Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Forty Years On, Concerns Linger

Safe, Legal and Rare Accessible

On this 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, while many Americans are delighted that infanticide is legal, there remain lingering concerns. Probably most pressing is the fact that since most infanticides are paid for out of pocket, it is more difficult for poor people to murder their children than for rich people. And while, as the evolutionists at the Guttmacher Institute remind us, infanticide is now safer for all involved (except for the child of course), nonetheless some women must travel 50 miles or more to murder their baby. Clearly there remain many barriers to infanticide which must be overcome. For as the evolutionists conclude, keeping murder legal, safe and accessible “is and must always remain an urgent national priority.” Indeed, this certainly is an urgent national priority.

181 comments:

  1. difficult for poor people to murder their children than for rich people


    Murder def 1
    : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cornelius, is there anything 'bad' that has ever happened that you don't blame on "evolutionists"? How about all of the killing of people, animals, plants, etc., that was done directly or commanded by your chosen "God", according to the so-called 'holy book', the bible?

    The catholic church officially accepts that evolution occurred and occurs and it at least generally accepts the theory of evolution yet the church is also officially against abortion and any type of birth control. The catholic church could legitimately be called an evolutionist church but that doesn't fit with your condemnation of "evolutionists" as being the supporters of abortion. Can you explain that?

    Do you actually believe that only "evolutionists" support or get abortions? Do you actually believe that only "evolutionists" support or use birth control pills, condoms, etc.? The majority of people in the USA are religious (mostly christians) yet that majority isn't against abortion and birth control enough to get lawmakers to outlaw it. The majority of lawmakers are religious (mostly christians) yet that majority obviously isn't against abortion enough or they would outlaw it. Doesn't that tell you something?

    You say that you don't care if the ToE is true or not yet you constantly bash "evolutionists". Why don't you just say 'atheists' and stop picking on evolution and the ToE, especially since many religious people accept the ToE? And are you absolutely sure that all atheists are "evolutionists"?

    Like so many other religious zealots, what you're really against is anyone who doesn't have exactly the same religious beliefs as you do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you just say 'atheists'

      Because atheists are an irrelevant sidebar.

      Delete
    2. The catholic church officially accepts that evolution occurred and occurs and it at least generally accepts the theory of evolution yet the church is also officially against abortion and any type of birth control. The catholic church could legitimately be called an evolutionist church but that doesn't fit with your condemnation of "evolutionists" as being the supporters of abortion. Can you explain that?

      The problem is not evolution but rather evolutionary thought. One can, as I do, consider evolution as a possibility without mandating it to be true or false. And in private, many life scientists will agree there are scientific problems with evolution and they by no means insist that it is a fact. But they would never say this publicly. What rules the day is evolutionary thought, which is dogmatic about evolution. It is not empirical and it is not scientific. It comes not from the scientific data but quite the opposite, it manipulates the scientific data. It comes from a worldview. Call it Epicureanism, Gnosticism, deism, etc., it is a powerful view of God and the world that dominates right now. It is highly influential and, among other things, led to the 20th century eugenics and abortion movements. No, I’m not saying all evil comes from evolutionary thought. But it is a dogmatic, metaphysical view that imposes its own mythology in spite of the evidence. That is what you are defending.

      You mentioned the Roman Catholic church. Rome has been pretty careful in its statements about evolution. They could go much further to elucidate evolutionary thought, but at least they have been careful. They certainly do not insist it is a fact, and do not fit comfortably into the movement of evolutionary thought.

      Delete
    3. Time to get out the hip-waders. Herr Cornelius Goebbels is piling it up particularly deep and smelly today.

      Delete
    4. Dr Hunter

      so if I consider ToE a scientific theory, like Mechanic of Newton or Einstein's Relativity, what am I according to your definitions?
      Am I an atheist, an evolutionist (thinker) and maybe abortionist, eugenicist?

      Delete
    5. If the Roman Catholics were smart they would run from evolution just as they should have run from the politically correct geocentric scientific (so-called) notions of yesteryear. Generations from now will look at evolutionists of today like we look at alchemists.

      Delete
    6. Neal

      You forget to say that the Roman Church was against Galileo and defended the geocentric position in name of the literal interpretation of the Bible. You forget also that the Church had at the time a control role on the scientific community. This produced a big and painful conflict between Church and civil society that has been concluded only recently with the excuses of the previous Pope for the Galileo’s case.
      So the Roman Church is enough wise to avoid to repeat the same error.

      Delete
    7. Hunter

      No, I’m not saying all evil comes from evolutionary thought. But it is a dogmatic, metaphysical view that imposes its own mythology in spite of the evidence. That is what you are defending.


      Déformation professionnelle

      Delete
    8. Germanicus,


      So the Roman Church is enough wise to avoid to repeat the same error.


      Was wise enough , there is a strong movement to " fundementalize " Catholicism.

      Delete
    9. velikovskys

      I agree with you. Most correct would be to add "up to now". Fundamentalism is a cancer that can explode in any moment.

      Delete
    10. Germanicus, that was the mythical story line that you've accepted, but the truth of the Galileo incident is more complex than the accepted atheist sound bite.

      Just as the church was pressed by politically correct evolutionists to accept evolution, geocentrism was advocated by Aristole much earlier and by many scientists that had no relation to the catholic church. Galileo wasn't completely correct either, because he thought the sun was the center of the cosmos.

      You may want to check out this link to see some of the Christian ministers, elders, priests and devote believers who were big time scientific contributors.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    12. Neal

      I have replied extensively to the almost all wrong things that you have stated in your comment in the remaining part of this threat. But I have not received any further replay from you, letting Blas to replace you in the job. So for me the argument is now considered closed.

      Delete
  3. Before I get attacked as a supporter of abortion, I want to say that I don't like that many women get abortions just because a kid would be inconvenient but I also realize that overpopulation is a serious problem. More sex education and easier access to birth control pills, condoms, etc., would be a good idea, especially in poor countries.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just replace "evolutionists" with "Jews" in Dr Hunter's screeds.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sacrificing babies for convenience is a highest shame in human history.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you Cornelius for posting this on the 40th anniversary. Whatever the difficulties one faces individually or as a nation, murdering a baby should never be considered any kind of solution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  7. Germanicus said:

    "You forget to say that the Roman Church was against Galileo and defended the geocentric position in name of the literal interpretation of the Bible."

    Wrong the Catholic Church never defended the "literal interpretation" of the Bible. Galileo was cocondemned to sustain heliocentrism without proves.

    "the excuses of the previous Pope for the Galileo’s case."

    The excuses were not about the subject but because of the methods that frightened Galileo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blas

      So, in your opinion, the Roman Inquisition made an examination to Galileo to find that it made poor science. The punishment could be burned at the stake. Please read a book or at least a popular version in Wikipedia before to say stupid thigs.

      “On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."; while the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."

      The citation is in the original documents of the trial. The accuse was heresy.

      Delete
    2. Germanicus here is the opinion of St. Roebert Bellarmine, Galileo`s judge, wrote by himself in a letter

      W"Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration;"

      Delete
    3. Germanicus, I think you should do it first: I mean, reading a good book about Galileo's trial before speaking nonsense. Pasting from Wikipedia could turn out not to be such a fine idea, afterall: you see, your quote concerns Galileo's first meeting with religious authorities in 1616, NOT the trial in 1633. And, please take note, the Qualifiers talk about "FORMAL heresy", which is something different from plain heresy... Moreover, did you know that in 1616 Galileo was sent home without any charge? And did you know that at the end of the trial the penalty was just the recitation of the seven penitential Psalms, once a week? And that his daughter, Sister Maria Celeste, recited them in his name? Look, the matter isn't as easy as you may think...
      To anyone interested in historical truth, I suggest this book:
      http://books.google.it/books/about/Galileo_%CC%81s_Inquisition_Trial_Revisited.html?id=jviElHq-kEcC&redir_esc=y

      Delete
    4. Thank you Michele, but you'll find that whig history is constructed by and for evolutionists for just this reason, so they can cover their manipulations of science and ensuing absurdities. From Columbus and Galileo, to the Monkey Trial and on up to today, whig history provides an alternate reality that fully supports and justifies the mythology of evolutionary thought.

      Delete
    5. So, this a translation in English of the sentence of June 22, 1633. I cite a passage:
      “The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.”
      Galileo avoid a severe sentence because he was obliged to abjure. This is the text of the Galileo`s Recantation (or Abjuration) .
      To cite a passage:
      " I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error, heresy, and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church, and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me; but that should I know any heretic, or person suspected of heresy,..."

      In addition the book of the “Dialogues of Galileo Galilei” was prohibited by public edict.

      Delete
    6. Michele Forastiere

      I read from the (Old) Chatolic Encyclopedia (resource available also in internet):
      "In every age the Church has drawn a fundamental distinction (which, on account of its importance, should never be overlooked) between formal and merely material heretics, and her penal legislation was directed solely against the former category. As the open and obstinate rebellion of a Catholic against the Divinely instituted teaching authority of the Church, formal heresy still remains one of the most grievous sins."
      Please explain me which is your point to recal this distintion.

      Delete
    7. Dr. Hunter

      You are really a pathetic character; now also as history revisionist à la Orwell 1984. No explanation only accusation: who is not following your narrow sectarian Weltanschauung is immediately accused to be an evolutionist (and atheist, abortist, eugenicist, etc.).

      Delete
    8. Dear Germanicus,

      I beg your pardon: so what? It's obvious that heresy has been, and still is, a sin for the Church! It is defined "material" when the heretic adheres to it but isn't fully aware of its fundaments, and "formal" when he is. Then, the most grievous sin clearly occurs when the heretic makes public declarations and tries to induce others into his heresy - and this behavior bring to the so-called "crime" of heresy. That agreed? Now, for what concerns the material punishment
      of this crime, the Church has obviously been changing its attitude during the centuries: but please observe that the mode of chastisement was always imposed in agreement with the power in charge, i.e. the legitimate governing authority at any time. From the same source you used to
      assess the meaning of "formal heresy" (point 2 here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14763a.htm), you can read what follows as well:
      "If in medieval times the Church adopted sterner measures against formal heretics, apostates, and schismatics than she adopts today, she did this not as a private individual, who must show only consideration and love, but as the legitimate governing authority within whose sphere also fell the administration of penal justice. [...] A distinction must be drawn between the penal system as such and its external forms. The barbarous penal forms of the Middle Ages are to be credited, not to the Church, but to the State." (Points 3 and 4 in the same document).
      Well, I hope you are not willing to judge ethics, justice, custom and traditions of the past in the light of today's ethics etc., are you? Such a position, as a matter of fact, seems to me like a snide corollary of whig history.
      That said, need I to remind you that the Church's position with respect to Galileo's trial - which, please note again, ended nevertheless with a very bland material punishment - formally and finally changed with Pope John Paul II? Finally, let me add that it is true that the poor old man was somewhat crushed by the judgement, but those were the ways of life at the time - and Galileo was fully aware of what he was doing, and of the consequences thereof. Moreover, although chastised, he was left free to carry on his experiments, even with the aid and the support of some Piarist fathers. Believe me, the Galileo issue isn't as simple as one might think... so, I suppose it's better leave it to the historians' analysis, and not to address it in a superficial and biased way (as it's usually done).

      Delete
    9. Dear Dr. Hunter,
      you're welcome. And please let me add thank you very much indeed for what you're doing here. I do read "Darwin's God" almost every day, and I've always appreciated your scientific equanimity and clear thinking in the analysis of evolutionary issues (and not just those).
      A few friends of mine are trying to do something similar in my country: but the road is tough - much tougher, I think, than in the USA!
      Best regards

      Delete
    10. Michele Forastiere

      I can understand your repetition of the sources that I have cited. I add only a comment about the punishment. The sentence was not heavy, because Galileo abjured; only house arrest for the rest of his life and prohibition of the book of the “Dialogues”, his masterpiece. Other persons (like Giordano Bruno, †1600) were convicted of heresy, and for this burned at the stake.
      “Believe me, the Galileo issue isn't as simple as one might think... so, I suppose it's better leave it to the historians' analysis, and not to address it in a superficial and biased way (as it's usually done).”
      I cannot speak for you (I don’t know you and your credential), but I can continue the discussion on this topic if you desire. You started this discussion, when I was commenting a sentence of BLAS. He said:
      “Wrong the Catholic Church never defended the "literal interpretation" of the Bible. Galileo was cocondemned to sustain heliocentrism without proves.”
      So, I assume that you agree with me. The main accusation to Galileo was of (formal) heresy, not bad science.

      Delete
    11. Blas
      The complete letter of Cardinal Bellarmino (April 12, 1615) is here . The part about heresy is in your neglected point 2:
      “Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your Paternity wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. … “
      Bellarmino recognized well the heretical potential of the work of Galileo in support of the Copernican System. He used also other arguments to convince Galileo, but the punishment of heresy could be death, for poor science (I don’t know…). In any case Bellarmino was able to stop Galileo in 1615 avoiding possible publications that could support Copernicus. The trial with the Galileo's abjuration and conviction was later (ended in 1633), but Bellarmino was already dead at that time.

      Delete
    12. It was the Aristoleans that pushed for Geocentrism and convinced the Church that the Bible supported that PoV.

      It was those same Aristoleans who pushed to have Galileo silenced.

      The geocentric model was the scientific model at the time. And it was NOT based on the Bible.

      Delete
    13. Germanicus my point was that you said:

      "Roman Church .............. defended the geocentric position in name of the literal interpretation of the Bible."

      But St. Bellarmino was open to the reinterpretation of the Bible "if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe".
      So the "the common consensus of the Holy Fathers" were not an absolute, in fact you can find quotes of St Augustine against a litteral interpretation of genesis.




      Delete
    14. Blas

      There is discussion about the personal position of Bellarmino about heliocentrism. In the letter he remains ambiguous, personally noting that further research had to be done to confirm or condemn it. But in the letter he made very clear to Galilei which was the position of the Vatican on the matter.
      As advisor of the Popes he had a leading role in the “suspension” of the Copernicus’ De revolutionibus and in the prohibition of works supporting this theory.

      Delete
    15. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    16. BLAS
      “So the "the common consensus of the Holy Fathers" were not an absolute, in fact you can find quotes of St Augustine against a litteral interpretation of genesis.”

      I like to cite Augustine to biblical literalists and I am happy that you appreciate him. But you have to be not naive as far as how work a hierarchic structure like the Vatican. There is an official Doctrine and outside there is heresy.

      Delete
    17. "There is an official Doctrine and outside it is heresy."

      Off course that is the way a religion works. But that doctrine never was inded to a "literal interpretation" of a text nor closed to follow the evidence.

      Delete
    18. Off course you are smart.

      Delete
    19. Germanicus:

      No, I'm not the one who is revising history. The Warfare Thesis was constructed by evolutionists, is well known to be flawed, and yet evolutionists continue to wield it as fact.

      Nor am I accusing people of atheism as you suggest.

      Delete
    20. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    21. JOE G

      “The geocentric model was the scientific model at the time. And it was NOT based on the Bible.”

      This sentence (the second part) is misleading because it forgets to mention something very important. Of course the Ptolemaic System (2nd century AD) was not an invention of the Roman Church, but it was imbedded in the theological system endorsed by the Church as a fundamental part of the Doctrine (otherwise you cannot explain why Galileo was accused of heresy by the Roman Inquisition). The fact that the Earth is in the middle of the creation was a very important part of a theological view of that time and argued to be directly supported by the Bible.
      At the time of Galileo, the theory of Copernicus started to find more and more followers (scientists that were actracted by its superior explanatory capacity) and to collect more and more support from astronomical observations. The reaction of the Roman Church was to use the (almost complete) power and control that it had on the scientific community (especially in Italy), to stop these studies in name of the Doctrine.

      Delete
    22. Dr Hunter

      Thank you for your answer. But I continued to be disappointed by your behaviour in this blog. Your answers are always incomplete, ambiguous and not done to clarify the matter (I am not the only one that points on it).

      In addition, a lot of bald assertions without supporting explanation: e.g. “ is well known to be flawed”; I am sorry, maybe is well known in your small reference group, but sure it is not accepted by the majority of scholars in the field (this assumed that you refer to your post here. ) and in any case you have to prove each claims that you do.
      Which presentation of Galileo affair are your referring to? what is wrong in the Galileo presentations of the so called “evolutionists” and who are these “evolutionists”? Am I in your sight an evolutionist (Hunter’s test)? Where I am in your opinion wrong ? Please be specific.

      Delete
    23. BLAS

      “Off course you are smart.”

      Of course :-). I apologise for my last post to you, but I cannot resist to making a joke.

      If you try to argue that the Ptolemaic Systems was at that time compatible with at that time knowledge, I say yes and not. Copernicus published his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543, and at that time of the Galileo’s trial (1633) more and more observations caused doubts on geo-centrism, and more and more scientists were convinced that Copernicus was right. More decisive observations and experiments arrived later and at a certain point the geocentric position cannot be more defended. This is a common process in science. The issue is that the Roman Church used all its power on the academia (and on the governments of the different small states in Italy) to try to stop this discussion for theological (and political) reasons. The argument of uncompatibility with the Scriptures was an argument of the Inquisition.

      Can we agree on this (maybe with the exclusion of the first sentence :-) )?

      Delete
    24. It was the Aristoleans that pushed for Geocentrism and convinced the Church that the Bible supported that PoV.

      It was those same Aristoleans who pushed to have Galileo silenced.

      The geocentric model was the scientific model at the time. And it was NOT based on the Bible.


      G:
      This sentence (the second part) is misleading because it forgets to mention something very important. Of course the Ptolemaic System (2nd century AD) was not an invention of the Roman Church, but it was imbedded in the theological system endorsed by the Church as a fundamental part of the Doctrine (otherwise you cannot explain why Galileo was accused of heresy by the Roman Inquisition).

      Dude, you are dense. The geocentric scientists convinced the church that the Bible supports a geocentric model. And taht is why the church didn't want to budge.

      Delete
    25. Dr Hunter

      I avoid to repost my previous comment giving the right link.

      Delete
    26. JOE G

      Can you understand how absurd is your statement?
      “The geocentric scientists convinced the church that the Bible supports a geocentric model.”
      I can accept a sentence that say: the “geocentric scientists” convinced the church that the geocentric model is supported by the present status of knowledge, but in general it is responsibility of the Church theologians to state if the Bible supports or not a certain statement. Or do you want to argue that Science and Theology was not separated at that time? This can be a good argument of conversation.

      By the way referring to the other your statement: “Dude, you are dense.” I am aware of your usual tactic to start to insult your opponents as soon as you have no more arguments. Up to now I have kept a polite way to discuss with you and I pretend the same from you. Otherwise please stop to comment my posts and I will ignore you, too.

      Delete
    27. Perhaps you should take a history class and also you need to buy a vowel.

      Delete
    28. Joe G

      And to finish the comment to your previous post, at the time of Galileo the philosophy of Aristotle was known in the west culture mostly through the work of Scholars such as Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas that interpreted and systematized Aristotle's works in accordance with Christian theology.

      Delete
    29. The geocentric scientists convinced the church that the Bible supports a geocentric model. And that is why the church didn't want to budge.

      Delete
    30. Germanicus said:

      "The issue is that the Roman Church used all its power on the academia (and on the governments of the different small states in Italy) to try to stop this discussion for theological (and political) reasons. The argument of uncompatibility with the Scriptures was an argument of the Inquisition."

      If this is true why the first empirical evidence of the heliocentric system came from Eustachio Manfredi, an astronemer that studied with the gesuits at the University of Bologna, under the Church, in 1729.

      Delete
    31. Joe ,
      The geocentric scientists convinced the church that the Bible supports a geocentric model. And that is why the church didn't want to budge.



      Sorry Joe, which scientist when, how did they convince the church? What did they believe before they were convinced? Any proof ?

      Delete
    32. joey g barfed:

      "Perhaps you should take a history class and also you need to buy a vowel."

      That's pretty funny coming from an illiterate, uneducated bumpkin like you, joey. Tell you what, joey, let's see you write your comments in perfect German.

      Delete
    33. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    34. Blas said:

      "If this is true ..."

      What is exactly your point? I don’t see any contradiction to what I have already written here .

      Delete
    35. TWiT:
      Tell you what, joey, let's see you write your comments in perfect German.

      I see that you write your comments in perfect imbecile.

      Delete
    36. Germanicus:

      In addition, a lot of bald assertions without supporting explanation: e.g. “ is well known to be flawed”; I am sorry, maybe is well known in your small reference group, but sure it is not accepted by the majority of scholars in the field … Am I in your sight an evolutionist

      Well I was referring to the Warfare Thesis which evolutionists regularly use. It was constructed in the nineteenth century and is well understood by historians to be deeply flawed. You can look into it and find out for yourself. It is not really controversial.

      Delete
    37. Sorry Joe, which scientist when, how did they convince the church? What did they believe before they were convinced? Any proof ?

      More Warfare Thesis. There was geocentrism, Galileo's heliocentrism, and Brahe's intermediate theory may have been the best. Galileo did not give it a fair hearing. He was not doing "just science" but in the end he was right. The science was complicated, there were several personalities involved (probably the most extreme of which was Galileo's), and there was politics. The church's view on the science was entirely reasonable and they were charitable to Galileo but he pushed it with ridicule, etc. History, like science, is complicated and not given to whig renditions.

      Delete
    38. Hunter,

      History, like science, is complicated and not given to whig renditions.


      Then why do you do it?

      Second this is to what I asked my question
      Joe
      The geocentric scientists convinced the church that the Bible supports a geocentric model. And that is why the church didn't want to budge.


      I merely was interested which scientists and how they had so much sway with the Church. My personal experience with the Catholic Church is that they are not too easily convinced of anything.

      Delete
    39. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    40. Blas
      In the meantime you have not clarified your point. So I start to comment your last sentence:

      Blas said: “… the first empirical evidence of the heliocentric system came from Eustachio Manfredi … in 1729.”

      “First empirical evidences” of heliocentric system were also before: retrograde motion of planets, astronomical observations of Galileo, etc. A point remained open longer: a consequence of the heliocentric system is that we have to observe a parallax effect of the sun in comparison to the other stars, but its amplitude is depending on the distance of the sun to the stars. In fact the distance is so large that makes the effect relievable only with a more advanced technology that was available only later (18th -19th century). But at that time the heliocentric systems was already well established in the word scientific community.

      The Roman Church withstand on the matter continued longer: Copernicus's De Revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue were removed from the Index of Forbidden Books only in 1835. Only in 1992 it was possible to read in L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) Pope John Paul II stating:
      “The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture....”

      Delete
    41. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    42. In the previous post:
      ERRATA: relievable; CORRIGE: appreciable

      I beg your pardon for the many English errors, but I need time to correct the text that I don't have. Also for the lot of deleted posts, that I needed to correct or simply put in a wrong position.

      Delete
    43. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    44. Dr Hunter,
      I have read carefully your post here.
      It seems to me that one of the most engaged warriors of the “Warfare Thesis” in this blog is you! The only your answer is to accuse Galileo to have politic motivations, to have made bad science and to have tried to ridiculise the Roman Church. The Vatican at the end was “reasonable” in the scientific controversy and were “charitable” if Galileo didn’t try to rebel. Nice biased view as Warfare Thesis Warrior as you are!
      But not a word about the religious and political motivations of the Roman Church in this affair, not a word on the role of the Church in the Science in that time and on its attempt to close the mouth of critical persons to the established Theological-Scientific view. At least the Roman Church has admitted (with big delay and in some points still with conditions) its responsibilities in the affair.

      Delete
    45. Germanicus

      “First empirical evidences” of heliocentric system were also before: retrograde motion of planets, astronomical observations of Galileo, etc.

      Observwd retromotioon of planets were easily explained by the geocentric thyconic model.


      "A point remained open longer: a consequence of the heliocentric system is that we have to observe a parallax effect of the sun in comparison to the other stars, but its amplitude is depending on the distance of the sun to the stars. In fact the distance is so large that makes the effect relievable only with a more advanced technology that was available only later (18th -19th century). But at that time the heliocentric systems was already well established in the word scientific community."

      We can discuss what "well established in the word scientific community." but th point is that ctholic scientis were working in pontificial universities with the eliocentric model.

      "The Roman Church withstand on the matter continued longer: Copernicus's De Revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue were removed from the Index of Forbidden Books only in 1835.
      The catholic church keeped a forbidden list of books until the XX century, the famous index. That was not for scientific reasons. What the church always said was what St, Bellarmino explained, first option the literally of the Bible, if there was evidence for do not interpret literally change the interprettion. When the acientific method was well established and science started to tke like true the actual best hypotesis, changed to interprete what it is essential to each text and let free the catholics to think whatever they want about the rest.

      “The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture....”

      As you see the Pope sat the teologians, the Church proceeded in another way letting Galileo and Manfredi follow the evidence.

      Delete
    46. Blas

      Yes, Blas, we can also discuss in detail the role of the geo-heliocentric model of Tycho Brahe in the scientific discussion, but also the (sure most important) Kepler’s "Astronomia nova" (1609). We can also discuss about the diffusion of the Copernicus’s model in the European countries and also state the difference among Catholic and Reformation countries. The withstand of the Roman Church can explain the diffusion delay in the first ones.
      About Bellarmino, I have already discussed it. In any case the personal opinions of Bellarmino had no importance in the Galileo’s trials of 1633. The official opinion of the Roman Church was exactly the contrary of what you claim (here). So in general you are adding nothing relevant to object my initial post.
      “As you see the Pope sat the teologians, the Church proceeded in another way letting Galileo and Manfredi follow the evidence.”
      Galileo was obliged to abjure, convicted to house arrest for the rest of his life and his book “Dialogues”was prohibited and despite this you say the he was free to “follow the evidence”? Don’t you see the contradictions or you have a special interpretation to propose?

      Delete
    47. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    48. Blas
      By the way following your note in a previous post:
      Blas said: “… the first empirical evidence of the heliocentric system came from Eustachio Manfredi, an astronemer that studied with the gesuits at the University of Bologna, under the Church, in 1729.”
      I made a research because usually the direct evidence to the movement of the Earth is attributed to James Bradley (publication in 1729) not as direct measurement of the parallax (it could be measured only in 1838 by Bessel), but of the aberration of light.
      In Wikipedia the mention of Eustachio Manfredi is in the Italian version (is this your source?). Looking at the cited references I have found a paper of Andrea Gualandi (*). Please read the paper and say me your opinion; it seems that the reason why Eustachio Manfredi arrived later was because he had to obtain an imprimatur from the Roman Inquisition and this was not simple to obtain because related to the movement of the Earth. The paper suggested that the aim of the studies under Catholic influence was more to demonstrate that there is no parallax and this conditioned negatively the work of the scientists.

      (*) ATTI DEL XXII CONGRESSO NAZIONALE DI STORIA DELLA FISICA E DELL'ASTRONOMIA,
      Genova e Chiavari, 6, 7 e 8 Giugno 2002

      Delete
    49. Blas

      No more replay from you, so I conclude also with the last remaining comments:

      Blas said: “As you see the Pope sat the teologians, the Church proceeded in another way letting Galileo and Manfredi follow the evidence.”
      This statement is not historically supported, but the contrary yes. I see that the Catholic Church applied a very heavy censorship in the academic word on the theme Copernicus up to the 19th century. Galileo directly, but also Eustachio Manfredi indirectly, were victims of this.

      Blas said: “…but th point is that ctholic scientis were working in pontificial universities with the eliocentric model.”
      They were allowed to work on heliocentric models in the attempt to disprove it, you mean. In any case each paper on the argument was subjected to censorship. Maybe Eustachio Manfredi understood that his results confirmed the heliocentric model, but he continued to reject it (almost sure) under direct pressure of the Catholic Church.

      Blas said: “What the church always said was what St, Bellarmino explained, first option the literally of the Bible, if there was evidence for do not interpret literally change the interprettion.”
      A part that also this doesn’t fit with the historical evidence (that the Church followed this principles), I have a question to you: If we have to re-interpret the Scriptures every time that a new scientific discovery is confirmed, why we do it? How we can trust that the new interpretation is the right one? This produce only damage to the image of the Church and it is cause to abandon of it. Could be more wise to avoid to derive scientific conclusions from the Bible? This was the sense of my initial post.

      Delete
    50. “About Bellarmino, I have already discussed it. In any case the personal opinions of Bellarmino had no importance in the Galileo’s trials of 1633. The official opinion of the Roman Church was exactly the contrary of what you claim (here). So in general you are adding nothing relevant to object my initial post".

      I take the Galileo´s case as a whole. The first trial in 1613 is the most “scientific” there was truly discussed the theory of the earth motion. The second one of 1633 was about the Galileo disobedience of the result of the first trial, and influenced by the personal relationship between the new Pope and Galileo. The position of the Church about the science was the St. Bellarmino´s.

      “Blas: As you see the Pope sat the teologians, the Church proceeded in another way letting Galileo and Manfredi follow the evidence.”

      Galileo was obliged to abjure, convicted to house arrest for the rest of his life and his book “Dialogues”was prohibited and despite this you say the he was free to “follow the evidence”? Don’t you see the contradictions or you have a special interpretation to propose?”

      The best of his scientific work was written and published during his arrest. “Dialogues” has no one evidence is bad science.

      “ Please read the paper and say me your opinion; it seems that the reason why Eustachio Manfredi arrived later was because he had to obtain an imprimatur from the Roman Inquisition and this was not simple to obtain because related to the movement of the Earth. The paper suggested that the aim of the studies under Catholic influence was more to demonstrate that there is no parallax and this conditioned negatively the work of the scientists.”

      According to the paper the work of Manfredi was neutral, as needed for a good scientist. He described what we have to see in an heliocentric model to confront with the actual observations. He published two works in may of 1729 and october 1730 where he confuted the work of Peter Horrebow and confirmed Bradley hypotesis without openly support the heliocentric model for the pressure of Rome.

      “This statement is not historically supported, but the contrary yes. I see that the Catholic Church applied a very heavy censorship in the academic word on the theme Copernicus up to the 19th century. Galileo directly, but also Eustachio Manfredi indirectly, were victims of this.
      They were allowed to work on heliocentric models in the attempt to disprove it, you mean. In any case each paper on the argument was subjected to censorship. Maybe Eustachio Manfredi understood that his results confirmed the heliocentric model, but he continued to reject it (almost sure) under direct pressure of the Catholic Church.”

      That o not means the scientist were not allowed to follow the evidence. Manfredi published his findings no matter if the final explanation was censored. And Manfredis wasn´t an exception.

      Delete

    51. Blas said: “What the church always said was what St, Bellarmino explained, first option the literally of the Bible, if there was evidence for do not interpret literally change the interprettion.”
      “If we have to re-interpret the Scriptures every time that a new scientific discovery is confirmed, why we do it? How we can trust that the new interpretation is the right one? This produce only damage to the image of the Church and it is cause to abandon of it. Could be more wise to avoid to derive scientific conclusions from the Bible?”

      I explained already
      “When the scientific method was well established and science started to take like true the actual best hypotesis, changed to interprete what it is essential to each text and let free the catholics to think whatever they want about the rest.”

      Before Galileo there was not the concept of scientific true, that can be changed by new evidence, so nobody immagine the problem of changing interpretations from “new” evidence. St. Bellarminos were waiting for a proof that the earth were moving and as he said we never will get it.

      Germanicus, starting point of this discussion is that you writed the the Church were defending the “litteral interpretation”. And that is impossible. In 1517 started a scism in the cristianity accusing the Church to falsify what the Bible says denying the right of the Church to interpret the Bible and establishing the “only scripta” that lead to the literal interpratation of the texts. In the middle of the religions wars in Europe the Church were not going to close the door to the interpratation of the Bible

      Delete
    52. Blas

      About your last comments.

      Blas said: "The position of the Church about the science was the St. Bellarmino´s."
      If you mean the position of the Church that Bellarmino clearly described in point 2 of his letter, yes I agree. Otherwise read again my previous post.

      Blas said: “The best of his scientific work was written and published during his arrest.“
      Amusing thesis. Maybe important to remember that the “Discourses“ were published in The Netherlands, because in 1633 the Roman Inquisition had banned publication of any work by Galileo, including any he might write in the future.

      Blas said: “Dialogues has no one evidence is bad science.”
      About the scientific quality of “Dialogues” this is only your opinion; in them astronomical evidence is discussed (e.g. phases of Venus, mountains of the Moon, the moons of Jupiter, etc.) and a completely revolutionary scientific thought is proposed (e.g. inertial frameworks). But for our discussion it is irrelevant to try to discredit his work pointed to some errors; also in case that Galileo was completely wrong, the Church was wrong to censoring him.

      Blas said: “According to the paper the work of Manfredi was neutral, as needed for a good scientist. He described what we have to see in an heliocentric model ... confirmed Bradley hypotesis without openly support the heliocentric model for the pressure of Rome.”
      You agree that he was censored. He was stopped by the Roman Inquisition to draw conclusions from his work; his work was not “neutral”, but “castrated”.

      Delete
    53. Blas

      It is difficult to comment your second post because it is expressed in very confusing way. I try ...

      Blas said: “When the scientific method was well established and science started to take like true the actual best hypotesis, changed to interprete what it is essential to each text and let free the catholics to think whatever they want about the rest.”
      It seems to evade my questions. When and who established the scientific method? Who is supposed to “changed and let free”? What you means change "what is essential"? The geocentrism was the base of the whole scientific-theological view of the Church elaborated in Thomas Aquinas‘ Summa Theologica; small text adjustments were not sufficient.

      Blas said: “Germanicus, starting point of this discussion is that you writed the the Church were defending the “litteral interpretation”. And that is impossible. ...”
      You say that is impossible without supporting your claim (a part a very confused argumentation). I pointed on several texts of the Roman Inquisition, of Bellarmino, Galileo’s Abjura and Pope Joannis Paulus II that refer to the “literal interpretation”. The Magisterium was always free to interpret according to the tradition, but in this case the decision was clearly for a literal interpretation.

      Delete
  8. Roe vs Wade was a unintelligent decision.
    its error was declaring that the constitution said the people could never decide that the fetus was a human being.
    Then the right to abortion was declared found in the constitution because the fetus could never be found to be a human being.

    The very Protestant Yankees and southerners never put in their constitution any thing about denying the fetus is a person and no one can decide otherwise. No right to abortion was made by these people.

    Pro-lifers need to do a better job of saying why Roe was plain dumbe wrong.
    What is in the constitution is the innate right to life of all human beings.
    How can abortion be found in the constitution unless the right does not exist of the fetus is not a human being and can't said to be one so says the constitution.

    Roe was a silly attempt of unintelligent liberal activists to get their way.
    Ever since the judiciary is inferior in its ability , for reasons, and pro-lifers need to do a better job of debunking , in few words/ word pictures, rOE.
    Not just questioning motives.
    Thanks for this thread as it touches on the science behind where babies come from.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Scott Peterson was charged with double homicide for killing his pregnant wife, therefore, if the father kills the unborn child, it's murder but if the mother does it, it's just a 'reproductive choice' In other words, whether the unborn child is a human being depends on who kills them...how logical and enlightening.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am anti-abortion. However if thorton, troy, oleg or TWT got someone pregnant, I would agree that an abortion would be the best solution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. There's no cesspool that Fatboy Joke Gallien isn't willing to belly-flop into.

      You're a classy Creationist Joe - the best spokesman for IDC ever.

      Delete
    2. cesspool boy:
      You're a classy Creationist Joe

      How are you defining "Creationist"? And what do YOU know about being classy?

      classless loser:
      the best spokesman for IDC ever.

      IDC exists only in the little bitty minds of the willfully ignorant.

      Delete
  11. For those of you who still doubled down on your argument that DNA is only digital information storage by analogy only, we will be accepting full apologies from you today.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324539304578259883507543150.html



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neal,

      This is pretty inane.

      We have been storing information using magnets for decades now. It does not mean, however, that magnets are digital information storage. You can use them to make one, surely.

      Delete
    2. oleg:
      We have been storing information using magnets for decades now.

      No, moron. We do not store data on/ in magnets. The comparison doesn't work.

      Delete
    3. Joe, what do you think we use for information storage in computer hard drives? Tiny sheets of paper? :D

      Delete
    4. LoL! Oleg, that we use magnets to store data on OTHER media does NOT mean we store the data on/ in the magnets.

      As I said, you are a moron.

      Delete
    5. You are not making any sense, Joe. Hard drives have these tiny magnets in them, on which information is stored. Did you not know that?

      Delete
    6. We'll add the operation of magnetic media to the huge and growing list of technical things Chubby Joke Gallien is completely ignorant of.

      Dumbest. Creationist. Ever.

      Delete
    7. No oleg. The read/ write head is the magnet. The disk has this thin film of ferromagnetic material. The magnetic head then charges the film on the disk.

      Delete
    8. Joe, ferromagnetic material is the magnet I was talking about. It gets magnetized one way or the other (not "charged").

      Delete
    9. If it gets magnetized then it is not a magnet. It is just material that can become magnetized, ie charged. The magnet is the RW head.

      Delete
    10. Oh, how cute! Joe is trying to teach me about magnetism! LOL. Stick to toasters, Joe.

      Magnets proper can be magnetized and demagnetized. You can take a "permanent magnet", heat it above its Curie point and cool it down, and it will lose its magnetic moment. You can then magnetize it by applying a magnetic field and it will be a magnet (in your understanding of the word) again. A read-write head contains magnets that similarly can be demagnetized if someone wishes to.

      Delete
    11. The head does not store the data. The head is the magnet.

      The magnet is used to put the data onto the media.

      Delete
    12. Did you just make up a new definition of a magnet, Joe?

      Delete
    13. Did you just make up a new definition of a magnet, Joe?

      No.

      Delete
    14. Then which definition are you using? What is a magnet, in your opinion? If you wish to be precise, define what is a ferromagnet.

      Delete
    15. Go fishing some place else.

      OR if you think you have something against me make your case.

      Delete
    16. Joe, you are the one who insists that a ferromagnetic material in a hard drive is not a magnet. It is by any standard definition of a magnet. So you must be using your own, private definition of what a magnet is. Let us know what it is.

      Delete
    17. You no speaky Inglish very well, eh?

      Once the material is magnetized it becomes a magnet. Until then paper clips are not magnets, and my pry bars are not magnets.

      However I can turn all of those into magnets.

      No magnetic field, no attracting unmagnetized ferrous metals, no magnet. That is my understanding.

      If it makes an old TV sceeen image bend, it's a magnet.

      If you set in on a fully loaded hard drive, and it blanks it out, it's a magnet.


      That said, the data is not stored on/ in a magnet. A magnet is used to imprint the data onto ferromagnetic material as magnetized spots.

      Delete
    18. The ferromagnetic material in hard drives is always magnetized. Its small portions, which represent individual bits, are magnetized either up or down. You can flip the direction of magnetization of a particular portion (bit), but it is not like you switch between a magnetized state and an unmagnetized state. You switch between states magnetized up and down.

      So in this sense, the magnetic material is a magnet. It's magnetized one way or the other.

      See http://www.research.ibm.com/research/gmr/basics.html>Did you ever wonder how your hard disk drive works? at IBM.

      Delete
    19. Interesting- does a blank hard drive create a magnetic field? Does it attract non-magnetized ferrous metals?

      If a magnetized material doesn't exhibit the physical properties of a magnet, is it still a magnet? Does magnetized = magnet?

      Delete
    20. Yes, a "blank" hard drive creates a magnetic field. (The term "blank" has no meaning: the bits are either 0 or 1, i.e., magnetized one way or the other.) The field may cancel on the macroscopic scale if bits are magnetized up and down in equal numbers. But on the microscopic scale, the read head "sees" their fields that point one way or the other.

      Likewise, ordinary "unmagnetized" iron is a magnet on the microscopic scale. It has domains (small areas) magnetized one way or another. One can observe these magnetized portions with the aid of a magnetic force microscope. Here is an MFM image of a portion of a hard drive.

      Delete
    21. Yes a disk can be blank- the particles' magnetic fields being in a state of random disarray- pointing left, right, up, down and all degrees of diagnal.

      And yes they cancel out on a macro scale.

      The head comes along and aligns them to the left or to the right, depending on what the data is.

      On an atomic scale everything is magnetic. So is everything a magnet according to you?

      Delete
    22. LOL! So according to Joke, magnetic media isn't magnetic.

      This is going to be another Joe G dumbass "ice isn't made of water" moment!

      Delete
    23. Leave it to thortty boo-boo, aka empty bluster-boy and cesspool boy, to come in and lie like a dog.

      He must have shot a big load typing that one...

      Delete
    24. Hey thorton, do you take viagra before cuming here?

      Delete
    25. No, it's not "random disarray." The magnetic film has a special property (known as anisotropy) that only allows the magnetization to point in one of two directions, let's call them up and down. See here for starters. In this way, magnetic moments in a given spot of a hard drive all point or all point down.

      When the tip of a magnetic force microscope (itself a tiny magnet) hovers over a hard drive, it is either repelled from the drive (if the spot below has a like magnetic pole) or attracted to it (the spot below has an opposite pole). This is how an MFM image is obtained.

      And no, not everything is magnetic on an atomic scale. In fact, we are not talking about the atomic scale. Magnetism does not happen on an atomic scale. In order to speak meaningfully of a ferromagnet, one needs many atoms: hundreds of thousands, millions. The smallest bit is roughly a cube with the side of 20 nm. It contains about a million atomic magnetic dipoles, all lined up (or down). This alignment happens in a very limited number of materials. Ferromagnets typically have iron, nickel, or cobalt atoms whose magnetic moments line up. Most other atoms won't produce the effect.

      Delete
    26. Oleg

      thanks for a refresher with links.

      I may have to dig through Internet but let me ask you: do electron spins align because of iron atoms form special kind of lattice?

      What carries magnetic moment through space? Must be photons but do they spin the same as the source?

      If you have time....

      Delete
    27. Chubby Joe G

      He must have shot a big load typing that one...

      Hey thorton, do you take viagra before cuming here?


      LOL! Fatboy Joke Gallien, the best spokesman for ID-Creationism EVAR.

      Delete
    28. No, Eugen, it isn't a special arrangement of iron atoms that creates the alignment of their electrons' spins. It is the electrostatic repulsion between the electrons plus a counterintuitive (from our macroscopic point of view), but well established property of the antisymmetry of their wavefunction.

      Electrons are fermions, which means that two of them cannot be in the same physical state. If two electrons have parallel (i.e., equal) spins, then they tend not to be in the same vicinity. Being away from each other reduces their electrostatic repulsion and helps them achieve a state of low energy. That, in a nutshell, is why electrons in iron prefer to have parallel spins. Also works for cobalt and nickel and for some rare-earth elements.

      Delete
    29. Thanks a lot, I'll look online into more detail tomorrow.
      I hope I can bother you for a couple more short questions sometimes. Even with all the info available online it's still difficult to find some answers.

      Delete
    30. You're welcome, Eugen. It's not easy to explain these subtle quantum effects in plain English.

      Delete
    31. oleg,

      Nice to see that you still can't follow along.

      I said a blank disk would have a random disarray. The head then aligns them accordingly, WHEN IT IS WRITING DATA ONTO THE DISK.

      And no, not everything is magnetic on an atomic scale.

      Really there are atoms without any EMF?

      In fact, we are not talking about the atomic scale.

      We were talking about the macroscopic scale. Then YOU retreated to the microscopic.

      And on the macro scale the disk is NOT a magnet as the disk does not have a magnetic field and the disk does not attract other ferrous non-magnetic metals.

      Magnetism does not happen on an atomic scale.

      So the elcetro-magnetic force isn't magnetism?

      Delete
    32. No, Joe, magnetism does not boil down to the electromagnetic force. It requires spontaneous (hehe) alignment of atomic magnetic moments of a large number of atoms. Most materials are not ferromagnets. They exhibit weak magnetic properties (diamagnetism or paramagnetism), which amount to weak repulsion or attraction to a magnet. Ferromagnetism occurs in a handful of elements—iron cobalt, and nickel plus some rare earths.

      Delete
    33. oleg:
      No, Joe, magnetism does not boil down to the electromagnetic force.

      I didn't say that it did. I said the EMF is magnetism- the clue is in the phrase.

      Delete
    34. "EMF" is not magnetism. At least not according to your definition.

      Delete
    35. The electro-magnetic force doesn't have a magnetic field? There isn't any attraction going on?

      BTW "my" definition is the same as the standard definition YOU linked to.

      Delete
    36. Your definition (which, indeed, meshes with the standard one) refers to the presence of spontaneous magnetization. Electromagnetic field (not force) is produced by moving electric charges and is not necessarily related to spontaneous magnetization.

      Delete
    37. Could we even have magnetism without the EMF?

      Delete
    38. oleg:
      Your definition (which, indeed, meshes with the standard one) refers to the presence of spontaneous magnetization.

      Reference please. I am OK with artificial, ie non-spontaneous, magnetization.

      And without the EMF you couldn't have a magnetic field.

      Delete
    39. Magnetism isn't caused by the electromagnetic field per se. As I explained it to Eugen, the origin of magnetism is in the electrostatic interactions between electrons and in quantum mechanics. A magnet produces a strong magnetic field, through which it interacts with other ferromagnetic objects. But an electromagnetic field in and of itself is not responsible for ferromagnetism.

      Delete
    40. Answer the question:

      Could we even have magnetism without the EMF?

      Delete
    41. Your question is not particularly cogent, Joe, but I can certainly answer it. Magnetism would not be possible without an electromagnetic field. A magnet would fail to attract or repel another magnet because there would be no magnetic dipolar force between them.

      An electromagnetic field alone, however, is not sufficient to create magnetism. The other necessary ingredient is the presence of spontaneous magnetization. Iron, cobalt, and nickel are examples of materials where spontaneous magnetization forms. Other simple metals (e.g., aluminum, copper, gold, etc.) do not form spontaneous magnetization. Those materials are thus not magnets.

      Delete
    42. Electromagnetic FORCE

      Could we even have magnetism without the electromagnetic FORCE?

      Of course we couldn't. We wouldn't even have any materials.

      Delete
    43. Wait. You think solid-state materials are held together by an electromagnetic force? :)

      Delete
    44. Without the electromagnetic force there wouldn't be any atoms- well maybe there could be hydrogen

      Delete
    45. Electromagnetic interactions play a fairly minor role in the formation of solids. They do have some influence in shaping up heavy atoms at the end of the periodic table. But they have nothing to do with holding solids together, at any rate. That falls to electrostatic force and quantum mechanics.

      Delete
    46. Non-sequitur? You are claiming that in the absence of electromagnetic force there would be no atoms aside from hydrogen. That is false. You also claim that there would be no materials, which is again false. Electromagnetic force is some 137 times weaker than electrostatic force and thus is only a minor player in atomic and solid-state physics. It does not nearly have the significance you ascribe to it.

      Delete
    47. OK oleg, my bad- without the EMF there wouldn't be any atoms, and the electrostatic force is part of the electromagnetic force:

      Electromagnetism is the force that acts between electrically charged particles. This phenomenon includes the electrostatic force acting between charged particles at rest, and the combined effect of electric and magnetic forces acting between charge particles moving relative to each other.

      The electromagnetic force is what holds atoms and molecules together.

      Delete
    48. The electrostatic part does. The magnetic part is weak and has little influence except in very heavy atoms at the end of the periodic table. (As I have already said.)

      In any event, the electromagnetic forces act in all atoms, but by far not all atoms exhibit magnetism. So electromagnetic force is not the reason why substances are magnetic.

      Delete
    49. oleg:
      The electrostatic part does. The magnetic part is weak...

      It is all one- ever hear of Maxwell?

      oleg:
      So electromagnetic force is not the reason why substances are magnetic.

      True, but without it we wouldn't have any magnetism.

      Delete
    50. When you wrote "On an atomic scale everything is magnetic," what exactly did you mean by that?

      Certainly a hydrogen molecule is not magnetic: it has no magnetic moment to speak of. Neither is the helium atom: it has zero angular momentum and zero magnetic moment. Next in the periodic table we have lithium. It is a nonmagnetic metal. Next up is beryllium, another nonmagnetic metal. A beryllium atom has two external s electrons with opposite spins, whose magnetic moments cancel out.

      We will have to go pretty far in the periodic table (at least as far as vanadium) to get to something magnetic. And furthermore, as I have previously said, things aren't magnetic on the atomic scale. Large groups of atoms can exhibit magnetism. Not individual atoms.

      Delete
  12. oleg, yes "WE" do. Intelligently and by Design, of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So what's your point then, Neal? You can use the sidewalk to store information on it (written in chalk). So what?

      Delete
    2. Umm, the point is DNA as a digital storage media is not an anology, duh.

      Delete
    3. Yes, it is.

      When we model its structure and behavior in cells there is information in the model. Scientists who work with the models are informed by what they observe. That is a common usage of "information".

      What happens in the cells is basically physics and chemistry. If you want to label those those processes as "information", you can, but it's not the same as what most people understand by the word.

      Delete
    4. LoL! How is it an analogy when we can actually do it?

      And if you had any evidence to support your claim- that What happens in the cells is basically physics and chemistry, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

      Ya see artificial ribosomes do not function- all the physics and chemistry are there but nothing happens. That says there is more at work than physics and chemistry.

      Delete
    5. Ya see artificial ribosomes do not function

      They do: link


      That says there is more at work than physics and chemistry.

      Ready to admit there isn't?

      Delete
    6. LoL! troy, Church, et al., just synthesized part of a ribosome, not the entire thing. And even then it did not function the way it did.

      Try again

      Delete
  13. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/catholics-argue-that-fetuses-are-people-unless-it-costs-the-church-money/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More like:

      People will say that a fetus is NOT a child unless saying it is will get them money.

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. oleg said, "So what's your point then, Neal?"


    Jan 23, 2013

    Hilary Clinton "What difference, at this point, does it make?" yelling about the Benghazi attack

    Abortionist article 3/24/13 - "So what if abortion ends life"

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/24/so-what-if-abortion-ends-life-pro-choice-writer-says-some-babies-are-worth-sacrificing/

    ---

    So what if DNA is a digital information storage system... what difference does it make!

    What difference does it make that Haeckel fabricated his drawings?

    What difference does it make that Darwin used religion as a pillar of his Origin of Species work?

    What difference does it make that evolutionists were totally out to lunch regarding junk-DNA?

    What difference does a hundred other matters regarding the abuse of the scientific method by evolutionists make?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thousands of researchers have spent countless hours and billions of dollars over the last 75 years developing better and better digital storage and somehow evolution arrived at a storage arrangement that was to be emulated by cutting edge researchers in the year 2013 and beyond.

    But, what difference does it make? Evolution has a blank check.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neal,

      DNA information storage is not a very practical solution. Don't bet that it will replace magnetic and solid-state storage. It requires a wet lab and is not particularly well interfaced with electronics.

      I have seen many claims about using biological this and biological that for information storage or even computation. More than a decade ago. I do not take these things seriously.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. oleg:
      DNA information storage is not a very practical solution.

      Not NOW. There was a time when hard drive information storage wasn't even available. And look what we are doing today.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  17. Neal

    "But, what difference does it make? Evolution has a blank check."

    We are not expecting to change your faith and opinion, but at least let us to try to correct you in your attempt to support your argumentations when you use wrong understanding in science, in history or in theology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Germanicus, evolution is not allowed to be falsified. That is the bottom line. Evolutionists give themselves a blank check to write into their theory whatever feels good. There is no serious metric to falsify evolution.

      The theory is like Jello. Nothing can be nailed down and it is easily contorted to fit whatever it needs to in order to avoid falsification.

      I'm not playing the game of faith vs. science. Your theory fails as a scientific theory. Period.

      Delete
    2. Neil

      I am not a professional biologist, so I am very careful to open my mouth to argument that I don't know in deep. But I work in science and I have some clues how to evaluate what is good science or no. So I see from one side a theory constantly in development (I studied biology in high school 30 years ago and more recently I have started to read secondary and also some primary literature on the argument) with an impressive volume of R&D and papers, while from the other neither a theory nor important literature. And it is clear what sides I mean. So frankly speaking I see not many chances for your side (I mean TOE denier) as long as you are not able to present something, I don't say comparable, but at least that shows a direction for a promising R&D.
      To make good science is not sufficient to criticise the opponent theory, but is mandatory to do an excellent home work developing the own theory.

      Delete
    3. Neal,
      sorry for the wrong spelling of your name.

      Delete
    4. Germanicus, one does not have to have an alternative theory in order to honestly evaluate an existing theory. The idea that I can't criticize a scientific theory unless I have another is absurd. Often, the failures of a theory lead to better ones.

      But, this is how ToE is viewed:

      Evolution is a fact. Nothing can or will be allowed to change that. It's not up for debate and it's not up for criticism. If you disagree with the fact of evolution you are either a hayseed that fell off the back of a wagon or a lunatic. Evolution is sacred. It's the holy of holies for scientism.

      The impressive volume of R&D and papers you refer to are all based on the above assumption. It's all tenuous. It is never IF, but HOW. If you assume that evolution is a fact from the get go, then how it happened is simply a matter of continually working out how it may have happened. The sheer volume of papers that attempt to explain how is then used to make the fact of evolution more believable. Yet, it is all tenuously based on the assumption fact to begin with.

      The ever expanding "How" of ToE is not necessarily an indication of progress, but to the objective observer, an indication or clue that the foundational premise is taking them on a wild goose chase.

      There have been a number of peer reviewed papers written about intelligent design. Of course, they are not allowed to qualify as "important" because they don't agree with evolution. It's the old "you are not a scientist but a kook and your work is not science" routine. Why? because you don't agree with evolution.

      Delete
    5. Neal,

      Germanicus, one does not have to have an alternative theory in order to honestly evaluate an existing theory.

      Of course not. It helps the persuasive value of the argument,after all the best way to replace a mechanism is to find a mechanism that fits more of the data. Especially if the criticism is the improbability of the mechanism, without an alternate mechanism it is impossible to compare probabilties.

      The idea that I can't criticize a scientific theory unless I have another is absurd. Often, the failures of a theory lead to better ones.

      It just means your argument is an opinion without scientific proof of a better more explanatory mechanism. Mechanisms are replaced by other mechanisms, most persuasively.

      Delete
    6. Neal said:

      "I'm not playing the game of faith vs. science. Your theory fails as a scientific theory. Period."

      Oh really? So you're not religious? And you have the scientific background to evaluate and critique scientific theories?

      What is your explanation for the diversity of life?

      Do you agree with the "ID inference"?

      Is this you?

      https://twitter.com/NealTedford

      Delete
    7. vel:
      It helps the persuasive value of the argument,after all the best way to replace a mechanism is to find a mechanism that fits more of the data.

      Yes and evolution by design is a better mechanism, given the data, than evolution by accumulations of genetic accidents.

      Especially if the criticism is the improbability of the mechanism, without an alternate mechanism it is impossible to compare probabilties.

      As I told you before, accumulations of genetic accidents doesn't even deserve to be included in any probability argument. IOW the criticism is due to the lack of positive evidence supporting the claim.

      Delete
    8. Neal said:

      "There have been a number of peer reviewed papers written about intelligent design."

      Citations, please.

      Delete
    9. All papers that discuss ATP synthase, ribosomes, transcription and translation, bacterial flagellums, cilia- and on and on- are about Intelligent Design

      Delete
    10. Lame try, joey. Your bald assertions just show how dishonest and desperate you are.

      Delete
    11. Neal

      I agree completely which the answer of Velikovskys.
      Look at the history of the geocentric-heliocentric systems. One can say that the end of the Ptolemaic model started with the publication of the Copernicus's De Revolutionibus, with the proposition of a theory that was able to account for the criticisms already present and to give a new framework for the R&D in the field.
      It is pathetic only to argue for incredulity or complain about a hypothetic global conspiracy.

      Delete
    12. Hey TWiT- you cannot provide any positive evidence for your position and that is why you are forced to attack ID with your belligerent ignorance.

      Delete
    13. Actually, joey, you cannot provide any positive evidence for your ID-creation position and that is why you are desperately obsessed with attacking evolutionary theory with your belligerent ignorance.

      Delete
    14. LoL! And yet I HAVE provided positive evidence for Intelligent Design. Just because YOU are too stupid to understand what evidence is doesn't mean that I didn't present any.

      That said the "theory" of evolution is too vague to even be considerd a theory. It cannot be measured, it cannot be quantified, it is not science.

      Delete
  18. Dung beetles actually navigates using the stars:

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/25/wow-dung-beetles-navigate-by-stars/?intcmp=features

    If dung beetles were found to send space probes to Mars, evolutionists would say, "What difference does that make" ... evolution is a fact.

    No level of complexity or systems architecture could ever be found (or even conceived) where the evolutionists would say it is beyond the limits of evolutionary processes. They have no metric.

    Complexity to the power of infinity is within the ability of evolution... their blank check.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Changing storage media is definitely a problem for data centers needing to archive something for a very long time. What was written to media 20 years ago is only readable by absolete antiques, if they are even functionable anymore. So, how to store for a 100 years long term data?

    Could it be the ultimate long term storage media will be a DNA based one? Amazing. It is the gold standard of data storage for the ages to come.

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/applied_intelli068631.html

    ReplyDelete
  20. Penn Jillette "Don’t replace religion; end it“ New York Times

    "Religion needs to go away and not be replaced by anything."

    I say: Penn Jillette needs to go away and be replaced by another comedian.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Neal

    If dung beetles were found to send space probes to Mars, evolutionists would say, "What difference does that make" ... evolution is a fact


    I believe if dung beetles were sending probes to outer space when not occupied with rolling dung into little balls, then everything we think we know about intelligence would be overturned.

    As for the navigating, what do we know about the designer to persuade that feature was designed? How exactly do we know that theToE is not the mechanism the designer is using to implement his design? Could we tell the difference, unguided or designed to appear unguided?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vel, the only variation that we observe is bounded or within the design specs of the organism. Even mutations appear to be allowed within spec in order to give the organism the ability to be fruitful and multiply in varied environments. Unbounded and directional change has never been observed in history so we've never actually seen your theory in action.

      Delete
    2. Where can I see those design specs? Or is that a figure of speech?

      Delete
    3. oleg, the specs are within the cell. That's the cool thing about it. Contrary to evolutionist thought, there is no free lunch. Variation is not a blind watchmaker bumbling about. Unravelling the layers of code in the genome, along with a mature understanding of epigenomics, transcriptomics, interactomics, and cell signaling will give us a good schematic of these specs.

      Delete
    4. Neal, I know that there is a DNA inside the cell. I want to know how you figured out that the observed variation is "within the specs." What are "the specs?"

      Delete
    5. Vel, because ToE mechanisms are incapable of doing what evolutionists say.

      Interestingly, some scientists are currently doing what is called "guided evolution"... which is really a form of intelligent design. Guided evolution is not the unguided evolution of Darwin and friends.

      Why would I bother to reconcile evolution with a creator when evolution is a scientific fraud? It would be like me trying to reconcile if God could have used cheese to make the moon.

      Delete
    6. Neal,

      Vel, because ToE mechanisms are incapable of doing what evolutionists say.


      So you are saying that is impossible for the designer to use natural means to create the diversity of life? He must use an unknown mechanism instead.

      Interestingly, some scientists are currently doing what is called "guided evolution"... which is really a form of intelligent design.

      Since ID doesn't speak to any mechanism, how did they decide how to get from design to a material form?

      Why would I bother to reconcile evolution with a creator when evolution is a scientific fraud

      How are you so sure you know the ways of God?

      Delete
    7. Neal Tedford January 25, 2013 at 12:51 PM

      Vel, the only variation that we observe is bounded or within the design specs of the organism. Even mutations appear to be allowed within spec in order to give the organism the ability to be fruitful and multiply in varied environments. Unbounded and directional change has never been observed in history so we've never actually seen your theory in action.


      That's not much of a test. Recorded human history only goes back a few thousand years, modern scientific observation a few hundred at best.

      Life has been around being fruitful, multiplying and mutating on this one planet alone for somewhere between three and four billion years. That's a lot we haven't seen.

      So how about, we haven't seen the sort of "unbounded" change you're talking about because:

      a) We haven't been looking long enough

      b) Species that were prone to catastrophic mutation have already been weeded out by natural selection over the past few billion years?



      Delete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I have a few questions for people who criticize the Bible on moral grounds.

    1. What is your basis for saying that morality exists?

    2. What is your basis for determining what os moral or immoral?

    3. You don't believe the Bible is true, so maybe none of the bad things recorded ever happened, so what exactly is the problem?

    ReplyDelete