Celebrate Human Achievement Hour
This weekend, enviro-zealots will celebrate “Earth Hour” by turning off their lights. They’ve pulled this stunt for a few years now. But this time, they’ve added a new twist: “This year, Earth Hour has been transformed into the world’s first global election, between Earth and global warming. For the first time in history, people of all ages, nationalities, race and background have the opportunity to use their light switch as their vote – Switching off your lights is a vote for Earth, or leaving them on is a vote for global warming.”
How about voting for human achievement? Michelle Minton at the Competitive Enterprise Institute has a good proposal:
This week CEI announced the creation of Human Achievement Hour (HAH) to be celebrated at 8:30pm on March 28th 2009 (the same time and date of Earth Hour).
Our press release described ways people might celebrate the achievements of humanity such as eating diner, seeing a film, driving around, keeping the heat on in your home—all things that Earth Hour celebrators, presumably, should be refraining from. In the cheekiest manner, we claimed that anyone not foregoing the use of electricity in that hour is, by default, celebrating the achievements of human beings. Needless to say, the enviros in the blogosphere didn’t take to kindly to our announcement.
Matthew Wheeland, an environmental journalist called the holiday “mind-blowingly strange” and pondered if Earth hour folks are including in their numbers people in countries that don’t have enough electricity to make the choice to turn out their lights. Of course, they don’t have the choice to acquire electricity whereas anyone can choose to stop using human technology if they wish…
…Green and private conservation are fine. We have no problem with an individual (or group) that wants to sit naked in the dark without heat, clothing, or light. Additionally, we’d have no problem with the group holding a pro-green technology rally. That’s their choice. But when this group stages a “global election” with the express purpose of influencing “government policies to take action against global warming,” we have every right as individuals to express our vote for the opposite
If our Human Achievement Hour is at all a dig against Earth Hour, it is so only by the fact that we are pointing out what Earth Hour truly is about: it isn’t pro-earth, it is anti-man and anti-innovation. So, on March 28th I plan to continue “voting” for humanity by enjoying the fruits of man’s mind.
Here’s CEI’s HAH announcement that irked the Greenies:
Washington, D.C., March 19, 2009—The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leading free-market think tank, plans to recognize “Human Achievement Hour” between 8:30pm and 9:30pm on March 28, 2009. The new one-hour holiday coincides with Earth Hour, a period of time during which governments, individuals, and corporations have agreed to dim or shut off lights in an effort to draw attention to climate change.
“We are so proud that millions of people plan to show their appreciation for human achievement by doing things like eating dinner, watching television, going to the movies, and brushing their teeth,” says Human Achievement Hour Founder and CEI Policy Analyst Michelle Minton. “Never before has a new holiday caught on so quickly.”
The new one-hour holiday, unknown prior to this press release, has already received overwhelming support from many of Washington, D.C.’s leading institutions. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, for example, tells CEI that it does not plan to shut down all of the city’s bus and rail lines for the “Earth Hour.” The Kennedy Center, likewise, has scheduled a performance of the long-running play Sheer Madness, a jazz concert, and a dance performance to coincide with the Human Achievement Hour. Washington, D.C.’s Target store, furthermore, will remain open until 10:00pm on the evening of the 28th. The Smithsonian Institution also plans a film showing that will extend into Human Achievement Hour.
“We salute the people who keep the lights on and produce the energy that helps make human achievement possible,” says Myron Ebell, CEI’s Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy.
Other organizations around the world and the nation have planned events in support of the new holiday. For example, The United State Marine Corps will continue its combat and humanitarian operations around the world during Human Achievement Hour. The New York Times confirms that it intends to put out a paper on March 29th, 2009 (preparation and printing for that issue will take place during Human Achievement Hour). At least 30,000 movies will also be screened in celebration of Human Achievement Hour. Hospital emergency and operating rooms, likewise, will remain open in Washington and in the rest of the country. Nearly all of the nation’s Wal-Mart locations will also be open during Human Achievement Hour.
Those wishing to celebrate Earth Hour, however, do not need to take part in Human Achievement Hour. “Earth Hour is a viable alternative to human achievement hour,” says CEI Senior Fellow Eli Lehrer. “Those who wish to celebrate Earth Hour should sit in the dark, turn off the heat, and breathe as little as possible.”
It goes without saying that, except for CEI itself, the institutions listed above have not actually endorsed “Human Achievement Hour.” (All the quotes and facts, however, are real and may/should be used.)
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Reminder: Global Warming Still Going to Cause Chocolate Shortage
February 11, 2012 02:31 PM by Doug Powers
33 Comments
Concrete Evidence Man is Causing Glacier Retreat
February 2, 2012 03:07 PM by Doug Powers
68 Comments
E-mail of the day: Media Matters coordinates with Capitol Hill “allies” on Keystone XL; Plus: 20,000 jobs “is not that many”
January 25, 2012 11:23 PM by Michelle Malkin
86 CommentsObama’s Green Robber Barons
January 25, 2012 09:13 AM by Michelle Malkin
89 Comments
Obama Admin. Rejects Keystone Pipeline; TransCanada Can Reapply After Finding Alternate Route; Updated
January 18, 2012 12:13 PM by Doug Powers
159 Comments
GM to Call Back Chevy Volts
January 5, 2012 08:59 PM by Doug Powers
71 CommentsNew Light Bulb Standards Enforced Via Honor System… for Now
December 30, 2011 12:48 PM by Doug Powers
67 Comments
Categories: Enviro-nitwits
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'dBabalu Blog
» Greece is BurningBetsys Page
» Cruising the WebPatterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hitDaily Caller
» Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizationsAmSpecBlog
» Weekend Political Wrap-UpJustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidThe Hill
» Rep. Ron Paul not conceding Maine vote
Zeroangel,
What is the hypothesis for the first living organism? What is the hypothesis for simultaneous development (e.g. feathers need both oil and preening to be an effective covering, without all three you have an ineffective body covering and not an evolutionary advance). biology class has been teaching evolution with a smoke and mirrors approach since it was first introduced. There is just as much “proof” for intelligent design as there is for some of the holes in evolution.
What a leap of “faith”
I think I would be happy with them just also teaching the problems with Darwin’s theory. Shouldn’t the evidence against it be given equal standing?
ZuluAlpha, ref your # 96:
Sorry, I take my time to compose my posts and lag behind the conversation.
BT
CWinNY:
Honestly, you can look up these things for yourself. You don’t need me to go through it with you and as I said I am not interested in getting into this debate once again.
Since you have been polite though, I submit this to you for consideration re. irreducible complexity:
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
Dexter:
Teaching scientific theories doesn’t quite work that way. Children have to understand the current theory before they can refine or research their own. You can’t very well go on to argue against relativity if you don’t know what a Lorentz transformation is.
Dexter:
I understand. I do the same myself sometimes.
ZA,
Since you first used that, I think it not insulting. I have no problem with your firm belief in nothing and your defense of the theory of evolution. I had those same beliefs not all that long ago – in fact I took one of my sailors to task and told him it wasn’t a theory (evolution), it was fact.
After further review, I began to have my doubts. I have read dozens of books on this subject and they have managed to change my mind – through a clear and convincing statement of facts and logic. I am attempting to repeat some of those arguments, and am not doing a very good job of it. I appreciate the dialogue, and please do not take offense at anything I write. The only people I intend to insult are those who come here and cannot defend their positions with either facts, logic, or links to someone who can provide those things (lgm, RSS, Ilovemyself, etc.) All they do is lob inane comments and end up insulting people who respond.
CWinNY:
It’s cool. I am not so much frustrated with you as the inevitable comments that will come from fundamentalists. The colloquial and scientific definition of the word “theory” is cause for much confusion.
You of course must know what the hypothesis for all those things you brought up is. It is evolution through natural selection. Now, the particulars of “how” a certain trait evolved may not always be clear. However, that doesn’t mean “god did it.”
I do want to ask again though, re. ID:
What is the hypothesis? What is the nature of this designer? How would you test for or verify the presence of this “designer?”
In your bird example we know the hypothesis and it could be tested for by it being able to be “falseified.”
That is to say, if we found a fully-formed bird in the Pre-Cambrian, it would destory evolution. This has not happened.
The ID “theory” is unfalsifiable, hence it is not science.
ZA,
re. irreducible complexity:
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
Interesting link, but very fundamentally (there’s that word again) flawed. The basic premise is that nature keeps trying until the mousetrap finally has all the parts. That is antithetical to a very basic part of the theory of evolution – that a small change results in an advantage and thus becomes part of the DNA. What the animation proposes is that nature keeps trying and trying like Wiley Coyote and eventually gets it right – without any positive feedback. Not very logical, nor likely.
Well, I consider myself Christian, but I really don’t like to post about any of those things out on the ‘twigs’. I like to stay near the trunk of the tree.
I have gotten shouted down before. You know, the whole ‘well you’re not a Christian‘ thing.
Done.
CWinNY:
I think you misunderstand the point of the example. All it was trying to do was say that a thing CAN function without all its parts.
The “positive feedback” you are looking for is handled by natural selection.
This blog isn’t big enough for TWO token atheists.
LOL!
Chap please pick off where I left off. I really should start charging for this stuff. I have to go soon but I’ll be back later more than likely.
No can do. Gotta go grocery shopping.
Alright… later then.
Zulu-Alpha out.
ZA,
Don’t follow your bird in Pre-cambrian example. My problem is how did feathers come into existence, regardless of when that occurred? Feathers without oil are worthless to the bird – not an effective coating, and therefore, not something that is passed on to the kids.
Oil, without feathers to put it on, is a waste of energy to produce, and therefore not an advantage to the creature that evolved it.
Oil and feathers without the habit or ability to spread it are also worthless, and therefore not DNA worthy.
What is the theory of evolutions hypothesis for this particular issue? As near as I can tell – it’s we don’t know yet, but it has to have an explanation that will be proven someday.
It gets to the point about the mousetrap – nature does not make changes that have a negative or neutral feedback loop (at least not to my knowledge), yet it has to in order for these things to have evolved
Well, I gotta go also. ZA, if you read this later – natural selection is based on the premise that there is a positive feedback. The creature that first had feathers would not have had an advantage over its brothers and sisters without feathers, and would therefore not have had more kids than non-feathered family members. That’s the basic premise of the theory.
I know I would not keep changing a mousetrap and adding features without something telling me I was on the right track, nature is even more loathe to expend energy needlessly.
CWinNY:
I’m here, but I’ll be on sporadically for the rest of the evening. The Pre-Cambrian example was trying to show you that (contrary to ID) evolution is falsifiable.
I recommend researching irreducible complexity and the arguments against it. Specifically, I am sure your example is referenced somewhere, all irreducible complexity arguments eventually get handled and then the IDer’s just move onto another one, ie. “Well, OK, you explained that one, but what about this?”
My suspicion is that there is some kind of feather pre-cursor that didn’t require oil and was advantageous in some way, but that’s just a guess. The point is; it is still consistent with the theory.
Irreducible complexity arguments do not disprove anything. They merely bring up points we may or may not totally understand yet, and then go on to say, “see, god did it!” This is a non sequitor and not science.
Ref. the mousetrap example, I thought I explained when I mentioned the “positive feedback” being “natural selection” but I will attempt to be clearer. The point is, in the webpage, they simply leave out all the retarded, mutated, failed mousetraps that “died.”
This is not true. Nature is often rather inefficient. Natural selection is not about making the most efficient form that expands the least energy; if this were true, likely only plants (or even far less complex forms of life) would inhabit the Earth. Natural selection is about selecting for the form that bests suits the current environment.
Finally, none of this “disproves” god; in fact, since the definition of “god” is rather fluid, nothing can “disprove” it. However, none of this is incompatible with atheism, either.
Existing hypotheses on the evolution of feathers are reviewed with the assumptions that feather evolved from reptilian scales and that pennaceous feathers evolved before downy feathers. Observations with a scanning electron microscope demonstrate that basic to the structure of pennaceous feathers is the lamelliform structure of barbules, the planes of which are oriented at right angles to the plane of the feather vane. Thus the structure of the vane is more open than generally realized. The airtight vane of flight feathers is assumed a later specialization. Most of the existing hypotheses assume that the feather acts as a relatively solid barrier between the skin of the bird and the exterior and they are therefore not in agreement with the actual structure of feathers. A hypothesis is needed which explains the adaptive value of a pennaceous feather being porous. The hypothesis is put foward that feathers evolved due to selection for a water-repellent integument. For purely physical reasons a porous surface repels water drops more strongly than does a solid surface of the same material. Physicists have pointed out that the structure of feathers conforms closely with the theoretical requirements for water-repellency. Possibly feathers started to evolve on reptiles living at the seashore, where the main advantage of increased water-repellency was to reduce cooling from evaporation of water off a wet integument.
…my hero.
But what happens when the current theory is so warped by smaller theories that it becomes a chore for children to understand? Standard theory…Quantum theory…Special relativity…all assumptions thought up to explain away flaws in the Standard model.
The theory of relativity is a flawed model. It constantly violates the Laws of Conservation of Energy, yet no physicist is willing to take on Einstein and point out it’s many mathematical flaws and assumptions. (lgm care to try?). Try asking any physicist, if you ever get the chance, to explain to you exactly HOW a common household magnet ACTUALLY works. You’ll get a bunch of crap about charge..etc. Where is this source of “power from within” and WHAT is it’s rate of power drain as it holds itself up endlessly against the force of gravity? How can the Earth hold the MOON in an orbit but cannot keep me from picking a pencil up off the floor…and yet Einstein says Gravity weakens with distance? Hmmmmmm.
Surveyor:
LOL! F*cking awesome. Thank you guys. I am happy to finally get some support on this topic.
zeroangel:
I got your back.
ZA,
What do you call a boomerang that doesn’t return: a stick.
What do you call a mousetrap that doesn’t catch mice: in the link provided prototype A, then B, etc. You say the mousetrap functions without all the parts – no it doesn’t. If it doesn’t catch mice, it is not a mousetrap. If it can and does catch mice, then there is no need to keep refining the product. Why would you believe that nature would keep trying something that doesn’t work – it is not like liberals.
Again, I don’t care where feathers are hypothesized to have started, they are no good without the other two ingredients. Show me an example of continued evolution without positive feedback. It either works and is incorporated, or it doesn’t work and dies out. That’s the theory – are you saying there are halfway points in evolution? Where is the evidence for that?
CWinNY:
Yes. It does. I suggest re-reading the link.
False, as better mousetraps will have a better chance of “surviving” and passing on their traits; nature, doesn’t “try” anything, it is “selected.”
Huh? If you mean what I think you are saying, then yes, absolutely, that’s part of the whole point.
Look, I am not trying to say you are not a smart man. I am sure you know a great deal about nuclear physics. It is rather clear that you are somewhat ignorant of the theory of evolution via natural selection.
I suggest reading up on sources other than those that are shills for ID.
ZA,
OK I went back and looked at the link again. I’m still not impressed with the argument. Step one works – not very well, but it works, so it is a mousetrap. Making a more elegant design just makes it a better mousetrap. So all it proves it that Behe made a poor example. There are hundreds of other examples that require all parts in order to work.
I have read books arguing both sides of the issue. I am just convinced by the ones that discuss ID as making better arguments than the ones for the theory of evolution.
So where are the examples of half steps (i.e. the fossils of prototype A mousetrap, followed by prototype B, etc.) I’ve seen nothing but fossils of complete species, with fully developed “mousetraps”. Surely, with the slow evolution of mousetraps there is at least one example out of the millions of fossils that is a missing link?
CWinNY:
One example? OK. The evolution of the hoof. Going back through the ages you will see a progression of fossils in any one “tree” with less and less “toes” until finally you have, one hoof.
Heck, I’ll give you another one (often touted with the whole “missing link” “argument”):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
That one has all kinds of “half steps.”
The problem with feathers is you will be hard pressed to find “half-step” feathers because (obviously) they don’t fossilize well as far as I know.
I am sorry, but you don’t seem to have read very much on the “pro-evolution” side.
ZeroAngel –
How is the “catch all” “can and will eventually be explained by natural, rational means” any different or take any less faith than your so-called “catch all” of another entity, or intelligence?
Joy:
It is different because I can see, feel, hear, touch, and / or taste anything natural. I can also confirm natural means with scientific experiments.
I can do none of these things with the other “catch-all.”
Gentlemen, I would like to offer up the following argument, keep in mind….
I’m definately not an expert on the topic but here is my own little theory on feathers.
As far as I know, scientist have never found any fossils of mammals thought to have feathers nor have they ever found any fossils of reptiles thought to have fur. So, post-asteroid impact, it would seem to me that the earth would have cooled several degrees, went through possibly some sort of mini-ice age for a thousand years or so and then perhaps took some time even after all that, to get back to “normal”. So, could it not be that the feathers we see today evolved from post-impact, surviving reptiles scales’ changing into feathers in an attempt to somewhat keep warm given the circumstances? I know reptiles are cold-blooded but that doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t try to keep warm. So maybe feathers started as a transformation from scales to feathers in an effort to stay warm early on and only later was it realized they could be useful in other ways…like, i dunno…flying? Camouflage maybe? I mean at this point they had the mammels to hide from now, not the other way around.
Honestly, why do you guys even bother with these questions?
The answers are so incredibly apparent and trivial I am surprised I even have to state them.
Joy, I barely started reading your question and I already had an answer, I can’t imagine you didn’t.
If you have some kind of faith, that is fine. Just please do not pretend that my lack of faith is somehow faith in it’s own right. It is not by definition.
Furthermore, I am not “simple” because I cannot somehow grasp some sophisticated theistic argument about a transcendental “god.” I can, indeed I subscribed to it some years, it’s not very sophisticated, and it doesn’t justify any one religion over another. At best it’s an argument for Deism, something I don’t have a problem with as long as we don’t pretend it is science and not meta-physics.
And why does evolution by “natural, rational means” rule out a higher intelligence or God?
I believe in God and I believe God works within “natural, rational means.”
My only point being that science doesn’t rule out the possibility of there being an Intelligence behind it. You cannot disprove God or a higher intelligence with science.
It takes just as much faith to believe we came from a Big Bang or whatever as it does to believe there is an intelligence behind it all.
LINK to a snippet of Dawkins vs. Stein from EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed.
He tries to divert the point by bringing up aliens, but then states they must have evolved in a Darwinian way. What an idiotic argument!
The most any atheist can really say is that up to this point in their life they haven’t had any experience with God. You simply cannot deny those that have. I was an atheist in college until I experienced God. It a split moment of time, I became a Christian. And I can assure you, I wasn’t looking for it and didn’t want it. But I cannot deny what happened to me. While you may wish to deny my experience, you cannot, because it happened to me.
My point is Zero, that you cannot deny God exists, only that you have no proof and do not know God.
That doesn’t rule out the possiblity in the future. ;o)
Joy:
I never said it did; see the last para #118. You really haven’t been reading what I wrote and just choose to cherry pick and reference what you THINK I am saying. Please don’t do that.
Science also doesn’t rule out dragons, fairies, or a giant hamster that shat out a huge black hole that made the Big Bang. Are you denying Hamsterism?
Additionally, if you can’t see that Ben Stein uses similar tactics in “EXPELLED” that Michael Moore uses in his movies then I can’t help you. I suggest reading Dawkins and his version of events.
Re: your experiences, well I don’t know what you are talking about but I have never heard of any “experience” that can’t be explained with a rational, earthly explanation. I doubt yours is different. I don’t mean to insult, but I think you even have to admit this possibility. I am suspect of people that claim to have been an “atheist” and “found” God. Well, you couldn’t have been very good at being an atheist and were likely just “not religious” there is a HUGE difference.
Nope – I was a card carrying atheist. I blasted everyone who believed in any sort of God.
Are you denying that Dawkins was saying we might have been seeded here by aliens?
Joy:
One last thing, ref. this:
Actually, yes, it does. As I have said before, I was raised Christian. I regard the mythology associated with it as every bit as fictional as any other religion ever made (Zeus, Thor, Apollo, Ra, and the various deities of Dungeons and Dragons).
I also regard it as an anathema to my young inquiring mind and I see the time spent on trying to reconcile my religion with science as a massive waste of time.
For that, I am a bit miffed over the whole thing. Please try and understand this. It’s not a matter of me just waiting for the “good news.” It is a matter of feeling lied to and betrayed by people that were just making stuff up; despite having the best intentions when doing so. On top of that, the assertions that I am illogical or somehow immoral (I am not saying this is coming from you, but I do see it often here and elsewhere) are doubly frustrating; I believe many atheists share in my frustration, especially any that are conservatives.
We aren’t “denying God” we just don’t believe in deities (any deities) at all. As Dawkins (I believe) wrote:
Joy:
Dawkins was talking about what one rational arguement for intelligent design would look like. He said he doesn’t believe it himself (I am fairly sure that part was edited out).
Joy:
Sorry, I can’t let this go:
Sounds like you maybe kind of missed the point. I don’t “blast anyone that believes in any sort of God.” I have stated again and again I have little problem with Deists or similar belief in some kind of “transcendent god.”
It bears stating at this point (once again) that I was not the one to bring up the “ZeroAngel atheist challenge” yet again. CWinNY (IIRC) gets credit for this hi-jack.
Kepler described his work as “Thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”
I am thoroughly enjoying this exchange.
plymouthacclaim:
..and if Keplar said “eating strawberries help me think” would that be evidence that strawberries further scientific study?
Chap:
Feel free to join in. I’m juggling this forum, playing Battleground Europe online, and tending to my pregnant wife who is studying her accounting classes all at the same time. I don’t know if I can keep up this intensity for long.
I am quite certain I could not do it the justice that you are.
Tell your wife all she needs to know is “Debits on the left. Credits on the right.”
And good luck on the little one.
Chap:
Thank you. Though I must admit, many of my arguments are likely not my own. However, I can’t credit them properly since I don’t recall exactly who said them. I could be paraphrasing anyone from Democritus, to Spinoza, to Hitchens, to some random poster on another forum.
I like to think some of my statements are original though *smile*.
I told the wife what you said and mentioned that you are a lawyer, she said, “Yah, that’s all he needs to know [about accounting].” LOL.
Thank you for the well-wishes.
Oh….it is ON.
Tell her to name the time and place. We will bind our hands together and settle this “West Side Story” style (or “Beat It” style, depending on your frame of reference).
Or we can go “Outsiders” style with a couple of broken beer bottles. Her choice.
Ummmm… okay. It hardly seems rational to use a circular argument…
The long and short of it is that Dawkins does not know where or how life began. And neither does any other scientist or atheist.
I very much felt that way when I was in college and a couple of years after. I really do understand what you are feeling. I wasn’t waiting for anything either, and like I said didn’t even want it.
As to how some people of various faiths make you feel, I can entirely understand. I get their wrath quite often because I’m not Protestant or Catholic. I’m LDS and you’d find that BYU (Church run University) has an excellent science department.
The God I came to know isn’t anti-science and doesn’t send the vast majority of his children to burn for all eternity in a lake of fire. God is our Father and loves us all. We are his children and we are here for a purpose. Mortality is a necessary part of our eternal growth and progression.
Also, you’ll find liars and hypocrites in every walk of life, including the world of science. If you look at it honestly, evolutionists have just as much of an agenda as do the religionists. Some people feel the need to use any means necessary to disprove God as some do to prove God.
My study of science did change perspectives when I came to know God… For me real science, once I got past the propaganda of evolution, is to learn about how the universe God created works. I seek truth above all things, which means I have to accept it when it comes my way.
I’ll give you the last word.
Oh, now don’t get me started on Debits and Credits…
Joy:
It is not a circular argument. What are you talking about? Dawkins essentially is saying an “intelligent design” argument that could be considered a scientific hypothesis is one in which the Earth was seeded by intelligent extraterrestrials that evolved via natural selection (or a similar process) involving no seeding. However, Dawkins doesn’t subscribe to this because he likely thinks (as do I) that it violates Occam’s Razor.
Please don’t presume to know what I feel. Among my many philosophical readings I have also read various holy texts from many religions; to name a few: the Bible, The Upanishads; the Tao Te Ching (though arguably not so much a holy text as a big horoscope); these are just a few that I have read in full. The mythology of all of them is very obviously the fantasies of ancient peoples ignorant that the sun is, in fact, a massive ball of fire undergoing a constant, sustained nuclear reaction (among other things they are ignorant of). The Nordic legends about Titans clashing with the “gods” in pre-history hold about the same amount of weight as do any of these other myths.
Latter Day Saints? Look I am not going to go there and start pointing out serious questions about Joseph Smith, “South Park” (and others) handled it quite well. I will just ask; what possible experience could you have had that is proof to you that Joseph Smith was not just a fraud?
The theory of evolution via natural selection says exactly the same about god and morality as does special relativity, that is exactly nothing. How often do I have to restate this?
…theological studies and “Christian science” (as if “Muslim science” or “Buddhist Science” or “atheist science” should or would be any different) claims yet another victim.
Chap:
We had a good laugh over here *smile*. “West Side Story” indeed! LOL!
Zero – You sound like you’re still wanting to hash this out further instead of making some final statement…
By circular argument, I mean his so-called hypothesis of aliens seeding life here only to return to his original stance that Darwinism is how THAT life began… again the point is Dawkins himself conceeds that NO ONE knows how life began.
Also, I had an experience that was not in any church nor was it predicated on any preconceived notions. 20 years later I looked into the LDS faith and found it based on what had been revealed to me long ago. I still didn’t just accept it. I don’t ever just accept anything. It took me a while to study it and then there came a time I had to make a choice. Again, it certainly wasn’t my intent to become LDS. To the contrary. But what happened was the same experience as before and I had to choose to follow truth or deny my experience and reject truth.
I seek truth over all else, and must accept it when it is presented to me in a way I cannot deny. I never set out to be a Christian or LDS, and to the contrary, both were anathema to me, but here I am. You might wonder how powerful an experience was for a me to twice follow a path I would never have chosen on my own. I wasn’t born into it and didn’t go looking for it.
Joseph Smith is much maligned and many falsehoods are told about him and the Church. I listened to and believed the lies for many years.
I came to know Joseph Smith as a Prophet by coming to know what this Church teaches is true and by following its precepts a person becomes his or her best self. Strong families, strong community, with people who serve each other with the goal of becoming more and more Christlike and selfless every day. My personal experience is that the more I give of myself and follow Christ’s teachings, the more joy I feel. And I’m not talking tempory happiness, but a deep abiding joy that permeates every corner and aspect of my life.
That’s the last I’ll say. I can’t expect a journey that took me 20 years to occur for you in a couple of blog posts.
Take care.
Joy:
What? I thought I got the last word?
I am not trying to hash out anything I am correcting you when you make incorrect statements about my lack of beliefs, evolution, or what Dawkins said.
Evolution is not a circular argument whether it happened to us, or aliens that seeded us! Furthermore, saying abiogenisis is not understood is not a circular argument and at least it’s a tad bit more honest than saying, “god did it!”
Listen, a circular argument is when you say A is true because B and B is true because A. For example, the universe appears designed so god must have designed it because of the appearance of design! Saying, organisms appear to change and adapt; the fossil record contains a variety of life forms that become progressively less complex the further you go back in time; therefore it appears that life evolved; is NOT circular.
I still do not understand what your experience was other then some kind of vague “revelation.” What was this revelation? Did Joseph Smith appear before you?
…and if the same thing happens to a Hindi does that mean Hinduism is true? What about if my atheism has done the same for me? Am I right then? Why is it that your relatively small percentage of the human population is privy to the “Ultimate Truth” and we aren’t? Or is it that we are all right (huh)?
PS. The Thesaurus is your friend:
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/anathema
That’s all well and good until the Debits go crazy and blame all the transpositions and math errors on the Credits.
Occam’s Razor doesn’t give us an answer as to the beginning. Lightning striking a puddle of ooze and creating life is just as unlikely as any other theory.
Where can I rent some klieg lights in the Oden, UT area?
BTW, were’ getting about 5-9 inches of global warming here in Eden today, and another 5-9 inches tonight. In all the years I’ve lived here and been riding a motorcycle, it looks like this will be the first year where I won’t get the bike out before the end of March. Hell, we stil have 2 feet+ of global warming in the yard left over from winter!
Maybe I can use the klieg lights to melt the global warming on my dirt/mud road.
John:
Abiogensis again? As I said, a work in progress. Anyhow, do you honestly believe that?
OK, which “theory,” in your mind, is more unlikely:
1) That chemical reactions in a “primordial soup” caused lipids and various acids to form into globs that later formed “cells.” (I am not an expert on that particular theory, but I think that is how it goes. I do know that lipids do, in fact, form into tiny spheres just by their very nature.)
2) Or, a giant space hamster sent from an all-powerful super-being came to earth and shat out the first cell.
In any case, saying “god did it!” is NOT science. It is no more science then saying Zeus throws lightning bolts or the Sun God pulls the sun through the sky on his chariot of fire. Science cannot assume any entity that cannot be tested for.
Finally, “Occam’s Razor” is not supposed to give answers to anything. It is designed to demonstrate which answers are unnecessarily complex.
Then why can’t this be duplicated in any lab anywhere?
I’m not going to engage you in this because I don’t have an answer. I tend to believe it’s God’s hand that made all of this and I believe evolution helps to explain subtle difference between related species.
John:
One answer is it can’t be duplicated in a lab because it takes too long.
Another answer would be, it’s only ONE theory and it might not be right!
This doesn’t mean “god did it!” Tell me how to demonstrate in a lab the theory, “god did it!” You absolutely cannot, which is exactly why it is NOT science.
No one has the answer! That is the point! Hamsterism is every bit as unscientific as any other religion (again part of my point) In any case, if you believe evolution occurred and god just helped evolution along then we don’t have any issues at all because that belief is not incompatible with evolution or science.
PS. To be truly accurate, I shouldn’t say “helped evolution along” but “planned that evolution will occur.”
Good grief.
wighttrasch:
Tell me about it. As I said earlier, I cannot help but continue to respond, I do honestly want to help people learn about science as well as show them that atheism isn’t anything bizarre or immoral and is a valid worldview.
I really should just give it a rest myself, but I just feel so compelled. *sigh*
All:
Folks, let me get a jump on this right now; if any of your responses are going to be along the lines of the following, just don’t bother, because I will have to correct you yet again. Instead please read my past replies. Anyhow, here goes:
1) ZeroAngel KNOWS there is no god.
2) There is no evidence of “missing links.”
3) Abiogenisis and evolution are the same thing.
4) Lack of understanding of abiogenisis (or anything for that matter) means god must have done it.
5) Ben Stein knows what he is talking about and isn’t a disingenuous liar Michael Moore style.
I’m sure there is more, in fact, if you haven’t read the whole thread don’t bother replying until you do. Pretty soon I am just going to start replying “see post #XX,” following that, I am going to start asking for donations to my Paypal.
Be careful, the fall from your high horse might be painful.
*sigh*
I’m simply trying to change my screen name after chap told me how, but it won’t let me post. That’s what I get fer tryin’ to be sneaky.
John:
Which “high horse” are we talking about? The one where I plainly admit I don’t know the answers but refuse to make up anything as I go along?
Or the “high horse” where I humbly suggest people please read what I write before trying to tear down what I say?
Maybe it’s the “high horse” where I indicate (half-jokingly) that if anyone so desperately wants to continue to bring up this topic; even after I say I’d rather not discuss it; they should pay me for it?
Perhaps we are talking about some kind of wishful thinking where I will, presumably after I die, be face to face with the nightmarish deity from the Old Testament?
I just want to clarify.
Thank you.
wighttrasch:
LOL! Mah bad bro.
I have done this in the past. I don’t know why it won’t let you now. Tres disappointing.
John:
OK, to be fair, maybe I didn’t suggest it so humbly. Mah bad. Just still not sure what you were referring to.
Chap:
French? Allow me:
and to be fair:
*grin*
That was pretty much it.
OK then, I humbly implore anyone who may want to continue this topic to refer to #157.
Also, I regret sounding arrogant when I demanded that you read my past replies and instead I apologetically suggest that you please read and understand what I am actually saying before trying to tear down what I say.
I admit I do get frustrated after having been through this so many times. I am only human. I hope it can be forgiven.
I was pointing out the big problem with th abiogenesis theory. No single theory is more likely than any other.
Further, I was just stating my personal belief.
John:
I have already pointed out your error:
This:
is false.
I have already given you two theories in which one is clearly very unlikely, and the other is (at least) somewhat plausible. Would you like an even more absurd “theory” than a giant space hamster defecating?
What exactly is your belief? That the same god mentioned in the Old Testament came down to Earth and created the first cell, which then went on to evolve into all the forms of life we see today?
I am not sure I understand what your particular belief is. Afterall, there are many forms of theism.
Surveyor said (#121):
You must be referring to general relativity (Einstein’s theory of gravity) since special relativity does fine with energy.
It’s true that the lack of a well defined locally positive energy density is one of the difficulties with general relativity. Another is it’s seeming incompatibility with quantum mechanics.
Einstein publicized both difficulties, and modern physicists list them as some of the most important questions in theoretical physics (i.e. they are not hushed up or denied). All recognize that general relativity (relation getween Ricci curvature the stress energy tensor) is an approximation that is accurate enough to explain most macroscopic gravitational phenomena, including many things about black holes.
LGM:
LOL! Sorry bro. I almost fell for the same trap.
Surveyor was satirizing the IDers here. He is firmly on board with evolution and relativity.
John:
Here you go, straight from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth#Africa
Is that more or less likely than any one of the modern theories of abiogenisis?
chap; I had my new name picked out & everything. I’m such a spaz.
zero; my first ‘good grief’ was due to this continued thread…but I still don’t have anything new to add. We both know where we stand, and that’s cool.
zero–Bakuba? Oh, I see. It’s a Central African mythology.
I lived in Southern Africa, so it’s the Bantu mythology I’m more familiar with.
wighttrasch:
I have absolutely no problems with your “staying on the trunk” and “away from the twigs” position. I also appreciate your candor and “matter-of-fact” way you describe your meta-physical beliefs. I believe (from our exchanges) that you are appreciative of science and accept the theory of evolution, understanding that it says nothing about morality and god (or any deities).
In light of these things, you and I have no problems at all.
I just pulled that African stuff off wiki because it was the first thing I saw that really jumped out at me as particularly absurd last time I went looking. I recalled it instantly this time around.
For the record–just so we don’t misunderstand one another–I don’t accept the theory of evolution. But that’s because my faith lies elsewhere.
That said, I have nothing else to say!
I also don’t believe in hell. HAHAHAHA!
That’s a story for another day!
wighttrasch:
No? pity. What exactly is it about evolution that you think contrasts with your faith? It’s entirely possible you don’t understand the theory.
The only thing evolution demolishes is a literal reading of Genesis. Many “believers” see no conflict between evolution and a more allegorical reading of Genesis.
I don’t deny the fossils, if that’s what you’re asking.
wighttrasch:
Not so much. I am asking you to be specific.
Obviously, I don’t know exactly what your faith is; you have only given us a metaphor about a tree trunk. I also don’t know what you understand about evolution.
That said, I am asking you to please be specific. What aspect of the theory of evolution via natural selection do you think contrasts with your faith?
I was referring to Creation vs Evolution. I’m sure there are thousands of theories. I’m referring to the two main theories. Neither is more likely than the other because both require faith in “miraculous” events taking place.
John:
#157 items 3 and 4.
Furthermore, what “main” Creation “theory?” The Judeo-Christian one?
John:
Also, as indicated, there is nothing “miraculous” (other than in a poetic sense) about lipids forming into spheres. It’s a wholly natural process.
If you don’t like it, you can leave in a huff. Or a minute and a huff.
I do not aim to know the mysteries of G-d.
It is enough for me to enjoy what He has created now.
My life is not edified by the ‘science’ of how man or the rest of creation arrived at this point.
RufusTFirefly:
If it works for you that is totally kewl. I am indeed very much enthralled and excited by science and the nature of the universe and world around us.
Evolution, in my mind, is a far more satisfying answer (and obviously far more correct) to me than any ancient creation myth. I suppose I have never let go of questions like, “why is the sky blue?” I am still excited by such things today, the questions just got more complex.
My main gripes are with people that try and pass off religion as science and shoehorn it into science classrooms thereby confusing my soon to be born son; and with people that claim atheists are evil.
I am enthralled as well.
Mrswighttrasch & I always say that what many take for granted (in nature) is what proves G-d’s existence to us. Something as simple as a honeybee making a perfectly hexagonal cell for honey in a comb gives us great joy.
RufusTFirefly:
I can understand and appreciate that sentiment. I feel the same way except I attribute it to the wonderful complexity of nature and the laws of physics.
By why does this presumably “prove” the Christian version of “god?” I am assuming that is what you mean when you says G-d, please correct me if I am wrong. Why not Zeus, or Ra, or Apollo, or Buddha, etc. ?
*But why does
Yes; El-Shaddai
Adonai
YHWH.
RufusTFirefly:
OK, why this particular deity? Why not any of the other countless deities? What convinces you that the “perfection” of a honeycomb, is proof of El-Shaddai and not Odin?
Incidentally, honeycombs are not “perfect.” They deviate slightly, though they are extremely efficient and rather close to “perfect.”
zeroangel,
This is the inherent problem with atheists/evolutionists/secularists. You have your beliefs and think everyone else should feel the same way, because yours is the “right” way.
I know that you will never get people to all agree on any one theory, so I have respect for the fact that others believe differently. I am secure enough in my beliefs to not feel the need to convert you.
I’m not saying this is the case with you, but I’ve always felt that the more people argue that theirs is the “right” way, the more they’re looking for something to prove that it isn’t.
John:
What are you talking about?
It’s not a matter of being an atheist vs. theist question.
Evolution is a well supported scientific theory. So much so, that it is more or less a FACT. That DOES NOT mean god does not exist.
It is also true that ID is NOT science. This is an important issue for our country because education is important.
Currently, the United States ranks right around the same education level as Turkey when it comes to understanding evolution. This is not something we, as a nation, should be proud of.
Now, what exactly is the version of “Creation” that you are talking about? I will explain to you how either the evidence doesn’t suport it OR how it is not contrary to evolution, yet still meta-physics and not science.
John:
Let me try and put it to you this way:
This “evolution is wrong” thing is every bit as annoying to me as someone saying “Pi = 3 because the Bible says so.”
It is simply FALSE. As a person who cares deeply about science, education, and the future of our nation it concerns me greatly.
John:
Would you have respect for someone that believes the Earth is flat? Could you see how that might annoy you if someone tried to teach that in a science classroom?
Would you think that someone trying desperately to show you that the Earth is not flat would be looking to “prove something that isn’t?” Could it be they honestly care about helping you to learn something?
Sorry for the rapid fire posts, I just am shooting off quickies and forgetting to mention stuff I later remember.
I’m talking about the origin, nothing else. We can see that evolution takes place. Does it explain everything? No.
What the hell did the platypus evolve from?
Why are mules sterile?
Why did early apes evolve into distinct species like chimpanzee, gorilla, etc. Shouldn’t there be a half chimp, half gorilla out there?
Where are those transitional species in the fossil record?
None of those can be answered with certainty. I don’t have a problem with teaching evolution because it is valid. It isn’t the perfect explanantion for the origins of life and the path from there to here.
Evolution should be taught because it is a valid theory and does explain some of the minor variations in species. However, I view reading and math ability as a better measurement of education quality than whether or not kids know evolution.
John:
Then you are talking about abiogenisis or cosmology, NOT evolution.
No, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
I am not sure, but I’ll willing to bet someone has an idea. Oh wait, here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus#Evolution
Either way, god certainly didn’t come out of the heavens just to create the platypus especially.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule#Fertility
Because that is the way evolution works, things branch off. Gorillas and chimps share a common ancestor in the distant past, that doesn’t mean there should be a half-chimp, half-gorilla anymore then there should be a half-crocodile, half-duck. That is not how evolution works.
I more or less just did. You are welcome.
Absolutely.
Abiogenisis and cosmology, still ongoing areas of study.
It explains every variation. Unless you think god kept popping in from time to time to create certain paths along the tree and made it look like evolution happened.
Well, the US isn’t doing so hot in those areas either, but in any case, neglecting biology will put the US behind the power curve any way you slice it.
If you have anymore questions I will be happy to help, but please at least start off with a google search before you ask me.
OK, to be fair. I didn’t give you certain answers. However, the truth is, in science, NOTHING is ever 100% certain.
I can’t be 100% certain that you are another human being and not a super computer AI.
Some things are pretty darn sure. Evolution is every bit as sure as the idea that I am talking to another person. It is THAT well supported. It is much more supported than relativity, for example.
I am fully aware of attempted explanations for the things I presented. I guess I’m just a little more skeptical about what is presented as fact, but cannot be proved as thus. Take global warming for example. There are plenty who are certain that it’s real and man-made.
Science education as a whole needs to improve along with reading and math. However, there are those who would use that to further their own agenda, rather than teach students that the scientific method is only way to prove a theory.
That’s why the fossil record is littered with transitional species. Oh wait.
I’m smart enough to know that nobody will ever be able to say for certain how nature works, whether that’s evolution or weather patterns. Chaos theory backs me up in that. But then again, that’s just a theory too.
John:
Global Warming isn’t even in the same ballpark as evolution. There are more than a few reasons to suggest that warming is cyclic, rather than caused by man, the most obvious is the lack of data. Many reputable scientists have proposed counter ideas and written peer-reviewed papers on the matter, this is not true of ID or any “counter-evolution theory.”
Huh? What other method to you suggest in science? Evolution isn’t about an agenda anymore than relativity is. How often do I have to repeat this?
EVERY species is a transitional species. That is the whole point! That is how evolution works.
I already conceded this. However, there is such a thing as damn near certain, like for example, I am damn near certain you are another human.
That is not the point of Chaos theory at all. You don’t need Chaos theory to say “nothing is 100%.” Chaos theory approximates systems where a slight change in initial conditions will have drastic effects. These systems have so many variables that mathematical models are difficult. I am not saying you aren’t smart John, but you have demonstrated a willful ignorance of evolution. I am doing my best to explain these things to you. I am not trying to be argumentative.
PS. You can use Chaos Theory to describe things about evolution. It just doesn’t “back you up” when you say “nothing is certain;” something I am not argueing. You don’t need Chaos Theory to say that.
John:
Sorry, I have to comment on this:
If you are as fully aware as you say you are then why do you even ask about half-gorillas and half-chimps? Why even make a statement indicating that there are no transitional fossils?
It demonstrates you fully DO NOT understand. You might as well be saying:
I fully understand the moon is a big massive rock orbiting the Earth; that doesn’t mean it isn’t made of cheese and inhabited by a space man!