You're cherry-picking. That sentence isn't the key one. I'm not sure what is meant by that sentence (the use of "constraint" is ambiguous), but it would be utterly unscientific if it meant that the stratigraphic position pre-determined the outcome. Geology would be scientistic nonsense like ID, not science.

Yes, and that is the point. If Geology worked like that it would be scientific nonsense, and it does work like that. The stratigraphic position is determined by the index fossils and radiometric dating. The age of the index fossils is determined by the stratigraphic position and radiometric dating. Radiometric dating itself is "checked" by stratigraphic positioning. That doesn't sound like circular reasoning to you?

On the other side the date is determined by the uniformitarian assumptions about radioactive decay rates in the past, and many other things. It assumes, among other things, that the rate will never change. As I showed in my reply the Bicyclerepairman, the rates can indeed change.

Even the next two sentences demonstrate this: "There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied."

Now this is the intellectually dishonest part. They say they can't choose where a fossil will be, but they have already the determined that the presence of certain fossils and radiometric dating igneous layers above and below it determines the age of that layer. They don't choose where a fossil is, but they do choose what the age of the layer is that contains the fossil based on their assumptions. So they are basically saying that radiometric dating and stratigraphy is validated by index fossils and radiometric dating, and vice-versa.

The date that is returned is indeed chosen by the scientists as it is based on uniformitarian assumptions that they've made about the past. Perhaps you don't understand how it works, but there is nothing about the rock which reveals its age. They use the secondary evidence of how much radioactive decay of certain elements they believe have occurred, but if the rates aren't always constant, the measurement is worthless. As I showed in my reply to Bicyclerepairman, even secular scientists have acknowledged the rates can change. Therefore it is unreliable on its own, and what is essentially happening is that they are propping up one unprovable assumption with the evidence interpreted through another unprovable assumption.

If geologists were in the habit of treating data this way, scientifically-minded people who entered the field would be disgusted and leave, and form their own new scientific discipline of the study of the earth. The fact that this hasn't happened means the geological method appears scientific to scientific-minded people, if not dogmatists.

It's far more likely that you, a dogmatist and a non-geologist, are cherry-picking information to come up with data that supports your dogma. Dogmatists, by definition, cannot be relied upon for unbiased information that either challenges or confirms their dogma. Their dogma pre-disposes them to coming to wrong conclusions far more than non-dogmatists.

Your argument from incredulity not-withstanding, I think Max Planck sums it up rather nicely:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it

There was a paradigm shift from catastrophism to uniformitarianism in the late 19th century. It was a deliberate move away from the idea of a global flood. To make their theories worked, they needed vast amount of time. Most of the contention comes down to how fast or slow certain geological features take to form. Scientists have staked all of their modern research on the theory of deep time, and they interpret all of the evidence through that conclusion. In other words, it has become conventional wisdom..IE, dogma. Please read my reply to Bicyclerepairman to see how bias effects interpretation.

If you examine the history of science, you will see that scientists have had it wrong many times and wasted decades and decades of research on things ultimately proven to be false. The near universal agreement of scientists on any issue is not any indicator of truth.

I'll take 10 minutes to respond to your comments, but I'm not taking 1.5 hours to watch more non-scientific nonsense framed in scientific terms. If there were strong enough evidence that the Earth were a few thousand years old, there would be a branch of geologists studying it. And I'm excluding the dogmatic "creation geology". It is pseudoscience.

In other words, you believe whatever the scientists say and there is no reason to understand the alternative viewpoint. Your dismissal of the material as "non-scientific nonsense framed in scientific terms" flatly shows your intellectual incuriousity, not even having looked at it. Dr. Emil is an accomplished geologist and his discussion is framed in the terminology and methodology used in that field. If you want to debate this subject, you should at the bare minimum understand the basics of the position you are defending and the position you are arguing against. Also, the video is about 1 hour with 30 minutes of questions.

FWIW, according to Wikipedia: "Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology and paleontology, chemistry, physics, biology, geophysics and stratigraphy". Do you think you can knock all those scientific fields down as well? Have at it.

It's all predicated upon the philosophy of deep time. Deep time is the cornerstone of modern research, and it supported by flimsy, circumstantial evidence. If you can show deep time is false, then all of it crumbles.

Also, "former atheist" means "current dogmatist". You don't find it astounding that his conversion happened to coincide with his discovery that the evidence didn't hold up? I do. Evidence of non-scientific thinking.

It's interesting you're still inventing reasons why you shouldn't watch the video. You don't know anything about the man but you make wrongheaded assumptions about him. Such as that he converted because he had doubts about the evidence in Geology not holding up. Yet, that isn't the reason he converted, and it had nothing to do with his work as a geologist. Your conclusions here are evidence of non-scientific thinking.

>> ^hpqp:

Oh please, this is just bad science. It's barely even worth cheap sci-fi. Where do you get the energy to run the replicator, eh? Does entropy ring a bell? Even without replicators humans are draining the earth of it's energetic resources (including the "sustainable" ones)...
Nice philosophical mindgame, like all utopias for that matter, but nowhere near hard science.
philosophy


Our world is full of achievements that were once beyond the ability of hard science.
How can humans possibly communicate over hundrends of miles? We're already yelling as loud as we can.
How can we possibly run faster than cheetahs? Our legs can't move any faster!
How can I kill Og standing all the way over there? Rock not throw farther!!!

Ultimately, all life shares one common goal; the quest for energy. From single cell creatures harvesting light, heat or chemical reactions to survive...all the way to modern humans with their agriculture, technology and complex social structures; the journey of evolution has been the race for more efficient means of acquiring and managing energy.
Our economies are elaborate means of trading energy.
Our societies organized to maximize the collection of energy.
Our governments created to ensure equitable distribution or energy.

The result of millenia of advancement is that we now expend much less energy to acquire a larger return of energy. And all that excess energy creates the complex world we live in.

But there is the potential, in the future, for technological advancements in science that will create a massive paradigm shift. There is the potential for accessible energy to become inexhaustable. And when the cost, in terms of human effort, of energy approaches Zero....everything changes.

Will the end of human need result in a utopia?
LOL...never. Because we'll always have griefers.

@bcglorf I agree with the military advantage, it makes government presence in space exploration justifiable in my opinion, at least where the military edge is concerned.

@direpickle, I also really like the way @TheFreak explains the difference between profit-seeking and nonprofit-seeking enterprises, but I wonder if his characterization might be a bit short-sighted.

Suppose that, in the interest of advancing human development, I decided to spread atheism by forcibly taking control of the major media outlets, internet and schools using them to spread that ideology. I'd finance this endeavour with taxpayer money of course. Sure, not everyone (or every taxpayer) would agree with my goals, specially those backwards people still hopelessly stuck in their petty religious mindsets, but I see the bigger picture here, a paradigm shift for society that would propel it into the future.

My goals are noble, I seek no immediate profit, not everyone will agree with me, but imagine the long term benefits of getting rid of religion, a a much needed paradigm shift that wouldn't otherwise happen if I didn't force society to use its resources a certain way.

Would that be justifiable?

>> ^renatojj:

The usual excuse for space exploration being done by government is because the costs involved are too high.
However, doesn't the private sector tend to increase quality and lower costs with time? Maybe if we let the private sector grow and develop the necessary technologies, space exploration won't be as costly. Sure, it might take a lot more time, but at least it won't waste as much resources.
Right now, we don't have resources in the private or public sectors for this. Newt is a dumbass.


Private sector business can't take risks this big. They are responsible for ensuring profitability and you cannot ensure profitability in a venture like space exploration. Central government doesn't have the profit mandate and so they can invest in things that stimulate paradigm shifts in technology and industry.

An example; I worked for my local utility company several years back (recently privatized at the time). Wind energy was a big thing and they company was very active in promoting their wind energy program. But the truth that I found was they had actually spent more money on trying to push laws to seal government gathered data that would be necessary for the wind industry to grow. You see, they didn't want to develop wind energy just yet because the profit margin was too small but they also didn't want any energy startups who were willing to accept the thinner profit margins to get a leg up on them. Nearly a decade later and that large energy company still hasn't developed their wind power any further. And there haven't been any major challengers in the market....wonder why.

The largest industries are controlled by the largest corporations and these corporations are in the business of protecting their existing revenue streams. Innovation and exploration involve risk and corporations are risk averse by their very design. Private industry is not the machine that will push boundaries and stimulate technological paradigm shifts. That takes a large entity with no profit mandate. That takes a central government.

If you believe that profitability is the best measure of value and efficiency then you haven't thought really hard on the matter. A functioning and successful society requires a balance between capital driven entities and entities who measure their success in terms of the health and advancement of the community. This isn't a matter of capitalism versus socialism. It's contrasting motivations that work in synergy.

You will have to let me know the details of your voyage if you take it! They don't really exist here in the states, so all my information is hearsay.

In reply to this comment by dag:
My interest in the Pirate Party has been growing too. I was following what happened in the recent German elections. I want to get involved and I've been looking into joining my local Australian chapter. Even if they can get some traction for copyright, patent reform and fair use - it would be a great thing.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I remember you had a blog about government disappearing for web-like, open source community stuff (I might be mis-remembering the exact situation). But the PIRATE PARTY seems to be pushing this idea of the best of open source methodology with "API" for dealing with government, and government dealing with itself. Seemed pretty interesting, though, I haven't done any reading to see how different it would really be from a system of "laws" vs "API", perhaps just a paradigm shift in the way we think of governments. I like the shift of thinking of government as a tool instead of us as the pawns of its whimsy.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

My interest in the Pirate Party has been growing too. I was following what happened in the recent German elections. I want to get involved and I've been looking into joining my local Australian chapter. Even if they can get some traction for copyright, patent reform and fair use - it would be a great thing.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I remember you had a blog about government disappearing for web-like, open source community stuff (I might be mis-remembering the exact situation). But the PIRATE PARTY seems to be pushing this idea of the best of open source methodology with "API" for dealing with government, and government dealing with itself. Seemed pretty interesting, though, I haven't done any reading to see how different it would really be from a system of "laws" vs "API", perhaps just a paradigm shift in the way we think of governments. I like the shift of thinking of government as a tool instead of us as the pawns of its whimsy.

I remember you had a blog about government disappearing for web-like, open source community stuff (I might be mis-remembering the exact situation). But the PIRATE PARTY seems to be pushing this idea of the best of open source methodology with "API" for dealing with government, and government dealing with itself. Seemed pretty interesting, though, I haven't done any reading to see how different it would really be from a system of "laws" vs "API", perhaps just a paradigm shift in the way we think of governments. I like the shift of thinking of government as a tool instead of us as the pawns of its whimsy.

@chilaxe I like how you ignore the central point I make, and just respond to random phrases out of context.

For the most part, I think you're wanting to focus on specifics largely based on the extant paradigm, while I'm making more of a statement about a desired ideal that would require a paradigm shift.

I don't deny the reality that education requires resources, and that it will need some mechanism of economic support, I'm just saying I don't think education should be denied to students who for whatever reason don't have the money to pay for it.

I also don't see why education should always be looked at as an economic investment. I happen to excel in subjects that apply well to a certain class of professional type of work, but I am interested in all sorts of topics for which I have no practical use.

I guess I am confused about your focus on people getting "pointless" degrees. I guess on one level my response is "pointless to whom?" Pointless to employers, or pointless to the person who wanted to study the topic? Why should employers get such a powerful say in what sorts of intellectual pursuits I can engage in?

On another level, like I said before, I our educational system could stand to be a bit more paternalistic in shepherding adolescents through the transition from a purely academic experience into a career path that suits some mix of their preferences and talents. But I guess I feel like schools (of all types) are largely interested in exposing children to purely academic pursuits, while justifying it in some vague sense as some form of mundane job training.

But I've never taken, nor seen offered, a college course I thought was "pointless". Certainly there's stuff I'm not interested in, stuff that would be remedial, and plenty that doesn't pose any obvious use in the job market (philosophy comes to mind), but in terms of helping people realize their full potential as human beings, all of it seems quite worthwhile.

I didn't realize Pat Robertson was still among the living until this clip was released. It will be interesting to see how this attempt at a paradigm shift will play out.

>> ^dag:

Exactly- I like to think that I'm a little bit sensitive to plate tectonics of societal change - my futurist sense is tingling off the scale at the moment and telling me that we're at one of those cusps where everything can change.
OK, maybe the state isn't going to be replaced by online communities. I may be viewing things through my own personal bias (and delusions of grandeur ahem ) but something BIG is happening - and my best guess is that the state is due to be seriously downgraded in the future to be replaced with -- something.
>> ^Fusionaut:
At least our Governments will be more accountable from now on. Even if wikileaks is forced to shut down something new will step into its place. It's nice to know that we have access to the truth now. It's hard to say if current governments will be replaced by something new within our lifetime but it certainly is time for a paradigm shift of some sort.



I think you're on to something there dag. With that, though, comes the QM's of clenched teeth. The birthing pains of this kind of order might be great indeed, which I fear.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Exactly- I like to think that I'm a little bit sensitive to plate tectonics of societal change - my futurist sense is tingling off the scale at the moment and telling me that we're at one of those cusps where everything can change.

OK, maybe the state isn't going to be replaced by online communities. I may be viewing things through my own personal bias (and delusions of grandeur *ahem*) but something BIG is happening - and my best guess is that the state is due to be seriously downgraded in the future to be replaced with -- something.

>> ^Fusionaut:

At least our Governments will be more accountable from now on. Even if wikileaks is forced to shut down something new will step into its place. It's nice to know that we have access to the truth now. It's hard to say if current governments will be replaced by something new within our lifetime but it certainly is time for a paradigm shift of some sort.

At least our Governments will be more accountable from now on. Even if wikileaks is forced to shut down something new will step into its place. It's nice to know that we have access to the truth now. It's hard to say if current governments will be replaced by something new within our lifetime but it certainly is time for a paradigm shift of some sort.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

The Idea of a standing army, especially in this country is outdated. The type of weapons that are brought to bear are wholly adequate enough to destroy, mutually, all opposition civilians included.

This is an interesting idea. Certainly national defense is a much trickier, complex proposition than it was 200 years ago. I would agree that the military needs a paradigm shift in the way it operates, but I don't think we'll ever get to the point where the number of people with full-time national defense jobs is zero.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
I must point out, again and again, that bullets do not care what political ideology you are. So while you or I lay their sucking air through a chest wound choking on our own cries for those we will never see again, let it be said that it could have been avoided.
We are talking about the cost of life to which we cannot put a value on. No accident of birth should force anyone into military service or any service that they did not so choose. The idea that we are even debating this is beyond morally abject to me, at the end of the day what we the people decide someone is going to die. I will not have that on my conscience, and I must do everything in my power to ensure that no life is lost so carelessly to a gaping head wound.
In short, I am against war and the idea of even talking about it is disgusting to me. The cost of life is too great, and entirely unnecessary.


I agree with you entirely. I'd say though, that despite my agreement, I don't see humanity outgrowing the idea of going to war anytime soon. Certainly not in my lifetime.

That means, even if America becomes as peaceful as I'd like it to be, someone will still need to be trained and ready to defend the country. Preferably a lot fewer people than today, but still more than zero.

That's why I'm saying that the question of "How do we decide who serves?" is still a valid one worthy of some thought, no matter how you feel about war. We don't really have any choice about needing to have some preparation for it, even under the best of circumstances.

Feinman's Quantum ElectroDynamic theory is one of the most successfully predictive theories in the history of science, but my point is that it will eventually be superseded (actually, built upon) by another--more concise--theory. Paradigm shifts are always occurring in science, that's why science is so powerful: it's self-correcting.

Thanks for the complement, but I don't even have an advanced degree.
>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I need a model of how I fucked this comment up. Any takers?

I kind of sensed that you were trying to troll me. But yeah, I mean that statement isn't completely true. We are getting a pretty good idea about the fundamentals now. Virtual particles causing electromagnetic fields and so on. Do you teach a class or something?

Fantastic video.

Knopfler, like Paige before him, was a top session guitarist. When this song won the MTV Video of the Year in '85, an animation, we knew we were witnessing a paradigm shift. I mean, look at the vid. Wow. The olden times, huh?