Slashdot Mirror

I do not believe CO2 is causing any problems at all ...

What scientific evidence led you to that conclusion? I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern.

The human produced carbon is not causing a warming, and even if it was, admittedly we're talking about a 1/20th of a degree in change/preventive change. ... We would be much better off it seems if we cut back on water vapor... but then it might not rain as much... and don't clouds reflect light anyway?... Almost too many variables to account for, especially in a model that is inherently not stable.

Wrong. I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern.

But _if_ it works, it's not a time machine simply because it teleports matter between two points "faster" than it would take a ray of light to do so.

No, he's actually right- any FTL drive combined with a mundane conventional drive can be used to travel back in time.

If that were true, quantum entanglement would break causality.

Entanglement isn't a causal phenomenon.

But _if_ it works, it's not a time machine simply because it teleports matter between two points "faster" than it would take a ray of light to do so.

No, he's actually right- any FTL drive combined with a mundane conventional drive can be used to travel back in time.

If that were true, quantum entanglement would break causality.

Entanglement isn't a causal phenomenon.

The mathematical means for calculating their "L shaped graph" demonstrating a massive upsurge in global temperature was also shown to be fraudulent, and has been contradicted by almost every other study done on the subject...

I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. For example, several of your claims are answered here and here.

The mathematical means for calculating their "L shaped graph" demonstrating a massive upsurge in global temperature was also shown to be fraudulent, and has been contradicted by almost every other study done on the subject...

I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. For example, several of your claims are answered here and here.

The mathematical means for calculating their "L shaped graph" demonstrating a massive upsurge in global temperature was also shown to be fraudulent, and has been contradicted by almost every other study done on the subject...

I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. For example, several of your claims are answered here and here.

I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.

I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.

I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.

I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.

I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.

I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.

I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.

I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.

I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.

I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.

I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.

I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.

I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.

I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.

I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.

I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.

I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.

I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.

I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.

I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.

I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.

As a result, the Sun was ~25% dimmer 4 billion years ago than it is now.
http://dumbscientist.com/archives/the-faint-young-sun-paradox/

This would suggest that 'snow-line' might have been much closer the to earth... I'd say 25% closer?

I've read somewhere that the 'snow-line' is a place where the comets are born. Pulled by the gravitational forces as our solar system travels around the milky way, they got 'pushed' or 'bounced' towards our sun.

... it'd take a while but is it really so far fetched to think that ultimately all our water and atmosphere are extra-terrestrial?

The point is that the isotope abundances of the oceans don't match the only four comets that have been observed precisely enough. H20 and HDO are easily distinguished from each other, and deuterium (the "D" in HDO) is quite stable so the isotope abundances shouldn't have changed. We've only measured 4 comets, though, so perhaps other comets more closely resemble our oceans.

Coincidentally, I attended Dr. Goldblatt's fascinating talk at the Fall 2008 AGU conference where he showed that the faint young sun paradox could be mitigated by a higher nitrogen pressure in the primordial atmosphere. Someone in the crowd (a Slashdot user, perhaps?) answered my question about experimental constraints on this pressure by saying that current research involving "raindrops" might produce a constraint soon.

This paper seems like it should be relevant, but I've yet to see a direct connection. If anything, the disparities in the isotope abundances between 15N/14N and D/H seem to imply their origins are (at best) only loosely connected. But unfortunately the guy who shouted "raindrops" didn't have a microphone and he was across a crowded lecture hall, so I don't have the foggiest idea what he meant. Maybe "raindrops" was a brief reference to the "enstatite chondrites" on page 7 of this new paper (the context seems similar, at least). However, Javoy's paper was published in 1986 and my mysterious benefactor definitely said the research was currently underway. Plus, the topic at the time was the total pressure of nitrogen, not the isotope abundance...

Anyone who knows about this subject, please enlighten me!

Just a quick note that I've added some more points to my arguments, and made the language far less confrontational. Sorry about that... sometimes I get carried away.

And marriage isn't a civil liberties issue anyway, unless you think the government is stomping on the civil liberties of brothers who can't marry their sisters or a guy who can't marry his second or third wife.

This reasoning also shows that Alabama was wrong to legalize interracial marriage in 2001. After all, we already discriminate against brother/sister couples, so it's perfectly okay to discriminate against black/white couples.

And 40% of Alabama voters agreed with you: they wanted to keep the ban on interracial marriage. I'm curious: would you have voted to keep that ban? If I take your statements at face value, I have to assume you'd support the ban.

(Incidentally, I'm not against recognizing polygamous marriages but I've also noted that-- unlike gay relationships-- polygamous relationships actually can pose a threat to straight marriage.)

If all relationships are the same as a marriage, then incestuous relationships are the same as a marriage. If we can't discriminate against any two people, then we can't discriminate against any two people. That's why.

I've noted that gay marriage opponents bring up "horse marriage" to argue against gay marriage. But that's a ridiculous distraction because horses can't sign contracts. Some people even compare gay people to pedophiles, claiming that marriage between an old man and a 5 year old boy is the same as a gay marriage where both partners are adults. (Hopefully I don't have to explain how bigoted and ignorant this comparison is.)

These are both forms of discrimination. But they're justified forms of discrimination-- like refusing to issue a driver's license to a blind man. Discriminating against incestuous marriages is justified by the increased risk of birth defects.

But discriminating against gay marriage isn't justified by anything except bigotry, usually of the religious variety.

It seems pretty obvious how traditional marriage helps society: forming families and providing a structure for the raising of children. That's why there are hundreds of thousands of years of history of marriages, all more-or-less the same as today's unions.

Marriage has been changing (often for the better) for centuries, as I've previously said.

But gay marriages don't seem to benefit society. And honestly, beyond the advancement of certain political goals, I don't see how they benefit gay folks either.

Do you see how interracial marriages benefit people in love with a person of a different race? If so, you've just seen how marriage benefits gay people.

Also, we improve society every time individual rights are expanded, every time an injustice is corrected, every time a second-class citizen is given equal protection under the law. The more impartial and fair the law is, the more it will be respected.

And no one will be free to disagree that they're married. If you treat them differently because you disagree, be prepared to be fined or arrested (or at least sued) for discriminating. And if your religion says they're not married, well you can forget your freedom to act according to your conscience.

Wait... you're actually arguing that your right to discriminate against gay people trumps their right to the 1,000 tangible benefits of marriage? Are you serious?

As I've mentioned in a previous comment, Fred Phelps is a free man, and he "treats them

And marriage isn't a civil liberties issue anyway, unless you think the government is stomping on the civil liberties of brothers who can't marry their sisters or a guy who can't marry his second or third wife.

This reasoning also shows that Alabama was wrong to legalize interracial marriage in 2001. After all, we already discriminate against brother/sister couples, so it's perfectly okay to discriminate against black/white couples.

And 40% of Alabama voters agreed with you: they wanted to keep the ban on interracial marriage. I'm curious: would you have voted to keep that ban? If I take your statements at face value, I have to assume you'd support the ban.

(Incidentally, I'm not against recognizing polygamous marriages but I've also noted that-- unlike gay relationships-- polygamous relationships actually can pose a threat to straight marriage.)

If all relationships are the same as a marriage, then incestuous relationships are the same as a marriage. If we can't discriminate against any two people, then we can't discriminate against any two people. That's why.

I've noted that gay marriage opponents bring up "horse marriage" to argue against gay marriage. But that's a ridiculous distraction because horses can't sign contracts. Some people even compare gay people to pedophiles, claiming that marriage between an old man and a 5 year old boy is the same as a gay marriage where both partners are adults. (Hopefully I don't have to explain how bigoted and ignorant this comparison is.)

These are both forms of discrimination. But they're justified forms of discrimination-- like refusing to issue a driver's license to a blind man. Discriminating against incestuous marriages is justified by the increased risk of birth defects.

But discriminating against gay marriage isn't justified by anything except bigotry, usually of the religious variety.

It seems pretty obvious how traditional marriage helps society: forming families and providing a structure for the raising of children. That's why there are hundreds of thousands of years of history of marriages, all more-or-less the same as today's unions.

Marriage has been changing (often for the better) for centuries, as I've previously said.

But gay marriages don't seem to benefit society. And honestly, beyond the advancement of certain political goals, I don't see how they benefit gay folks either.

Do you see how interracial marriages benefit people in love with a person of a different race? If so, you've just seen how marriage benefits gay people.

Also, we improve society every time individual rights are expanded, every time an injustice is corrected, every time a second-class citizen is given equal protection under the law. The more impartial and fair the law is, the more it will be respected.

And no one will be free to disagree that they're married. If you treat them differently because you disagree, be prepared to be fined or arrested (or at least sued) for discriminating. And if your religion says they're not married, well you can forget your freedom to act according to your conscience.

Wait... you're actually arguing that your right to discriminate against gay people trumps their right to the 1,000 tangible benefits of marriage? Are you serious?

As I've mentioned in a previous comment, Fred Phelps is a free man, and he "treats them

And marriage isn't a civil liberties issue anyway, unless you think the government is stomping on the civil liberties of brothers who can't marry their sisters or a guy who can't marry his second or third wife.

This reasoning also shows that Alabama was wrong to legalize interracial marriage in 2001. After all, we already discriminate against brother/sister couples, so it's perfectly okay to discriminate against black/white couples.

And 40% of Alabama voters agreed with you: they wanted to keep the ban on interracial marriage. I'm curious: would you have voted to keep that ban? If I take your statements at face value, I have to assume you'd support the ban.

(Incidentally, I'm not against recognizing polygamous marriages but I've also noted that-- unlike gay relationships-- polygamous relationships actually can pose a threat to straight marriage.)

If all relationships are the same as a marriage, then incestuous relationships are the same as a marriage. If we can't discriminate against any two people, then we can't discriminate against any two people. That's why.

I've noted that gay marriage opponents bring up "horse marriage" to argue against gay marriage. But that's a ridiculous distraction because horses can't sign contracts. Some people even compare gay people to pedophiles, claiming that marriage between an old man and a 5 year old boy is the same as a gay marriage where both partners are adults. (Hopefully I don't have to explain how bigoted and ignorant this comparison is.)

These are both forms of discrimination. But they're justified forms of discrimination-- like refusing to issue a driver's license to a blind man. Discriminating against incestuous marriages is justified by the increased risk of birth defects.

But discriminating against gay marriage isn't justified by anything except bigotry, usually of the religious variety.

It seems pretty obvious how traditional marriage helps society: forming families and providing a structure for the raising of children. That's why there are hundreds of thousands of years of history of marriages, all more-or-less the same as today's unions.

Marriage has been changing (often for the better) for centuries, as I've previously said.

But gay marriages don't seem to benefit society. And honestly, beyond the advancement of certain political goals, I don't see how they benefit gay folks either.

Do you see how interracial marriages benefit people in love with a person of a different race? If so, you've just seen how marriage benefits gay people.

Also, we improve society every time individual rights are expanded, every time an injustice is corrected, every time a second-class citizen is given equal protection under the law. The more impartial and fair the law is, the more it will be respected.

And no one will be free to disagree that they're married. If you treat them differently because you disagree, be prepared to be fined or arrested (or at least sued) for discriminating. And if your religion says they're not married, well you can forget your freedom to act according to your conscience.

Wait... you're actually arguing that your right to discriminate against gay people trumps their right to the 1,000 tangible benefits of marriage? Are you serious?

As I've mentioned in a previous comment, Fred Phelps is a free man, and he "treats them

And marriage isn't a civil liberties issue anyway, unless you think the government is stomping on the civil liberties of brothers who can't marry their sisters or a guy who can't marry his second or third wife.

This reasoning also shows that Alabama was wrong to legalize interracial marriage in 2001. After all, we already discriminate against brother/sister couples, so it's perfectly okay to discriminate against black/white couples.

And 40% of Alabama voters agreed with you: they wanted to keep the ban on interracial marriage. I'm curious: would you have voted to keep that ban? If I take your statements at face value, I have to assume you'd support the ban.

(Incidentally, I'm not against recognizing polygamous marriages but I've also noted that-- unlike gay relationships-- polygamous relationships actually can pose a threat to straight marriage.)

If all relationships are the same as a marriage, then incestuous relationships are the same as a marriage. If we can't discriminate against any two people, then we can't discriminate against any two people. That's why.

I've noted that gay marriage opponents bring up "horse marriage" to argue against gay marriage. But that's a ridiculous distraction because horses can't sign contracts. Some people even compare gay people to pedophiles, claiming that marriage between an old man and a 5 year old boy is the same as a gay marriage where both partners are adults. (Hopefully I don't have to explain how bigoted and ignorant this comparison is.)

These are both forms of discrimination. But they're justified forms of discrimination-- like refusing to issue a driver's license to a blind man. Discriminating against incestuous marriages is justified by the increased risk of birth defects.

But discriminating against gay marriage isn't justified by anything except bigotry, usually of the religious variety.

It seems pretty obvious how traditional marriage helps society: forming families and providing a structure for the raising of children. That's why there are hundreds of thousands of years of history of marriages, all more-or-less the same as today's unions.

Marriage has been changing (often for the better) for centuries, as I've previously said.

But gay marriages don't seem to benefit society. And honestly, beyond the advancement of certain political goals, I don't see how they benefit gay folks either.

Do you see how interracial marriages benefit people in love with a person of a different race? If so, you've just seen how marriage benefits gay people.

Also, we improve society every time individual rights are expanded, every time an injustice is corrected, every time a second-class citizen is given equal protection under the law. The more impartial and fair the law is, the more it will be respected.

And no one will be free to disagree that they're married. If you treat them differently because you disagree, be prepared to be fined or arrested (or at least sued) for discriminating. And if your religion says they're not married, well you can forget your freedom to act according to your conscience.

Wait... you're actually arguing that your right to discriminate against gay people trumps their right to the 1,000 tangible benefits of marriage? Are you serious?

As I've mentioned in a previous comment, Fred Phelps is a free man, and he "treats them

And marriage isn't a civil liberties issue anyway, unless you think the government is stomping on the civil liberties of brothers who can't marry their sisters or a guy who can't marry his second or third wife.

This reasoning also shows that Alabama was wrong to legalize interracial marriage in 2001. After all, we already discriminate against brother/sister couples, so it's perfectly okay to discriminate against black/white couples.

And 40% of Alabama voters agreed with you: they wanted to keep the ban on interracial marriage. I'm curious: would you have voted to keep that ban? If I take your statements at face value, I have to assume you'd support the ban.

(Incidentally, I'm not against recognizing polygamous marriages but I've also noted that-- unlike gay relationships-- polygamous relationships actually can pose a threat to straight marriage.)

If all relationships are the same as a marriage, then incestuous relationships are the same as a marriage. If we can't discriminate against any two people, then we can't discriminate against any two people. That's why.

I've noted that gay marriage opponents bring up "horse marriage" to argue against gay marriage. But that's a ridiculous distraction because horses can't sign contracts. Some people even compare gay people to pedophiles, claiming that marriage between an old man and a 5 year old boy is the same as a gay marriage where both partners are adults. (Hopefully I don't have to explain how bigoted and ignorant this comparison is.)

These are both forms of discrimination. But they're justified forms of discrimination-- like refusing to issue a driver's license to a blind man. Discriminating against incestuous marriages is justified by the increased risk of birth defects.

But discriminating against gay marriage isn't justified by anything except bigotry, usually of the religious variety.

It seems pretty obvious how traditional marriage helps society: forming families and providing a structure for the raising of children. That's why there are hundreds of thousands of years of history of marriages, all more-or-less the same as today's unions.

Marriage has been changing (often for the better) for centuries, as I've previously said.

But gay marriages don't seem to benefit society. And honestly, beyond the advancement of certain political goals, I don't see how they benefit gay folks either.

Do you see how interracial marriages benefit people in love with a person of a different race? If so, you've just seen how marriage benefits gay people.

Also, we improve society every time individual rights are expanded, every time an injustice is corrected, every time a second-class citizen is given equal protection under the law. The more impartial and fair the law is, the more it will be respected.

And no one will be free to disagree that they're married. If you treat them differently because you disagree, be prepared to be fined or arrested (or at least sued) for discriminating. And if your religion says they're not married, well you can forget your freedom to act according to your conscience.

Wait... you're actually arguing that your right to discriminate against gay people trumps their right to the 1,000 tangible benefits of marriage? Are you serious?

As I've mentioned in a previous comment, Fred Phelps is a free man, and he "treats them

Can anyone point me at a web site that explains why FTL travel violates causality?

I've tried to explain that here. Long story short: FTL travel can automatically be used as a time machine, which means you can kill your own grandfather.

Maybe someone can provide a better explanation?

I've tried to explain the connection between FTL travel and travel back in time here. But, as you said, it really requires spacetime diagrams that I haven't had time to draw yet...

Excellent post. I've written about FTL drives being time machines before, and just wanted to note that a "preferred frame" would seem to invalidate this equality. (Unless I've missed something?)

Nowhere do you see that more clearly than in cosmology, as highlighted by the Electric Universe folks. I don't care whether you believe in the Electric Universe theory or whether you think it's a load of crap (though, all people I've encountered who felt that way had one thing in common - they were not very familiar with it). It's not the theory that I really want to mention here. It's the associated writings which represent an excellent critique of what modern science has become. Those can be found at thunderbolts.info and at holoscience.com.

I've been following your otherwise insightful and reasonable comments for some time, so I'm utterly astonished to see you say this. The "Electric Universe" is essentially a conspiracy theory, and I've recently discussed it here. In short, I see no reason to take them more seriously than I do young earth creationist or 9/11 Truthers. They're ignored because the claims they're making are nonsensical, not because science has become "religious and un-scientific."

If you still think I'm being dogmatic after reading that discussion, please let me know because I've been desperately looking for someone qualified enough to defend the electric universe. All subjects require a devil's advocate.

Ok, I have to adapt an internet mime for this: Peer reviewed or it didn't happen. Even then it would have to pass the critical analysis test. You present no metrics, sample pool data, or descriptive statistics and yet expect your personnal experience to be taken at face value. You make to many assumptions. Bad scientist. No grant money for you.

It is also hard to take a 'climate scientist' seriously when you qoute yourself as studing computational and theoretical physics, which is outside climatology. A good scientist knows when not to present themselves as an expert in a field they are not.

With the theory of evolution, you have scientists trying to make theological decisions.

Cute, but nonsensical. The person you were responding to was right- fundamentalists are trying hard to convince everyone that evolutionary science and creationism are on the same level. They've invented talking points like "intelligent design" and "strengths and weaknesses" to confuse the general public into agreeing with your statement.

But they're wrong. Evolution is falsifiable science, and has nothing to do with theology. For example, many Christians accept the theory of evolution. In 1996, Pope John Paul II said "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis."

Evolution is theologically neutral. Anyone who feels that their faith is threatened by evolution either doesn't understand evolution, or doesn't understand that science is about verifying falsifiable, naturalistic models of reality. Science doesn't attempt to reveal "truth" in a religious sense, it's simply trying to describe the most phenomena with the fewest postulates.

I'll just emphasize that a low P(t) creature is obviously at a disadvantage due to an inability to adapt to/against creatures with a higher P(t). I know you're including selection pressures in that function - but I'm just pointing out that I would expect a exceptionally high selection bias against creatures that mutate slowly.

In general that's probably true. In fact, some scientists believe that sexual reproduction evolved because genetic recombination allows for a higher mutation rate than asexual reproduction. (Otherwise, it's a lot easier to reproduce by cellular fission- no mate required.)

On another thought - what do you think of creatures that have 'evolved' the ability to regrow limbs & organs (or possibly we have we just lost it)? But I would have thought that that would have almost been the holy grail (pardon the term ;) ) of evolution - yet the few creatures that have that capability are 'insignificant' newts and what not, that hardly seem like dominant species. To me that's an ability that never looses it's advantage (even when food is scarce). Whether your vertebrae are crushed in a fall, a croc rips an arm/leg off... your ability to attract mates / defend / fend for yourself after said disasters would give a fantastic evolutionary advantage.

Remember that individuals don't evolve, populations evolve. The ability to regrow a limb is fantastically useful on an individual level, but it's probably more beneficial for the population as a whole to simply have lots and lots of babies. A similar question is "why do all creatures age?", which hasn't been answered to my satisfaction.

Limb regeneration might only work for small creatures, and it might carry dangers like an increased risk of cancer, but I don't know for sure.

By the way, do you mind if I copy this conversation to the comments section here?

But isn't that another straw man? You (in that sentence) equate one falsifiable scenario for evolution and saying since it doesn't correspond for creationism - that creationism is theology instead.

What I meant was that evolution has made many predictions which, if wrong, would have demolished the theory. That's just one of those tests. However, there isn't a single test of creationism/ID. There can't be- any proposed test could be countered by the statement "Perhaps that's just the way God designed things. He's trying to test your faith."

And I don't even think it's as falsifiable as you're expecting. What if there were other non DNA types of life at the beginning (the creator experimenting / evolution doing it's thing) - but DNA was finally chosen because it had the highest utility / fitness?.

You're talking about a shadow biosphere. It's possible that abiogenesis happened several times, so finding two types of DNA wouldn't falsify evolution. What I'm talking about is the scenario where every species in existence has a different set of nucleic acids in their DNA. Millions of separate abiogenesis events would completely destroy evolution. Ergo, it's possible to find evidence which would disprove evolution. Ergo, evolution is falsifiable science. What similar evidence could you find that would disprove creationism?

Also - a big one also is that when biology / micro biology finally comprehends physiology, running computer simulations should be possible to calculate the requirements and the odds required for each micro/macro step of the evolution of the species. Creationism should say / says that when those odds are calculated - they'll be way too high to perhaps even fit into the time frame of millions of years. So evolution should go bust then.

I've explored the idea that computer simulations can falsify evolution here. You're right to say that this is an interesting and effective test. But it's a test of evolution. It's yet another way to falsify evolution. It wouldn't falsify creationism in the slightest if those simulations showed that evolution could happen fast enough to account for the fossil record. After all, God is subtle and His Ways Are Mysterious. Perhaps he made life appear to have evolved, when He really created it with a snap of his fingers. Omnipotence and conscious whims can't ever be tested, because there's no limit to what God could do. There's no way to perform an experiment and say "God definitely didn't do this."

Sure - you can never defeat the argument that God uses evolution. But I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing ID (that doesn't use evolution) has falsifiable predictions - and that last one particularly is more like an either/or for evolution & ID.

Wait... when did you offer these falsifiable predictions for creationism/ID? Please repost them, because apparently I missed them. So far I think that you can't defeat the argument that God uses evolution, and you also can't defeat the argument that God created everything in 6 days. Please show me specific falsifiable predictions that could... in principle... falsify creationism/ID.

They believe that God designed the universe for the maximum benefit of human civilization and to fulfill God's purposes for the universe as quickly and efficiently as possible, and build a model on that. For example, to sustain civilization, humans need 4 billion years of biodeposits. RTB predicts that life appears on earth as quickly as could possibly be allowed under the conditions, and that is what we see. There is evidence of life existing 3.8 billion years ago, just millions of years after the Late Heavy Bombardment. A way to falsify this would be to show that life emerged over hundreds of millions of years, as most evolutionists have tended to assume.

I don't see how millions of years is compatible with creationism, while hundreds of millions of years isn't. God is omnipotent and immortal, so He could have decided to wait hundreds of millions of years before zapping life into existence. I don't see how this would be out of character for a deity who spent 1/7 of his creation time resting. (From an old earth perspective, that's hundreds of millions of years, right?)

I'll note that too short a time between the bombardment and the first microbes could falsify evolution (I've explored this topic here.) It just seems like there wouldn't be any way to perform an equivalent calculation for a miraculous creation of life.

They also predict that future observations in astronomy will show more and more evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe.

... which wouldn't affect their position in the slightest if it didn't pan out. After all, God is subtle and His ways are mysterious. Perhaps He designed the universe to look like it wasn't fine-tuned, just to test our faith.

Another prediction is that since humans are created specially in God's image, there should be no clear genetic links with hominids.

In other words, hominids shouldn't share any of our DNA. In fact, they shouldn't even share our DNA bases- they should have a completely different genetic alphabet. That way, we couldn't possibly be related to them. That would be clear evidence that evolution was wrong, and it's one of the simplest ways to falsify evolution. In essence, Darwin made a prediction that all life would use the same DNA many decades before we found out that was actually the case.

But the fact that this isn't true doesn't falsify creationism, because it's easy to assert that God created all life with the same genetic code as proof that there's a single creator, rather than multiple deities.

It also explains the sudden burst of such things as advanced tool use, jewelry, and religious artifacts on the scene about 50,000 years ago.

Is the modern technological renaissance proof of God's intervention in the world? After all, our technology has undergone a similar change in the last several centuries. Since it's usually not possible to date objects that old with a temporal resolution much less than a century, future creationist archaeologists might conclude that the rapid invention of computers is evidence that God was responsible for it.

And, just like today, no scientists in the future will ever be able to prove them wrong. Because they're not making falsifiable statements. When omnipotence (or omniscience, or any kind of supernatural power) is an acceptable answer, falsification is impossible because there's literally no limit to what an omnipotent being could do. Natural, objective laws are annoyingly restrictive and can be proven wrong by clever observations.

Copenhagen Interpretation of QM doesn't make predictions (and isn't falsifiable), but there seem to be no objections to it being taught in science classes.

The Copenhagen interpretation is commonly viewed by physicists as a way to wave all the metaphysical issues raised by quantum mechanics off to the side. As Feynman once said, "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. [regarding quantum theory]"

It's true that interpretations of quantum mechanics aren't experimentally distinguishable (yet-- I've seen some proposals in this direction that seem interesting). But that's scarcely relevant because no undergraduate or graduate quantum mechanics class spends any significant time worrying about interpretations.

[snip]

It's also true that popular science books give the impression that quantum physics is mystical, and that physicists spend all their time worrying about Schrodinger's Cat. We don't. I think it's an interesting question, and personally prefer the Everett-Wheeler interpretation, but it's not the central issue.

Yes, I appreciate and agree with all of that. Which is why I've previously suggested on /. that in scientific terms most religious view points are actually interpretations. They're explanations of "how can it be like that", but you don't let them get in the way when you're doing your science.

Copenhagen Interpretation of QM doesn't make predictions (and isn't falsifiable), but there seem to be no objections to it being taught in science classes.

The Copenhagen interpretation is commonly viewed by physicists as a way to wave all the metaphysical issues raised by quantum mechanics off to the side. As Feynman once said, "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. [regarding quantum theory]"

It's true that interpretations of quantum mechanics aren't experimentally distinguishable (yet-- I've seen some proposals in this direction that seem interesting). But that's scarcely relevant because no undergraduate or graduate quantum mechanics class spends any significant time worrying about interpretations. Most physicists focus on the predictions, which have been verified to an absurd number of significant figures. Students work problems that give real, experimentally testable answers.

It's also true that popular science books give the impression that quantum physics is mystical, and that physicists spend all their time worrying about Schrodinger's Cat. We don't. I think it's an interesting question, and personally prefer the Everett-Wheeler interpretation, but it's not the central issue. Be careful not to let the interpretations of the equations obscure your view of the equation itself.

By that definition, evolution is not science either. It has never predicted anything and never will.

I've already discussed this in detail on Slashdot, and have archived the conversation here.

But I'll copy the most relevant part. There are several specific predictions that evolution makes:

1. If a fossil is ever discovered significantly "out of place", like the fossil of a chimp laid down in Precambrian rock strata, that would be the end of evolution. Intelligent design is utterly indifferent to the fossil record because the Creator could simply have designed an intentionally deceptive fossil record.
2. It's strange that all life we've studied uses the same DNA bases- a crucial requirement of common descent. However, a Creator who wanted to leave an indisputable proof of intelligent design could have given every species a unique biochemistry that couldn't possibly have arisen through common descent. It seems like the Creator either used evolution to create life (Catholics take this position) or the Creator manually fine-tuned all life on Earth to look like it had evolved from a common ancestor even though it really didn't. Again, notice that intelligent design is compatible with any experimental outcome, whereas evolution would have been abandoned if every other creature we studied had different nucleic acids.

That's what falsifiability means. There has to be some type of evidence which could, in principle, prove the theory wrong. I've linked to many many more tests in the conversation that list was taken from.

DrVomact, this is unrelated to the subject at hand, but I've been wanting to contact you for a while now. Over a year ago we had a productive discussion about quantum entanglement and parallel universes. I've recently put this discussion into my website here. I just wanted to contact you to make sure this is okay with you. If you have any questions or comments, please either respond or email me at the address shown here. Thanks!

DrVomact, this is unrelated to the subject at hand, but I've been wanting to contact you for a while now. Over a year ago we had a productive discussion about quantum entanglement and parallel universes. I've recently put this discussion into my website here. I just wanted to contact you to make sure this is okay with you. If you have any questions or comments, please either respond or email me at the address shown here. Thanks!

Hi Blakey Rat. I'm sorry about the unrelated comment, but I've been trying to contact you for a while regarding a conversation we had about a year ago. Unfortunately both our email addresses are hidden, so this was my only recourse.

You and I had a spirited debate about DRM, and I'd like to put it on my website in a manner similar to this discussion.

Unfortunately google isn't working for me right now (!) and I can't access the DRM discussion in question because it's dropped off the bottom of my comments list. So hopefully you remember the debate I'm talking about...

Anyway, I'd be grateful if you'd give me permission to put that discussion in a more prominent place than the Slashdot archives. I think your enthusiasm made the conversation very interesting, and I think others would agree.

If you're okay with this, let me know either by responding or by sending me an email at the address on this page. Specify any conditions you like-- I intend to place a link to the original discussion and not edit the conversation in any way whatsoever, but you may have other ideas and I'm open to suggestion.

Cheers,

Khayman80 (aka Dumb Scientist)

Hi Blakey Rat. I'm sorry about the unrelated comment, but I've been trying to contact you for a while regarding a conversation we had about a year ago. Unfortunately both our email addresses are hidden, so this was my only recourse.

You and I had a spirited debate about DRM, and I'd like to put it on my website in a manner similar to this discussion.

Unfortunately google isn't working for me right now (!) and I can't access the DRM discussion in question because it's dropped off the bottom of my comments list. So hopefully you remember the debate I'm talking about...

Anyway, I'd be grateful if you'd give me permission to put that discussion in a more prominent place than the Slashdot archives. I think your enthusiasm made the conversation very interesting, and I think others would agree.

If you're okay with this, let me know either by responding or by sending me an email at the address on this page. Specify any conditions you like-- I intend to place a link to the original discussion and not edit the conversation in any way whatsoever, but you may have other ideas and I'm open to suggestion.

Cheers,

Khayman80 (aka Dumb Scientist)

DrVomact, this is unrelated to the subject at hand, but I've been wanting to contact you for a while now. Over a year ago we had a productive discussion about quantum entanglement and parallel universes.

I've recently put this discussion into a website at http://dumbscientist.com/archives/quantum-entanglement-and-parallel-universes . I just wanted to contact you to make sure this is okay with you. If you have any questions or comments, please email me at the address shown on my "about" page ( http://dumbscientist.com/about ). Thanks!

DrVomact, this is unrelated to the subject at hand, but I've been wanting to contact you for a while now. Over a year ago we had a productive discussion about quantum entanglement and parallel universes.

I've recently put this discussion into a website at http://dumbscientist.com/archives/quantum-entanglement-and-parallel-universes . I just wanted to contact you to make sure this is okay with you. If you have any questions or comments, please email me at the address shown on my "about" page ( http://dumbscientist.com/about ). Thanks!