PZ Myers treats us to a nice writeup of yet another transitional fossil for the creationists to pretend doesn't exist. This one is called Odontochelys, a turtlelike creature that had teeth modern turtles lack, but no shell, and lived 220 million years ago.
I know, I know, it's still just a turtle. And people who say that are still ignoramuses.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Dawkins Blamed for Suicide - So Much for Personal Resonsibility
Richard Dawkins now blamed for a suicide. It is amazing the power some people put in this man's words.
Wasn't this the book that supposedly didn't deal sufficiently with theology? Yet it cracked this kids faith. Yeah, when you learn that all the people you trusted your whole life were lying, or just plain ignorant, one would think depression would set in. Never mind laying the blame on those that filled his head with nonsense though, no sirree bob. Shoot the messenger.
Wasn't this the book that supposedly didn't deal sufficiently with theology? Yet it cracked this kids faith. Yeah, when you learn that all the people you trusted your whole life were lying, or just plain ignorant, one would think depression would set in. Never mind laying the blame on those that filled his head with nonsense though, no sirree bob. Shoot the messenger.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Christian Aerobics
Yes, its serious, and yes, it's hilarious. And if you think he is funny, think about the people working out with him. Tammy Fay in tights?
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Mountain Range that Shouldn't be There
Here's an interesting article on a mountain range that current evidence suggests that it "shouldn't be there" at all.
An Antarctic mountain range that rivals the Alps in elevation will be probed this month by an expedition of scientists using airborne radar and other Information Age tools to virtually 'peel away' more than 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) of ice covering the peaks.
The researchers hope to find answers there to some basic questions about the nature of the southernmost continent, including the massive East Antarctic Ice Sheet. For instance, it is unclear how Antarctica came to be ice-covered in the first place and whether that process began millions of years ago in the enigmatic Gamburtsev Mountain range.
Working every day at extreme altitudes, in 24 hours of sunlight and at temperatures as low as minus 40 degrees Celsius, the researchers of the Antarctica's Gamburtsev Province (AGAP) team hope to learn whether the Gamburtsevs were born of tectonic activity in Antarctica or date from a period millions of years ago, when Antarctica was the center of an enormous supercontinent located at far lower latitudes.
Robin Bell of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, who shares the leadership of the U.S. science effort, said AGAP will help scientists understand one of Antarctica's last major mysteries.
"Because the heart of East Antarctica is so difficult to get to, we know very little about it," she said. "We think also that there's a strong possibility that the mountains are the birthplace of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.
One can note the stark contrast between what scientists do when confronted with a mystery - do research and gather evidence - versus what anti-science cranks like the IDers do - toss up their hands and proclaim the mystery beyond science.
An Antarctic mountain range that rivals the Alps in elevation will be probed this month by an expedition of scientists using airborne radar and other Information Age tools to virtually 'peel away' more than 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) of ice covering the peaks.
The researchers hope to find answers there to some basic questions about the nature of the southernmost continent, including the massive East Antarctic Ice Sheet. For instance, it is unclear how Antarctica came to be ice-covered in the first place and whether that process began millions of years ago in the enigmatic Gamburtsev Mountain range.
Working every day at extreme altitudes, in 24 hours of sunlight and at temperatures as low as minus 40 degrees Celsius, the researchers of the Antarctica's Gamburtsev Province (AGAP) team hope to learn whether the Gamburtsevs were born of tectonic activity in Antarctica or date from a period millions of years ago, when Antarctica was the center of an enormous supercontinent located at far lower latitudes.
Robin Bell of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, who shares the leadership of the U.S. science effort, said AGAP will help scientists understand one of Antarctica's last major mysteries.
"Because the heart of East Antarctica is so difficult to get to, we know very little about it," she said. "We think also that there's a strong possibility that the mountains are the birthplace of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.
One can note the stark contrast between what scientists do when confronted with a mystery - do research and gather evidence - versus what anti-science cranks like the IDers do - toss up their hands and proclaim the mystery beyond science.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
There's Hope: Kathleen Parker Nails It
More and more Republicans are getting it. Here's Kathleen Parker spelling it out clearly:
"As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.
Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.
I'm bathing in holy water as I type.
To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh...
Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle.
Here's the deal, 'pubbies: Howard Dean was right.
It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs.
Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion. And, though the recent Democratic sweep can be attributed in large part to a referendum on Bush and the failing economy, three long-term trends identified by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz have been devastating to the Republican Party: increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs.
Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting. "
The entire article is worth a good read. The Republican party is going to have to change to survive, and at a, ahem, fundamental level. Ironically, it was Obama that gave them the recipe for recovery here. It is not, as people like Mike Huckabee and Jonah Goldberg misrepresent, about kicking Christians out of the GOP. How ironic that they would respond to the charge of being intellectually dishonest to please stupid people with an intellectually dishonest argument that would persuade only stupid people.
The needed change is for evangelical Christians, and anyone else of any religious bent, to understand that they must have secular justification for their political positions in order to be persuasive to the ever-growing citizenry that is not so religiously inclined. They must refer to what we all see, not just private religious views that only they see. They must abandon the contradiction they have managed to balance over the last few decades: claiming their religious views were faith-based and therefore should not be subjected to scientific scrutiny, but then expecting those views to be given the force of science when arguing in the public square.
Evangelical politically active Christians have tried to have it both ways, and now that they are a shrinking minority, it simply won't do. Either your religious views are private, faith affairs, not to be exposed to or challenged by others, or they are external claims on reality with political and scientific implications, good enough for the public square, and open to challenge by all. Too many of you think criticism of your views violates your first amendment rights. Get over that.
If you are going to oppose abortion, stem cell research, evolution, and gay marriage, and promote abstinence only sex ed, Bible classes, and sectarian holiday displays, you are going to have to come up with arguments that are not based on your faith-based religion. There aren't enough of you any more to win like that, and the rest of us don't care what your religion says. You may have won some minor victories in 2008 (Prop 8 in Cal.), but there are no demographic trends in your favor for the future. Change, or become a minor, ignored, party.
"As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.
Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.
I'm bathing in holy water as I type.
To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh...
Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle.
Here's the deal, 'pubbies: Howard Dean was right.
It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs.
Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion. And, though the recent Democratic sweep can be attributed in large part to a referendum on Bush and the failing economy, three long-term trends identified by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz have been devastating to the Republican Party: increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs.
Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting. "
The entire article is worth a good read. The Republican party is going to have to change to survive, and at a, ahem, fundamental level. Ironically, it was Obama that gave them the recipe for recovery here. It is not, as people like Mike Huckabee and Jonah Goldberg misrepresent, about kicking Christians out of the GOP. How ironic that they would respond to the charge of being intellectually dishonest to please stupid people with an intellectually dishonest argument that would persuade only stupid people.
The needed change is for evangelical Christians, and anyone else of any religious bent, to understand that they must have secular justification for their political positions in order to be persuasive to the ever-growing citizenry that is not so religiously inclined. They must refer to what we all see, not just private religious views that only they see. They must abandon the contradiction they have managed to balance over the last few decades: claiming their religious views were faith-based and therefore should not be subjected to scientific scrutiny, but then expecting those views to be given the force of science when arguing in the public square.
Evangelical politically active Christians have tried to have it both ways, and now that they are a shrinking minority, it simply won't do. Either your religious views are private, faith affairs, not to be exposed to or challenged by others, or they are external claims on reality with political and scientific implications, good enough for the public square, and open to challenge by all. Too many of you think criticism of your views violates your first amendment rights. Get over that.
If you are going to oppose abortion, stem cell research, evolution, and gay marriage, and promote abstinence only sex ed, Bible classes, and sectarian holiday displays, you are going to have to come up with arguments that are not based on your faith-based religion. There aren't enough of you any more to win like that, and the rest of us don't care what your religion says. You may have won some minor victories in 2008 (Prop 8 in Cal.), but there are no demographic trends in your favor for the future. Change, or become a minor, ignored, party.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Demographic Election Maps
For those of you that can't get enough of electoral maps, check this site out, where the electoral results are recalculated by gender, economic status, education, race, and political affiliation. While the results all mirrored to some extent the same pattern as the total, there were some revealing scores:
College graduates: Obama - 337, McCain - 198
Independents: Obama - 367, McCain - 168
Earners over $50k annually: Obama - 271, McCain - 267
Whites: McCain - 316, Obama - 222
Over age 65: McCain - 341, Obama - 120
Some of the totals are short for lack of data in certain states. Nonetheless, the pattern is clear: Obama won educated independents, McCain's base was older whites. It's yet another negative demographic trend for the GOP.
College graduates: Obama - 337, McCain - 198
Independents: Obama - 367, McCain - 168
Earners over $50k annually: Obama - 271, McCain - 267
Whites: McCain - 316, Obama - 222
Over age 65: McCain - 341, Obama - 120
Some of the totals are short for lack of data in certain states. Nonetheless, the pattern is clear: Obama won educated independents, McCain's base was older whites. It's yet another negative demographic trend for the GOP.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Hugh Hewitt's Predictions
Take a look at Hugh Hewitt's predictions for the Obama Presidency:
"Flash forward to the summer of 2011: President Obama is beleaguered and his approval numbers are in the low 30s. Taxes are high, inflation is high, unemployment is high, and the markets have never recovered from the post-election sell-off. Oil is back in triple digits, and the Taliban have seized large portions of Pakistan and threaten the central government there. Iran went nuclear in 2010 and threatens Israel on a weekly basis. President Obama's press conferences are painful to listen to, his inability to act decisively has earned him the title 'ditherer-in-chief.'
The GOP is eager for the primaries to begin, and a strong field has emerged that includes the return of Giuliani, Huckabee and Romney to the hunt, but which also includes Jeb Bush, Tim Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels. (Sarah Palin has decided to wait until the conclusion of the second term she won handily in 2010 before deciding on a future course.)"
In a way this is refreshing to have a GOP pundit actually make specific predictions in time and content. In the summer of 2011:
1) Obama approval ratings below 35%
2) Taxes higher than they are now
3) Inflation higher than it is now
4) Unemployment higher than it is now
5) Dow below 8,000
6) Oil over $100/barrel
7) The Taliban controls large segments of Pakistan
8) Iran has nuclear weapons
My money says that no more than 3 of these will be true, and certainly if most of these came to pass, I'd have to rethink the way I saw the world. I'm sure Hewitt has many in agreement with him, but the important question is will they rethink the way they see the world if few of them come true? What if instead, everything improves under Obama? Will they make excuses, ignore the evidence of the failure of their worldview, and find increasingly contorted reasoning to give credit to George Bush?
One of the most interesting aspects of the election to me was the consistent failure of many partisan GOPer predictions, and the equally consistent failure of them to alter their views of the world. When reality conflicted with their theories, it was reality that was rejected. In an ever changing world, that cannot continue.
"Flash forward to the summer of 2011: President Obama is beleaguered and his approval numbers are in the low 30s. Taxes are high, inflation is high, unemployment is high, and the markets have never recovered from the post-election sell-off. Oil is back in triple digits, and the Taliban have seized large portions of Pakistan and threaten the central government there. Iran went nuclear in 2010 and threatens Israel on a weekly basis. President Obama's press conferences are painful to listen to, his inability to act decisively has earned him the title 'ditherer-in-chief.'
The GOP is eager for the primaries to begin, and a strong field has emerged that includes the return of Giuliani, Huckabee and Romney to the hunt, but which also includes Jeb Bush, Tim Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels. (Sarah Palin has decided to wait until the conclusion of the second term she won handily in 2010 before deciding on a future course.)"
In a way this is refreshing to have a GOP pundit actually make specific predictions in time and content. In the summer of 2011:
1) Obama approval ratings below 35%
2) Taxes higher than they are now
3) Inflation higher than it is now
4) Unemployment higher than it is now
5) Dow below 8,000
6) Oil over $100/barrel
7) The Taliban controls large segments of Pakistan
8) Iran has nuclear weapons
My money says that no more than 3 of these will be true, and certainly if most of these came to pass, I'd have to rethink the way I saw the world. I'm sure Hewitt has many in agreement with him, but the important question is will they rethink the way they see the world if few of them come true? What if instead, everything improves under Obama? Will they make excuses, ignore the evidence of the failure of their worldview, and find increasingly contorted reasoning to give credit to George Bush?
One of the most interesting aspects of the election to me was the consistent failure of many partisan GOPer predictions, and the equally consistent failure of them to alter their views of the world. When reality conflicted with their theories, it was reality that was rejected. In an ever changing world, that cannot continue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
