Friday, July 05, 2013
Monday, June 17, 2013
Notion of Creation is not a theory, and scientific theories aren't proposed notions
Bible based knowledge does not lead to new scientific knowledge. People used to think the Bible was useful to learn about nature. They did try to use it as a guide to make new discoveries. However, over time, scientists started finding out that the Bible just gets so much wrong. The Bible literally has almost every major point wrong about the universe, from its description of Earth as a flat world with a tent over head to its description of rabbits as cud chewers. The value of the Bible is it's a general moral guide taken in the context within the times each portion was originally written/re-written. Taking it for more than that is truly grasping as straws. People discovered the hard way that the Bible was not a good starting point to learn about nature. That's why the practice of referring to the Bible as a source for science was stopped over time.
So, to that point, Creationism based on the Bible isn't a theory. It is a failed notion. A theory isn't just a proposal. It is a proven working model of the Universe with a lot of peer reviewed data, from which accurate predictions can be made. To extend this further, those predictions often create new areas of exploration and further growth of knowledge, directly leading to new technologies, either in the exploration of the theory or as a result of knowledge learned from the theory. Last major invention spurred by Bible belief was the telescope, and use of that technology disproved that belief; the creator being forced to recant his statements about reality and live under house arrest for the remainder of his life.
On the other hand, Darwin didn't create the Theory of Evolution, he proposed the core concepts based on his observations. Evolution was born out of the peer review process with much more independently collected data. Evolution wasn't a theory until there was a massive amount of data and extraneous amount of analysis of that data, from which the natural model was molded.
Why is Creationism not a theory? Because it doesn't have one iota of this. The supporters want a magical shortcut, using circular arguments and cherrypicked research of other people's works in the form of anecdotes and impressive looking fake equations. No actual proven predictions come from Creationsm nor from its child contrivance called Intelligent Design. Creationism is the end of knowledge, not its birth. That is why is it not a theory and it is not science. Now, that said, the challenge is always there for Creationism supporters to objectively collect data and test hypotheses. Even if they don't prove their hypotheses, at least new knowledge would come from that. This process has yet to be undertaken by Creationist (and Intelligent Design believers), or if it has, results have been hidden.
Examples of observations that would grow knowledge along the Creationist track:
On the other hand, Darwin didn't create the Theory of Evolution, he proposed the core concepts based on his observations. Evolution was born out of the peer review process with much more independently collected data. Evolution wasn't a theory until there was a massive amount of data and extraneous amount of analysis of that data, from which the natural model was molded.
Why is Creationism not a theory? Because it doesn't have one iota of this. The supporters want a magical shortcut, using circular arguments and cherrypicked research of other people's works in the form of anecdotes and impressive looking fake equations. No actual proven predictions come from Creationsm nor from its child contrivance called Intelligent Design. Creationism is the end of knowledge, not its birth. That is why is it not a theory and it is not science. Now, that said, the challenge is always there for Creationism supporters to objectively collect data and test hypotheses. Even if they don't prove their hypotheses, at least new knowledge would come from that. This process has yet to be undertaken by Creationist (and Intelligent Design believers), or if it has, results have been hidden.
Examples of observations that would grow knowledge along the Creationist track:
- Find DNA in mammals that cannot be traced back to a common ancestor or introduced by some other natural process.
- Show completely distinct lifeforms with no ancestry at all.
- Find data that offers new evidence to reinterpret apparent evolution in our own species, from malaria resistance to lactose persistence.
- Additionally, find data that better explains why pre-agricultural humans did not have cavities and modern humans with no cavities is almost unheard of? (Hint, that has been very well explained with a recent study of mouth-dwelling bacteria and their evolution to adapt to our changing diets, along with our own evolution for such too.)
These examples cannot be explained with anecdotes. Hard evidence has to be presented from scientific studies using the Scientific Method. Research doesn't count for this. New evidence has be presented. That evidence must be collected and peer reviewed. Until that happens, Creation Notion can never be put on equal footing with any Scientific Theory, especially the Theory of Evolution.
Sunday, June 09, 2013
Article from Northwest University sites big breakthru for Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
Big Multiple Sclerosis Breakthrough - Phase 1 trial safely resets patients’ immune systems, reduces attack on myelin protein
From the article:
A phase 1 clinical trial for the first treatment to reset the immune system of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients showed the therapy was safe and dramatically reduced patients’ immune systems’ reactivity to myelin by 50 to 75 percent, according to new Northwestern Medicine research.
Saturday, June 08, 2013
WP on MJ legalization; and the prohibition
The article Five myths about legalization of marijuana has a lot of interesting points about legalization of marijuana and what is likely to really happen.
For me, these are reasons to end prohibition:
When the United States’ 40-year-long war on marijuana ends, the country is not going to turn into a Cheech and Chong movie. It is, however, going to see the transfer of as much as 50 percent of cartel profits to the taxable economy.I don't really agree with the tone for the conclusions about the 5th myth in the article regarding the politics of the matter. The Marijuana Prohibition (and prohibition on all drugs for that matter) is neither a liberal or conservative battle. Many individuals from both camps have reasons to support the Drug Prohibition. And, many individuals from both camps have reasons to end it.
For me, these are reasons to end prohibition:
- personal liberty
- disproportionate application of the laws massive federal investment into the Drug War has not decreased drug addiction nor substantially affected overall use
- expensive drug related battles (literally) that only make our enemies stronger and us weaker by the day
- allows focus on treatment for those are prone to addiciton rather than turning them into career criminals
- better use of local funds to help other areas of society and infrastructure
- tax money from the regulation of drugs, etc.
Thursday, June 06, 2013
Radioactive, radioactive radio edit controversy
Distortion was noticeable on digital format as well as CD. Very poor quality on car stereo really drives home the point.
Somehow, producer Alex da Kid thought that intentionally introducing that awful, cheap sounding distortion (several tracks, most notably beginning on 'Radioactive'), was somehow "artistic". What a stupid idea.What's this about distortion? The bass in the song Radioactive has been distorted to sound like subwoofers maxed out. It's a rough and gravelly sound that doesn't sound good on good stereo systems (such as the stereo systems in the average car these days). I got the CD, and I agree with the criticism. It's OK, but not good.
Theres something called the radio edit version of the song, which I like, but it also seems like it's distorted too much too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)