Menu Bar
indigoandblack's Comments
Re: NOVA scienceNOW: Hunting Meteorites
Mildly interesting, but not satisfying - they talk about searching for meteorites while on a dry lakebed, but don't show any being found in the clip.
By: indigoandblack
Re: The Argument from Oranges
If only these kinds of people could comprehend how utterly backwater-inbred-stupid they make themselves look when they open their mouths. Anybody with the most rudimentary understanding of evolution would laugh their arses off at such a suggestion.
I can only foresee two possible conclusions: either this man is a complete dolt with the scientific literacy of a three year old, or this man is intentionally presenting a contrived argument specifically to gain the sympathy and support of the creationists who have no scientific literacy because they're not taught to think for themselves (they're taught to live on faith, in preference to fact). The former would be pitiful; the latter, however, would be downright evil.
I can only foresee two possible conclusions: either this man is a complete dolt with the scientific literacy of a three year old, or this man is intentionally presenting a contrived argument specifically to gain the sympathy and support of the creationists who have no scientific literacy because they're not taught to think for themselves (they're taught to live on faith, in preference to fact). The former would be pitiful; the latter, however, would be downright evil.
By: indigoandblack
Ok, I'm going to be...
...a total nerd and share this... :-)
If you're horribly bored, & you'd like to take a shot at making sodium acetate from scratch, take a look at:
http://www.instructables.com/id/Crystallization-of-homemade-sodium-acetate/
;-)
If you're horribly bored, & you'd like to take a shot at making sodium acetate from scratch, take a look at:
http://www.instructables.com/id/Crystallization-of-homemade-sodium-acetate/
;-)
By: indigoandblack
Re: How To Make Instant Hot Ice
It's not a precipitate, and it does release heat. What they're showing is how to make a metastable supersaturated solution of sodium acetate. You can dissolve more sodium acetate into nearly boiling water than you can at room temperature. When you do that and let it cool (assuming the container is clean and there's no dust or contaminates in the container or solution), it can cool to room temperature or below without forming crystals.
As soon as you introduce an appropriate surface to induce crystallization (your finger, or a "seed" crystal of sodium acetate), the solution will suddenly crystallize (one sodium ion, one acetate ion, and three water molecules will come together forming sodium acetate trihydrate, the whitish translucent solid). The crystal form is in a lower energy configuration than the individual ions in solution, thus the heat that gets released.
As soon as you introduce an appropriate surface to induce crystallization (your finger, or a "seed" crystal of sodium acetate), the solution will suddenly crystallize (one sodium ion, one acetate ion, and three water molecules will come together forming sodium acetate trihydrate, the whitish translucent solid). The crystal form is in a lower energy configuration than the individual ions in solution, thus the heat that gets released.
By: indigoandblack
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
"subjective facts" And your point is?
Science produces hypotheses that can be tested and either supported or disproven. Note "supported", not "proven". There's no secret in that - every "fact" in science is always open to our changing understanding based on things we learn about the world around us.
I never once made any statements about absolutism in science. However, god(s) belong outside science, specifically because the existance of a god cannot be *disproven*. Science requires nothing of the supernatural in order to do its duty.
It annoys me when people speak of controversy and disagreement in the scientific arena (not that you are - apologies, I'm probably going off on a tangent) as if it's a bad thing, or as if to say "see? all the scientists are scurrying around fighting amongst themselves in a scramble to try to find *some* way around god". That is simply not true, and it belies a deep misunderstanding of the process of scientific inquiry.
Science produces hypotheses that can be tested and either supported or disproven. Note "supported", not "proven". There's no secret in that - every "fact" in science is always open to our changing understanding based on things we learn about the world around us.
I never once made any statements about absolutism in science. However, god(s) belong outside science, specifically because the existance of a god cannot be *disproven*. Science requires nothing of the supernatural in order to do its duty.
It annoys me when people speak of controversy and disagreement in the scientific arena (not that you are - apologies, I'm probably going off on a tangent) as if it's a bad thing, or as if to say "see? all the scientists are scurrying around fighting amongst themselves in a scramble to try to find *some* way around god". That is simply not true, and it belies a deep misunderstanding of the process of scientific inquiry.
By: indigoandblack
Re: Love how the fundies love to pick and choose...
Actually, mea culpa. I totally missed Livyatan in verse 25. Unfortunately, my biblical Ivrit leaves something to be desired.
Nonetheless, it doesn't minimize my distaste for drawing conclusions from a book of mythology.
Nonetheless, it doesn't minimize my distaste for drawing conclusions from a book of mythology.
By: indigoandblack
Re: Wow
No, that one's too easy. It's much more complicated than that. Clearly, there are very intelligent people who have a faith of some sort.
The problem is one of culture and immersion. When you are steeped in your culture's (or your family's) particular flavor of mythology from birth, it's exceedingly difficult to "break out" of that mindset and think for yourself.
Thinking for oneself isn't encouraged in any of the churches, congregations, or synagogues I've ever seen (though I think it's the worst in Xtianity).
I can't tell you how many "bible study" groups I've participated in over the years wherein people will self-importantly pontificate over meanings and word choices without ever thinking to stop and look at the translations they're using.
Besides which, just because a book (or a collection of books) has a rich tapestry of interwoven connections and interreferences hardly proves it's not mythology.
Hell, people believe in the teachings of the Church of Scientology. Xenu? I mean, come on.
So yes, even intelligent people find that it's very difficult to see through or around one's own indoctrination.
Though it is true that the proportion of religious believers versus athiests drops with higher education.
The problem is one of culture and immersion. When you are steeped in your culture's (or your family's) particular flavor of mythology from birth, it's exceedingly difficult to "break out" of that mindset and think for yourself.
Thinking for oneself isn't encouraged in any of the churches, congregations, or synagogues I've ever seen (though I think it's the worst in Xtianity).
I can't tell you how many "bible study" groups I've participated in over the years wherein people will self-importantly pontificate over meanings and word choices without ever thinking to stop and look at the translations they're using.
Besides which, just because a book (or a collection of books) has a rich tapestry of interwoven connections and interreferences hardly proves it's not mythology.
Hell, people believe in the teachings of the Church of Scientology. Xenu? I mean, come on.
So yes, even intelligent people find that it's very difficult to see through or around one's own indoctrination.
Though it is true that the proportion of religious believers versus athiests drops with higher education.
By: indigoandblack
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
Well, you've just demonstrated ignorance of what science is, my friend. The simple fact that you're working in a "highly respected institute" doesn't matter to the argument at hand... The fact that, say, one individual has a Doctorate and professes a belief in creationism doesn't prove god exists any more than, say, Stephen Hawking providing arguments for evolution proves that god does not exist.
It's not entirely clear what you mean by "everything scientific must have a foundation." The theory of evolution (actually a collection of theories) is a scientific means of investigating the origins of life on the planet. Science does not include god(s) in its investigation of facts, since the concept of god cannot be proven or disproven.
And to say "[e]volutionists spend their lives proving that doom awaits them," is entirely inaccurate and misses the point - evolution makes no statements concerning god. If you wish to believe in such a construct, that has (or should have) no bearing on your ability to conduct science.
Your comment about "everything just popped into place" is also inaccurate - no evolutionary scientist will say that. Humans didn't just "[pop] into place". Life came about through a series of subtle changes, mutations, and adaptations over an unimaginably vast stretch of time.
And 50,000 year old hot dogs - there is always anecdotal evidence to show anomalies like that. But radiocarbon dating is by no means the only method of estimating the age of something.
And before you comment on geological strata, keep in mind that the geological dating standards came about *prior* to Darwin's work. That work was done largely by Xtian researchers, who, incidentally, had no issue with an old earth.
It's not entirely clear what you mean by "everything scientific must have a foundation." The theory of evolution (actually a collection of theories) is a scientific means of investigating the origins of life on the planet. Science does not include god(s) in its investigation of facts, since the concept of god cannot be proven or disproven.
And to say "[e]volutionists spend their lives proving that doom awaits them," is entirely inaccurate and misses the point - evolution makes no statements concerning god. If you wish to believe in such a construct, that has (or should have) no bearing on your ability to conduct science.
Your comment about "everything just popped into place" is also inaccurate - no evolutionary scientist will say that. Humans didn't just "[pop] into place". Life came about through a series of subtle changes, mutations, and adaptations over an unimaginably vast stretch of time.
And 50,000 year old hot dogs - there is always anecdotal evidence to show anomalies like that. But radiocarbon dating is by no means the only method of estimating the age of something.
And before you comment on geological strata, keep in mind that the geological dating standards came about *prior* to Darwin's work. That work was done largely by Xtian researchers, who, incidentally, had no issue with an old earth.
By: indigoandblack
Re: What if
Actually, meat, the meaning of the Ivrit (Hebrew) is not known. "Behemoth" is a literal transliteration of the Ivrit word "Behemot" (bet hey mem vav tav).
By: indigoandblack
Love how the fundies love to pick and choose...
This video is frightening. What's most upsetting about it is how the adults in positions of authority are "brainwashing" (thank you, Xtian poster, for that term) small children by giving them selective information.
So Job refers to dinosaurs, eh?
If you care to read the passage mentioned in the sickly kitschy sing along, you might find yourself agreeing with the singer. Sounds like our authoritative bible might be spot on, there! Brontosaurus, something like that maybe? Mmmm, amazing accuracy of scripture...
The problem is that the song neglects to mention the *next* chapter, 41. And if you care to look it up yourself, you'll see why.
The description of the creature (the same creature being described at the end of 40) continues, and more detail is added.
When you're done with 41, you'll have an image in your mind of not a dinosaur (particularly not a brontosaurus), but rather...
A DRAGON.
Complete with interlocking scales, smoking nostrils, glowing eyes, and yes, it breathes fire.
DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT - DO YOUR HOMEWORK, LOOK IT UP.
So much for authoritative scripture, wouldn't you say? It peeves me to no end how the Xtian community will pick and choose the details that suits its agenda from their own Jewish scripture, while ignoring and in fact explicitly avoiding passages that don't fit.
Ugh.
So Job refers to dinosaurs, eh?
If you care to read the passage mentioned in the sickly kitschy sing along, you might find yourself agreeing with the singer. Sounds like our authoritative bible might be spot on, there! Brontosaurus, something like that maybe? Mmmm, amazing accuracy of scripture...
The problem is that the song neglects to mention the *next* chapter, 41. And if you care to look it up yourself, you'll see why.
The description of the creature (the same creature being described at the end of 40) continues, and more detail is added.
When you're done with 41, you'll have an image in your mind of not a dinosaur (particularly not a brontosaurus), but rather...
A DRAGON.
Complete with interlocking scales, smoking nostrils, glowing eyes, and yes, it breathes fire.
DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT - DO YOUR HOMEWORK, LOOK IT UP.
So much for authoritative scripture, wouldn't you say? It peeves me to no end how the Xtian community will pick and choose the details that suits its agenda from their own Jewish scripture, while ignoring and in fact explicitly avoiding passages that don't fit.
Ugh.
By: indigoandblack
