Baumblog EST 1968 - A blog for the Baumbachs who originated in Syracuse, NY


	Posts tagged with "science"

Maybe you're not dead yet...
posted by GJ on May 2, 2007 @ 12:16PM

This story is way more than just interesting.

4 comments | Tags: science

The Great Debate
posted by GJ on May 9, 2007 @ 1:30PM

The grand debate between the Way of the Master folks (Ray Comfort and Kurt Cameron) vs the Rational Responders (Kelly and Sapient) took place on May 5, and will air tonight on Nightline.

I've seen a few clips so far. Ray and Kurt's idea of scientific proof used the word "scientific". That's about as close to science as they got. As for not using the Bible, well, that lasted about five minutes. Then we got the standard Ray spiel, probably trying to convert the 50 atheists in the audience.

Kelly and Sapient weren't very polished--and didn't drive home the points that would have won this debate handily. Instead of refuting the silly arguments that Ray and Kurt were using, they instead went the route of "religion bad, atheism good." Duh. That of course plays well to the atheism crowd, and not at all to the other half. In effect, they were doing almost exactly what Ray and Kurt were doing. Egads.

I'll be watching it tonight--perhaps the small clips I saw weren't all that indicative. Feel free to post long winded comments if you end up watching it too.

6 comments | Tags: religion, science

GJ said about 18 hours later

Sure, I'll watch it at 11:30pm. Haha. Right. I fell asleep on the couch at 10:30. I'm turning into an old man rather quickly. Guess I'll catch it at the NightLine site today. Anyone else catch it?
GJ said about 18 hours later

Comment deleted on 5/10/2007 at 7:48AM
Geoff said about 21 hours later

I saw it...it blew. They spent more time giving backgrounds of both sides than the actual debate. Not surprisingly, they made the Atheists look like jerks and Kirk and Ray look like Angels. They clipped pieces of footage (which I saw in full prior to watching Nightline's version) which clearly favored the Atheist point of view, and turned it against them.

And then, at the end they had nerve to say, well, who won the debate? Not sure....not sure?!? Give me a break, here is Rays scientific proof, a painting has a painter, therefor creation has a creator, and God is that creator. The Atheist response, well who created God then? Oh, God has always existed, ok, well if God can always exist, why cant the universe...NO RESPONSE from Kirk or Ray...they refused to respond. That right there sums up who won. After that, it leaped out of the scientific realm and jumped back into the Bible and left rationality at the door.

So, yes, Atheist's won, no contest. Did they say some stupid things, sure did, but against those two idiots, can you blame them? Kirk Cameron tried to disprove the Theory of Evolution by holding up pictures of fake animals drawn by a graphic artist, like the "crockaduck" (part crock, part duck), and a bull frog (frog with bull horns). I still would like to see the whole debate in full, but clearly, Ray and Kirk did not scientifically prove anything, other than their lack of rational intelligence.
GJ said about 23 hours later

Yeah, unfortunately, I have seen a lot of comments backing up the hack job Nightline did on this debate. It was clear that they were simply thrilled with having to talk about Kirk Cameron (they largely ignored Ray Comfort), and portrayed a very slanted view of the exercise.

So far, the Way of the Master folks have supposedly put up the debate in its entirety on you tube. Not. The debate was 90 minutes long, but their videos are far shorter. Read: another hack job. Meanwhile, the RRS has a very small clip on their site, which also doesn't really give you a good glimpse of the debate, either. If this is all they plan to release--then they've done an equally dumb hack job of the debate.

Still waiting to find the full debate somewhere on the net. I heard it's a hoot.
GJ said about 24 hours later

Oh boy...it appears that Kirk used Pascal's Wager as his rebuttal to the atheist's arguments. For those of you not familiar with it, Pascal's Wager says this:

Let us consider the paraphrased translation of Pascal. "God either exists or He doesn't. Based on the testimony, both general revelation (nature) and special revelation (Scriptures/Bible), it is safe to assume that God does in fact exist. It is abundantly fair to conceive, that there is at least 50% chance that the Christian Creator God does in fact exist. Therefore, since we stand to gain eternity, and thus infinity, the wise and safe choice is to live as though God does exist. If we are right, we gain everything, and lose nothing. If we are wrong, we lose nothing and gain nothing. Therefore, based on simple mathematics, only the fool would choose to live a Godless life." Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have nothing to lose. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

Do you see the problem here? First--he assumes that the existence of the Christian God is 50%. He is basing that on what? Certainly not science.

Then, in order to win this wager, you must live according to God's laws. Wait--who made God's laws, if God doesn't exist? Man did. Maybe those laws aren't so good for us? Sure, some of them are...but, if you know of the Inquisition, you know that certainly some are not. So, there is a cost for belief in God--you are willing to follow what could well be a false god, a construct of Man, in the vain hope of living forever. Hmmm.

And if you lose the wager...egads, what will God do to someone who has worked to discourage belief in God? Well, if you talk with those who are betting conservatively on this wager, why, we'll burn in hellfire for eternity.

And that's the crux of this wager for me. If God is so petty and arbitrary, then I'll take hellfire hands down. But see, I'm betting that God only seems so because God is a creation of Man...and yes, Man is that petty.
Geoff said 1 day later

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940&page=1

Here is the whole thing, it is the video in the upper right. It is an interesting debate.

Grrrr. Or Why Intelligent Design Supporters are SOOOO Stupid.
posted by GJ on June 7, 2007 @ 12:54PM

I heard the following crap make it's way out of John McCain's mouth during the Republican debate the other day. It went like this:

"School boards should have the right to set their own education policy. It's my opinion that all views, all theories need to be taught to our children."

This is code for "I want schools to be able to teach Intelligent Design if they so choose." The backers of ID say, hey, evolution as a theory has lots of holes, and this ID is a competing theory. We've been over this before in the blog--ID is not a theory. See, a theory about the origin of species has so say something other than "Evolution is wrong, and here's why."

So, ignore for a second about me not thinking too fondly of ID. Imagine, instead, that the 9/11 conspiracy nuts get in on this argument. Shouldn't then "Loose Change" be shown along with "Fahrenheit 911" when talking about the events of that day in history class? How about letting Holocaust deniers have a say when talking about what the Germans did to the Jews and other undesirables during WWII? What about the moon landing hoax supporters? Should they not get to counter the "theory" that we actually landed on the moon?

Of course not, right? These are all crackpot ideas. You have to draw the line somewhere, and you draw it with the evidence stick. Have evidence to back up your theory? Is it compelling? Are there any obvious flaws that your theory cannot explain? That is how we figure out what theories are the wheat, and what are the chaff. Not all wheat theories hold up, but the chaff ones never do, so why bother wasting time with them?

So, let's be clear. The proponents of ID want ID taught in school to counter the teaching of the theory evolution and show students that there is a "scientific" alternative to evolution that leaves room for some kind of something: God, The Force, something. However, it's not scientific, as it makes no provable claims about the origin of species. Nada, nothing. Does evolution have holes? Of course it does--any theory does, and you work to close those holes over time. Maybe someday we'll find a problem with evolution model, and discard it in favor of a better working model...but until that model comes around, evolution is the best explaination for the origin of species.

So, of course, the IDers want to push the teaching of ID in via the political process. This is the problem--just because a bogus theory is popular, it does not make it any more functional or valuable. There are a lot of people in the world that believe that 9/11 was an inside job--but they have virtually nothing beyond circumstantial evidence, and a lot of problems within itself that cannot be corrected. As a result, we will not be teacing that in school--so why try to teach ID? It doesn't pass the theory test, either.

So, thank you John McCain, and the rest of you politicians who have stated this opinion. You're not getting my vote to help turn our science education in this country into a joke.

7 comments | Tags: woo, religion, politics, science

Watch this court ruling closely
posted by GJ on June 11, 2007 @ 10:03AM

The court ruling I'm referring to is reported here. You may think that religion is my favorite target of scorn (or second-favorite, since it's obvious the disdain I have for all things related to mediums, astrology, talking with the dead, etc.). Nope...it's medicinal woo that drives me insane. Why? Because ignorence is a killer.

A little background. Autism appears to be a growing phenomenom, although whether it is because we recognize it more now, or that it's actually occuring more is a hotly debated. Of course, the loonies are certain that it's on the rise, I mean, after all, THEIR kid got it, for crying out loud. This leads into the next realm of disaster:

What causes autism? Truth: not known. Theories: lots of them, none even remotely proven yet. Falsehoods: thermisol (contained in the MMR vaccine until recently as a preservative) causes autism.

Mercury, as you probably know, is a poison. Some doctors with the surname of Geier have taken on a life mission of trying to prove that there is a link between mercury poisoning and autism. Never mind that....the amount of mercury in a vaccine is very small; that there has been no proof to date that this level of mercury causes *any* harm, let alone autism; and that the Geiers have shown themselves to be less than reputable scientists (I use that term loosely). Their priorities are likely different than they appear, if you catch my drift. Now go reread that article, and notice the details about the large fund at stake. This starting to make some sense now?

Much like a medium, the Geier's (father and son) play to what their audience wants to hear. Parents of autistic children have a strong need to understand why their child has the disease: they (rightly) figure that if we can find out what causes it, we can both figure out how to prevent it, and possible correct the disease in affected children.

Now, of course, is where this gets dangerous. A lot of these parents came away from the Geier's research with two nuggest of info: any mercury in a child's body is bad, and that vaccines are bad. Believe it or not, even though thermisol is no longer in the MMR vaccine (it's still in flu vaccines), they are still being discouraged from getting vaccines. As a result, things like POLIO are making a comeback. Read up on herd vaccination theory to see why lettting a few knuckleheads that decide vaccines are a bad thing can muck everything up for the rest of us.

Then, we get to removing this nasty mercury from the child. They recommend chelation therapy: this is a method to cleanse heavy metals (like mercury) from the body with the use of chemical like DMSA. As you'd guess, this is a legit method to remove heavy metals from someone who has heavy contamination. As such, it has risks and must be done by qualified personnel. Well, surprise, a lot of altie clinics will do this for you. Never mind it has never been shown to have a demonstratable effect on a child's autism. Worse...in August 2005, a boy died due to improperly applied chelation therapy. He may have been the first, but he won't be the last. Like I said, it's a risky procedure and does have significant side effects...with no demonstrated benefit.

So what's my point in all this? First, the court case. The anti-vaccine crowd has realized they can't win in the science world, where facts rule supreme. Instead, they're trying to win in court, which is often only partially based on fact--much like the antivax crowd's science.

Second, some or all of us will have children, or already do. There is a lot of antivax literature out there that *sounds* good. If you are at all considering not getting your kids vaccinated, I urge you to research that with the utmost diligence and base your decision on fact, not emotion. Word to the wise--anything that references Big Pharma is a red herring. I'll point you to one of my favorite bloggers, Orac, who has frequent columns on this whole autism - vaccine controversy.

3 comments | Tags: woo, politics, science

GJ said about 4 hours later

Remember me mentioning that the rate of Autism has climbed supposedly, but we're not sure if it's a measurement thing or a actual increase? Well, this group has and they came to the conclusion that it's OBVIOUSLY due to all the wireless signals now floating around the world today. But of course! I mean, it's not like anything else has changed in the world during this time, right? How have our diets changed? How about the amount of sunlight we get? Geez, louise...there are a zillion variables, and not a one can be linked just based on "hey, this wasn't here back in the 1970s, but is now, so it must be responsible for the upswing in autism....never mind there might not even BE a trigger, and instead we find that this disease is actually GENETIC. Duh.
Steve said 1 day later

I think it's because most people think they know more about things these days than anyone ever did. Unfortunately, I think we know a little bit of a lot of things these days, instead of a lot about fewer things. And it's not knowing the whole story that is causing all this stupid controversy.

On a somewhat similar topic, Have you ever heard Bucky Covington's song "Different World?" It's a great song about how we all grew up just fine with all the things people wouldn't think of these days.

Well, to save you rock and roll only guys from having to listen to some dreaded country, here are the lyrics:

We were born to mothers who smoked and drank
Our cribs were covered in lead-based paint
No childproof lids
No seatbelts in cars
Rode bikes with no helmets
and still here we are
Still here we are

We got daddy's belt when we misbehaved
Had three TV channels you got up to change
No video games and no satellite
All we had were friends and they were outside
Playin' outside

It was a different life
When we were boys and girls
Not just a different time
It was a different world

School always started the same everyday
the pledge of allegience
not every kid made the team when they tried
We got disappointed but that was alright
We turned out alright

It was a different life
When we were boys and girls
Not just a different time
It was a different world

GJ said 2 days later

This song might as well be called "Nostalgia". If conservatives have but one thing in common, it's that they positively hate change, and romanticize the heck out of the years gone by. Not meant as a dig...mostly just an observation.

But yes, all too often people are quick to jump on the latest study, treat it as proof, and demand changes to combat this new "threat." Same problem exists with the healthy food of the week, dangerous chemical of the week, etc. That's not to say every warning is bogus, but oh how we like new warnings.

Uh oh, here comes synthetic biology!
posted by GJ on June 29, 2007 @ 11:10AM

OK, first the disclaimer. This link will take you to PZ Myers' blog, which I'm not even going to attempt to spell. He's a biologist professor from Minnesota U, and is also one of the best known atheist bloggers on the web--mostly, because he's a jerk. ;) So, prepare to be offended if you troll around the site some--he takes no prisoners among theists.

Anyhow, this short article deals with something called synthetic biology. It's a good read. I guarantee you'll see a Michael Cricton novel in the next 6-8 months that takes this technology and turns it into a techno-horror story.

By the way, I am not looking for a DOES GOD EXIST discussion in the comments. We've done that seven ways to Sunday and I think we all know where those of us who've bared our, um, souls, stand. I'm more interested in what you think of this development. What good can come out of it? What bad?

13 comments | Tags: science

Geoff said about 5 hours later

Well...I'm not exactly sure what synthetic biology is....I guess building biological material from scratch? Anyhow, it sounds interesting and I'm sure everyone but the scientific community will hate it. I will say, he has some other cool stuff on his blog.

I'll have to read it again, my head hurt after the first review...
Steve said about 6 hours later

You head hurting was God telling you that you shouldn't be enjoying that website so much...

LOL

Anyone ever wish that they lived in earlier times, when things were much simpler? Somedays, I wish electricity was never figured out. Darn that Ben Franklin...
Geoff said about 7 hours later

Then what would you race? Bicycles? :P
Steve said about 10 hours later

Hey, if I didn't know about cars, then I couldn't miss them. It would certainly have made my life easier. Who knows, I might have even had a chance to have a real life, maybe a wife...
GJ said about 11 hours later

Simpler times always sound good, but people in "after the fall" movie never seem to be enjoying themselves. Remember, when times were simple, a whole lot more people's lives were miserable.
Kristen said about 12 hours later

So before long, we'll be able to produce life in a lab. I think millions of women will soon get 'headaches' from this new information, especially after they put the kids to bed (who were created in a lab). The dishwasher and laundry machine made life easier for women, I guess we'd be happy to let advanced technology eliminate another chore!
GJ said about 13 hours later

Methinks growing babies is far in the future. We're talking very simple lifeforms--who, no doubt, will become sentient and wipe us out. I for one welcome our new synthetic biology masters. ;)
Abby said about 23 hours later

Ooh... wipe us out?

I like the sound of that. Than I will have my work cut out for me when I rule the world!
Geoff said about 23 hours later

That's if Hillary doesn't beat you to it!
Abby said 1 day later

But the world is mine!

Me, my alien army, my spider army, and my undead army have already claimed it!

Besides, if I don't rule the world, the Irkens will get it, one way or another. ^^
Kristen said 1 day later

Hillary already ruled once. We just need to reinstate her.
Geoff said 2 days later

Well...I've got a crush on Obama
GJ said 2 days later

The only reservation I have with Clinton is the following:

1988 winner: Bush
1992 winner: Clinton
1996 winner: Clinton
2000 winner: Bush
2004 winner: Bush
2008 winner? Clinton

I'm pretty sure the founding fathers weren't interested in having dynasties run the presidency.

Want to learn something?
posted by GJ on July 27, 2007 @ 4:41AM

SciFi Channel is running Derren Brown's Mind Control series. Now, this is no John "Cold Reader" Edwards--but he does what Edwards does, what Sylvia "I talk to your angel in heaven" Browne does, and what James "Ice Cold Reader" VanPraagh does...only he does it without claiming that he's psychic. He'll show you just how easy it is to fool the human brain into thinking magically, when there is really nothing magical occurring at all.

Check out the site here.

5 comments | Tags: woo, science

Ethanol....the fake solution for our oil problems
posted by GJ on August 1, 2007 @ 5:07PM

Rolling Stone has a damning article on the boondoggle that is ethanol. You should read it!

2 comments | Tags: politics, cars, science

Irradiated food--what do you think?
posted by GJ on August 9, 2007 @ 4:35PM

Read this.

Then this.

Finally, the wikipedia entry.

See why they call folks who wrote the first two articles cranks?

PS. You irridate your food every time you microwave it--you're just using a different wavelength of radiation. And no, microwaving food doesn't wipe out food nutriets any more than a conventional oven does.

No comments | Tags: woo, science

Asteroid Collision spelled doom for the dinosaurs
posted by Steve on September 5, 2007 @ 7:51PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A collision 160 million years ago of two asteroids orbiting between Mars and Jupiter sent many big rock chunks hurtling toward Earth, including the one that zapped the dinosaurs, scientists said on Wednesday.

Their research offered an explanation for the cause of one of the most momentous events in the history of life on Earth -- a six-mile-wide (10-km-wide) meteorite striking Mexico's Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago.

That catastrophe eliminated the dinosaurs, which had flourished for about 165 million years, and many other life forms, and paved the way for mammals to dominate the Earth and the eventual rise of humankind, many scientists believe.

The impact is thought to have triggered a worldwide environmental cataclysm, expelling vast quantities of rock and dust into the sky, unleashing giant tsunamis, sparking global wildfires and leaving Earth shrouded in darkness for years.

U.S. and Czech researchers used computer simulations to calculate that there was a 90 percent probability that the collision of two asteroids -- one about 105 miles wide and one about 40 miles wide -- was the event that precipitated the Earthly disaster.

The collision occurred in the asteroid belt, a collection of big and small rocks orbiting the sun about 100 million miles from Earth, the researchers report in this week's issue of the journal Nature.

The asteroid Baptistina and rubble associated with it are thought to be leftovers, the scientists said.

Some of the debris from the collision escaped the asteroid belt, tumbled toward the inner solar system and whacked Earth and our moon, along with probably Mars and Venus, said William Bottke of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, one of the researchers.

DEADLY COLLISION

The collision is believed to have doubled for a while the number of impacts occurring in this part of the solar system.

In fact, while the bombardment of this region of the solar system due to this shower of debris peaked about 100 million years ago, the scientists said the tail end of the shower continues to this day. Bottke said many existing near-Earth asteroids can be traced back to this collision.

"Imagine breaking up a big, big boulder on top of a hill and all the fragments rolling down the hill. And somewhere at the bottom is a village called Earth," Bottke said in a telephone interview.

The dinosaur-destroying meteorite, thought to have measured 6 miles across, plunged into Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula and blasted out the Chicxulub (pronounced CHIK-shu-loob) crater measuring about 110 miles wide. The researchers looked at evidence on the composition of this meteorite and found it consistent with the stony Baptistina.

The researchers estimated that there also was about a 70 percent probability that the prominent Tycho crater on the Moon, formed 108 million years ago and measuring about 55 miles

across, also was carved out by a remnant of the earlier asteroid collision.

Philippe Claeys of Vrije Universiteit Brussel in Belgium, who was not involved in the research, said by e-mail the findings were "clear evidence that the solar system is a violent environment and that collisions taking place in the asteroid belt can have major repercussions for the evolution of life on Earth."

Bottke emphasized that point. "Dinosaurs were around for a very long time. So the likelihood is they would still be around if that event had never taken place," Bottke said.

"Was humanity inevitable? Or is humanity just something that happened to arise because of this sequence of events that took place at just the right time. It's hard to say."

7 comments | Tags: science

GJ said about 16 hours later

Apparently, the dinosaurs were big fans of Satan, many of them even going so far to sport horns on their heads. Man oh man, some of them when WAY overboard. So, in His disgust, He threw a snowball into the asteroid belt. Too bad that snowball had a core of nickel, and the resulting collisions spewed some dangerous rocks toward Earth. Goodbye, dinosaurs.

So, the next time He got disgusted, this time with the humans, He was much more careful. He simply sat down in the middle of the Pacific Ocean fuming. Unfortunately, His holy displacement raised the sea levels and wiped out everyone and thing that breathed air save for some old doddering fool in a boat, who then had to repopulate the Earth. That explains a lot about humans today, I might add. God saw what He wrought, felt sorry for man, and thus replaced all the plants of the world since Noah forgot to bring them on his boat.
Marc said about 17 hours later

Why did the author feel the need to add that last quote? It couldn't have anything less to do with the rest of the article.

Also, maybe I'm reading this wrong, but is it saying that just ONE 6 mile across meteorite that left a 110 mile wide crater in the ground was the cause of the ultimate demise of dinosaurs? I find it hard to believe that that small (6 miles is large, but small in comparison to the earth) of a meteorite was enough to cover the sun across the earth and cause tons of tsunamis. I could imagine it would leave a good portion of the surrounding area in ruins, but halfway across the world, it seems like a stretch.

My understanding was that there were several large meteorites that hit in various parts of the world relatively close in time.
GJ said about 19 hours later

They don't really have a positive cause for the death of the dinos. However, the collision is linked, since we find no dinos above the collision layer in the earth's soil. It may not have been a direct cause, but it sure may have started a reaction that finished off the dinos. One of the more whacked-out theories holds that the meteor may have been carrying a deadly virus that may have wiped out the dinos, but I think those folks forget that dinosaur mass transit was pretty iffy back in the day.
GJ said about 22 hours later

Oh, and Marc, how deep is that crater? Figure out how much dirt can fill that bowl, and yep, you guessed it, it can do a lot to restrict sunlight in dust form, spread throughout the atmosphere. Also figure this bad-boy started some big bad fires across what is now North and South America, which would have added tremendously to the dust cloud.
GJ said about 23 hours later

Btw, for those who thought the scientific news was that an asteroid killed the dinos, no, that's not it, either. The newsworthy thing is they think they found the event responsible for sending us that asteroid fragment, which is kind of neat in and of itself. Nice find, Steve! Don't take my ludicrous attempt at humor in the first post to belittle the story.
Steve said 1 day later

I think the last line was tossed in there just to get people thinking.

I certainly found it interesting to learn of the event that may have sent an asteroid that size towards earth. So, what would happen today if the same event occured? Would we have time to do anything about it? Send a couple shuttles manned with oil derrick workers and nuclear bombs to land on it and blow it in half? Fire nuclear weapons at it, hoping to splinter it into smaller, more manageable/less damaging pieces?

A six mile wide asteroid could certainly spell doom for most living creatures on earth. Just think about what happens when a major volcano explodes. It affects things halfway around the world. And aside from just the damage from the asteroid hitting the earth, don't we think the earth could have reacted causing further damage? Could this big of an impact cause ruptures in the earth on the other side of the planet? Could it have caused the simultaneous eruptions of hundreds of volcanos across the earth, due to the pressure spike on the core from the impact? Lots of interesting possibilities there.

GJ said 1 day later

A collision that close would give us time measured in perhaps days, if not hours. We'd take a huge hit, but humanity would survive. Unlike the dinos, we adapt. We've had catastrophes that wiped out almost everyone in the past...taking the human pop down to 10,000 across the world. Short of something like a tailored virus that has a 100% kill rate, nothing like that will wipe us out all that easily.

Maybe H.R. Giger was right
posted by GJ on September 6, 2007 @ 5:18PM

...about the set of jaws inside a set of jaws. Check out this story--the quicktime movie they have is the best image I've seen yet of the moray eel's inner jaw, which was apparently just recently discovered.

1 comment | Tags: science


	1 2 3 4 Next page

Username:
Password:
Remember me