Slashdot Mirror

Now that we are rejecting evolution, let's start reexamining those other so called "firmly held theories of science". I say we give this guy a shot at teaching his theory in schools as well.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

Ignoring how depressing a Day in the Life of a Research monkey must be, I'm wondering why they wouldn't opt for something more stimulating?

I see none of these straw men of which you speak.

I'm referring to the very real sort of folk who base their lives on a poorly translated bronze age text.
James Ussher , an Irish/Anglican Bishop of the early-mid 17th century, deduced that the first day of Creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23, 4004 BC in the Julian calendar (so I was off by three days, sue me) He extrapolated this date by counting through all the "begats" in Genesis, tossing in a large fudge factor and calling it a day.
I find it particularly interesting that Creation is stated as beginning at nightfall.... before there allegedly was "day".
I guess the whole "Let There Be Light" thing didn't enter into it, huh?

Other like minded folks say the Universe is 6000 years old based on 2 Peter 3:8 "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day"
(They divvy up the time as 4000 years before and 2000 years after Christ)

Simply put, the whole thing is a load of fetid dingos kidneys. A bunch of wishful thinking dreamed up by wisened ancients who were terrified of uttering the words "I don't know" to the great unwashed (thus diminishing their power over same)

The bible does NOT say that the earth is 3,000 years old.

What the bible actually says is...

that the earth is 6,009 years old.

i.e. 4004 years from Creation to the birth of Jesus (The first day of Creation was, of course, Sunday, October 23 4004 B.C.)
2005 years from the birth of Jesus to today.

Nevermind that the guy who first officially dated the birth of Jesus was six years off, give or take.

I won't hypothesize why what you said works (since I haven't tested it), but I will point out that there's more to perception than thinking

Um yes, I'm aware of that. But there's no obvious reason why it should break this particular illusion since the mental model of a tree, and an upside-down tree are presumably similar, and that's what you're comparing it against.

The most compelling explanation (or partial explanation at least) I've seen is via the Bad Astronomy website where they suggest it's a result of the incorrect mental model we have of the "shape" of the sky.

This link, scroll down to "The mental sky-dome model."

The obvious explanations of this are pretty much all wrong. (You might call this "The Moon Illusion Illusion": everyone thinks they understand it... at first.)

The claims of a round earth are nothing more that a main stream media hype of one guys opinion to try to invoke fear in the general population.

Anyone can single out and focus on one area of the planet and come to a conclusion that would sound devastating if it really did apply to the whole planet.

Ah but they will jump and scream and shout until they are red in the face and talk about how evolution is wrong because something can't come from nothing. Therefore, God must have created the universe... it's perfectly ok for him to create something out of nothing. Their attempts at using logic make me laugh because their position is inherently illogical and therefore even hyppocritical. They talk about the supposed "lack of logic" in evolution, but ignore the illogical basis of their own position.

Hey, I have no problem with people having faith in their religion, or believing things according to faith. But that's all it is - faith.

If you want to teach creationism, do it in religious studies class, not science. Creationism or whatever euphemism you want to use (Intelligent Design) has no scientific basis at all. So by all means, if you want to teach it go ahead, but please don't do it in a science class. If you are willing to consider it as science, then I propose we should teach creation myths of every single culture in science class. I mean seriously... in this day and age it surprises me that people try to push creationism as a science.

Anyway, here is a good site that includes rebuttals to a lot of creationist arguments:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cefac.htm

We should not play with Solar Energy!!!!

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/solar.htm

I'm sure there must be some... they'll be in a backroom somewhere, stacked next to the perpetual motion machines and the random noise compression algorithms. :-)

it was lobbied for by creationists and serves a purely creationist agenda, and no other.

it has no place being in biology textbooks any more than a sticker saying a round earth is only a theory belongs in astronomy textbooks.

Just as there are people who believe the earth is flat, there are also people who believe in astrology. The only difference is that among the people who believe in astrology, there are some who are wikipedians, and have the astrology-related articles on their watch lists.

Nothing is impractical... just poorly marketed
take for example these devices

I think that's likely to be a serious problem with your approach. Moving the magnet means you are doing actual work on the magnet itself, which would increase power consumption and reduce efficiency.

And if you're thinking of interposing some sort of magnetic shield, that would itself be a physical object which would interact with the magnet, thus altering the work done and hence the power consumption. You would also be straying dangerously close to "perpetual motion machine" territory: see the write-up on magnetic shields at The Museum of Unworkable Devices.

"300% more power" anyone?

This guy is putting energy into the machine every time his magnet moves. Attach it to a fixed position say with a clamp and it would not work. Take a look at this video of Minato and then read the explanation here. You will need to search in your browser for minato because the page is long. Also you have to wait for the avi to completely download.

This guy is putting energy into the machine every time his magnet moves. Attach it to a fixed position say with a clamp and it would not work. Take a look at this video of Minato and then read the explanation here. You will need to search in your browser for minato because the page is long. Also you have to wait for the avi to completely download.

I don't know enough physics to tell, but it looks like this guy might be using a version of the "classic magnetic shield engine" near the bottom of the Museum of Unworkable Devices.

Minato assures us that he hasn't transcended the laws of physics. The force supplying the unexplained extra power out is generated by the magnetic strength of the permanent magnets embedded in the rotor. "I'm simply harnessing one of the four fundamental forces of nature," he says.

But a few months later they were forced to recant their decision after the US patent office recognized his invention and gave him the first of two patents.

But if you can accept the idea that Minato's device is able to create motion and torque through its unique, sustainable permanent magnet propulsion system, then it makes sense that he is able to get more out of the unit than he puts in in terms of elctrical power.

The Classic Magnetic Shield Engine, from The Museum of Unworkable Devices.

Why do I have the feeling that this is yet another perpetual motion machine/free energy posting?

Search google, perpetual+motion+magnet

I was convinced the earth is flat!
Now I'll have to reconsider.
I wonder what keeps us on it though...


The Flat Out Truth

The European paranoia concerning GM foods is entirely unjustified and irrational, much more so than even the American paranoia concerning nuclear power (for a funny satire of which see The Hazards of Solar Energy). The problem with GM foods, however, is the current control of and potential for abuse of GM crops by corporations. However, since it's a lot easier to do scare-mongering by saying that GM crops cause cancer, thyroid problems, premature aging, nearsightedness, tire sidewall blowout, and loss of balance to the Force than by explaining that GM food as currently controlled by Monsanto etc is a huge IP mess, Europeans are convinced of the former.

Sorry for the delay, problems at home. Here is the last part, Part 3, "Creation Theory"

Tyreth wrote:

It's exactly comments like this that I buck against.

First off, I wasn't saying there was "hard evidence" for evolution, I was saying there was "hard evidence" against so called "Creation Theory". First, let me be precise about I'm talking about. There is a set of assertions, called "Creationism" or "Creation Theory" by its proponents. This assertion says:

1) The Christian Bible is literally true, including its discussion of creation in the Book of Genesis
2) That a calcuated chronology of the bible is correct, usually the chronology of Archbishop James Ussher, which places the first day of the universe on Sunday, October 23, 4004BCE. Occasionally they use a different chronology, but to my knowledge, none of them use a chronology that sets the age of the universe as more than 10,000 years old.

I have two problems with "Creation Theory", one semantic, and one political. Semantically, I have a problem with the fact that they call it Science, and they call their assertions a Theory, when neither is true, as I will demonstrate below. Politically, I have a problem with the fact that the proponents of "Creation Theory" try to convince school boards and politicians that Evolution Theory is not science, and that "Creation Theory" is. I don't necessarily think that you are a proponent of Creationism, but it struck me from your comments that you have at least been exposed to their arguments, and wanted to set the record more clear, the argument for Evolution as Science and Creationism as Non-Science from someone who does not take the knee jerk "Science is Truth" attitude that pollutes much "Scientific" thinking in this society.

The obstacle to using Creationism as a Theory is getting a proper definition of it. It claims the statements in the Bible are literally true, but which Bible? Which Book of Genesis? Most denominations of Christianity that I know of use either the Hebrew version or the Latin Vulgate translation as Canon, as the Truth. Most proponents of Creationism speak neither Hebrew nor Latin, their concept of the Bible is based on a translation, and not the version of the bible that their professed faith considers Truth. So there is an instant question mark, what Theory is being proposed?

Next, many (though not all) Creationists use quotations in the bible as evidence, as if it were to take the place of Scientific Observation. As I described in Part 1, scripture cannot qualify as Scientific Observation. It is not Direct (The person who penned the Book of Genesis, presumably Moses, did not directly observe the third day of creation), nor is it Repeatable (I can't go out and directly observe the third day of creation, nor was there an effort to get additional people to make independant observations of it at the time). Any assertion that depends on Scripture as evidence, regardless of whether or not you believe it is Truth, it is not Science.

Next, if you accept Creationism as a Hypothesis, it has been scientifically falsified. While there is a lot of dispute as to the exact ages of the Universe, of Earth, of Life, of Humankind, there is widespread agreement, and large amounts of independant evidence, that they each are more than a certain age. The universe is at least 10 Billion Years old, the Earth is significantly older than 3.5 Billion Years old, Life on Earth is at least 3.4 Billion Years old, Human Kind (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) is at least 100,000 years old. All of these time spans insist on a change in the chronology. All of them indicate that Creationism, as a hypothesis, has been falsified, and must be modified or discarded.

All of the modifications I've heard, "God made an old world", both depend on assertions that are not falsifiable (eg. the existance of God), and violate

The fossil record and computer simulations of evolution should be enough proof for any reasonable person. The creationists you refer to would just say "so god created life on two planets when he made the universe 5999 years ago, no big whoop" (incidentally, next year is the earths 6000th birthday on October 23 to be specific.)

Unfortunately, your description is still pretty accurate. It is nothing but a hick town, always has been, always will be. The largest employer is the University, and the second is Walmart. On the other hand, from what I've heard, the University has a good computer science program, although I've never felt any desire to try it.

I worked there from Mar. 1999 - Aug. 2000, so I'm not sure if they've changed the pricing scheme or not. I'm also not 100% positive that it was $40 a month. When I was involved, we were planning, and I left either during, or shortly after the fiber was strung. We knew we had to be comparable to cable modem in terms of price, but had to be faster (obviously). Phase 2 was going to connect the hospital to the university, which would then connect to the rest of the town. (For those who haven't been to Lock Haven, the hospital is on top of a hill, and the town is about a mile west down in a valley with the Susquehanna river. The University is right in the middle, if you draw a line between the Hospital and City Hall.) I'm not sure if they ever got that far or not.

As of June of 2000, there were only 2 other such projects in the country, and the only one I can think of is Blacksburg Electronic Village in Blacksburg, Virginia. I guess it was just too expensive to try it in a larger city, but if I had a cool million or so (I'd do it for free, as long as a VC gave me enough money to spend), I'd go for it. I'm sure there are lots of companies in the country that would sell their souls for a 10mb connection for $40 a month.

I should also point out that the 10mb connection was shared 50-50 with the school district, which worked out well because the school district would use most of the bandwidth between 8am and 3pm, and the rest of the time was peak for the ISP. When I left, we had around 4500+ subscribers at $12 a month (give or take... special prices and all), so that was enough to pay for the relatively large pipe.

just as it happens one of the machines described on that site is roughly(exactly) what your father had been trying to make.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm#wh eels

Nowhere in the Bible does it mention the Earth's age.

True. But Archbishop Ussher went through the Bible, added up the ages of everyone in the Old Testament and eventually was able to triumphantly announce that the Earth was created at the stroke of noon on Sunday 23 October 4004 BC. :)

Yeah right, wiseass. And next you're going to tell me that those who want to ban dihydrogen-monoxide are hysteric freaks.

A Brief History of the Evolution and Creation Science Conflict
Many claims of evidence against evolution are in reality pseudo-science, and are easily refuted.
Six Flood Arguments Creationists Can't Answer
Is Creationism a viable scientific hypothesis ?

There are some people who still believe that you won't have to go to any trouble to get a flat Earth.

Seriously, the main problem with asteroid collisions is that they hit the surface of the earth perpendicularly, or at least close to it.

Detection is fine as far as that goes, but we need to take steps at prevention.

If there was some way to tilt the earth (given early detection of an incoming asteroid), in all probability the asteroid would simply pass underneath or just above the surface.

Given that it is much harder to hit the edge of a disk than the face, catastrophe could be averted; many lives would be saved.

A problem of course, is tilting the earth in time.

Another is how? Perhaps massive migration to one end of the world to the other would move enough mass to tilt the earth. Outposts should be maintained in Alaska, Siberia, Australia, and Greenland for just such a contingency.

Perhaps research should also be directed at communicating with The Great Tortise - perhaps He could be persuaded to lean in the event...

.

Oh, Crap! My Karma!

....

Here's a start

I've always loved this little vignette.

I think the only differance between Theologians and Scientists is they both try to understand the big picture, they both get inspired flashes of 'insight' and understanding, but the Theologian claims it was a telegram from God (and some realizations can be VERY powerful and life changing, as if it were) and writes it down in the one true book of facts, while the scientists isn't quite so trusting and faithful and devises experiments to test the validity of this 'hypothesis' - or you could say that ancient religious texts are 'great ideas' that have survived the test of time.

Anyway, when Copernicus or Kepler or whoever it was pouring over the record of observations and *finally* saw the simple pattern of elipses and realized what was *really* going on, I'll bet it was a powerful experience, it matches the data - whereas other people may get powerful inspirations that just leads them to do crazy things. Sometimes just to survive you HAVE to do crazy things!