Slashdot Mirror
How Earth Resembles a Gooey Confection
Ant contributes a link spotted on Neatorama that may upset middle school Earth Science teachers, writing "LiveScience says Earth's simple schematic is not core, mantle, and crust anymore. It is more like the gooey center of a chocolate morsel harboring peanut butter and honey. Inner Earth is far more nuanced than outward appearances would suggest. A new model is proposed in the May 2, 2008, issue of the journal Science."
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Where's the cream filling?
Earth. That's the stuff.
OMNOMNOMNOM!
from the old model. If it were, it would not match all the old data. We might understand a lot more today, but new theories must not contradict all that factual data of the past! Former scientists were not idiots.
LiveScience writers are really, really high right now.
That's way too close to my theory that the Earth has a tasty nougat center! That's intellectual property, that is!
don't they mean Mars?
(sigh) I know you're trolling, but I'll bite, anyway.
Evolution has little to do with the origin of life. You would do well to remember that Darwin called his book "On the Origin of Species", not "On the Origin of Life". I think it's interesting that creationists and intelligent design (sorry, it doesn't merit capitals) advocates try to confuse evolution with the origin of life. Somewhat like trying to say that electricity made no sense when it's ruling equations were unknown. Deal with it: evolution happens and it has little to do with the origin of life (as it deals with the ways in which a species turns into another), which is an interesting subject of itself without needing to mix it with evolution.
I believe in the Supersonic Nazi Hell Creatures from Inside the Hollow Earth. If the Earth is truly "solid", how can there be Supersonic Nazi Hell Creatures from Inside the Hollow Earth? There CAN'T! Hah! So the earth MUST be hollow. So much for your wishy washy "science" and "progress".
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Wait, are you trying to tell me the earth is not composed of precisely circular layers colored red, orange, and yellow, with an itty-bitty circle of brown on the outside? Next you'll try telling me there isn't a gigantic wedge-shaped cutout from pole to pole in the pacific ocean.
Well of course the planet is like a gooey piece of chocolate candy. Haven't you ever noticed that it's covered in NUTS?
Sir, your post is all over the place.
What various anti-intellectuals do not understand is that Theology is about one set of things and Science is about something else.You are quite wrong. Christian Theology, the belief in a single sovereign God, having been based on God's written word, is "about" all things pertaining to God's adequacy and right to rule humankind, and therefore includes the origin of everything (and we are an object property of said everything).
Science is "about"
So then, you see, both the Bible (which term I will use rather than Theology, since when referencing theology you must be specific as to whose theology) and Science attempt to tell us What has happened: the physical space of the universe came into existence, followed by the stars and other heavenly bodies, geological formations occurred on earth while sitting in the midst of waters, vegetation began to live 'according to its kind,' creatures of the sea began life, then winged creatures of the sky ('heavens'), then living beasts on the surface of the ground; finally, mankind emerged on the scene, was superior to all of these previous lifeforms and was made out of dust (and Science certainly agrees that humans are composed of many of the same elements as dirt).
They also attempt to tell us Why it happened. The Bible says that God 'created the earth even for it to be inhabited,' or in other words, made the earth as a perfect home to host his creations. Science does not really have an explanation to 'why,' but empirical evidence over thousands of years has proven true the fact that the earth truly is a wonderful home to life on it. Science agrees with this too, in that the placement of the earth relative to the Sun is just right to keep us from freezing and from frying. The combination of gasses that make up our atmosphere are just right to keep everything from being either wholly flammable or toxic to breathe.
Relegating religionists and promoters of intelligent design to this class you deem 'anti-intellectual' really couldn't be more wrong. If one takes the time to discern what the Bible really says regarding creation, they will find it quite stimulating as well as accurate.
...Galactus wants to eat it!
You know, I appreciate that we need incentives for effective peer review, widespread reproduction, and integrity. One of the most powerful aspects of the Internet, however, is the proliferation of communities of practice.
Expert photography, graphic design, 3D modeling, and UNIX system administration are all things that used to require intensive training begetting membership in a professional class. Nowadays, you can pick these things up by hanging out and contributing in online forums, newsgroups, mailing lists, and IRC chat channels. These communities of practice learn expert-grade information, but it also allows techniques to evolve and for new techniques to propagate quickly; in this sense, these communities can actually be better than classic forms of learning.
We're even seeing interesting communities of practice being built up around legal studies, which is a domain that is firmly held by one of the most exclusive professional classes - lawyers. It'll be interesting to see what happens with that in the next five years.
But one place where communities of practice are being squelched is science. You can't go into a forum and ask, "Hey, the Donovan lab group at Boston University suggests foo in this article, but that doesn't jibe with Mulkasey's findings at Stanford in this article. What's the deal?"
I mean, you could. But then the number of people who could contribute to the conversation would be tiny, and nobody else would pay attention.
So here's the position I'm advancing. Communities of practice are the single best way to create a dialog around science, and has the potential to:
1) Integrate the knowledge of disparate labs
2) Drive questions in scientific inquiry
3) Become a major center of debate, and a referencable, living repository of ongoing issues
4) Generate interest in the sciences
5) Give direction to students (who see thousands of articles with no coherent "story" to tie them together except for biased and incomplete review articles)
6) Finally create real connections with the public consciousness in a way that's a million times better than current science journalism.
The lack of public availability of these articles prevents the creation of these communities of practice.
PS: I think this approach would make conferences virtually obsolete, except in mode of presentation.
Just two years ago he still stated that the origin of life and evolution were different things. Would you be so kind to point me to references of his conflating both to deny the existence (I'd rather say essence, but that's a Cartesian debate for another day) of God?