VIEWING WHAT PASSES FOR “GREAT” ART RECENTLY, I was reminded of Sturgeon’s Law: “90 percent of everything is crap.”   This got me thinking about another pet theory of mine:
90 percent of the human race is non-sapient.
Mar 27th, 2007 by Central Archivist | 2 Comments »
Mar 22nd, 2007 by Central Archivist | 3 Comments »
CONFESSION TIME. I STARTED LIFE AS A CREATIONIST. Both my parents were creationists (though I suspect my father was changing his attitude on this subject toward the end of his life). I lived most of my life in the South, where religion is a given and most folks are what I call “passive creationists” (they don’t really give the matter much thought, but they’re sure the Bible’s account is pretty much correct).
Mar 1st, 2007 by Central Archivist | 4 Comments »
YEAH, I STOLE THE HEADLINE from another article, but it just seemed so appropriate.
A group disillusioned with a perceived liberal bias at Wikipedia have decided to create their own, “conservative” online encyclopedia: Conservapedia.Â
Please note the quotes around “conservative.”
Feb 25th, 2007 by Bones | Comments Off
THIS IS THE THIRD OF A CONTINUING SERIES examining what is being passed off as science on creationist websites.
This article examines a specific false claim made on numerous creationist websites in an attempt to discredit radiocarbon dating. A list of some of the websites repeating this false claim appears at the bottom of this article.
Some creationists feel a need to discredit radiocarbon dating because it is incompatible with their belief in a young earth. In trying to discredit the radiocarbon method, they often resort to distortions, misrepresentations, faulty science, and outright lies, all compounded by poor scholarship.
Feb 22nd, 2007 by Placozoan | Comments Off
We’ve seen it so many times on TV: the arrogant scientist or evil corporation meddles with Forces We Cannot Understand (TM) and Mother Nature lashes back with earthquakes, tsunamis, or volcanic eruptions. This time, it looks like it may actually be true, at least minus the pejorative adjectives. But the results are a lot less photogenic than Hollywood would like–450 hectares of mud.
Feb 1st, 2007 by Black Ops | Comments Off
“…IN SUPPORT OF THE REPUBLICAN WAR ON SCIENCE,” as our own Dr. S. neatly put it. How’s that? Well, for those of you who had it all figured out, that the Repubs were raiding the budget to enrich Halliburton, KBR, thus giving Chris Mooney et. al. stuff to write about, comes this latest news on the budget front. Those science-loving lefties running Capitol Hill have proposed maintaining NASA’s 2007 budget at 2006 levels. That’s opposed to the science-hating Republicans, who wanted to increase it by $400 million. Got that? Good.
Oct 16th, 2006 by Placozoan | Comments Off
NOT TOO LONG ago the idea of studying fossilized embryos half a billion years old would have seemed ridiculous, but advances in technology have made this practical. This week in Science Dr. Hagadorn and coworkers present the results of their studies of Precambrian embryos from the Doushantuo region of China using a battery of methods including X-ray computed tomography (CT), electron microscopy (SEM), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and thin-layer petrography.
Oct 10th, 2006 by Heinz Kiosk | 3 Comments »
MOST CREATIONISTS have a very homo-centric view of the universe. They believe that God created the universe specifically to create a home for humankind on Planet Earth. When we examine the universe how reasonable does that belief seem?
Sep 28th, 2006 by Heinz Kiosk | 2 Comments »
INTERNET DEBATES about the validity of the theory of evolution are common. On American-dominated websites, newsgroups, and bulletin boards the debate is usually between Christian biblical literalists (of various stripes) on one side against Christians who interpret the relevant biblical passages less literally, atheists, and agnostics on the other side.
A common argument used by those who reject evolution runs follows: “If the Bible isn’t literally true, then there are no absolute moral standards, because absolute morality comes from God. That would be really terrible, so the Bible must be true and evolution must therefore be false.”
Sep 15th, 2006 by Desty Nova | 2 Comments »
STEVEN B. CASE’S opinion piece is a must-read. (If registration is required, go to BugMeNot for an username and password.)
How can you argue the following point he makes?
Irreducible complexity implies that God resides in the “gaps†of our knowledge. Science students who are introduced to the idea that God is only present in what we don’t understand, i.e. the mysteries of the universe, are left with difficult issues to resolve. If God is found in the mysteries, as their understanding of the natural world grows, then God (the mysteries) gets smaller. Continue Reading »