Half of Americans will not admit to evolution

Here's my report on it: with a link to the original http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2014/02/11/public-attitudes-and-understanding-of-science/

The questions are disturbingly easy, considering that the average response is pretty low. Of course, the questions, as written, might pose problems for really smart people too, because they are worded so poorly. I'm not sure that most scientists could agree with all of them.

And there is some concern (see the update) that other factors played a part (e.g. the difference between astrology and astronomy). A link to another blog suggests that many people don't actually know the difference between astrology and astronomy... which, to me, is as much of a problem as people believing in astrology anyway.

Still, it seems to be problematic.

Unfortunately, survey questions about science are often written by science illiterates, resulting in great ambiguity.

Here’s my report on it: with a link to the original ...

The center of the Earth is very hot. 84% The continents have been moving to their location for millions of years and will continue to move. 83% Does the Earth go around Sun or does the Sun go around the Earth? 74% All radioactivity is man-made. 72% Electrons are smaller than atoms. 53% Lasers work by focusing sound waves. 47% The universe began with a huge explosion. 39% It is the father’s gene that decides whether the baby is a boy or girl. 63% Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria. 51% Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals. 48%

Matt Young said: The center of the Earth is very hot. 84% The continents have been moving to their location for millions of years and will continue to move. 83% Does the Earth go around Sun or does the Sun go around the Earth? 74% All radioactivity is man-made. 72% Electrons are smaller than atoms. 53% Lasers work by focusing sound waves. 47% The universe began with a huge explosion. 39% It is the father’s gene that decides whether the baby is a boy or girl. 63% Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria. 51% Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals. 48%

The two that seem to be bugging people is the does the Earth go around the sun and the Big Bang ones. Technically, the Earth/Sun system orbits a point that is distinct from the sun (if it where a point source) and nothing really exploded in the Big Bang.

I agree that is being really picky though.

ogremkv said: The two that seem to be bugging people is the does the Earth go around the sun and the Big Bang ones. Technically, the Earth/Sun system orbits a point that is distinct from the sun (if it where a point source) and nothing really exploded in the Big Bang. I agree that is being really picky though.

What I find interesting are the two (or three) "deep time" questions. 83% think that the continents have been around for millions of years, yet only 48% agree with evolution. So it isn't the "millions of years" part that troubles most people. They seem to be fine with that when it comes to an old Earth. What this spread tells me is that 35% could be loosely classified as OEC's.

ogremkv said: Technically, the Earth/Sun system orbits a point that is distinct from the sun

So which answer was regarded as correct on the one about the universe beginning?

Taken literally, the answer is "no". But what if the writer of the question thought "explosion" was close enough to the actual meaning, and based the official answer on that?

And of course the one about "father's gene" should say "DNA" rather than "gene", but there the intent is clear enough.

Henry

Henry says: "And of course the one about “father’s gene” should say “DNA” rather than “gene”, but there the intent is clear enough." I would like to add that this is better than the usual statement that the father determines the sex of the child.

ogremkv said: The questions are disturbingly easy, considering that the average response is pretty low. Of course, the questions, as written, might pose problems for really smart people too, because they are worded so poorly. I'm not sure that most scientists could agree with all of them. And there is some concern (see the update) that other factors played a part (e.g. the difference between astrology and astronomy). A link to another blog suggests that many people don't actually know the difference between astrology and astronomy... which, to me, is as much of a problem as people believing in astrology anyway. Still, it seems to be problematic.

Just Bob said:

ogremkv said: Technically, the Earth/Sun system orbits a point that is distinct from the sun

But that point is within the Sun, right? So the Earth orbits the Sun (just not its exact center), but in no sense does the Sun go around the Earth.

This new poll, as it relates to the topic of human origins, appears to be consistent with Gallup Poll results of 2012...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

...which is good.

FL said: This new poll, as it relates to the topic of human origins, appears to be consistent with Gallup Poll results of 2012... http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx ...which is good.

hi.i hear about this argument: what about the "self replicat watch" argument?. nature is more complex then any man-made watch. even a self replicat one with dna. so if such a watch need a designer why not nature?.

dcscccc said: hi.i hear about this argument: what about the "self replicat watch" argument?. nature is more complex then any man-made watch. even a self replicat one with dna. so if such a watch need a designer why not nature?.

dcscccc said: hi.i hear about this argument: what about the "self replicat watch" argument?. nature is more complex then any man-made watch. even a self replicat one with dna. so if such a watch need a designer why not nature?.

The watch does not "self replicat". If it did, it could evolve just like every other living thing. That is the only reason why a designer is needed for the watch. now i know your hear about this argument.

Asking the questions this way will tend to prompt a positive answer. Ogre, do you know if they tried to control for this by switching the wording in half the surveys (i.e., half say "Are electrons smaller than atoms" while the other half say "are atoms are smaller than electrons?"

I had a little problem with "father's gene" until I thought about it a bit. But it's more or less presence or absence of a single gene, SRY, that determines sex in humans. And of course it's on the Y chromosome. So yeah, father's gene.

Does the Earth go around Sun or does the Sun go around the Earth? 74%

eric said: Asking the questions this way will tend to prompt a positive answer. Ogre, do you know if they tried to control for this by switching the wording in half the surveys (i.e., half say "Are electrons smaller than atoms" while the other half say "are atoms are smaller than electrons?"

Survey items that test factual knowledge sometimes use easily comprehensible language at the cost of scientific precision. This may prompt some highly knowledgeable respondents to believe that the items blur or neglect important distinctions, and in a few cases may lead respondents to answer questions incorrectly. In addition, the items do not reflect the ways that established scientific knowledge evolves as scientists accumulate new evidence. Although the text of the factual knowledge questions may suggest a fixed body of knowledge, it is more accurate to see scientists as making continual, often subtle modifications in how they understand existing data in light of new evidence. When the answer to a factual knowledge question is categorized as “correct,” it means that the answer accords with the current consensus among knowledgeable scientists and that the weight of scientific evidence clearly supports the answer.

When the answer to a factual knowledge question is categorized as “correct,” it means that the answer accords with the current consensus among knowledgeable scientists and that the weight of scientific evidence clearly supports the answer.

FL said: This new poll, as it relates to the topic of human origins, appears to be consistent with Gallup Poll results of 2012... http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx ...which is good.

I have asked people some of these questions years ago, and some of them seemed uncertain. How do we know which percentage of people were simply guessing? I assume that a non-zero number of people, for example, simply guessed correctly that the Earth orbits the sun (common center of gravity).

FL, I know that having the approved beliefs about the nature of the world affirms one's membership in good standing with the Tribe. I was raised Southern Baptist, and that's the way all the adults around me behaved. But it has baffled me now for more than a half century. How can you believe things contrary to evidence, especially when it's glaringly obvious that scientists want to understand how things work, and Fundamentalists like biblical literalists don't want to hear about troublesome evidence?

My understanding is that this is something of a meta survey. There are four pages of references at the bottom and at least half a page of Pew surveys, which I haven’t read all of. So I don’t know if the originals made this attempt or not.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/gDZbqvRso8h_QIAOCREBGct3BrN.4vV4bA9qgw--#a702f said: I have asked people some of these questions years ago, and some of them seemed uncertain. How do we know which percentage of people were simply guessing? I assume that a non-zero number of people, for example, simply guessed correctly that the Earth orbits the sun (common center of gravity).

daoudmbo said:

Does the Earth go around Sun or does the Sun go around the Earth? 74%

Er, that's not a yes/no question, is it 74% saying yes the Earth goes around the Sun or 74% saying yes the Sun goes around the Earth?

How do we win so many Nobel Prizes when roughly half the U.S. population renders themselves ineligible to participate in the scientific process?

Carl Drews said: How do we win so many Nobel Prizes when roughly half the U.S. population renders themselves ineligible to participate in the scientific process?

daoudmbo said:

Does the Earth go around Sun or does the Sun go around the Earth? 74%

Er, that's not a yes/no question, is it 74% saying yes the Earth goes around the Sun or 74% saying yes the Sun goes around the Earth?

Carl Drews said: How do we win so many Nobel Prizes when roughly half the U.S. population renders themselves ineligible to participate in the scientific process?

eric said:

Carl Drews said: How do we win so many Nobel Prizes when roughly half the U.S. population renders themselves ineligible to participate in the scientific process?

For stuff like Nobels (and Olympic performance too, I might add), its not the position of the hump but the size and shape of the tail.

• Rank Country Nobel laureates Population Laureates/10 million
• — Faroe Islands 1 49,469 202.147
• 1 Saint Lucia 2 182,273 109.726
• 2 Luxembourg 2 530,380 37.709
• 3 Switzerland 25 8,077,833 30.949
• 4 Iceland 1 329,535 30.346
• 5 Sweden 29 9,571,105 30.300
• 6 Denmark 14 5,619,096 24.915
• 7 Austria 21 8,495,145 24.720
• 8 Norway 11 5,042,671 21.814
• 9 United Kingdom 121 63,136,265 19.165
• 10 East Timor 2 1,132,879 17.654
• 11 Israel 12 7,733,144 15.518
• 12 Ireland 6 4,627,173 12.967
• 13 Germany 104 82,726,626 12.572
• 14 Netherlands 19 16,759,229 11.337
• 15 United States 346 320,050,716 10.811
• 16 France 59 64,291,280 9.177

Carl Drews said: How do we win so many Nobel Prizes when roughly half the U.S. population renders themselves ineligible to participate in the scientific process?

I don't know how well I might fare on questions that might be asked about, say, history or geography. I wouldn't consider myself to be competent in either. However, I would admit to not knowing but being able to find out. That latter bit is (at least to me) important. I'm constantly amazed by some folk's basic lack of understanding of how to do basic research, especially when many have the intertoobs at their disposal.

david.starling.macmillan -

Are some of your questions intended to be ambiguous? (I welcome corrections to my non-biomedical answers if appropriate; these are mostly off the top of my head.)

1. The seasons are caused by the changing distance between the Earth and the Sun.

Basically false, it's the tilt of the Earth on its axis, but someone could argue they're related to the distance between whichever part of the Earth's seasons are being referred to and the sun.

2. Humans inhale mainly oxygen and exhale mainly carbon dioxide.

I get that this is false; nitrogen is the main component of either inhaled or exhaled air, but it's a bit deceptive because O2/CO2 exchange is the point of breathing.

3. No particle can move faster than light.

I realize there are hypothetical exotic particles that might be able to, but can't either answer be defended here?

4. Human beings evolved from chimpanzees.

False; we don't use the term "chimpanzee" to classify any pre-hominid primates, as far as I know.

5. The Moon loops around the Earth while the Earth loops around the Sun.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here; the moon does orbit the earth and the earth does orbit the sun.

6. Daily tides are caused by the position of the Moon, not the rotation of the Earth.

Technically false but deceptive as the moon is by far the main influence.

7. All the cells in the human body contain a complete copy of human DNA.

Obviously false - red blood cells contain no nucleus and no copy of nuclear DNA, and germ cells have haploid genomes. A bit tricky though; putting aside multinuclear cells, most do contain a complete genome, albeit with regulated gene expression and some somatic mutations.

8. A spacecraft must achieve escape velocity in order to leave Earth’s orbit.

Must be false, since it seems correct, but I don't see why it isn't correct.

9. Gasoline is explosive.

Why is this not true?

10. You weigh less at the equator than you do at the poles.

Seems true although to a trivial degree; minimally further from the earth's center.

11. The phases of the Moon are caused by the Moon’s rotation.

What do you mean "rotation"? The moon doesn't rotate on an axis at all, and it revolves around (orbits) the earth. Therefore false. But they are caused by moon's revolution around the earth.

12. A Calorie is equal to 4.184 Joules.

No, that's a "calorie", a "Calorie" is 4184 Joules.

13. The needle of a compass points to the North pole of Earth’s magnetic field.

You probably meant this to be false but it's ambiguous because you capitalized "North". 'A magnet or compass needle's "north" pole is defined as the one which is attracted to the North magnetic pole of the Earth. Since opposite poles attract ("north" to "south") the North magnetic pole of the Earth is actually the south pole of the Earth's magnetic field.' Did you mean "north pole of the Earht's magnetic field" or "North magnetic pole of the Earth"?

14. The crack of a bullet points to where the shot was fired from.

I have no idea, despite having had some interest in forensics during my residency.

in response to harold...

All my these were also off the top of my head, and yes, all of them are false. Good work! In response:

1. Yep, that was an easy one. The technical reason for the seasons, IIRC, is that more radiation is scattered when it comes in at an oblique angle to the atmosphere than when it comes in straight.

2. Even if you ignore the nitrogen aspect, this is still false; humans always exhale more oxygen than they do CO2. Gaseous CO2 is toxic at concentrations far below that of atmospheric oxygen.

3. If I had added "in a vacuum", this would be true. But any medium (water, air, etc) can slow down photons enough that other particles can pass them up.

4. Right.

5. The moon doesn't actually loop around the Earth. It crosses back and forth over Earth's solar orbit, giving the appearance of an earth-orbit from Earth's perspective, but its orbit is always concave toward the sun.

6. The moon certainly is responsible for causing ocean-tidal maximums and minimums, but it's the Earth's rotation underneath the ocean min/max which causes daily tides. The moon's position is simply responsible for the monthly cycles in those tides.

7. Absolutely correct. Also, most of the cells in the human body aren't even human -- they're gut bacteria.

8. Escape velocity (or, more accurately, escape speed) only refers to ballistic trajectories. Theoretically, a rocket engine can push you straight out of Earth's gravity well without ever achieving orbital speed, let alone escape speed.

9. Gasoline typically refers to the liquid form, which doesn't burn. Gasoline vapors, on the other hand, are quite explosive when properly mixed with air.

10. The reason the equator is further from the Earth's center is because centrigual force of rotation pushes it out; the Earth's surface exactly follows the geodesic of Earth's gravity, meaning you weigh pretty much the same everywhere.

11. Right. Phases are simply a consequence of the angle between us, the moon, and the sun.

12. Bingo!

13. Right.

14. The crack of a bullet is the sonic boom, which is produced by the nose of the bullet as it pushes through the air. You'll perceive the crack as coming from some point along the bullet's trajectory, not as coming from the actual gun.

harold said: 13. The needle of a compass points to the North pole of Earth’s magnetic field. You probably meant this to be false but it's ambiguous because you capitalized "North". 'A magnet or compass needle's "north" pole is defined as the one which is attracted to the North magnetic pole of the Earth. Since opposite poles attract ("north" to "south") the North magnetic pole of the Earth is actually the south pole of the Earth's magnetic field.' Did you mean "north pole of the Earht's magnetic field" or "North magnetic pole of the Earth"?

It doesn't matter whether every American can correctly answer a pop quiz about science topics he or she had to memorize in grade school. [Instead,] Enlist today's young scientists entering the workforce as science emissaries -- training them with interdisciplinary skills that can be applied beyond academia. The number of traditional tenure-track jobs for science Ph.D.s is shrinking, even as we have a critical need for scientific expertise beyond the ivory towers. "Renaissance scientists" who pursue policymaking jobs, work as writers or even just speak another language will be best equipped to bridge the gap between science and society, serving as translators and communicators. We need this new generation of scientific heroes to restore science to its rightful place in America. Only then will we cultivate a culture of science literacy.

TomS said:

harold said: 13. The needle of a compass points to the North pole of Earth’s magnetic field. You probably meant this to be false but it's ambiguous because you capitalized "North". 'A magnet or compass needle's "north" pole is defined as the one which is attracted to the North magnetic pole of the Earth. Since opposite poles attract ("north" to "south") the North magnetic pole of the Earth is actually the south pole of the Earth's magnetic field.' Did you mean "north pole of the Earht's magnetic field" or "North magnetic pole of the Earth"?

A magnetic compass shows the local magnetic field, not the global magnetic pole of the field.

A magnetic compass may differ from pointing to a magnetic pole because of local anomalies such as iron ores, and there are significant large-scale differences also. The local magnetic field is what affects a magnetic compass.

Okay, maybe stupid question, but how can one tell a North Magnetic Pole from a South Magnetic Pole by just looking at it or blind trust that the compass was marked correctly?

Bobsie said: Okay, maybe stupid question, but how can one tell a North Magnetic Pole from a South Magnetic Pole by just looking at it or blind trust that the compass was marked correctly?

TomS said:

Bobsie said: Okay, maybe stupid question, but how can one tell a North Magnetic Pole from a South Magnetic Pole by just looking at it or blind trust that the compass was marked correctly?

An interesting question. As far as I know, there is no difference in the laws of physics between south and north, so there is no way to tell whether south or north except by reference to an arbitrary standard, such as the magnetic poles of the Earth (in the modern era - the poles do switch over time).

...there is no way to tell whether south or north except by reference to an arbitrary standard ...

david.starling.macmillan said:

TomS said:

Bobsie said: Okay, maybe stupid question, but how can one tell a North Magnetic Pole from a South Magnetic Pole by just looking at it or blind trust that the compass was marked correctly?

An interesting question. As far as I know, there is no difference in the laws of physics between south and north, so there is no way to tell whether south or north except by reference to an arbitrary standard, such as the magnetic poles of the Earth (in the modern era - the poles do switch over time).

PHYSICS TO THE RESCUE! Actually, there IS a way to tell the difference without reference to an externally-known magnetic field. Magnetic fields exert a force on moving electrical charges equal to the cross product of the field vector and the velocity vector (times the magnitude of the charge on the particle). If you have a bar magnet and want to know which pole is north and which pole is south, it's not too hard to do. Grab an electron beam generator (a single cathode ray tube will work) and point it at a phosphor-coated sheet of paper. The phosphor will glow bright green where the electron beam hits it. Then, place the bar magnet perpendicularly just underneath the path of the beam. If the magnetic field is running from left to right (i.e. the North is on the left and the South is on the right), then the electron beam will be bent down and you'll see the bright green dot drop. If the magnetic field is running from right to left (i.e. the North is on the right and the South is on the left), then the electron beam will be bent up and you'll see the bright green dot lift.

Matt Young said:

...there is no way to tell whether south or north except by reference to an arbitrary standard ...

An electron-beam generator is a bit excessive. All you need is a battery and a coil or a wire. As long as you know the polarity of the battery, you can figure out direction of the magnetic field inside the coil. The polarity of the battery, however, is arbitrary, so the original statement seems to me to be correct in a sense.

If the Bible (KJV 1611) is the font of all knowledge, then surely this issue can be decided with Bible verses.

Anyone care to give it a try?

The definitions of “north” and “south” are arbitrary in the first place. Strictly speaking, the polarity of the battery isn’t “arbitrary”, it’s defined by the electro-chemistry of the cell.

ogremkv said:

david.starling.macmillan said: PHYSICS TO THE RESCUE! Actually, there IS a way to tell the difference without reference to an externally-known magnetic field. Magnetic fields exert a force on moving electrical charges equal to the cross product of the field vector and the velocity vector (times the magnitude of the charge on the particle). If you have a bar magnet and want to know which pole is north and which pole is south, it's not too hard to do. Grab an electron beam generator (a single cathode ray tube will work) and point it at a phosphor-coated sheet of paper. The phosphor will glow bright green where the electron beam hits it. Then, place the bar magnet perpendicularly just underneath the path of the beam. If the magnetic field is running from left to right (i.e. the North is on the left and the South is on the right), then the electron beam will be bent down and you'll see the bright green dot drop. If the magnetic field is running from right to left (i.e. the North is on the right and the South is on the left), then the electron beam will be bent up and you'll see the bright green dot lift.

Post of the Week!

Hey, thanks everyone for the science lesson and to Just Bob for his Bible lesson. I'm going to use my new knowledge to check all my compasses for correct polarity. ;)

Matt Young said:

The definitions of “north” and “south” are arbitrary in the first place. Strictly speaking, the polarity of the battery isn’t “arbitrary”, it’s defined by the electro-chemistry of the cell.

Well, yes, but isn't the positive end of the battery positive because Franklin said so? I think the point is that, once you have defined magnetic north and electric positive, you can deduce the north pole of your magnet with a simple experiment and without need for an artifact standard such as a compass.

Matt Young said:

...there is no way to tell whether south or north except by reference to an arbitrary standard ...

An electron-beam generator is a bit excessive. All you need is a battery and a coil or a wire. As long as you know the polarity of the battery, you can figure out direction of the magnetic field inside the coil. The polarity of the battery, however, is arbitrary, so the original statement seems to me to be correct in a sense.

Kevin B said: The definitions of "north" and "south" are arbitrary in the first place.

In this particular case, you’d still be using an arbitrary standard. The electron-beam generator (which sounds way more impressive than it is; the Crookes tube was invented in 1869) provides a non-arbitrary basis, as the trajectory of the electron stream is easily visible.

eric said:

Kevin B said: The definitions of "north" and "south" are arbitrary in the first place.

Indeed, there is no physics reason, for example, for why we shouldn't use this map of the world instead of our regular ones. Now, north = up is consistent with the right-hand rule applied to the earth's rotation, and also consistent with the right-hand rule applied to the rotation of the planets around the sun (well, let's say it's closer than the other choice, given the axial tilt of the earth). As a leftie, however, I find the right-hand-rule convention just as arbitrary. :)

prongs said: If the Bible (KJV 1611) is the font of all knowledge, then surely this issue can be decided with Bible verses. Anyone care to give it a try?

Psalm 111:2 Great are the works of the LORD; They are studied by all who delight in them. New American Standard Bible

What better than to just fall of the Earth rather than going through all this rigmarole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONGApiIrSqs

I hope for some really good ideas to solve this problem.

As a side note, the Gallup poll and other similar polls are unfortunately a bit vague in distinguishing between YECs and OECs.

Choice #3 in the Gallup poll was that humans were created pretty much in the same form about 10,000 years ago (while the other two choices involved millions/billions of years but both other choices also involve common descent).

However, there are at least some creationists that reject common descent and feel that the human species is only thousands of years old but at the same time feel that other species and the earth are millions/billions of years old. Thus, these OECs are in a bit of a quandary. In the end, many of these OECs may hold their noses and choose choice #3 as the lessor of the evils.

Matt Young said: This is getting way the hell off task, but I do not understand this comment:

In this particular case, you’d still be using an arbitrary standard. The electron-beam generator (which sounds way more impressive than it is; the Crookes tube was invented in 1869) provides a non-arbitrary basis, as the trajectory of the electron stream is easily visible.

If the positive terminal of the battery is arbitrary, then the charge on the electron is arbitrary, so the experiment with the Crookes tube provides just as arbitrary a basis as any other experiment.

the lessor of the evils

Big Al's Rent-A-Bug: The lessor of two weevils.

harold said: 11. The phases of the Moon are caused by the Moon’s rotation. What do you mean "rotation"? The moon doesn't rotate on an axis at all, and it revolves around (orbits) the earth. Therefore false. But they are caused by moon's revolution around the earth.

david.starling.macmillan said: 2. Even if you ignore the nitrogen aspect, this is still false; humans always exhale more oxygen than they do CO2. Gaseous CO2 is toxic at concentrations far below that of atmospheric oxygen.

eric said:

Kevin B said: The definitions of "north" and "south" are arbitrary in the first place.

Indeed, there is no physics reason, for example, for why we shouldn't use this map of the world instead of our regular ones.

Matt Young said: This is getting way the hell off task, but I do not understand this comment:

In this particular case, you’d still be using an arbitrary standard. The electron-beam generator (which sounds way more impressive than it is; the Crookes tube was invented in 1869) provides a non-arbitrary basis, as the trajectory of the electron stream is easily visible.

If the positive terminal of the battery is arbitrary, then the charge on the electron is arbitrary, so the experiment with the Crookes tube provides just as arbitrary a basis as any other experiment.

Kevin B said: Which leads me to ask whether north and south (not mention left and right) are reversed in an anti-matter universe.

Tenncrain said: There are at least some creationists that reject common descent and feel that the human species is only thousands of years old but at the same time feel that other species and the earth are millions/billions of years old. Thus, these OECs are in a bit of a quandary. In the end, many of these OECs may hold their noses and choose choice #3 as the lessor of the evils.

Scott F said:

harold said: 11. The phases of the Moon are caused by the Moon’s rotation. What do you mean "rotation"? The moon doesn't rotate on an axis at all, and it revolves around (orbits) the earth. Therefore false. But they are caused by moon's revolution around the earth.

Actually, the Moon does rotate about its axis, exactly once per lunar month. The Sun rises and sets on the Moon, just like on the Earth. If the Moon did not rotate as it orbited the Earth, you would see a different face of the Moon every night, in addition to a different phase.

Dave Lovell said:

david.starling.macmillan said: 2. Even if you ignore the nitrogen aspect, this is still false; humans always exhale more oxygen than they do CO2. Gaseous CO2 is toxic at concentrations far below that of atmospheric oxygen.

I'm in total agreement with your main point, but is your clarification oversimplifying? Are you sure about the "always" in there? It is certainly true over the long term because CO2 and oxygen volumes have to match, for glucose metabolism at least. But surely the absorption of oxygen and the excretion of CO2 are independent processes with no need to balance short term. Oxygen is chemically scavenged from the lung cavity, while CO2 diffuses into it from a large volume of buffer solution, and gaseous exchange does not have to take place at constant volume. When respiration has been restricted could a human not breath in a litre of air and breath out 790cc of Nitrogen, 50cc of CO2, and a whiff of Oxygen, without the partial pressure of CO2 reaching dangerous levels? A surfacing free diver, with a body starved of oxygen and overburdened with CO2, could probably break the "always" rule while getting his breath back.

david.starling.macmillan said: CO2 causes drowsiness at 1% concentration, causes heaviness of breath and involuntary urge to gasp for air at 2% concentration, and is lethally toxic at 5% concentration. While it's certainly true that gaseous exchange in the lungs would not have to take place at a constant volume, I don't see any way it would be possible to pull enough oxygen out of the air in order to safely exhale more CO2 than you did oxygen.

david.starling.macmillan said:

Matt Young said:

The definitions of “north” and “south” are arbitrary in the first place. Strictly speaking, the polarity of the battery isn’t “arbitrary”, it’s defined by the electro-chemistry of the cell.

Well, yes, but isn't the positive end of the battery positive because Franklin said so? I think the point is that, once you have defined magnetic north and electric positive, you can deduce the north pole of your magnet with a simple experiment and without need for an artifact standard such as a compass.

The positive end of the battery terminal is positive because Franklin guessed and got it wrong. While current flow in most circuit diagrams is completely reversible and thus arbitrary, electrons DO flow from the negative terminal to the positive terminal. Circuit direction is only arbitrary because it is the electron potential which does the work in the circuit, and potential is not a vector quantity.

Matt Young said:

...there is no way to tell whether south or north except by reference to an arbitrary standard ...

An electron-beam generator is a bit excessive. All you need is a battery and a coil or a wire. As long as you know the polarity of the battery, you can figure out direction of the magnetic field inside the coil. The polarity of the battery, however, is arbitrary, so the original statement seems to me to be correct in a sense.

In this particular case, you'd still be using an arbitrary standard. The electron-beam generator (which sounds way more impressive than it is; the Crookes tube was invented in 1869) provides a non-arbitrary basis, as the trajectory of the electron stream is easily visible.

Scott F said:

harold said: 11. The phases of the Moon are caused by the Moon’s rotation. What do you mean "rotation"? The moon doesn't rotate on an axis at all, and it revolves around (orbits) the earth. Therefore false. But they are caused by moon's revolution around the earth.

Actually, the Moon does rotate about it's axis, exactly once per lunar month. The Sun rises and sets on the Moon, just like on the Earth. If the Moon did not rotate as it orbited the Earth, you would see a different face of the Moon every night, in addition to a different phase.

Dave Lovell said:

david.starling.macmillan said: 2. Even if you ignore the nitrogen aspect, this is still false; humans always exhale more oxygen than they do CO2. Gaseous CO2 is toxic at concentrations far below that of atmospheric oxygen.

I'm in total agreement with your main point, but is your clarification oversimplifying? Are you sure about the "always" in there? It is certainly true over the long term because CO2 and oxygen volumes have to match, for glucose metabolism at least. But surely the absorption of oxygen and the excretion of CO2 are independent processes with no need to balance short term. Oxygen is chemically scavenged from the lung cavity, while CO2 diffuses into it from a large volume of buffer solution, and gaseous exchange does not have to take place at constant volume. When respiration has been restricted could a human not breath in a litre of air and breath out 790cc of Nitrogen, 50cc of CO2, and a whiff of Oxygen, without the partial pressure of CO2 reaching dangerous levels? A surfacing free diver, with a body starved of oxygen and overburdened with CO2, could probably break the "always" rule while getting his breath back.

Just Bob said: Well, US Representative and sometime Tea Party presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann has stated that CO2 is 'only' 3% of the atmosphere, and since it's a natural product, it's harmless. She also doesn't believe in evolution. Big surprise.

harold said: All linguistic conventions using the word "north" or "south" are arbitrary. Ancient and medieval people called a certain geographical direction "north", or more technically, some of them used Indo-European words related to the modern English word "north" to refer to that direction.

The usual intended use of a compass is to approximately demonstrate geographic directions by pointing at the magnetic North pole, which is close enough to geographical north to be useful, during the time period in which the compass has been used by humans. Of course, as TomS points out, if other magnetic stuff is nearby, that use could be interfered with. Simple, plain-spoken medieval mariners simply called the part of the compass needle which pointed approximately to the geographic north the "north" end of the compass needle. Later, it was decided that the magnetic pole that attracts the "north" part of a compass needle would have be to called the "South" magnetic pole, even though it is currently located in the geographic north. However, it's all arbitrary convention in the end.

Carl Drews said:

prongs said: If the Bible (KJV 1611) is the font of all knowledge, then surely this issue can be decided with Bible verses. Anyone care to give it a try?

That's easy!

Psalm 111:2 Great are the works of the LORD; They are studied by all who delight in them. New American Standard Bible

What better way is there to study God's works than to use science?

I don’t see any way it would be possible to pull enough oxygen out of the air in order to safely exhale more CO2 than you did oxygen.

harold said:

I don’t see any way it would be possible to pull enough oxygen out of the air in order to safely exhale more CO2 than you did oxygen.

You should inspire one mole of O2 for every mole of CO2 that you expire, in the long run, with transient imbalance possible. Respiration is essentially the only source of blood oxygen, so what goes out must have come in by respiration. Oxygen exchange is not a simple topic. It is not even completely understood. The fact that "there is much more oxygen in the air than we absorb" seems to imply that we could make do with a much lower O2 atmosphere. In fact this is not true at all. Oxygen exchange across the alveolar epithelium and endothelium into blood is a complex chemical problem in gas exchange. Higher than atmospheric concentrations of O2 are often required medically, and may be useful for recovery from some types of strenuous exercise. Nevertheless, a mole of CO2 contains the same amount of oxygen as a mole of O2. It's interesting that the body has no method of "fixing" respired O2. Almost everything our body is made of - proteins, fats, and carbohydrates - contains oxygen. Even the mineral components of our body are often in the form of oxygen containing molecules. However, we get all that "fixed oxygen" from our diet. Plants fix atmospheric gases into components of their anatomy. We can't. So over time it has to be one mole of O2 breathed in for one mole of CO2 breathed out.

Matt Young said:

the lessor of the evils

They lease evils? To whom?

david.starling.macmillan said:

Scott F said:

harold said: 11. The phases of the Moon are caused by the Moon’s rotation. What do you mean "rotation"? The moon doesn't rotate on an axis at all, and it revolves around (orbits) the earth. Therefore false. But they are caused by moon's revolution around the earth.

Actually, the Moon does rotate about its axis, exactly once per lunar month. The Sun rises and sets on the Moon, just like on the Earth. If the Moon did not rotate as it orbited the Earth, you would see a different face of the Moon every night, in addition to a different phase.

It rotates once per lunar month, but not around its polar axis. It rotates around the Earth's polar axis.

I can't resist mentioning that Jack Aubrey's one and only memorable witticism, which he delighted in repeating, is about the 'lesser of two weevils' in the wonderful Patrick O'Brian Aubrey/Maturin series.

The Moon does not have a single center of mass, but two (or maybe more?).

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

harold said:

I don’t see any way it would be possible to pull enough oxygen out of the air in order to safely exhale more CO2 than you did oxygen.

You should inspire one mole of O2 for every mole of CO2 that you expire, in the long run, with transient imbalance possible. Respiration is essentially the only source of blood oxygen, so what goes out must have come in by respiration. Oxygen exchange is not a simple topic. It is not even completely understood. The fact that "there is much more oxygen in the air than we absorb" seems to imply that we could make do with a much lower O2 atmosphere. In fact this is not true at all. Oxygen exchange across the alveolar epithelium and endothelium into blood is a complex chemical problem in gas exchange. Higher than atmospheric concentrations of O2 are often required medically, and may be useful for recovery from some types of strenuous exercise. Nevertheless, a mole of CO2 contains the same amount of oxygen as a mole of O2. It's interesting that the body has no method of "fixing" respired O2. Almost everything our body is made of - proteins, fats, and carbohydrates - contains oxygen. Even the mineral components of our body are often in the form of oxygen containing molecules. However, we get all that "fixed oxygen" from our diet. Plants fix atmospheric gases into components of their anatomy. We can't. So over time it has to be one mole of O2 breathed in for one mole of CO2 breathed out.

A kangaroo rat does not have to do so (or anyway, neither it nor anything else breathes out as many moles of CO2 as it uses of O2), since it can survive on metabolic water plus the small amount of moisture even in dry seeds. That's because oxygen goes into making water, which does not have to be breathed out, even though it's inevitable that they will breathe out some H2O. A significant amount of oxygen breathed in will end up as water in feces and urine, or water evaporated from skin. Same thing with us, but practically we can't survive on metabolic water, and we'll breathe out at least as much oxygen in CO2 and H2O than we absorbed free oxygen in the lungs, at least most of the time. But not all of the oxygen absorbed in the lungs comes out as CO2, in any case. Glen Davidson

air said: I can't resist mentioning that Jack Aubrey's one and only memorable witticism, which he delighted in repeating, is about the 'lesser of two weevils' in the wonderful Patrick O'Brian Aubrey/Maturin series.

So here's a simple question.

Half of all Americans don't believe in evolution, particularly the evolutionist claim of human origins.

For you guys, that's a problem.

So tell me your best solution. What would you specifically do to change those stats?

FL

Prevent creationism/religion from being taught in science classrooms.
Teach actual science.
Prevent religion from impinging on politics.

harold said: This is the basic formula of human glucose metabolism, and metabolism of other energy sources (amino acids, fatty acids, and ethanol) boil down to about the same thing. 6O2 + C6H12O6 ---> 6CO2 + 6H2O

And a MUCH smaller percentage believe in FL's specific brand of creationism: ~6000 yr. old universe; dinosaurs living with humans; vegetarian T. rexes; no 'macroevolution' of anything; Noah's flood and ark; literal, historical factuality of (nearly) everything in the OT (900 yr. old men, talking asses, Job, etc.); the 'incompatibility' of evolution and Christianity.

But then 'incompatibility' with Christianity doesn't stop one from going to (the Christian) Heaven, so we don't know what that means anyway.

FL said: So here's a simple question. Half of all Americans don't believe in evolution, particularly the evolutionist claim of human origins. For you guys, that's a problem. So tell me your best solution. What would you specifically do to change those stats? FL

Education is the cure for ignorance. That's why Floyd is opposed to education.

Just Bob said: And a MUCH smaller percentage believe in FL's specific brand of creationism: ~6000 yr. old universe; dinosaurs living with humans; vegetarian T. rexes; no 'macroevolution' of anything; Noah's flood and ark; literal, historical factuality of (nearly) everything in the OT (900 yr. old men, talking asses, Job, etc.); the 'incompatibility' of evolution and Christianity. But then 'incompatibility' with Christianity doesn't stop one from going to (the Christian) Heaven, so we don't know what that means anyway.

FL said: So here's a simple question. Half of all Americans don't believe in evolution, particularly the evolutionist claim of human origins. For you guys, that's a problem. So tell me your best solution. What would you specifically do to change those stats? FL

Helena Constantine said: Not quite right, and point that needs to be stressed more. FL has to believe in super evolution to go from a few thousand animals kinds on the ark, to over 150,000 vertebrate species today. If Nye didn't get quite right int he debate, its still a scandalous problem the the little bigot can't address.

Carl Drews said:

harold said: This is the basic formula of human glucose metabolism, and metabolism of other energy sources (amino acids, fatty acids, and ethanol) boil down to about the same thing. 6O2 + C6H12O6 ---> 6CO2 + 6H2O

If an overweight person loses 20 pounds by eating less and exercising more, how does that mass leave their body? Harold's formula implies that the lost mass is dumped by breathing and urinating. (I'm trying to phrase this politely to keep Panda's Thumb a family-friendly place.)

1) IIRC there are actually more YECs in the US than there are OECs. But I can't find the reference right off hand.

2) Education: Yes, we have to teach processes, critical thinking, proper science procedures. Which the Next Gen Science Standards make a good push to do. Unfortunately, what is most lacking is not not educating students, but educating teachers.

When I was a college counselor, I heard many times "I'm no good at math, I don't like the sight of blood, but I like kids, so I'll become a teacher". The teachers don't have any clue how to do science or critical thinking, how can we expect them to teach students these skills? Teachers have to stop being the worst of us and start being the best of us.

3)When I say get religion out of politics (or whatever is was that I said), I mean that we should stop accepting religious reasons for policy decisions. I don't care what deity is worshiped, killing a kid because of god (which FL would hypocritically not allow to happen to his kids, in spite of his pushing for it for others) is wrong. Preventing basic human rights because of religion is wrong. Teaching kids that science tells us our religion is wrong and therefore science is not to be trusted is wrong.

david.starling.macmillan said: More funding for education. Teach the concepts, not the answers to questions. Teach teachers to address the claims of pseudoscience on a regular and systematic basis.

Harold, thanks for the answer. It seemed to me that removing 20 pounds of body mass in gaseous form would not be very efficient, but I did not see how that mass could re-enter the alimentary canal and exit as fecal material. Those contestants on "Biggest Loser" have a lot of breathing to do!

Carl Drews said: Harold, thanks for the answer. It seemed to me that removing 20 pounds of body mass in gaseous form would not be very efficient, but I did not see how that mass could re-enter the alimentary canal and exit as fecal material. Those contestants on "Biggest Loser" have a lot of breathing to do!

Carl Drews said: Harold, thanks for the answer. It seemed to me that removing 20 pounds of body mass in gaseous form would not be very efficient, but I did not see how that mass could re-enter the alimentary canal and exit as fecal material. Those contestants on "Biggest Loser" have a lot of breathing to do!

eric said:

david.starling.macmillan said: More funding for education. Teach the concepts, not the answers to questions. Teach teachers to address the claims of pseudoscience on a regular and systematic basis.

I'll quibble with your second sentence; some minimal understanding of both is critical. A foundational knowledge base in facts ('answers') is vital for people to be able to extrapolate, estimate, conduct gedanken experiments, form reasonable hypotheses, etc... You have to know somethnig about the state of the world as it is, before you can make reasonable guesses about the way it might be or understand what experiments are likely to yield interesting/valuable information. Trying to be a scientist with a good understanding of concepts but not knowing the 'answers' to many basic science questions is like trying to be Shakespeare with a good understanding of English grammer...and a 0-word vocabulary.

Kevin B said:

Carl Drews said: Harold, thanks for the answer. It seemed to me that removing 20 pounds of body mass in gaseous form would not be very efficient, but I did not see how that mass could re-enter the alimentary canal and exit as fecal material. Those contestants on "Biggest Loser" have a lot of breathing to do!

Harold is, I fear, becoming embroiled. Firstly, he presumably meant "carbohydrate" not "hydrocarbon". Secondly, the conversion of glucose into carbon dioxide and water occurs throughout the body, not at the boundary between the air and the surface cells in the lungs. Oxygen is carried to the place of use by the blood, and the "combustion products" are carried away by the same mechanism. The carbon dioxide can be easily eliminated via the lungs because it is a gas at body temperature and there are no "entropy issues" thereby. The water produced dilutes the blood and eliminated through the body's mechanisms for regulating water, notably the kidneys. My understanding is that the body manages the water in the gut, and that there is a scavenging process operating in the final reaches that recycles the water used to extract the nutrients in earlier stages.

FL said: So here's a simple question. Half of all Americans don't believe in evolution, particularly the evolutionist claim of human origins. For you guys, that's a problem. So tell me your best solution. What would you specifically do to change those stats?

ogremk5 said: 3)When I say get religion out of politics (or whatever is was that I said), I mean that we should stop accepting religious reasons for policy decisions.

Or without the redundant word "natural":

Science is based on tentative acceptance based on the testing of evidence-based explanations for phenomenon.

Harold is, I fear, becoming embroiled.

Firstly, he presumably meant “carbohydrate” not “hydrocarbon”.

Secondly, the conversion of glucose into carbon dioxide and water occurs throughout the body, not at the boundary between the air and the surface cells in the lungs.

Oxygen is carried to the place of use by the blood, and the “combustion products” are carried away by the same mechanism. The carbon dioxide can be easily eliminated via the lungs because it is a gas at body temperature and there are no “entropy issues” thereby.

The water produced dilutes the blood and eliminated through the body’s mechanisms for regulating water, notably the kidneys. My understanding is that the body manages the water in the gut, and that there is a scavenging process operating in the final reaches that recycles the water used to extract the nutrients in earlier stages.

Wikipedia to the rescue! Metabolic Water.

harold said:

Wikipedia to the rescue! Metabolic Water.

Not only did I not say that denied this, but the basic chemical formula I drew attention to, which is very basic biomedical knowledge, junior high level, and something to be embarrassed to be ignorant of, by the way, illustrates one way in which metabolic water is produced. However, this did turn out to be of some value. Earlier I had meant to say that kangaroo rats probably make efficient use of metabolic water rather than directly "fixing" oxygen from the atmosphere into water.

david.starling.macmillan said:

harold said:

Wikipedia to the rescue! Metabolic Water.

Not only did I not say that denied this, but the basic chemical formula I drew attention to, which is very basic biomedical knowledge, junior high level, and something to be embarrassed to be ignorant of, by the way, illustrates one way in which metabolic water is produced. However, this did turn out to be of some value. Earlier I had meant to say that kangaroo rats probably make efficient use of metabolic water rather than directly "fixing" oxygen from the atmosphere into water.

I know nothing you wrote denied any of this; I was just providing additional info about metabolic water.

The Bible is the word of God. I admit that that's where I start from. I can challenge people that you can go and test that.

harold said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

harold said:

I don’t see any way it would be possible to pull enough oxygen out of the air in order to safely exhale more CO2 than you did oxygen.

You should inspire one mole of O2 for every mole of CO2 that you expire, in the long run, with transient imbalance possible. Respiration is essentially the only source of blood oxygen, so what goes out must have come in by respiration. Oxygen exchange is not a simple topic. It is not even completely understood. The fact that "there is much more oxygen in the air than we absorb" seems to imply that we could make do with a much lower O2 atmosphere. In fact this is not true at all. Oxygen exchange across the alveolar epithelium and endothelium into blood is a complex chemical problem in gas exchange. Higher than atmospheric concentrations of O2 are often required medically, and may be useful for recovery from some types of strenuous exercise. Nevertheless, a mole of CO2 contains the same amount of oxygen as a mole of O2. It's interesting that the body has no method of "fixing" respired O2. Almost everything our body is made of - proteins, fats, and carbohydrates - contains oxygen. Even the mineral components of our body are often in the form of oxygen containing molecules. However, we get all that "fixed oxygen" from our diet. Plants fix atmospheric gases into components of their anatomy. We can't. So over time it has to be one mole of O2 breathed in for one mole of CO2 breathed out.

A kangaroo rat does not have to do so (or anyway, neither it nor anything else breathes out as many moles of CO2 as it uses of O2), since it can survive on metabolic water plus the small amount of moisture even in dry seeds. That's because oxygen goes into making water, which does not have to be breathed out, even though it's inevitable that they will breathe out some H2O. A significant amount of oxygen breathed in will end up as water in feces and urine, or water evaporated from skin. Same thing with us, but practically we can't survive on metabolic water, and we'll breathe out at least as much oxygen in CO2 and H2O than we absorbed free oxygen in the lungs, at least most of the time. But not all of the oxygen absorbed in the lungs comes out as CO2, in any case. Glen Davidson

Although humans respire H2O, we do respire about as much CO2 as we inspire O2 (in moles). This is the basic formula of human glucose metabolism, and metabolism of other energy sources (amino acids, fatty acids, and ethanol) boil down to about the same thing. 6O2 + C6H12O6 ---> 6CO2 + 6H2O I'm not claiming that if you inspire radioactively tagged O2 that all the CO2 and none of the H2O will contain the tagged oxygen. However, you'll note that the molar ratio of inspired O2 to expired CO2 is 1:1. Even though water is also expired. Possible caveats - I don't think humans do any significant net fixation of O2 into water or any other structural component of our body, but perhaps we do that on a small scale. If anyone has evidence that we do, please provide citations. Non-respiratory situations like end stage starvation, diabetic ketoacidosis, and so on do potentially change the balance. It's possible, although I think unlikely, that a sustainable but weird diet might result in a change in the respiratory balance. Again, if anyone claims that this does happen, citations please. Overall, though, I stand by the general claim that moles of 02 inspired generally equal moles of CO2 expired, in humans. Most situations where this is not the case are not sustainable.

Matt Young said: To return to another, earlier topic, Michael Zimmerman has a nice article in the Huffington Post, where he takes Ken Ham to task for his statement

The Bible is the word of God. I admit that that's where I start from. I can challenge people that you can go and test that.

Mr. Ham's naive statement may demonstrate a complete lack of critical thinking, but it shows clearly the creationist mind-set, which Mr. Zimmerman distinguishes from the positions of religious leaders who are willing to go where the evidence takes them.

TomS said: Do YECs actually never come up their own ideas which have no Biblical warrant?

Pssst, Phhht, I think it's time for a new term.

"Vegesaur", while a neat neologism, accurately describes the great majority of dinosaurs. I know you know that, but just tossing out that term disparagingly might give passing lurkers the impression that you're taking the turd to task for just claiming that "vegesaurs" existed. They did, in great proliferation.

FL's fake-biblical claim, of course, is that all the carnosaurs were only interested in carrots for a few days or weeks or whatever until Adam gained the knowledge of good and evil (IOW, became human), then in a total non sequitur they all decided raw, bloody, quivering flesh was a better idea.

Ever since the debate, Ham has been leveraging Bill Nye’s reputation and “refuting” Nye’s arguments over at the AiG website.

This is exactly the predictable, execrable behavior of creationist debaters that is the reason nobody should ever debate them. They win just by getting the free ride on the back of a high-profile spokesman for the science community.

Even though Nye won the debate on hard facts and basic scientific understanding, Ham will never let go of Nye as a “foil” for AiG sectarian propaganda. Ham’s cartoonist even caricatures Nye as an angry debater and Ham as a smiling, avuncular leader speaking “truth.”

These ID/creationists are such political sleaze balls; they have been this way ever since the 1960s. It’s wired into their DNA; and we can see it in how they project their inner demons onto everyone else.

Ham is now flush with ego and hubris; and he can’t help overplaying his hand. It will be nice to watch him drown in his own ignorance and deceit. I hope that science educators, and the science community in general, are taking note of the continuous stream of nonsense being generated over at AiG as a result of the debate. If so, Ham is still the big loser and doesn’t even know it.

The kids need to get away from characters like this; otherwise they are ruined for life when it comes to ever having a chance to learn real science.

Just Bob said: Pssst, Phhht, I think it's time for a new term. "Vegesaur", while a neat neologism, accurately describes the great majority of dinosaurs. I know you know that, but just tossing out that term disparagingly might give passing lurkers the impression that you're taking the turd to task for just claiming that "vegesaurs" existed. They did, in great proliferation. FL's fake-biblical claim, of course, is that all the carnosaurs were only interested in carrots for a few days or weeks or whatever until Adam gained the knowledge of good and evil (IOW, became human), then in a total non sequitur they all decided raw, bloody, quivering flesh was a better idea.

No, phhht. "Vegesaur" is a common misconception in the vulgar tongue - somewhat derogatory, as you use it. Serious creation scientists use taxonomic nomenclature based upon Latin, just like real scientists.

Recent baraminology has revealed new families and genera: broccoliosaurids, oryzasaurids from East Asia, maizosaurids in North America and spudosaurids in South America, but the similar group pommedeterrosaurids in Western Europe. The researchers said they were inspired by John Pantana's remarks at the Sixth International Conference on Creationism, "We can see the creativeness of God in the colors of food and the shapes of food that we put into our bodies. …
Did you know that the sliced carrot looks like a human eye. The pupil, the iris, the radiating lines look like a human eye. Science shows that carrots greatly enhance blood flow to the function of the eyes." - Read more at http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2008/08/17/report-on-the-sixth-internatio/

Mike Elzinga said: Ever since the debate, Ham has been leveraging Bill Nye’s reputation and “refuting” Nye’s arguments over at the AiG website. This is exactly the predictable, execrable behavior of creationist debaters that is the reason nobody should ever debate them. They win just by getting the free ride on the back of a high-profile spokesman for the science community.

Closely related to phhht's example, I'd say that the YEC contention that plants are not alive is probably more unwarranted, counter-science, and eyebrow-raising in its ridiculousness than 'all-vegesaurs and nothing but vegesaurs.' Someone who is intelligent yet completely ignorant about evolution might accept the contention that carnivory is a recent adaptation. But the 'plants are not alive' assertion involves rejecting obvious, direct, day-to-day experience.

Lipids and proteins.

eric said: Closely related to phhht's example, I'd say that the YEC contention that plants are not alive is probably more unwarranted, counter-science, and eyebrow-raising in its ridiculousness than 'all-vegesaurs and nothing but vegesaurs.' Someone who is intelligent yet completely ignorant about evolution might accept the contention that carnivory is a recent adaptation. But the 'plants are not alive' assertion involves rejecting obvious, direct, day-to-day experience.

John 12:24Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

harold said:

Dave Lovell said: But surely the absorption of oxygen and the excretion of CO2 are independent processes with no need to balance short term. Oxygen is chemically scavenged from the lung cavity, while CO2 diffuses into it from a large volume of buffer solution, and gaseous exchange does not have to take place at constant volume. When respiration has been restricted could a human not breath in a litre of air and breath out 790cc of Nitrogen, 50cc of CO2, and a whiff of Oxygen, without the partial pressure of CO2 reaching dangerous levels?

However, since normal air contains considerably more O2 than a resting human at sea level requires, both inhaled and exhaled air contain more O2 than CO2. You subtract some O2 and add some CO2, but there is still more O2 than CO2 in the air you exhale. This is, incidentally, why it is possible to oxygenate another person's blood by exhaling into their mouth. Putting aside the fact that compression only CPR is now recommended in many circumstances.

You should inspire one mole of O2 for every mole of CO2 that you expire, in the long run, with transient imbalance possible.

eric said:

Mike Elzinga said: Ever since the debate, Ham has been leveraging Bill Nye’s reputation and “refuting” Nye’s arguments over at the AiG website. This is exactly the predictable, execrable behavior of creationist debaters that is the reason nobody should ever debate them. They win just by getting the free ride on the back of a high-profile spokesman for the science community.

I have to wonder about the relative impact, though. I heard (completely unconfirmed) that there were something like 3 million people who watched the debate either live or in replay. That's huge. I can't imagine that AIG's "refutation" posts on their website get anywhere near that number of hits. In fact if I had to guess, I'd guess two orders of magnitude lower. So while I agree that Ham's attempt to unring the bell was both entirely predictable and is underhanded, I'm not sure it will actually work. In that sense, I believe that the debate+Ham follow ups - seen as a 'package deal' - likely did more good for us than harm.

Dave Lovell said:

harold said:

Dave Lovell said: But surely the absorption of oxygen and the excretion of CO2 are independent processes with no need to balance short term. Oxygen is chemically scavenged from the lung cavity, while CO2 diffuses into it from a large volume of buffer solution, and gaseous exchange does not have to take place at constant volume. When respiration has been restricted could a human not breath in a litre of air and breath out 790cc of Nitrogen, 50cc of CO2, and a whiff of Oxygen, without the partial pressure of CO2 reaching dangerous levels?

However, since normal air contains considerably more O2 than a resting human at sea level requires, both inhaled and exhaled air contain more O2 than CO2. You subtract some O2 and add some CO2, but there is still more O2 than CO2 in the air you exhale. This is, incidentally, why it is possible to oxygenate another person's blood by exhaling into their mouth. Putting aside the fact that compression only CPR is now recommended in many circumstances.

You seem to have made that comment to refute my point, but in the context in which I originally made it (i.e. answers can be skewed because the "wrong" answer is not always wrong when subject to deeper examination) it reinforces it. Citing CPR demonstrates that lungs are able to operate with an input lower in O2 and higher in CO2 than normal air, with corresponding changes in the levels in exhaled air. So the issue is one of establishing what minimum level of O2 and maximum level of CO2 are survivable short term. These are totally independant parameters. If the figures quoted by david.starling are correct then I concede there will always be more O2. I based my 5% CO2 on recollections of stories of survival of trapped submariners at levels of 7% (with Mike Elzinger on thread, perhaps he can comment on that). A quck google check (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html) suggests 5% causes "headaches and sight impairment" with 10% causing unconciousness and death. One these figures, a lung extracting just over half the available oxygen can potentially exhale more CO2 than oxygen.

You should inspire one mole of O2 for every mole of CO2 that you expire, in the long run, with transient imbalance possible.

So we agree transient balance is possible, but otherwise your assertion is wrong unless you eat nothing but pure sugars (or vinegar). Fat molecules contain hydrocarbon chains with no oxygen to turn their hyrogen to water, so generate less CO2 out than O2 in, and almost everybody must have enough fat in their diet to keep CO2 and O2 volumes well out of balance. Proteins complicate things further, but surely some of Carl's 20lbs must pass in the urea from denatured protein as fat cells reduce in size.

Proteins complicate things further, but surely some of Carl’s 20lbs must pass in the urea from denatured protein as fat cells reduce in size.

eric said: Closely related to phhht's example, I'd say that the YEC contention that plants are not alive is probably more unwarranted, counter-science, and eyebrow-raising in its ridiculousness than 'all-vegesaurs and nothing but vegesaurs.' Someone who is intelligent yet completely ignorant about evolution might accept the contention that carnivory is a recent adaptation. But the 'plants are not alive' assertion involves rejecting obvious, direct, day-to-day experience.

daoudmbo said:

eric said: Closely related to phhht's example, I'd say that the YEC contention that plants are not alive is probably more unwarranted, counter-science, and eyebrow-raising in its ridiculousness than 'all-vegesaurs and nothing but vegesaurs.' Someone who is intelligent yet completely ignorant about evolution might accept the contention that carnivory is a recent adaptation. But the 'plants are not alive' assertion involves rejecting obvious, direct, day-to-day experience.

This is new to me, some forms of YEC deny plant life is living????

phhht said: Pssst, Just Bob, "vegesaurs" means "vegesaurs, only vegesaurs, and nothing but vegesaurs." I'm surprised you haven't understood that from context.

Kevin B said:

daoudmbo said: This is new to me, some forms of YEC deny plant life is living????

Isn't this part of the contortion that follows from the assertion that Death didn't enter the World until after The Fall? If there was no death, there could be no carnivores, and if there were vegetarian animals the plants couldn't be alive because otherwise they would die when they were eaten.

daoudmbo said:

eric said: Closely related to phhht's example, I'd say that the YEC contention that plants are not alive is probably more unwarranted, counter-science, and eyebrow-raising in its ridiculousness than 'all-vegesaurs and nothing but vegesaurs.' Someone who is intelligent yet completely ignorant about evolution might accept the contention that carnivory is a recent adaptation. But the 'plants are not alive' assertion involves rejecting obvious, direct, day-to-day experience.

This is new to me, some forms of YEC deny plant life is living????

The Lord God formed a human being from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, so that he became a living creature. - Genesis 2:7

All green plants He gave for food to the wild animals, and to everything that creeps on the earth, every living creature (nephesh chayyah).

daoudmbo said:

eric said: Closely related to phhht's example, I'd say that the YEC contention that plants are not alive is probably more unwarranted, counter-science, and eyebrow-raising in its ridiculousness than 'all-vegesaurs and nothing but vegesaurs.' Someone who is intelligent yet completely ignorant about evolution might accept the contention that carnivory is a recent adaptation. But the 'plants are not alive' assertion involves rejecting obvious, direct, day-to-day experience.

This is new to me, some forms of YEC deny plant life is living????

FL said: So, Daoudmbo, you've now read an explanation given by Dave Luckett, and you've also read the explanation given by ICR (the link that SWT helpfully provided). So, now that you've seen all this, what sayest thou?

The amnesty given to trolls in honor of the Nye-Ham "debate" has expired.

eric said: FL has justified this claim by pointing to Genesis 2's story of the creation of Adam. God is said to give Adam the "breath of life." FL then interprets this to mean that if something doesn't breathe, it is not alive "in the biblical sense." Of course there are enormous problems with this justification. First, plants do, in fact, respire. They don't have lungs of course, but then neither do fish or insects (with some fishy exceptions).

FL said: So, Daoudmbo, you've now read an explanation given by Dave Luckett, and you've also read the explanation given by ICR (the link that SWT helpfully provided). You now know that plants do NOT have nephesh chayyah, period, and they never will. You have it, but they don't have it. The difference is both profound and permanent. So, now that you've seen all this, what sayest thou? FL

daoudmbo said: I say that I have read Genesis and Exodus in the past month, and I have to say they are completely, ridiculously inane, ***but I am not an atheist like phhht!***, I have also read the Gospels recently, and I loved them, the Passion is an incredibly moving narrative. I just don't understand why some fundamentalist Christians (like yourself) become obsessed with Genesis. It's just not really relevant to the Gospels. I just don't see why anyone has to take Genesis literally to be Christian (and early Christians already knew this), and if you do, you have to completely deny reality and history, I don't see how that makes anyone a good Christian. Genesis is incompatible with reality. Christianity is not incompatible. And please, give God some credit, if he did create the universe, it's a heck of a lot more impressive with the vast 16 billion year old universe, 4+ billion year old Earth, and evolution of life (which did and is happening), than the petty, small-minded, jealous God as portrayed in a literal reading of Genesis (and Exodus).

eric said:

FL said: So, Daoudmbo, you've now read an explanation given by Dave Luckett, and you've also read the explanation given by ICR (the link that SWT helpfully provided). So, now that you've seen all this, what sayest thou?

Well you didn't ask me, but here's what think: "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens and the other elements of this world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and relative positions… Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of the Holy Scriptures, talking nonsense on these topics, and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."

daoudmbo said: ...but I am not an atheist like phhht

Mike Elzinga said: Ever since the debate, Ham has been leveraging Bill Nye’s reputation and “refuting” Nye’s arguments over at the AiG website. This is exactly the predictable, execrable behavior of creationist debaters that is the reason nobody should ever debate them. They win just by getting the free ride on the back of a high-profile spokesman for the science community.

phhht said:

daoudmbo said: ...but I am not an atheist like phhht

Why not?

daoudmbo said:

phhht said:

daoudmbo said: ...but I am not an atheist like phhht

Why not?

I am agnostic with some religious sympathies. I am not criticising your position, I am just stating that I am not a strident atheist like Dawkins, Hitchens etc., and you seem to be.

OT but there is another debate tonight: Sean Carroll vs. William Lane Craig on the subject "God and Cosmology." And yes, it will be live streamed. I am very surprised that this has gotten so little press from PT and other sources, given that Carroll is much more of the sort of expert we would want "representing" science than Nye was.

That is Sean Carroll the physicist, not Sean Carroll the molecular biologist. I had not heard of that debate at all -- seems that it will be streamed live here. and is part of a forum at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. The debate will take place tonight at 7:00 New Orleans time, or CST, so 8:00 Eastern Standard Time. I'll poke around a little more and then run a full (but very short) article, so please do not comment here. Many thanks to eric for the tip!

Kevin B said: Isn't this part of the contortion that follows from the assertion that Death didn't enter the World until after The Fall? If there was no death, there could be no carnivores, and if there were vegetarian animals the plants couldn't be alive because otherwise they would die when they were eaten. Theological equivalent of the recurrent laryngeal nerve, perhaps.

Henry J said:

Kevin B said: Isn't this part of the contortion that follows from the assertion that Death didn't enter the World until after The Fall? If there was no death, there could be no carnivores, and if there were vegetarian animals the plants couldn't be alive because otherwise they would die when they were eaten. Theological equivalent of the recurrent laryngeal nerve, perhaps.

That depends on whether the animals ate vegetables, or just fruit. ;)

Henry J said:

Kevin B said: Isn't this part of the contortion that follows from the assertion that Death didn't enter the World until after The Fall? If there was no death, there could be no carnivores, and if there were vegetarian animals the plants couldn't be alive because otherwise they would die when they were eaten. Theological equivalent of the recurrent laryngeal nerve, perhaps.

That depends on whether the animals ate vegetables, or just fruit. ;)

Marilyn said: In the beginning, at first, a certain few years would have to take place before anything would start to fade due to the environment not being stable enough to maintain continuous life. Or the life forms were not able to adjust to the atmosphere to have continuous life. But some lifeforms were able to attain longer live, and was able to survive better due to their biology.

phhht said:

daoudmbo said:

phhht said:

daoudmbo said: ...but I am not an atheist like phhht

Why not?

I am agnostic with some religious sympathies. I am not criticising your position, I am just stating that I am not a strident atheist like Dawkins, Hitchens etc., and you seem to be.

Strictly speaking, both Dawkins and I are not only atheists, but also agnostics. Do you mean that kind of agnosticism? Or is it only a matter of tone?

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.

Scott F said:

phhht said:

daoudmbo said:

phhht said:

daoudmbo said: ...but I am not an atheist like phhht

Why not?

I am agnostic with some religious sympathies. I am not criticising your position, I am just stating that I am not a strident atheist like Dawkins, Hitchens etc., and you seem to be.

Strictly speaking, both Dawkins and I are not only atheists, but also agnostics. Do you mean that kind of agnosticism? Or is it only a matter of tone?

From Wiki

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that you have, on occasion, claimed unequivocally that gods do not exist. Such a statement does not appear to be compatible with the term "agnostic", as defined in this manner. What definition of "agnostic" do you use, such that you are, "strictly speaking" an "agnostic"?

Just Bob said:

Marilyn said: In the beginning, at first, a certain few years would have to take place before anything would start to fade due to the environment not being stable enough to maintain continuous life. Or the life forms were not able to adjust to the atmosphere to have continuous life. But some lifeforms were able to attain longer live, and was able to survive better due to their biology.

I'm not sure exactly what you're on about here, but it sounds like you're imagining a VERY imperfect Eden, with many faulty lifeforms.

Marilyn said: But some things improve with age.

TomS said: Creationism is not one of the things that improve with age.

Marilyn said:

Just Bob said:

Marilyn said: In the beginning, at first, a certain few years would have to take place before anything would start to fade due to the environment not being stable enough to maintain continuous life. Or the life forms were not able to adjust to the atmosphere to have continuous life. But some lifeforms were able to attain longer live, and was able to survive better due to their biology.

I'm not sure exactly what you're on about here, but it sounds like you're imagining a VERY imperfect Eden, with many faulty lifeforms.

But some things improve with age.

Scott F said: Or better yet, seeds growing into trees, or newborns into adults. Wouldn't their notion of the SLOT also prevent that as well?

TomS said: And do not forget apoptosis.

If something like half of Americans will not admit to evolution, I wonder what that half thinks about word games like this over at AiG.

If this conflict between evolution and religion is a battle for hearts and minds of individuals, and if Ken Ham and his minions over at AiG are really onto something about their audience, it becomes a bit creepy to imagine what is left of minds we are battling for.

Yet, as near as I can tell, that latest solution to the distant starlight problem is being put forth in all seriousness; it's not a "poe thing" going on over there. Mind boggling!

Mike Elzinga said: I wonder what that half thinks about word games like this over at AiG.

Mike Elzinga said: If something like half of Americans will not admit to evolution, I wonder what that half thinks about word games like this over at AiG. If this conflict between evolution and religion is a battle for hearts and minds of individuals, and if Ken Ham and his minions over at AiG are really onto something about their audience, it becomes a bit creepy to imagine what is left of minds we are battling for. Yet, as near as I can tell, that latest solution to the distant starlight problem is being put forth in all seriousness; it's not a "poe thing" going on over there. Mind boggling!

Multiplying the speed of light by the number of seconds in a year, we find that the light year is a little more than 9 × 1012 km.

astronomers think that a few faint objects visible to the naked eye are much farther away than a few thousand light years.

The passage of the year and the seasons are reckoned by how the sun appears to move against the background stars as the earth orbits the sun. Absent these background stars, it would not be possible to determine the passage of the year and of the seasons.

Mike Elzinga said: If something like half of Americans will not admit to evolution, I wonder what that half thinks about word games like this over at AiG. If this conflict between evolution and religion is a battle for hearts and minds of individuals, and if Ken Ham and his minions over at AiG are really onto something about their audience, it becomes a bit creepy to imagine what is left of minds we are battling for. Yet, as near as I can tell, that latest solution to the distant starlight problem is being put forth in all seriousness; it's not a "poe thing" going on over there. Mind boggling!

david.starling.macmillan said: Commenting on phhht and his atheism/agnosticism.... I've often seen the four-way chart that uses gnostic/agnostic as a qualifier for theism/atheism: a gnostic theist claims to know God exists, an agnostic theist believes in God but does not claim knowledge, an agnostic atheist does not believe in God but does not claim there are no Gods, and a gnostic atheist claims to have knowledge that there are no gods... [later]...The biggest distinction is between people who simply find theistic claims to be poorly-evidenced and thus not worthy of acceptance (soft atheism or agnosticism) and people who find theistic claims to be demonstrably and categorically false (hard atheism or antitheism).

There are only a few objects which can be "directly" (parallax-type) measured to be more than 10,000 light years distant. SN 1987A is a famous case. This is soon to be "cured" by the spacecraft GAIA.

eric, I believe your analogy, and hence your argument, is flawed.

We know the sun will not rise green tomorrow, or that we will not float in air, because we have actual experience of both the sun and of falling. We have no such actual experience of God. The bottom of my garden can be closely observed for fairies, and seen to contain none. The Universe cannot be so closely observed for God.

Thus, you are saying that a situation of which we can and do have experiential knowledge is the same as one of which we cannot and do not; that the lack of knowledge we have of the second class can be treated as if it were the actual knowledge that we have of the first class. I don't believe it can be.

Therefore, I hold that there is no double standard. The standard is the same. We can make reasonably certain statements of that which is reasonably certain from actual objective experience. We cannot make such statements of that which is not experienced.

Dave Luckett said: We know the sun will not rise green tomorrow, or that we will not float in air, because we have actual experience of both the sun and of falling. We have no such actual experience of God.

The bottom of my garden can be closely observed for fairies, and seen to contain none. The Universe cannot be so closely observed for God.

Thus, you are saying that a situation of which we can and do have experiential knowledge is the same as one of which we cannot and do not;

Every now and then the sun sets green: :-)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Green_flash.jpg

False equivalence, eric. I know the sun isn't green on rising, because I know what the sun looks like. I know I don't float, because I've fallen down. I don't know about God. I have no experience of God. I can't say about God. The two cases are not the same, and they cannot be treated the same.

Dave Luckett said: I know I don't float, because I've fallen down. I don't know about God. I have no experience of God. I can't say about God.

It's not easy being green...

Dave Luckett said: False equivalence, eric. I know the sun isn't green on rising, because I know what the sun looks like. I know I don't float, because I've fallen down. I don't know about God. I have no experience of God. I can't say about God. The two cases are not the same, and they cannot be treated the same.

david.starling.macmillan said: Lisle's solution to the light travel problem (referenced in that article as item 7) is the only one which even comes close to working. It's mathematically sound and theoretically viable. Of course, it can still be falsified without too much work, but at least it's a decent effort.

Carl Drews said: Every now and then the sun sets green: :-) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Green_flash.jpg

Moonbow

If fairies were, collectively, God, then the same applies to them. If God were only located in the bottom of my garden, ditto in reverse, as it were. (I find it interesting that God was said to be located in a garden, walking in the cool of the evening, and this isn't subversive of His omnipresence, because.)

Dave Lovell, I have actual experience of gravity, and I am aware of Archimedes' principle. I know that between them, I can't float, because I am not lighter than the air I displace. That is, I know what the principle is, and I know my own properties. Knowing them necessarily means knowing what they are not. The one necessarily involves the other.

But I do not know God. I cannot provide a list of His actual properties of which I have experience. I don't know what He is, or is not, nor anything about Him, including whether He exists, or not.

eric is saying that he does know, and that the last question is resolved in the negative, for all rational values of "know". I don't think that's beyond dispute. But only "not beyond dispute", not "disproven". eric may be right, for all I know. Because - here it is again - I don't know.

Mind, we are elucidating about how high on the atheist scale we stand. eric seems pretty high on it. I vary, because, once again, I don't know - but on average, I'm a little north of agnostic deism. On a scale of 1-7, where 1 is certain theism and 7 is absolute antitheism, I'm about a 4 or 5, most days.

But I think that scale is not, er, scalar. Any movement at all off 1 is a big shift, but the difference between, say, 2 and 6 is not that great, and there's again quite a difference between 6 and 7.

Dave Luckett said: If fairies were, collectively, God, then the same applies to them.

If God were only located in the bottom of my garden, ditto in reverse, as it were. (I find it interesting that God was said to be located in a garden, walking in the cool of the evening, and this isn't subversive of His omnipresence, because.)

But I do not know God. I cannot provide a list of His actual properties of which I have experience.

eric is saying that he does know, and that the last question is resolved in the negative, for all rational values of "know". I don't think that's beyond dispute. But only "not beyond dispute", not "disproven".

But I think that scale is not, er, scalar. Any movement at all off 1 is a big shift, but the difference between, say, 2 and 6 is not that great, and there's again quite a difference between 6 and 7.

No, eric, I was merely pointing out an interesting kludge in the literalist discourse. They are theists who aver that God is omnipresent, but they also say that He was walking in the garden in the cool of the evening, because the text says so. I think that's obviously silly, but they don't, for reasons that elude me - and apparently, them too.

Me, I say I don't know He's there, and I don't know He's not there. I have no data. I know I don't perceive Him, but I am aware that my perceptions are limited and flawed.

I am also agnostic as to the names or titles of God. I'm actually a little bit - but only a little bit - attracted to polytheism, because it avoids the necessity for a theodicy, but the Universe seems a bit too consistent within itself to be the creation of a squabbling committee. I've already said that I know nothing about His attributes, if He has any. But I still can't elude the certainty I have that I don't know everything.

As to not claiming atheism with absolute philosophical certainty, I think it behooves us philosophical atheists to use our terms precisely. "I know there is no God" is not a precise statement, for mine, if what you mean is "I'm pretty sure there is no God".

And that's all I'm saying.

Dave Luckett said: No, eric, I was merely pointing out an interesting kludge in the literalist discourse. They are theists who aver that God is omnipresent, but they also say that He was walking in the garden in the cool of the evening, because the text says so. I think that's obviously silly, but they don't, for reasons that elude me - and apparently, them too. Me, I say I don't know He's there, and I don't know He's not there. I have no data. I know I don't perceive Him, but I am aware that my perceptions are limited and flawed. I am also agnostic as to the names or titles of God. I'm actually a little bit - but only a little bit - attracted to polytheism, because it avoids the necessity for a theodicy, but the Universe seems a bit too consistent within itself to be the creation of a squabbling committee. I've already said that I know nothing about His attributes, if He has any. But I still can't elude the certainty I have that I don't know everything. As to not claiming atheism with absolute philosophical certainty, I think it behooves us philosophical atheists to use our terms precisely. "I know there is no God" is not a precise statement, for mine, if what you mean is "I'm pretty sure there is no God". And that's all I'm saying.

Dave Luckett said: As to not claiming atheism with absolute philosophical certainty, I think it behooves us philosophical atheists to use our terms precisely. "I know there is no God" is not a precise statement, for mine, if what you mean is "I'm pretty sure there is no God". And that's all I'm saying.

eric, I'm now aware that I'm not going to sell you on the idea that what you don't know, you don't actually know. It seems that the most that I can hope to sell you is the idea that when debating a philosophical position, one should use words accurately, and with as little room for misunderstanding as possible.

Consider that a wrap.

Dave Luckett said: Consider that a wrap.

Dave Luckett said: eric, I'm now aware that I'm not going to sell you on the idea that what you don't know, you don't actually know.

Sigh. Again: you know there is no dragon sitting beside you or unicorns in your backyard, because you know what dragons and unicorns are, and you know that, even if there are no such things as dragons or unicorns. You do not know what God is - and nor do I - but His qualities are said to include being immaterial, invisible, and ineffable, and also that He is not to be put to the test.

But there is another reason to exempt God from your rule: dragons and unicorns are not an explanation for the Universe. God is. Perhaps you don't like that explanation - I'm not fond of it, myself - but the other explanations run from "There is no explanation, and none is needed" to "Something that we don't know" to "There is an infinite chain of causations, and no original cause" (or "turtles all the way down", as it were). Perhaps you might use Occam's razor to separate them. But Occam's razor is not a rule about what to believe, it's a tool for selecting which of the competing explanations should be investigated first. I would be happy to have them investigated, but I can't propose a method.

And there is a third: it is of course the error of the marketplace to believe what is popular. Nevertheless, a substantial majority of human beings have been and are theists, and that datum has some weight, with me. Substantial numbers aver that they have personal experience of contact with the divine. Yes, yes, I know the objections: a substantial majority of all the human beings who have lived have been racists; all theist statements are nothing more than anecdote. Nevertheless, being deeply aware as I am that I could be wrong, that I don't know everything, and that my senses are not infallible, I am willing to leave the door open. Maybe someone will knock on it.

eric said:

Dave Luckett said: eric, I'm now aware that I'm not going to sell you on the idea that what you don't know, you don't actually know.

I know there is no dragon sitting beside me. I know there is no unicorn out in my yard right now. But according to you, I don't actually know these things. And it's all because you're uncomfortable with atheists saying they know there is no god. You'd rather make the word "know" apply only to absolute philosophical certainty - something nobody can achieve, ever, for anything, rendering the word useless - than let it apply to God.

Dave Luckett said: You do not know what God is - and nor do I - but His qualities are said to include being immaterial, invisible, and ineffable, and also that He is not to be put to the test.

But there is another reason to exempt God from your rule: dragons and unicorns are not an explanation for the Universe. God is.

but the other explanations run from "There is no explanation, and none is needed" to "Something that we don't know" to "There is an infinite chain of causations, and no original cause" (or "turtles all the way down", as it were).

being deeply aware as I am that I could be wrong, that I don't know everything, and that my senses are not infallible, I am willing to leave the door open. Maybe someone will knock on it.

daoudmbo said: since the issue is with the colloquial usage of "to know", I think you have to consider popular consensus when speaking of colloquial usage.

Remember where I said that I was an atheist, eric? That means that I, too have come to the tentative conclusion that there is no God. But I don't know that, and I won't say that I do.

The 2nd in an editorial series in the NYTimes could have been interviewing Eric:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/25/arguments-against-god/

Louise Antony:
"I claim to know that God doesn’t exist,"

further explained:

"O.K. So the question is, why do I say that theism is false, rather than just unproven? Because the question has been settled to my satisfaction. I say “there is no God” with the same confidence I say “there are no ghosts” or “there is no magic.” The main issue is supernaturalism — I deny that there are beings or phenomena outside the scope of natural law."

Daoudmbo, you scooped me. I just came back over here to post a link to that article. :)

Knowledge in the real world does not entail either certainty or infallibility. When I claim to know that there is no God, I mean that the question is settled to my satisfaction. I don’t have any doubts. I don’t say that I’m agnostic, because I disagree with those who say it’s not possible to know whether or not God exists. I think it’s possible to know. And I think the balance of evidence and argument has a definite tilt.

We will have to differ.