holt had a lot of fun with the String Theorists some years ago and apparently has not lost his touch: Rosenbaum has high praise for the book:

    Holt is just the man for the something/nothing detective story because he is one of those rare individuals who can speak three distinctive languages fluently: the advanced mathematical language of the quantum cosmologist, the sometimes-indecipherable language of post-modal philosophy and theology, and, oh, right, the third language: English. In fact he can write it with extraordinary subtlety. His prose is both suspenseful—his subtitle is “An Existential Detective Story”—and stringent in an exemplary way.

    But what tickled my fancy was that it naturally delves into the small war that broke out over Krauss’s A Universe From Nothing, The “war” began with a review of the book in the NYT by David Albert. As Rosenbaum puts it, the review was … let’s say, unsparing about Krauss’ claim that he had proven how the universe came into being from nothing—well, from Krauss’ definition of nothing, which as we shall see redefines nothing so that it is not nothing at all., and he quotes from the review:

    Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from? Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that. He acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that everything he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted.

    And as the quantum vacuum—and its fields—that Krauss claims is the nothing from which something emerged, Albert points out that the laws Krauss relies on have “nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.

    As you can imagine, this did not go down well with Mr Krauss! I’m sure the religious people reading, who are regularly informed of their low IQ’s by scientits, this will be highly amused at Rosenbaum’s comment:

    Staying classy in an interview in the Atlantic, Krauss called Albert “a moronic philosopher”

    Mr Albert is a quantum physicist and professor of the philosophy of science at Columbia and the author of Quantum Mechanics and Experience.

    Laughs aside, the whole “something from nothing” debate is worth talking about. Another of those damned philosophers also had a crack at Krauss in the NYT here:

    While Krauss could appeal to philosophy to strengthen his case against ‘something cannot come from nothing,’ he opens himself to philosophical criticism by simply assuming that scientific experiment is, as he puts it, the ‘ultimate arbiter of truth’ about the world. The success of science gives us every reason to continue to pursue its experimental method in search of further truths. But science itself is incapable of establishing that all truths about the world are discoverable by its methods.

    Precisely because science deals with only what can be known, direct or indirectly, by sense experience, it cannot answer the question of whether there is anything—for example, consciousness, morality, beauty or God — that is not entirely knowable by sense experience. To show that there is nothing beyond sense experience, we would need philosophical arguments, not scientific experiments.

    Krauss may well be right that philosophers should leave questions about the nature of the world to scientists. But, without philosophy, his claim can only be a matter of faith, not knowledge.

    Enjoy reading the links!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    Space is not nothing. You have completely misunderstood Krauss. He is saying that nothign isn’t in fact nothing anymore. Nothing has weight, “nothing” accounts for 73% of the universe. Virtual particles are being created all the time, from space. And they have been measured.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    ““Attaching an unproven, untestable, unobserved supernatural being to your scientific framework is by definition, not science.”

    What more do you want – something supernatural like a god/s is, by definition, not science.

    What are you misunderstanding?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    Yeah why cant scrubone just make stuff up and call it science?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing blood transfusions.

    Myriad examples of people substituting prayer for medical care.

    Getting really sick of people putting up straw men.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    You wouldn’t know a strawman if one was on fire up your arse.

    Sorry, I take that back – all you have got is a strawman god.

    Each and everyone of the occurrences I listed came about as a result of people being too ignorant, too brainwashed, or both, by religions that belive in creationism, to seek proper medical care.

    Or can you find a way to separate creationism from idiocy, because rational folks can’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    Myriad examples of people substituting prayer for medical care.

    Scientific research has shown that prayer can aid health and help recovery from illness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Do you question the authority of the bible scrubone?

    No.

    He no longer owns slaves, but can rationalise that away.

    Yea, the word “Slave” is an exact meaning translation, not the nearest word we understand in english.

    He eats ham and bacon, but there’s this new covenant somewhere that no one’s ever seen, that excuses that.

    That is just gobsmacking. You seriously want to put your name to nonsense like that?

    And, long after scholarship has proven a mistranslation that had “young woman” mistranslated as “virgin”, he is still wedded to the virgin birth myth.

    Proven you say? Oh, well that settles it – some random idiot on the internet has claimed it, all those serious acedemics who’ve studied the question just must be wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Each and everyone of the occurrences I listed came about as a result of people being too ignorant, too brainwashed, or both, by religions that belive in creationism, to seek proper medical care.

    Try reading your own stuff before you post it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “Do you question the authority of the bible scrubone?

    No.”

    So then this statement is neither ignorant nor trolling:

    “Contrast that with religion which cannot, by its very nature, question itself and change in the light of new information.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    TheContrarian: you said, “What is disturbing is the increasing tendency of religious people to misunderstand what it actually means to do science.”

    You need to show that
    I believe I don’t understand that science is “x”.

    “X” being a positive statement of some sort about science that I don’t understand.

    All you’ve done is state what you think I think science is and then make a rejection of that. That doesn’t mean that I don’t understand what [people outside my worldview consider] science is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    TheContrarian…
    Space is not nothing. You have completely misunderstood Krauss. He is saying that nothign isn’t in fact nothing anymore.

    I understood perfectly of how physicists argue their theories. It is littered with wordsmithing and ambiguity. I did ask Dr. Krauss at the end of his lecture (not question time but when he was packing his stuff at the podium ready to leave) two questions one after the other:

    #1) if quantum foam laws were there in space prior to the big bang, then surely the laws of physics did pre-exist prior to the big bang.
    #2) if the laws of physics was born at the big bang.

    He answered #1) by saying yes, that quantum foam pre-existed, but then he contradicted himself in #2) when he said that all known laws of physics (quantum mechanics & general relativity) were born the instant the big bang started. Can someone spot his contradiction here? He talked as if pre-existing quantum foam prior to the big bang is not really part of quantum mechanics (QM) which QM itself was born at the instant of the big bang. Dr Krauss was obfuscating & evasive in aswering my questions. He then jumped to answer another person’s question but didn’t quite answer my followup 3rd question.

    He took a dig at String Theorists, but String theorists specialize in the business of scientific speculations which is no difference to what Dr. Krauss is doing. How ironic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    Science DOES NOT and CANNOT deal or introduce a supernatural being into its conclusion BY DEFINITION.

    Scrubone said “…we take observable, testable science and place it in a framework where God is our first assumption”

    Introducing something supernatural into your conclusion is, by definition NOT SCIENCE.

    I can’t be any clearer than that

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Rick Rowling (813 comments) says:

    Scientific research has shown that prayer can aid health and help recovery from illness.

    So can placebos.

    //fighting urge to insert an apostrophe where it doesn’t belong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    @Falafulu Fisi

    Well I obviously can’t comment on your personal discussion with Krauss as I wasn’t there however the creation of a particle from quantum foam, the creation of “mass” requires gravity to exist as gravity is a consequence of mass.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    TheContrarian: in other words, you cannot back up your statement. You cannot show that I do not understand what you consider to be science.

    In other words, you were talking out your posterior.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    If you are introducing a supernatural explanation then you are not doing science.

    Overton’s Definition of Science

    it is guided by natural law;

    it has to be explained by reference to
    natural law;

    it is testable against the empirical world;

    its conclusions are tentative, that is, are
    not necessarily the final word;

    it is falsifiable.

    A supernatural agent is untestable, not guided by natural law and is not falsifiable. Therefore NOT science

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    So then this statement is neither ignorant nor trolling:

    Ah, I think we may be on different wavelengths.

    You are thining of fundamentals I think. Yes, fundamentals don’nt change. But how those fundamentals are understood can improve (or degenerate) over time and because the world changes we must change how they are applied.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Scrubone teaches a child to count

    god+1+1=2

    god +1+2 = 3

    god +1 +3 = 4

    Scrubone makes macaroni cheese

    2 cups god

    2 cups water

    1 cup maccaroni

    Put god in pot, heat uintil boiling, then add water and return to boil. Add maccaroni, return to boil.

    Cheese Sauce

    1 cup god, whole

    1 cup cheese, shredded

    Bring god to boil, add cheese.

    say 3 hail marys.

    Drain god and maccaroni.

    add god and cheese.

    Stir

    Put on a plate and god.

    Which bits can be left out without changing the result?
    eat

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    If you are introducing a supernatural explanation then you are not doing science.

    Let me let you in on a little secret.

    Every creationist in existence knows that people who follow the evolutionary model believe that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    @ Rick Rowling in fact the placebo effect is so strong (even in studies where the people taking the placebo are told “this is a placebo”) that it goes a long way to explain the perserverence of “alternate” medicines as well as religious “cures”, because in fact, if you believe there is a chance you will become better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    Overton’s Definition of Science

    it is guided by natural law;

    it has to be explained by reference to
    natural law;

    it is testable against the empirical world;

    its conclusions are tentative, that is, are
    not necessarily the final word;

    it is falsifiable.

    Therefore…

    A supernatural agent is untestable, not guided by natural law and is not falsifiable. Therefore NOT science

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    A supernatural agent is untestable, not guided by natural law and is not falsifiable.

    Oh great. Your misunderstanding goes back *that* far. *facepalm*.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    He answered #1) by saying yes, that quantum foam pre-existed, but then he contradicted himself in #2) when he said that all known laws of physics (quantum mechanics & general relativity) were born the instant the big bang started.

    That may not be a contradiction. Quantum foam could have pre-existed but the particular set of laws of physics we have may have been created by our big bang.

    Who’s to say whether different times and places have had different laws created?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    say 3 hail marys.

    Not Roman Catholic mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “Not Roman Catholic mate.”

    Nor do you understand science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    Rick/KiwiGreg – – I’m aware of that, but prayer does help. I’m sure things like meditation and positive thought programmes could also help. Happiness/laughter also helps, so a comedian may be as effective as a charlatan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Nor do you understand science.

    Sigh. Are you just going to repeat that, or are you going to actually come up with some sort of proof now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    OK.

    Using the scientific method, scrubone, propose a method to test for the existence of a supernatural being

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Using the scientific method, scrubone, propose a method to test for the existence of a supernatural being

    As you full well know, that is impossible within the bounds of science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “Are you just going to repeat that, or are you going to actually come up with some sort of proof now?”

    Proven

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    TheContrarian: So I don’t understand Science because I understand that science can’t test for God.

    You’re brilliant. *rolls eyes*

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    TheContrarian, I don’t support the God creation nor support non-causal physics theories. I’m an objectivist, where causality rule supreme. The physical universe must be causal or otherwise, we’re just here as illusion if the universe is non-causal. Modern Physics is basically non-causal, and I have a problem with that, just look no further than Quantum Mechanics itself, which is a non-causal theory. Things occurs with no causes at all. A nuclei can decay by emitting particles. What causes those particles to be emitted? QM says that nothing caused them to be emitted because the process is probabilistic (no causes). So, God creationist proponents argue on similar reasoninigs via non-causality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. SGA (1,076 comments) says:

    Previous posts reminded me of this old cartoon
    http://www.baszerr.eu/lib/exe/detail.php/humour/then-a-miracle-occurs-cartoon.png?id=humour%3Apics

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    No Scrubone, it was because you seem to think attaching god as your first assumption is scientific when you have just shown it isn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Things occurs with no causes at all.

    No, we only have situations where we don’t understand the cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “What causes those particles to be emitted?”

    Nuclear decay is pretty well understood

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    TheContrarian: unsuprisingly, you’re making no sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    Let me try one more time.

    Scrubone: do you believe that attaching god as your first assumption is scientific?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Using the scientific method, scrubone, show any scientific theory that has been improved by placing it in a framework where God is our first assumption.

    Using the scientific method, scrubone, show any scientific theory that can be falsified by placing it in a framework where God is our first assumption.

    Using the scientific method, scrubone, show any scientific theory that fails unless we place it in a framework where God is our first assumption.

    Using the scientific method, scrubone, show any recent discovery that has been made using a framework where God is our first assumption.

    in fact, fuck it, use any method you like. Just make it logical and coherent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    do you believe that attaching god as your first assumption is scientific?

    Depends what you mean by that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “do you believe that attaching god as your first assumption is scientific?”

    it is either scientific or it isn’t. Which is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. tom hunter (4,899 comments) says:

    The God of the Gaps has got smaller over the centuries – down to the point of existing in the space of a quantum it would seem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. redeye (629 comments) says:

    What’s in it for you Contrarian? Why are you so hell bent on proving the non existence of God? I’m not a church goer but I am amazed at the number of people in NZ that believe they need to turn the entire world into atheists.

    I haven’t read the entire thread as you’ve mostly made it unreadable.

    The church versus the heathens debate has been done to death on this site for mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    “Rick/KiwiGreg – – I’m aware of that, but prayer does help.”

    Only if the person praying or being prayed for (in which case they need to know) *believes* it will. But not because you are sending messages to the big bearded guy at the end of the garden.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    @ theContrarian You would have more success (and more chance of them understanding you) arguing with a rock. In fact it’s so stupid I’m going with troll.

    @ redeye I’m guessing he just cant let the lie stand. No one cares if scrubone believes in fairies. It’s when he starts saying his fairy tales are fact (and not just any fact, “scientific” fact, so long as he defines what “scientific” means).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “Why are you so hell bent on proving the non existence of God?”

    You can’t prove the non-existence of something.

    @Kiwigreg – that’s right – i don’t care what someone believes but when they use half-truths and obfuscation is when i get curious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    it is either scientific or it isn’t. Which is it?

    I know what I meant when I said that, but I have no idea what you took it to mean.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    TheContrarian…
    Nuclear decay is pretty well understood

    Mathematically Yes! Physicality No!

    If you say that it has been physically well understood then how do you explain the wave function collapsed as shown in lovely animation of the : Double Slit Experiment

    Nuclear decay observation conforms exactly to the prediction of the quantum wave-equation as described in the experiment above. Note the physical explanation in the video. Wave function collapsed is instantaneous, which implies zero time lapse where causes & effects happens simultaneously. For existence to exist, causes MUST precede the effects therefore there must be a non-zero time-lapsed observed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    You can’t prove the non-existence of something.

    Neither can something be self-created…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Only if the person praying or being prayed for (in which case they need to know) *believes* it will.

    So if I took in orphans and prayed for their food, they’d go hungry then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “causes & effects happens simultaneously”

    Indeed. it is a strange universe. Feynmans “sum-over-histrories” deals with this quite nicely (in a mind-blowing way)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    Scrubone, you wanna answer the question:

    “Do you believe that attaching god as your first assumption is scientific?” Yes or no

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    scrubone (1,290) Says:
    August 22nd, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    Only if the person praying or being prayed for (in which case they need to know) *believes* it will.

    So if I took in orphans and prayed for their food, they’d go hungry then?

    No, you’d feed them and claim it was god who done it.

    How about praying that the famine in Somalia’s bay region ends. Come back when you’ve achieved that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Luke Mutton, well go make yourself famous and show how George Muller did it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    I think Contrarian is more concernd with proving the existence of his own blog.He started this and has kept at it like a dog with a bone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    @Kowtow – not really. One post in two months? It’s pretty much dead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    TheContrarian: oh I get it. You’re trying to show that the way I see science is wrong, and hence I don’t understand science.

    What you don’t seem to understand is that one does not follow the other.

    I am speaking from your perspective of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Using the scientific method, scrubone, show any scientific theory that can be falsified by placing it in a framework where God is our first assumption.

    What I said is that we do our science, *then* we place it in a context where God is the first assumption.

    You falsify against the physicial world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    It would be more enlightening, and no doubt help to continue tom’s mood, if the thread returned to the discussion on nothing and how the nothing can be something, and yet nothing, and how that nothing that is actually something can create the universe as we know it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    So you do believe that attaching god as your first assumption is scientific then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    scrubone (1,291) Says:
    August 22nd, 2012 at 3:51 pm

    Luke Mutton, well go make yourself famous and show how George Muller did it.

    So you admit god doesn’t answer your prayers?

    Or do you just not care enough about starving Somalis to get down and pray?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    How about praying that the famine in Somalia’s bay region ends. Come back when you’ve achieved that.

    Who caused the famine?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    bhudson, you’re wasting your time, there’s nothing in that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “What I said is that we do our science, *then* we place it in a context where God is the first assumption.”

    So introduce an unscientific agent into your science?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    if the thread returned to the discussion on nothing and how the nothing can be something, and yet nothing, and how that nothing that is actually something can create the universe as we know it.

    Heh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    So you admit god doesn’t answer your prayers?

    No. I actually have an inkling of what prayer is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “I actually have an inkling of what prayer is.”

    Its called talking to yourself :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    bhudson, you’re wasting your time, there’s nothing in that.

    Ah, but you could make something of it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    So introduce an unscientific agent into your science?

    No, just the interpretation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    So you introduce an unscientific agent into how you interpret the scientific world?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Its called talking to yourself

    Sure, if you say so. In your worldview. That doesn’t bother me.

    What bothers me is that most atheists don’t bother understanding mine – not to believe it, but to properly criticise it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    So you introduce an unscientific agent into how you interpret the scientific world?

    You’re getting there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Contrarian…
    it is a strange universe

    No, the universe is not strange. Physicists thoughts of how the physical universe operates is strange. That’s the issue right there,mathematics has overtaken physics. There’s nothing wrong with the use of mathematics in physics, what’s wrong is that every solution equation that physics theories produced is treated by physicists as some kind of physical observable that has yet to be discovered.

    Do you believe in time traveling? Solution to GR (general relativity) predicts that time-traveling is possible? This is absurd and must be dismissed straight away, no ifs no buts. It violates causality, period.

    Some of the mathematical artifacts in physics are somehow treated as real. This is where philosophy should come in. It can root out mathematical artifacts that imply non-causality. But No, physicists take every solution equation that they come up with as a result of solving QM or GR as real.

    How about tachyon particle? Is this one of the physics’ mathematical artifact or is it real? Tachyon has complex number mass. Can you explain to me what does an object with a complex number mass look like? Lets’ say, that there is an orange with a mass of 100*I grams (‘I’ is the square root of -1) and another orange with a real mass of 100 grams? Can you explain the physicality of the 2 oranges? One with complex mass number and the other one with real mass number? Don’t you think that such concept as complex mass is ridiculous? Such concept was discovered purely on mathematical physics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    Care to supply an example then of how you do this, Scrubone?

    @Falafulu Fisi
    Sorry, I am just an amateur at this. I can’t really discuss the mathematics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @Falafulu Fisi,

    Some would say mathematics has done the same to economics

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    worst thread in kiwiblog history. what a fuckin shambles!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    In fact, don’t answer scrubone.
    I’m tired and I ‘m going to go out for a drink instead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. Longknives (4,767 comments) says:

    Dime- Agreed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. tom hunter (4,899 comments) says:

    worst thread in kiwiblog history. what a fuckin shambles!

    It’s A Thread About Nothing!

    Not that’s there anything wrong with that!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Still perturbed that there’s something about science that I don’t understand, yet no one can explain to me what it is.

    Oh well…

    (and he said it with such certainty too…)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Nothing can come of it.

    Of course, if the nothing is in fact something then you have universes of possibilities…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Nothing comes from nothing – if you have something then something, somewhere is eternal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    worst thread in kiwiblog history. what a fuckin shambles!

    Clearly a newbie!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. chiz (1,145 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull: Purely functionally, what’s the harm of kids being taught creationism? If they end up studying biology or geology at a tertiary level, they’ll soon be put right. Even if they don’t, they’ll probably catch up. And if they don’t catch up, what’s the harm? An accountant who believes in creationism is not exactly professionally hamstrung by it.

    The problem is that you sometimes end up with biologists with degrees who still believe in creationism.

    Consider for example, the debate over genetic engineering. There are lots of groups trying to shut this down. They have “experts” who assure them, incorrectly as it happens, that their beliefs have scientific backing. It turns out that many of those “experts” are creationists. So creationism can lead to projects being shut down, and job losses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Bhudson, you’re correct there.

    Here is a theory called TEW (Theory of Elementary Waves) that was proposed in the late 1990s which is claimed to have corrected the mistake made by the founders of Quantum Mechanics (Neil Bohr, et al) early on when they first developed the theory. TEW is claimed to have combined Quantum Mechanics (QM) and Special Relativity (SR) as one and the same theory. All the ghost-particle and God-like non-causal behavior of objects in the theory of QM and SR is explained by TEW in a causal and local manner. Ghost & non-causal behavior as Wave function collapse (being at 2 places at once), Complementarity, Uncertainty Principle, etc,…, in QM and SR is out the window. The theory posited a new postulation that made QM and SR become causal theories rather than ghost-like or non-causal theories as they are now in mainstream physics.

    Watch the series of 18 video presentations at JPL (year 2000) by the Physicist (Dr Lewis Little) who developed TEW. Here is part 1, but you can find Part 2, Part 3, …, on that same link as well. The prediction of TEW is basically the same as current QM and SR, where their mathematics are almost the same, however Lewis Little added another postulation then changed the direction of wave-equation in QM in the opposite direction, then all the hokum God-like behavior in QM disappears. An example is the which particle goes thru 2 holes at once in the Double-Slit experiment (according to QM) that I linked to above in my previous comment. TEW says that the particle never went thru the 2 holes at once (non-causal behavior). The single particle only went thru one of the holes but not both at the same time.

    Dr Lewis E Little : Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW)

    TEW has been attached by other physicists, but its a good start to Physics whether TEW is correct or not, that some other sane Physicists are attempting to restore causality to Physics which have been thrown out in the last 100 years.

    I agree with Dr. Little’s comment in his original paper, The Theory of Elementary Waves

    Dr. Little:
    A theory which results in absurd conclusions is false. Reality doesn’t make mistakes; only physicists do.

    A theory that says that a material particle can be at 2 places at once (ie, QM), is really absurd.

    Note that there hasn’t been any publication to critique Dr. Little’s work in the physics literature since his paper first came out but from the author’s website, he says that he’s got some recent publications that he has just submitted in some physics journal for publications. This meant that he has probably overcome some of the shortfall of his TEW theory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    I said…
    TEW has been attached by other physicists

    I meant to say…
    TEW has been attacked by other physicists

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Dr Fisi – your’e way too brainy for me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Just like Chucky…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Ok, how about a date Hamnida? I know that you’re a female. Are you available on Friday night?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. thedavincimode (6,803 comments) says:

    Dr Fisi – your’e way too brainy for me.

    You mean … he’s a pinko? :(

    Who’da thort?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    It turns out that many of those “experts” are creationists. So creationism can lead to projects being shut down, and job losses.

    Does the faulty logic come with the worldview, or does the worldview produce the faulty logic?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. thedavincimode (6,803 comments) says:

    FF

    That “female” buys “her” suits at Munns in Wellington. Suggest you take “her” somewhere that you won’t be recognised and take a raincoat for “her” to wear. In the circs, don’t expect a night of flamboyant funky chicken rhythms and manoevres..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    @Falafulu Fisi

    You’re making a bunch of statements that basically are untrue e.g. Relativity (yes I did it) can potentially have a mathematical solution of allowing time travel if and only if you allow conditions that never occur. This is generally accepted. Tachyons are thought experiments and no evidence they exist. Current theories say they don’t. Imaginary mass is exactly that. There is no contradiction in QM as the observer affects reality thus you confuse the wave particle duality with newtonian type effects. The particle that is detected had an unknown position until it was detected. These are mutually exclusive. The behaviour at the quantum and also nuclear levels does not match each other or the classical newtonian mechanical model.

    How physicists think of the world accepts that what we observe at the macro level and the way the world behaves is very different at different levels of scale. We don’t make the mistake of applying what we see every day e.g. newtonian mechanics. Theoretical physicists make up stuff with maths and then the rest of the physicists do experiments to show what actually happens. We also recognise that picture is definitely incomplete.

    I tend to agree with the statement that it is a stange world is actually true. Special relativity tells us that you become shorter in the direction of travel, heavier and time slows down. That is exceedingly strange when we base the majority of our understanding of the world on what we seeevery day. How can something get shorter, heavier etc ? It seems incomprehensible at 1st sight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Sorry Dr Fisi, I’m a heterosexual male.

    I’ll have a beer sometime in the future instead if you’re still keen.

    I don’t see what is wrong with Munns, formal and casual menswear all in one place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. chiz (1,145 comments) says:

    scrubone: Does the faulty logic come with the worldview, or does the worldview produce the faulty logic?

    I’m not sure what you’re asking here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    @Hamnida

    Munns is pretty awful. For suits you can’t go wrong with Hartfords. I usually buy my casual wear overseas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. renderer (85 comments) says:

    This whole thread has been an 8 hour waste of space

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. nasska (11,589 comments) says:

    …”This whole thread has been an 8 hour waste of space”….

    I beg to disagree….since as far as I can tell no reference has been made to homosexual marriage for North of 260 comments I consider this thread to be somewhat of an intellectual milestone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. thedavincimode (6,803 comments) says:

    Hamnida

    I don’t see what is wrong with Munns, formal and casual menswear all in one place

    That’s simply because you’re a Marxist. Just because you pinkos are so much more intelligent than everyone else, it doesn’t follow that you dress better. That’s why you like libraries where you can do all your clever reading and dark cafes where you can drink your Shardonneh and talk up the revolution. If you’re honest with yourself, you’ll actually acknowledge that you have no style and are embarassed to be seen in the daylight. This is the reason that Mao, Stalin and Castro ran with the austere uniform couture. It shut down the style debate under penalty of death.

    renderer

    This whole thread has been an 8 hour waste of space

    You aren’t into interesting stuff? Perhaps Shortland St or Coro St is on tonight. That might be more to your taste.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    slijmbal…
    There is no contradiction in QM as the observer affects reality

    Observer doesn’t affect reality. Are you day dreaming or what. Reality is objective whether we are here to do quantum measurement or not. That’s the whole point of my argument here.

    slijmbal…
    thus you confuse the wave particle duality with newtonian type effects.

    No, I don’t confuse wave-particle duality with Newtonian particle trajectory. Wave-particle duality has never been proven. Show me where it has been proven?

    slijmbal…
    The particle that is detected had an unknown position until it was detected.

    So, you buy into the concept that the particle went thru 2 holes simultaneously? But this has never ever been detected at the slit holes.

    slijmbal…
    These are mutually exclusive.

    That’s what the math says and not what the experimental observation has confirmed. Do you know the difference?

    slijmbal…
    The behaviour at the quantum and also nuclear levels does not match each other or the classical newtonian mechanical model.

    Redundant, we already know that. It doesn’t change the fact that at quantum level, it is littered with nonsense. Remember that : Reality doesn’t make mistakes; only physicists do. Reality is absolute, no argument about it.

    Have you watched Dr. Little’s presentation at JPL in the link above? I suggest you watch it, not because it is the correct theory, but because it highlighted the absurdity of Modern Physics.

    Slijmbal…
    How physicists think of the world accepts that what we observe at the macro level and the way the world behaves is very different at different levels of scale

    Nope, that’s a cop out. Objective reality cannot be contradictive at quantum level but non-contradictive at newtonian level. A cut & paste from here.

    A contradiction arises when two ideas each make the other impossible. Contradictions don’t exist in reality because reality simply is as it is and does not contradict itself. Only our evaluations of reality can contradict each other. If you think you have found a contradiction, then check your premises. Either you’re mistaken about it being a contradiction or one of the contradicting concepts has been improperly formed.

    If the content of your knowledge contains contradictions, then some of your knowledge is in error. Because in order to be successful in reality one must know reality, success requires correct knowledge. It is therefore important to continually search for and root out contradictions in your knowledge in order to make sure that your knowledge corresponds to reality. The two primary methods for doing this are logic, the art of non-contradictory identification, and integration.

    Or perhaps you think that physical laws is just playing mind games with humans whenever we do quantum measurement? How about checking your premises?

    Slijmbal…
    Special relativity tells us that you become shorter in the direction of travel, heavier and time slows down.

    Observation is correct. The physical processes is absurd. What makes you think that all of a sudden you move across the room (wherever you are), all objects in the whole universe shrink & expand relative to you? Do you really believe that it is the physical processes that are taking place? See, Dr. Little’s explanation where he explained the physical processes that are involved. There is nothing physically shrink or expand in the universe relative to you once you start running across the room, it is only the appearance of your measurement that make it so. Mathematically (the shrinking & expanding), but the claimed physical processes is wrong. Again, see Dr. Little’s explanation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    Granted I don’t understand TEW particularly well but as someone who does know QM fairly well it does have a lot of interesting research to back it up. I’d through my lot in with Hawking, Feynman, Krauss et al. over ‘random kiwiblog guy’ any day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    @Falafulu Fisi

    I will take a couple of your various statements – I find it interesting that you pretty much disagree with most of the agreed theory.

    Special relativity – there are so many proofs of this it’s ludicrous. We manage to accelerate electrons to relavatistic speeds – they show all the behaviours of increased mass. They require greater magnetic fields to keep them in a circlular path as their mass increases for instance. The clocks they used with space travel around the earth also show the expected differences in time. Physicists have looked for reasons to disprove relativity for quite a while now – and still not disproved it.

    You seem to translate the fact thay we don’t have any universal theory of everything to mean that the theories that best match reality as we understand it at different levels of scale are contradictory. They are not – newtonian mechanics is an accurate simplification of relativistic theories at low speed for instance. QM by definition does not work at macro levels. Ditto nuclear forces they do not have effects outside of the atomic world as they fall off to nothing by definition.

    The fact that something has both the properties of a particle and wave you are not accepting by applying a particle model – it has both. Quantum tunnelling does not match any form of classical mechanics for instance – it is observable – are you saying it doens’t happen?

    QM does not say it went through 2 slits – that’s what is taught to school kids by teachers with no proper understanding and referring back to newtonian and therefore a familiar physical model – as you appear to do.

    There is NO OBJECTIVE reality it is all subjective and relative – in that both Einstein and our quantum mechanical mates are right. There are repeatable models but they all require interaction to measure. The uncertainty principle (never disproved) means 2 of us will measure the same thing differently. Lots of evidence to confirm this difference in measurement.

    Despite what you say QM, Nuclear, Electromagnetic (includes GR) are not contradictive they are our best models for current behaviour at different levels of scales. I think we’re missing something in the total picture by definition and was not a great fan of nuclear physics when I studied it – it felt ptolemaic.

    You keep stating about reality – there is no reality – physics is about predictive models – if you have a model that is most accurately predictive then that is the best current model.

    While I remember – you do actually need space because without it there would be no distance – so of course it exists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    @slijmbal

    “there are so many proofs of this it’s ludicrous. We manage to accelerate electrons to relavatistic speeds”

    Agree

    ” The clocks they used with space travel around the earth also show the expected differences in time.”

    Not only that but GPS satellites have system in place to make up for the time difference caused by relativity.

    ” Quantum tunnelling does not match any form of classical mechanics for instance – it is observable – are you saying it doens’t happen?”

    Without quantum tunnelling many of our electronic products wouldn’t work.

    “There is NO OBJECTIVE reality it is all subjective and relative – in that both Einstein and our quantum mechanical mates are right. There are repeatable models but they all require interaction to measure. The uncertainty principle (never disproved) means 2 of us will measure the same thing differently. Lots of evidence to confirm this difference in measurement.”

    We also have quantum entanglement.

    Good post, slijmbal

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. thedavincimode (6,803 comments) says:

    Yeah wot he said … I think?

    Just don’t ask me which one. :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. Steve (North Shore) (4,565 comments) says:

    I agree with Dime, what a fucking shambles. Trolls, nutbars, religious nutbars, timewasters, civil servants, teachers, wow they all had a go.
    I think I will have tomorrow off work and go find a top class hooker. There has to be more going on than today’s shit on Kiwiblog.
    Where are the haters and wreckers who attack John Key and National? Run out of material leftie pond dwellers?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    Ahhh well, some of us can’t always find solace in complaining about their latest political boogymen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. nasska (11,589 comments) says:

    …”Where are the haters and wreckers who attack John Key and National?”…..

    Probably licking their wounds Steve……A few of them have had their arses punted for touch in the past week.

    Pussies! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. thedavincimode (6,803 comments) says:

    I think I will have tomorrow off work and go find a top class hooker

    Why not just try to engage in a meaningful discussion with Hamhead and then have a wank?

    Save a couple of hundred bucks and wind up with the same outcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    @slijmbal,
    Special relativity – there are so many proofs of this it’s ludicrous.

    There is no proof for TEW yet but it predicts that same outcome as relativity. The difference here is that TEW has a physical basis in its formulation, while relativity didn’t. Einstein took the constancy of speed of light as a basic fact with no physical basis at all. The equations of SR can be derived from the postulation of TEW. I suggest you watch the lecture series on TEW that by Dr. Little before you comment.

    Let me ask you a very simple question before I continue on, because it is you who have a high school understanding of physics that need to be corrected.

    You said…
    There is NO OBJECTIVE reality it is all subjective and relative

    Hehe, that’s laughable. A little kid can see that such notion is absurd. Is everything around you an illusion? Is your computer objectively real or its existence is dependent on whenever someone is doing quantum measurement somewhere. That’s exactly what you’ve just said. Remember that inanimate object don’t assess reality subjectively, its only humans. So, you’re one of those who thinks that the Universe didn’t exist until humans arrived and started doing quantum measurement therefore reality then pops into existence? See the debate between Einstein & Bohr on this very topic. The moon is not up there until someone observes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. Steve (North Shore) (4,565 comments) says:

    DaVinci,
    I won’t waste my time with the Hammerhead – the new Phool ………
    Hamnida ….. sounds like something you could catch if you are not carefull

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. nasska (11,589 comments) says:

    A young woman who had been married for several years was growing more and more frustrated at her husband’s lack of interest in sex. She wondered about ways to add some pizzazz to their sexual relationship, and finally decided to purchase some crotchless underwear she had seen in a novelty shop.

    One evening when she was feeling particularly desirous and he was, as usual, watching television, she took a shower, freshened up, and donned her crotchless undies and a slinky negligee. She then strolled between her husband and the television and suggestively tossed one leg up on his chair arm. “Want some of this?” she purred.

    “Are you kidding?”, he replied, “Look what it did to those panties.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. thedavincimode (6,803 comments) says:

    sounds like something you could catch if you are not carefull

    No, you’re thinking of Hamnesia. And BTW, he wasn’t careful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  285. nasska (11,589 comments) says:

    thedavincimode

    Yet he could make a barrow load of full stops last a lifetime!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    @Falafulu Fisi

    High school physics – thanks for that – I see you’re getting personal rather than doing the argument. I have a physics degree from Oxford. I did the equivalent academically at NZ bursary of being one of the top couple in the country. I was give the option of studying physics or maths at said university.

    after general physics I specialised in theoretical, atomic and nuclear physics. I did not take that any further as I disliked the tremendously pottical nature of academia. I was offered lots of posts.

    Frankly you keep repeating the same mistake – you keep applying macro observed activities to other scales of physics. This is an absurdity if you have any real understanding of physics above 2ndary school level. I never said it’s all an illusion that’s your (what I believe to be deliberately) mis-interpretation of what I am saying. I am saying that at the QM level – when it’s measured the measurement has an effect – you cannot even see an object without bouncing some light off it for instance – that light has an effect on the object being measured – this is pretty basic physics.

    I looked up and read TEW some time ago and did the courtesy of re-reading various pro- and anti- posts regarding it tonight. It is a theory that with modification may yet turn out to be true – however, it is currently a side channel that is seen as having HUGE holes in terms of what it predicts. and being unlikely to be a viable theory. It has a lot of defects and its defects outweigh the minor contradictions in current theory it appears to address. I will be the 1st to apologise if he proves the rest of us wrong but it is not showing such signals.

    “Moon is not there until someone observes” – well done you took a QM argument and took it into the macro environment once again thus proving your complete lack of understanding of QM vs Newtonian level physics.

    Not sure how to ask this without it being seen as potentially insulting but are you a mathematician with a view of physics?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. Steve (North Shore) (4,565 comments) says:

    Hamnesia? oh yeah the bush pigs. I stay far away from the Liarbour try hards

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    @Falafulu Fisi

    Consider that there is experimental confirmations behind many QM predictions including entanglement as well as relativistic predictions including time dilation. We are also on the verge on Quantum Computing. These are not just theories but real life practical applications

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. weizguy (118 comments) says:

    Scrubone – this might help with your confusion about cause:
    http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam

    Special pleading isn’t an argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    @weizguy

    “Special pleading isn’t an argument.”

    Neither is Scrubone’s begging the question

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4499457/Semen-is-good-for-womens-health-and-can-fight-depression.html

    I knew this, don’t ask me how , I just did

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. thedavincimode (6,803 comments) says:

    eastbay

    Nothing new there. Catholic priests have known this for years.

    Edit: centuries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  293. SGA (1,076 comments) says:

    @TheContrarian

    Yes, begging the question sums it up. It’s almost as if Scrubone is trying to steer you into saying something quite specific about science or the scientific method so that s/he can dump a standard pre-written set of apologetics in your lap. But it’s late, and I may be just being too cynical. Night all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Slijmball…
    I have a physics degree from Oxford.

    I did my Physics doctorate in photonics/opto-electronic under Prof. John Harvey at Physics Dept at Auckland University, so I’m well versed in quantum electronics and solid state physics. I took a a post-doc position at NTT, Japan (Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation) but it was cut short after 5 months, when I had to come back here because my late dad’s cancer deteriorated slowly. I would have gone back to complete my 2 year contract at NTT had I just came back for a funeral. And what the hell have you done with you QM degree? Have you designed any electronic gadgets using your QM knowledge? If so, then what sort of devices? You get to know the theory better when you apply it, like those of use who have worked in the electronics industry.

    Slijmball…
    you keep applying macro observed activities to other scales of physics

    Ha! Nonsense. At what scale is the macro becomes cut-off from micro? Feynman came up with QED to explain how this transition is accomplished, but it doesn’t change the fact that micro & macro is a human invention (not physical reality itself). Imagine if humans were the size of an atomic nucleus? Would you still be arguing about macro versus micro? Its arbitrary, isn’t it? So, what’s the cut-off scale again? You wouldn’t know would you? There a is push now to increase the size of objects from micro into a reasonable macro size in BEC (Bose–Einstein condensate) type laser so they can conduct the double-slit experiment and see if it still holds. Currently it still holds. If you know the cut-off point of the transition between macro & micro then I suggest you make contact with researchers who are developing BEC laser and offer your advise on what size are those BEC super-atoms are ought to be.

    Slijmball…
    I am saying that at the QM level – when it’s measured the measurement has an effect – you cannot even see an object without bouncing some light off it for instance – that light has an effect on the object being measured

    That’s redundant statement and you offered nothing new. I said that physical reality is objective and not subjective and you don’t need quantum physics, string theory, relativity or TEW to prove it. It is a basic philosophical principle that underpins existence. Do electronics or sub-atomic particles in the quantum scale have definite identities ? QM says No. They exist is a mixture of states until being measured by a conscious observer. Any object that lacks identity can’t exist. To exist, then object must have particular identities at all time. If objects don’t have identities then they can’t exist, pure and simple. This is the reason that one has to rule out the existence of God because such entity has no particular identities. Its proponents claim that God is everywhere at once (ie, no particular identity). Does this sound similar to QM that where particles are everywhere with a certain probability and that can only materialize whenever someone does some measurements? So, religious followers and QM followers believe the same philosophy of no identities and non-causality are’nt they?

    Slijmball…
    well done you took a QM argument and took it into the macro environment once again thus proving your complete lack of understanding of QM vs Newtonian level physics.

    That’s Einstein argument and not mine. The fact still remain. What is the cutoff point when QM stops and Newtonian starts? As I said above, you don’t know and neither the blind faith followers of QM & SR.

    Slijmball…
    mathematician with a view of physics?

    I have explained my background above.

    Now, I’m not critiquing QM and SR as useless. What I’m critiquing is the lack of causality, which is the basis of existence. Any theory that can reproduce predictions of QM and SR but causal, then that theory is closer to reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. Steve (North Shore) (4,565 comments) says:

    PEB

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4499457/Semen-is-good-for-womens-health-and-can-fight-depression.html

    And now you and others will understand the Rainbows.
    No semen = no fun and the dyke women wonder why they are depressed. Ask, oh someone with..
    Never mind, they just hate real blokes

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. jims_whare (403 comments) says:

    I’m not a physicist or nuclear scientist but I know something: You look around yourself and you see that there is ‘stuff’ in existence. Physical ‘stuff’ like trees, animals, planets, stars etc.

    This physical ‘stuff’ is highly organised and developed in many ways which cries out the question ‘Where did it all come from?’

    My limited understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is that the natural state of matter tends to go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level with the balance being know as entropy (unusable background energy)

    This remains in effect unless an outside force inputs more energy into the state of matter.

    I see this in that you buy a new car. Within 5 years it has a few dings and bashes , the motor gives problems, and it has to go to a mechanic to get fixed up. (Input of energy)

    This tends to point to the fact that at some point the Universe and everything we know was at one point at a higher state of energy than it is currently. This in itself points to a beginning point as presumably matter could not keep increasing to higher energy levels infinitely.

    So this means at some point reality/universe/physical dimension began. Prior to this nothing existed and then everything existed.

    It doesn’t matter what long scientific words/theories are quoted, any satisfactory explanation must account for this beginning point.

    As far as I’m concerned there are only 2 possible explanations:

    1 The physical universe came from nothing, was birthed by nothing, all complex life forms came about by nothing, there was no cause – it just happened.

    2 The physical universe was a direct result of a creative act by a Being who exists outside the Physical dimension and caused the physical dimension to come into being.

    As to the origins of this Being, well the only answer possible is the one He gave himself that He is ‘eternal’ and has always existed.

    Now I don’t claim to believe God created the Universe because of cunning creationist science – I believe in Him as I refuse to accept that all of the complexity of our World and Universe came about from nothing.

    Now no Scientist can prove God created the Universe or not and neither can they prove that nothing created the Universe or not.

    For anyone to state otherwise – they are deluding themselves.

    Both concepts are statements of faith – either believe that God or nothing created the Universe.

    In some respects you could say that God and ‘nothing’ are synonymous.

    For me its a nobrainer – what I see in the diversity and complexity of this world points only to one thing the act of an intelligent designer.

    The main difficulty for a lot of folks is if you accept that God exists then you have to ask the next question: How does He expect us to live – what are his ‘rules’. This is the biggest issue really – without God there are no rules apart from what society decides to make up = equals a salved conscience.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    I stated my question about mathematician as trying not to play the man – but I see you did it with my application of degree

    well done

    macro vs micro – all physics is an approximation – but the boundaries are surpisingly small

    it is pretty obvious nuclear forces from the sub atomic particals in your body don’t affect the sun according to current theory – well they do but the effects are unmeasurable. You are argueing angels on a pin.

    “That’s an einstein argument not mine” – but you used it, by definition stood behind it and just admitted it’s wrong by your response

    your bollocks about god and QM makes me think you are on drugs – you keep on seeing QM at a particle level – it is not – it is a quantum level

    Keep to real science son – be nice to me and I’ll give you your arse back in the morning

    fyi – I see no arguments in physics supporting the existence of god

    good night

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  298. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    TheContrarian…
    Consider that there is experimental confirmations behind many QM predictions including entanglement as well as relativistic predictions including time dilation.

    I think that you and Slijmball missed my argument. QM predictions are correct (facts are facts – its undeniable) in terms of verifiable observations, SR are correct again in terms of verifiable observations, what is at dispute here is the physical fundamental formulations & interpretations. As Feynman challenged the Physics community that if anyone could come up with a theory that can explain (ie, predict) the observations in the double-slit experiment (epitome of QM) then the standard QM theory is ought to be replaced by that theory. There has been many attempts in the past with many theories being proposed but TEW is the closest one that’s non-contradictive to date. It may not be robust at the moment but all theories started out like that. Solid-state physics wasn’t born at the same time as QM. QM was widen to study many phenomena in this new area over the last 50 years or so, therefore QM is very successful in its application in solid-state physics and quantum electronics.

    You guys haven’t answered my question that put to you above in my previous post.

    Do I physically shrink or expand relative to some speeding objects in the faraway galaxies? You know that there are billions of high speed moving objects in the universe. Imagine (hypothetically) that there is an alien with his radars and measuring instruments in that moving object who’s trying to measure how tall Falafulu on planet earth. Do you think once that the alien with his measuring device who is moving on a very fast speed thinks that I’m either shrinking or getting taller relative to him simply because he is moving? If his measurements concluded that I’m shriking, then what you guys (my fellow earth residents) think? Do I really shrink physically in accordance with the conclusion reached by the alien based on his measuring device/s in that faraway planet/galaxy/moving-object that he/she’s in? C’mon its absurd, isn’t it? I’m not physically shirking nor expanding relative to some speeding observer in a faraway planet or galaxy. My height here on earth stays the same, however my appearance to the the faraway speeding observer is in accord with Special Relativity (no disagreement there). It does make sense, doesn’t it? That’s exactly what TEW is saying. The equations of SR is correct, but not the physicality. These are 2 different things.

    Correct mathematics is not the same thing as correct physical interpretations. The problems in modern physics is that they take mathematical solutions and interpret it directly as somehow the true underlying mechanism of physical reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  299. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Quite often some people can outsmart themselves. (in the old days this was called stepping on your own prick)

    i see one correspondant tonight makes the point that there are,” billions of high speed moving objects in the universe.”
    how very profound.
    And of course this correspondant believes that this is his trump card that proves his argument is right.

    this is an example of how to outsmart yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  300. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Now, here is a simple analogy. The concept of refraction, ie, an object that’s half submerged in a glass of water can be seen as bent.

    Now, suppose that this phenomena is shown to someone who had never seen the effect of refraction in his/her entire life and has no knowledge of the property of light when it travels thru water (or liquid), because the effect of the medium in slowing down the speed of the light wave, which makes any half submerged object in a glass of water appear physically bent. This person will think when he/she sees such phenomena for the first time that the object is really physically bent but for those of us who have seen it and understood of what it is know that the half submerged object is not really physically bent at all. It is the slowing of light wave speed in the water as first observed by Snell ( Snell’s law) that caused the appearance to be bent, but physically the object does not bend at all. Observation (or any instruments that one uses to measure & estimate the full length of the half submerged object) agrees with Snell’s equation/law, while the true physical reality says that the object is not really bent.

    Its the same phenomena in modern physics. All the non-causal physical observables agreed with the prediction of the equations. However the real physical interpretation has to be dismissed simply because it violates causality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  301. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    And here we have another example of outsmarting oneself.
    See Falaulu @ 10.17 above.

    Just for the benefit of our well intentioned mate Falafulu can someone, anyone, please interpret the last paragraph of his effort at 10.17

    i assume he thinks he is making some point. But WTF is it ?

    Totally outsmarted himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  302. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Bereal, have you got any argument to make? If you can’t understand a post here then fucking skip the post and don’t read it. My post wasn’t intended for you to read, because it is obvious that you have no fucking clue. My post was intended for TheContrarian and Slijmball who I have been debating on this thread. I do skip the posts of others if their messages relate to some fields that I don’t know or familiar with. So, don’t fucking come back with a stupid comment after this post. Stick to topics that you can debate on, because my posts weren’t targeted for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  303. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Oh, now i get it.

    What he is really trying to say is that, “the heat of the meat over the hang of the dangle is equal to two thirds
    of five eigths of sweet fuck all.”

    Why didn’t he just spit that out instead of beating around the bush ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. Don the Kiwi (1,763 comments) says:

    No bereal.

    What he is saying is the you are so fucking thick that you simply don’t understand what he is talking about :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    hey Falafulu, relax mate, don’t take this stuff so seriously.
    i know what you mean, i’m just trying to interpret it for others.
    They might not be as smart.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  306. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Ok, Don the Kiwi. If that is the case you will be able to enlighten the hoi poloi.

    What did his final paragraph @ 10,17 mean in your mind ?
    i assume it made sense to you.

    Spell it out for all us God fearing Christians.

    If you can.

    Otherwise…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  307. Don the Kiwi (1,763 comments) says:

    Oh, I’m pretty fucking thick too, and I’m no physicist.
    I think I know what he’s getting at , but I’d probably rather be like you. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  308. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Ok Bereal, its obvious that you haven’t seen the video series of Lewis Little I have posted above. If you have then you have understood my post.

    Anyway, here is a shorter video by Dr. Little which I recommend you watch it of how TEW explains the physicality of Special Relativity.

    Special Relativity

    When you move, your measuring devices tell you that other objects are shrinking & expanding (depending on your motion’s direction) relative to you. Consider 2 different moving persons who happen to home-in their measuring devices on the same 3rd person? Say person-1 is moving towards person-3 and person-2 is moving away from person-3. In special relativity person-1 and person-2 will end up with different measurement of person-3. One concludes that person-3 is shrinking and the other one concludes that person-3 is expanding? The question to ask, is if person-3 is indeed physically shrinking or expanding? TEW said it is neither, the size of person-3 stays the same, it is the appearance that is change (which is compatible with SR equation’s prediction).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Hey Don, just to quote Falulu and yourself,, Fucking, fucking, fucking fuck.

    Now thats a real good reply.

    You ‘think’ you know what he’s getting at.

    That makes three of us.

    Point is we are the only ones. Nobody else has the foggiest.

    Spell it out. Draw a picture for everyone else.

    Can’t do it ?
    Thats what i mean by outsmarting yoursef.
    Starting to get it mate ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  310. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Ok Falafulu, thanks for that. @11.04
    i thought thats what you meant.

    But what about the heat of the meat ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  311. MH (762 comments) says:

    I found out that TEW stands for total Extreme wrestling or perhaps and more importantly to our God Steve Tew who is the currently CEO of the New Zealand Rugby Union and has been a member of the NZRFU since 2001. My eyes are still suffering from the Doppler effect or was that doppleganger…as for meat heat you need a degree from Fahrenheit Uni,bloody Kelvinists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  312. jcuk (693 comments) says:

    “Hamnida (464) Says:
    August 22nd, 2012 at 9:03 am
    I’ve only had a couple of bad employers, 90% have been great. From my experience, the problems often occur in middle management, where people have been promoted and power has gone to their heads. Far less issues with senior management and business owners.”

    Promotion from the ranks based on competence at that level doesn’t result in good management unless the person is given and understands management training.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  313. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    jims_whare (271) Says:
    August 22nd, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    Yep I don’t believe the something comes from nothing rubbish either, it’s just not logical.

    An aha moment came for me during biology in class, we were covering the rainforest and it became apparent that it was a lifetimes study for some people as each layer height of the forest was it’s own ecosystem and literally one person could spend their academic life studying just one layer.
    I caught a glimpse of the complexity of the whole world which has grown into an appreciation of the marvelous place we inhabit.
    It’s all a wonder from the deepest nano molecule in our bodies to the supernovas in space.

    Those people who really know just their tiny bit of it are blessed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote