Click for full image
found on Salon by Gasparrini
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Let’s hope right-thinking people start accepting the fallacy of the periodic table and that pi is just a “theory” as well
I especially agree with that part about China and India. They must be quite happy to see America tossing science and technology on the scrap heap, letting the non-brain-dead world take over all the good jobs and opportunities.
[Double post. – ed.]
The obvious difference here is that the freezing point of water in a given set of circumstances can verified using the scientific method to create a repeatable experiment which has the possibility of proving the hypothesis to be false.
On the other hand, historical events like the beginning of life on earth (and any truth-claims of an historical nature), are not open to direct investigation using the scientific method. The scientific method can be used to generate data which can be interpreted one way or another, but this does not change the fact that the conclusions based on such data do not rise to the level of scientific certainty (like the freezing point of water does).
Oh, those silly Christians are at it again.
Seriously though, I would like to test Jesus rising from the dead several times and under various conditions. He’s not taking my calls.
#5, silly rabbit, it’s not science if you can’t prove it with a beaker of water
#3 and the double post #4 – At least you aren’t falling back on that “Evolution is only a theory” canard… Oh wait… You are…
#8, I’m sorry, where’s the missing link again?
They’ve frozen water in a lab and measured the temperature I know…. but when did evolution happen in the lab? Oh wait… It hasn’t…
Xhristians are so “quaint”. Jimbo, no one’s dragged the solar system into a room, yet, to point out to the most vague of dullards that, indeed, the Earth revolves around the sun.
Unless it’s flat, of course. Then, wind resistance might be a problem.
Chicken and egg — naturally impure (rain) water freezes at std. pressure at 32F (0C) and 212F (100C) because both scales are defined by these phenomena.
I suppose it’s good the cartoon didn’t go into detail: It is possible to supercool water below 0C. Still, a great cartoon!!
“At -38 degrees Celsius, however, even the purest water spontaneously turns to ice. When that happens, “it does so with an audible bang, like a little bomb,” says Austen Angell, a University of Arizona chemist who holds the world record for supercooling water. From -38 to -120 degrees Celsius, it’s ice all the way, a temperature regime that Mr. Stanley calls “no-man’s land,” by which he means “no liquid.” But below -120 degrees Celsius, it’s possible to make what’s known as ultraviscous water, a liquid as thick as molasses. Below -135 degrees Celsius comes glassy water, a solid having no crystal structure.”
Now that I’d like to see!!
Moss:
I’m not defending creationism. The fact that the Earth orbits the sun is the exactly the sort of thing you can prove by observation, so I am not sure it helps your argument. It is not an historical event which can only be known to have occured by people who were there. If it were that simple, there would be no debate.
The scientific method is of no use in proving or disproving historical events or the various truth-claims of religions. When it comes to such things, we can never have scientific certainty.
We can only make decisions about what to believe based on the weight (or lack thereof) of the evidence presented, just like a jury does. This means that you and I can look at the same evidence and reach opposite conclusions. In this situation, neither of us has the right to force our belief on the other; each is entitled to his own belief.
You may interpret the available evidence to conclude that Darwinian evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but that does not make it a scientific certainty (like the freezing point of water is).
#9 – #8, I’m sorry, where’s the missing link again?
Comment by Raffi — 6/13/2007 @ 9:38 am
If that was a joke, I applaud you.
If that was serious, I’m sorry for you.
I’m hoping for the former.
—
As far as these never ending debates over the finer points of evolution, I’m not interested any more. Creationists choose to be ignorant and do not seek answers. The tactic is to ask the questions so many times and spread misinformation so often that those in the middle (the undecided who aren’t versed in the science or sucked into the dogma) remain confused or more easily lured by the easy, unchallenging answers of religion’s irrational faith based ethic.
There is no debate between evolutionists and creationists. There never has been. It’s always been a battle for the middle and it always will be, because ignorance is a choice, and the dogma crowd has made that choice.
Recently, the science side has woken up to the fact that its a war, not a spirited discussion like most academics are used to. Maybe it isn’t too late. Let’s just not be fooled into thinking creationists are interested in an honest debate.
“As far as these never ending debates over the finer points of evolution, I’m not interested any more.”,
OFTLO… have they worn you down? I didn’t think it possible! Why not try a Christian tactic? Archive your previous posts on the subject and C/P them as needed? That way you won’t feel like you are arguing with a babbling idiot AND the middle will still get a dose of anti- brainwashing.
Ther world needs you, dammit!
OFTLO, I have a theory that your hypothesis regarding creationists is actually an axiom.
“I’m sorry, where’s the missing link again?” – Raffi
Still missing.
Where’s god?
Still missing as well, but there’s a hell of lot more evidence that the missing link existed than there is for “god”. Oh, that’s right, your little book basically says that god doesn’t have to prove he exists. How convenient.
So far no one’s trotted out the “not all Christians are nutjobs, why don’t you pick on Muslims” complaint, so consider it done so that none of you have to.
I think cartoonist created the universe. Starting with Gary Larson….
John C. Fundamathiest Dvorak is at it again. Don’t forget to click on John Horoscope line to the left as John hypocritically attacks Christians while scamming $ off all who go horoscoping. Shame John. Shame.
#20 – we cant all have nice little jobs
Actually, the 32 degree thing IS a myth. It varies, depending on pressure and altitude, and depending on impurities, such as salt. So, this cartoon is actually making fun of itself, and is a good example of why things are theories instead of fact.
All I ask that you keep your religion in your churches and quit trying to foist your religious beliefs on me.
By all means, go and believe what ever silly nonsense you like, just leave me out of it.
i just wish that the so-called “intelligent design” advocates would have the balls to come out and admit that getting “intelligent design” into school curriculum is just a pretext to allowing full-scale Bible instruction in public school.
until you come out and say it, you really are just a pack of liars, cowering behind lawyers.
25. But you’re ok with other organizations, institutions, government policies and people’s views & beliefs on everything else?
RBG
#27 yes
I am perfectly okay with the pursuit of knowledge by way of the scientific method, and yes, I am aware that many physicists’ sense of awe at how perfectly things have worked out for creating a universe such as ours leads them to wonder if there isn’t some creator. (Which is ironic because creationists reject all of cosmology out-of-hand.)
However, what I oppose are beliefs based on translations of ancient texts that are clearly 100% religious in nature and not open to discussion or dissent.
Religion is idealogical tyranny, and I have little stomach for that.
26. And similarly “gay awareness” theory and opinion in public schools?
RBG
28. I think you ducked the question. “Views & beliefs:” Only the ones you approve, or can everyone publicly have them?
RBG
#24
First, it is technically more accurate to say that ice melts at 32 degrees Fahrenheit than it is to say that water freezes at 32F. Secondly, when someone states that ice melts at 32 F and unless they say otherwise they are also implying pure water and one atmosphere of pressure.
#15 – OFTLO… have they worn you down?
Worn down? When there are Thumpers to flame? No way good sir… I’m just not going waste time engaging in the repetitive rehashing of the same old tired Q&A, and instead I want to talk about the tactics… 🙂
#16 – OFTLO, I have a theory that your hypothesis regarding creationists is actually an axiom.
I take back every bad thing I’ve ever said about you. That was an inspired comment.
I needed to take all that stuff back anyway to make room for the bad things I’ll say about you in the future 🙂
#29 – 26. And similarly “gay awareness” theory and opinion in public schools?
RBG
Are you about to trot out that classic bullshit about “The Homosexual Agenda” using schools to recruit new gays?
I miss the old days when it was the Zionist Occupied Government…