Another Post as to why we need to constantly be on guard.
Gov. Bobby Jindal signed into law the “Science Education Act” in 2008
...And now, not shockingly, the LFF has already started to use it to chip away at evolution and sound science standards by claiming the state’s biology textbooks give too much credibility to Darwin’s theory.
We the people need to stay on guard at all times we need to keep this kind of nonsense in check. There will always be someone to take advantage of any opportunity to slip in some kind of nonsense. Once it is in, it is almost impossible to get back out.
Read the full article here.
Nov 12, 2010
Another Post as to why we need to constantly be on guard.
Nov 10, 2010
On our daily drive home form school my daughter usually has several questions about every conceivable topic, yesterday was no different. Being on a quest to blow her first bubble, and armed with a piece of Double Bubble bubble gum, and knowing she has to chew out all of the sugar first, she asks me how much sugar is in gum, and how can you tell.
My mind turns to Archimedes and the legend that he discovered displacement theory. Though to test our troubling gum question we would not be able to use displacement as a measuring tool, we could use a scale and measure the weight difference and get pretty close.
After returning home, chores, homework, and the table set for dinner. We began our experiment.
a piece of un-chewed bubblegum
Step 1; Weigh gum and record weight
Step 2; Chew gum till no longer any sugar left in gum
Step 3; Weigh gum and record weight
Step 4; Check record difference in weight
Step 5; Add sugar to scale until weighs as much as difference
Step 6; Measure by volume how much sugar.
Step 7; Record data
Step 8; Publish and wait for nobel prize!
This was good fun and took only about fifteen minutes. Heres the data
The un-chewed gum weighed in at about 6 grams.
After chewing the gum didn't even register a gram. Weight of gum after chewing less than a gram.
Total sugar in a piece of Double Bubble bubblegum approximately 6 grams of sugar or about a table spoon.
Doing an experiment with your daughter priceless!
Nov 9, 2010
A couple of post a go I brought up the topic of why we need to be vocal and get our views on science and the world. A recent article in the the student newspaper of the The University of Alabama, shows how deep the lack of scientific reason goes.
The two columns call for the teaching of biblical creationism along side evolution. They use the same tired arguments and reasons, it's popular, evolution has too many flaws and quote mining from real scientists trying to make it appear that there is a controversy or flaw in the science.
The first column Deals with "Why" the collage should be teaching creation;
...it should be presented as just that: a theory, and the same should be true of evolution.
This statement shows that column for what it is nothing more than a long argument from ignorance. The misuse of the word theory. "it's only a theory", "I have a theory" shows us he doesn't, as many people don't, understand how the word is used in science.
The word theory in science is used to mean, how a system works. If you crack open an manuel on a large peace of equipment, say a printing press or plastic mold injection machine you can find a section in the book called "theory of operation". Does this mean the people of who designed and built the equipment do not understand how it runs? No, it is a description on how it runs. This is what is meant by theory in evolution.
The line that sums up the level of discourse in the first column comes at the end
Ben Friedman is a sophomore majoring in social entrepreneurship.
This month we have a visit form Eli of Chariots of Iron;
We Have some good fun and discuses the validity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a popular figure in modern Christianity. Being more of a biblical scholar topic not heavy on the science I don't have as much to offer, that doesn't stop me from talking any way. So go and down load it today and listen away!
Oct 20, 2010
Does anyone really take fundamentalist claims seriously? Really? Why is it important? What should we do about it?
Whooping cough and an epidemic resurgence of diseases that are preventiable with vacines.
Thanks to a campaign of don't trust your local scientist, people like Jenny McCarthy have convinced millions of people to not get vaccinated. Now children are dyeing of a preventible disease.
Thanks to tireless hard work by millians of us and a constant challenge to the Discovery Institute, they are now on the ropes and resorting to "it's all that atheist Hitler's fault" attacks.
What can we do?
Join your local skeptics group, add your voice to the few and make them many.
See an article, a news show, or adds that portray false facts, leads to false conclusions or is just an out right lie, Write, blog or just be vocal. We all need to raise our voice and be heard.
A perfect example;
Sep 22, 2010
On the follow up from WETL, lets look at some of the claims made about Mutations.
Claims from the creation camp on modern evolution;
1. Mutations only remove information rather than add information.
2. Mutations are always negative and would never make the recipient of said mutation more likely to procreate.
3. Mutations are too rare to have any real impact upon a species.
One simple example, Milk. Those of us who are able to drink milk can thank a mutation for this. The cultures who raise herding animals developed the mutation that allows us to digest milk. Since the majority of people in the northern hemisphere have this ability this simple example shows us how a mutation can be beneficial.
Lets compare this mutation with the claims above.
1. Mutations only remove information rather than add information
False. The information added is the ability to process Lactase.
2.Mutations are always negative and would never make the recipient of said mutation more likely to procreate.
False.The mutation is positive giving the species the ability to consume a new food group, which can give the species food and water during times when there is low food sources, say winter time for example.
3.Mutations are too rare to have any real impact upon a species.
False.The majority of humans have this mutation, the largest numbers are in the northern hemisphere. Yet it was only one mutation.
6.No single mutation could possibly give a species any discernible advantage.
False. What is the advantage of a mutation like the ability to metabolize milk after our first few years? A renewable food source, calcium, protean as well as a food source that we are able to turn into a storable food. Say cheese just for one example.
When dealing with false claims it is important for us to take apart each and every claim and show how they can be false and misleading.
Sep 8, 2010
Marshal and I bring you another "Where the Evidence Leads"podcast.
This Month we interview Don Exodus from YouTube, about David Klinghoffer and the article in the "Huff" Huffington Post, about , of course, Darwin and Hitler and how Hitler was a quire boy until he read Origin of Species. I contend that the Huff is a online rag and Marshal contends that it's not, don't tell him I think he probably is right I rarely ever read it. We go on to discuss another website and more tired old arguments against evolution. marshal boiled down the long list to just a few we discuss them on the show and I will take them apart one at a time in future posts.
1. Mutations only remove information rather than add information.
2. Mutations are always negative and would never make the recipient of
said mutation more likely to procreate.
3. Mutations are too rare to have any real impact upon a species.
4. Most organs and biological features are far to complex to be the
result of random mutations. (Irreducible complicity).
5. The Cambrian Explosion itself disproves the notion that life
evolves slowly. In the span of 20 million years we witnessed the
development of most complex life forms; where prior all life as simple
single celled life.
6. No single mutation could possibly give a species any discernible
7. Punctuated equilibrium has been demonstrated to be impossible.
8. DNA or RNA could never randomly come into existence. Life could
never have formed without a designer. (note: not related to evolution a
9. The second law of thermo dynamics means that life is impossible.
(my note: Obviously not true because were it life would be impossible
on earth whether creationism or evolution were true).
10. The sun is not enough to overcome entropy. “Raw energy from the
sun, if not for the ability of living things to convert it to useful
energy such as sugars, proteins etc. would be a destroyer of life. In
many of the scenarios of primitive life the UV radiation is looked as
the driver of the mutations need for evolution, but it conversely
would destroy the organism as well if not protected. In fact the
mutation rate being very slow and the energy being very fast the
destruction would be very many times faster than the creation. Raw
energy from the sun, cannot create the specified complexity needed for
life. It can only cause complexity to be lost in mutations. In the
labs scientists use sophisticated equipment to polymerize proteins in
the right way. If sunlight were to enter this process it would
destroy the proteins.” ( from http://www.evanwiggs.com) (note: sounds
like his conclusions are mere assertions to me).
11. The Big Bang is false. (note: not related to evolution).
12. “The fossil record does not show an increasing complexity.
Evolutionist Dan McShea of the University of Michigan had approached
this question in a detailed study of the backbones of creatures that
evolutionists believe represent ancestor – descendant pairs. He wanted
to see if the ‘descendant’ was more complex than the ‘ancestor’ on the
average for each case. What he found was no trend at all. Other
scientists studied the shells of ammonoids, a spiral shelled creature,
to see if apparently related types got more complex higher in the rock
strata and found there was absolutely no trend. Creationists would
expect this result of these studies. McShea said: “Everybody knows
that organisms get more complex as they evolve. The only trouble with
what everyone knows is that there is no evidence it’s true”
(http://www.evanwiggs.com/) (note: this argument contradicts the claims
about the Cambrian Explosion about the rate at which life simple to
13. Where are the transitional fossils?
14. The theories regaurding Bird evolution are fabrications.
• Archaeopteryx, which has been shown as a fully formed bird has been
dated as evolving before many of the dinosaurs with allegedly
• The Archaeoraptor hoax from China in 1999 caused a cloud of “faked
fossil’ that hangs over everything coming out of China. (note: a
single incident of fraud completely discredits all subsequent claims?
Wonder if he would apply this same standard to Christianity?)
• Scale cells could never have evolved into feather cells.
Jun 9, 2010
We all know what it means to be designed don't we?
Marshal, from Agnostic Salvation Hour, and I just finished another podcast for, Where the Evidence Leads. In this podcast we discuss the book, A Lawyers Case for God. One of the arguments the author uses is when you see design you recognize it, and uses this argument for proof that the universe shows signs of being designed and thusly created by a designer, namely god.
So how do we determine if something has been designed?
In the poorly written A Lawyer's Case for a God. In this book the argument goes something like this, If you spied a robot lying in the sand you would know it was designed. Then the writer implies the universe shows signs of design so therefor it is designed and that means a designer. The Intelligent Design or ID for short, uses the same poor logic with life on earth.
So how would we know the robot is designed. I mean it seams obvious if you just look at it. Ok, so it does look like something made. What exactly makes it look that way. Well it's made of materials that we recognize as man made, metal, plastic and glass. Next we see it is held together by manufactured fasteners, such as screws, nuts and bolts. What else do we notice? Most every one who makes something from crafts to cars, puts there mark on it. Paintings get signed, buildings have a cornerstones, almost everything will have a mark on it. So we look for a manufactures mark, an icon, symbol or just the made by sticker. Yet there is more evidence, when something is made we can trace it back to the manufacturer, often we can find where, when and even who made the item. Now we know with out a doubt it was made by some one and there for it has a creator or designer.
American rain-forests, in some areas, the ground does not have very good soil. In these places seeds grow out of decaying plants better than in the ground. This has led to explorers believing the forests were planted. They would see old trees in a straight line or row. This defied explanations until further investigation reveled the answer. When a tree dies and falls, seeds grow from the dead tree. As years go by the old tree rots and falls away leaving behind a straight row of trees. From simple observation the trees looked planted, or designed like a garden. On closer examination the condition as to what causes the appearance, show up. If it had been a garden or planed forest there would be other signs such as left over items like broken forgotten tools. Possibly we would find evidence that the ground was landscaped, like the mound builders. There would be other evidence to be found, to support the supposition that it was designed.
This logic by analogy is often used when the I.D. group make claims like "DNA is a code" and if it is a code then it is designed. This is nothing more than pseudoscience by analogy.
Another example we can use is a painting. We know a painting when we see one right? Sure it has some kind of canvas often a would frame, nails to hold the frame together, staples to hold the canvas on the frame plus there will almost always be a signature. What about other paintings or pictures in nature as the one I've shown here... not only does it show a mans face but the model was listening to an ipod. LOL
May 26, 2010
Examples like this show how the diversity of life is evidence for the evolution,
Unfortunately we are still bombarded with poor logic and sometimes just plain ignorance when it comes to the natural world.
This looks like somthing from a fifties era horror movie.
Synthetic Life or is it assembly?
I defiantly see it as assembly. What has essentially happened is from a not so good movie (albiet a better real life story) Tucker and his car. when they first built it they used off the shelf car parts with a new body and used the car to help get funding to build a whole new car.
Now this only works as an analogy. What really was really done was that pieces of dna were assembly and then used to replace the dna in an already functional cell. That is where it gets really amazing, the cell worked.
So now we have a brand new kind of life. What really is fascinating is this is just the first step. Soon there will be Wholly new life forms and quite possibly made from different building blocks.
So what could this seemingly Frankenstein concept really do for us to help. One we can use this type of technology to make viruses that cure cancer, as well as a host of other diseases. How about an organism that breaks down CO2 faster better, and can be used to filter coal burning power plants. Instead of changing an organism's existing dna we now may be able to completely build it from the ground up.
For more info see links below.
May 16, 2010
May 15, 2010
Soft bodied fossils are the rarest of fossils and this on fills in a thirty million year gap, previously thought to have died of at the end of the Cambrian era.
This fossil was found in southeastern Morocco at the Fezouata Formations.
May 11, 2010
May 9, 2010
The emails have, over time dwindled with the mighty help of Snopes. Yet I still have a few die hards telling me our President is really a Muslim, A certain senator is demanding a bigger plane, so on and so on. Sometimes politely sometimes not so politely I inform the sender and all CC, that the contents of there email is mistaken.
Now comes the onslaught of "National Day of Prayer", and the recent court ruling against it. All I can think of is an echo chamber and the words "sunday sunday sunday".
There's the email of the Senator praying on the steps of Congress, can you say Matthew 6: 5-6?
Then there's the email telling me "our country has never gone with out a "National Day of Prayer", Sorry it was started in the 50's to help fend off the godless Communists.
The latest quoting President Reagan, (full disclosure I liked Reagan allot) the email goes on to tell a false history of the National Day of Prayer.
So what do all of these emails have in common, start theme to Jeperdy? Alix, what is prayer?
My question is what does science say about prayer? Change game show to "The $64,000 Question"
Lets look at the latest study of prayer funded by the very questionable Templeton Foundation. Here is an excellent article on the study. This study took a common type of heart surgery, and did a blind study on what happen to those who were prayed for and those who were not. For an idea on how blind study works try my post on Scotch.
The results showed there was no difference in post surgery complications in either the group who were prayed for and didn't know it and the group who were not prayed for and didn't know they were prayed for. The group who was prayed for and knew they were prayed for had an increase in post op complications. Prayer didn't seam to work, in a positive way.
Conclusions? Being prayed for behind the curtain doesn't seam to do any thing, however expectations of being prayed for seemed to decrease the amount of help. So prayer, like esp, divining rods, and holy water only seam to work "Post Hoc".
How about a National Day of No Prayer, and lets see if we are better off.
May 3, 2010
Apr 30, 2010
If you throw a ball level with the ground and drop a ball from the same hight which will hit the ground first?
Well of course the dropped ball. It travels the least distance. Right? Not really.
lets look at what is going on. Get in your car have some one else drive. Now sit still and drop the ball. Next head down a straight road at a good speed. Repeat the drop it. What happened? It took about the same time didn't it? The first test the relative speed of the car was zero, then the speed was say fifty mph. You can do this in your head if you want. They both "fell" at the same speed whether or not the car was moving.
So what is going on here? People equate time with distance. This is only natural as it takes time to move a distance. Objects fall in time at the same rate as all other objects regardless of weight or size. So when an object falls it is pulled down at the same rate wether or not it is moving laterally with the ground or not. So when you toss an object level with the ground it will fall at the same rate as an object dropped. This principle is what allows us to have satellites in orbit.
A beautiful experiment to prove this point was done on Mythbuster's, where they shoot a bullet and drop a bullet.
Apr 26, 2010
Does Heat Rise or Fall?
If you put your hand above a candle then beside it that should answer it. So heat rises, right?
No, Hot air rises for he same reason ice and ships float, as well as lids pop off in microwaves.
Displacement. This is where an material like air is heated the molecules gain energy and vibrate more. The result is they begin to take up more room. Essentially making them less dense. Being less dense they rise above the denser matter and "float" up. As water freezes, becomes a crystal, the molecular alignment causes the "ice" to become less dense, takes up less room. Hence floats.
Fires in zero or very low gravity, extinguish themselves since the hotter air does not rise and the oxygen is not replaced due to lack of convection.
Apr 25, 2010
For me the greatest discovery of Hubble has to be when we pointed the lens to the darkest place in the Sky. The images we received of millions of galaxies sent shivers down my spine.
Here's a link to some great pictures.
Apr 22, 2010
Sorry about the Hiatus, we had a death in the family. For the next few post I will be on the back burner and rewriting a few of my old post, trying to make them "more better". lol. Anyone who is a regular, thanks for the patients being patient.
Apr 9, 2010
This Podcast Marshal and I Interviewed Peter Sinclair from YouTube. His channel is GreenMan6610.
We covered some basic misconceptions and only scratched the surface of global warming.
Look for the podcast Agnostic Salvation Hour, WTEL3 ( where the evidence leads ) next week on PodOmatic and iTunes.
Mar 17, 2010
Science city was great fun for our daughter, the water maze at the city park and the sewer pipe slide were the two favs, though she really did like arresting me at the crime lab! As most kids will, she ran from spot to spot, we as adults felt compelled to make her stop and read about the exhibits, as parents are wont to do.
This was more of a children's museum than an actual science museum and to our pleasant surprise we found many items from the defunct KCK children's museum in use here. Over all, the museum was heavy on the City and light on the science. Several of the exhibits didn't work and there were many maintenance issues. From what I understand, Union Station and Science City run in the red. This has allot to do with our communities not supporting our museums as well as they are supported in other major cities.
Keep your eyes open, the museum seams to be housing what can only be a ufo.
Mar 14, 2010
Mar 8, 2010
This was the worst one yet, I can't even begin to count all of the poor logic and errors, as this guy goes on I get more and more frustrated at the illogic of him and others like him.
See this email I just sent you, that you're reading
right now? This email is proof of the existence of God.
Yeah, I know, that sounds crazy.
But I'm not asking you to believe anything just yet, until you see the evidence for yourself. All I ask is that you refrain from disbelieving while I show you my proof.
It only takes a minute to convey,
but it speaks to one of the most important questions of all
So how is this email proof of the existence of God?
This email you're reading contains letters, words and
sentences. It contains a message that means something.
As long as you can read English, you can understand what
You can do all kinds of things with this email. You
can read it on your computer screen. You can print it out on
your printer. You can read it out loud to a friend who's in
the same room as you are. You can call your friend and read it
to her over the telephone. You can save it as a Microsoft
WORD document. You can forward it to someone via email, or you
can post it on a website.
Regardless of how you copy it or where you send it,
the information remains the same. My email contains a message.
It contains information in the form of language. The message
is independent of the medium it is sent in.
Messages are not matter, even though they can be carried
by matter (like printing this email on a piece of paper).
Messages are not energy even though they can be carried
by energy (like the sound of my voice.)
Messages are immaterial. Information is itself a unique
kind of entity. It can be stored and transmitted and copied
in many forms, but the meaning still stays the same.
Messages do not stay the same, try playing telephone with a large group. We give meaning to information that meaning feels transitory as if it is greater than it's parts. It can be the Gettysburg Address or something nefarious like orders to commit a crime. With out the physical the brain does nothing, creates nothing nor thinks any thoughts.
Messages can be in English, French or Chinese.
Or Morse Code. Or mating calls of birds. Or the Internet.
Or radio or television. Or computer programs or architect
blueprints or stone carvings. Every cell in your body
contains a message encoded in DNA, representing a complete
plan for you.
There is no message in DNA, it is a very complicated molecule. We refer to DNA as having a meaning or a plan. Do bacteria think? They behave as if they do. Any extremely complex system can appear to have many anthropomorphic signs, this however is only an illusion.
OK, so what does this have to do with God?
It's very simple. Messages, languages, and coded
information ONLY come from a mind. A mind that
agrees on an alphabet and a meaning of words and
sentences. A mind that expresses both desire and
Whether I use the simplest possible explanation,
such as the one I'm giving you here, or if we analyze
language with advanced mathematics and engineering
communication theory, we can say this with total
"Messages, languages and coded information never,
ever come from anything else besides a mind.
No one has ever produced a single example of a message
that did not come from a mind."
Nature can create fascinating patterns - snowflakes,
sand dunes, crystals, stalagmites and stalactites. Tornadoes
and turbulence and cloud formations.
But non-living things cannot create language. They
*cannot* create codes. Rocks cannot think and they
cannot talk. And they cannot create information.
Non-thinking processes produce information all the time. We just do not give them meaning as in a form of communication.
It is believed by some that life on planet earth arose
accidentally from the "primordial soup," the early ocean which
produced enzymes and eventually RNA, DNA, and primitive cells.
Yes this is the common Hypothesis, experiments have been conducted and some show this may be the case. Other evidence shows that early Earth my have been seeded with organic compounds, of which organic compounds from outside of earth have recently been verified.
But there is still a problem with this theory: It fails to
answer the question,'Where did the information come from?'
The "information" came from the same processes that caused every thing else in our solar system. The supernova that created our solar system and all the chain reactions since.
DNA is not merely a molecule. Nor is it simply a "pattern."
Yes, it contains chemicals and proteins, but those chemicals
are arranged to form an intricate language, in the exact same way
that English and Chinese and HTML are languages.
No they aren't DNA is not a language it is a chemical process not a created code not a computer language. It is a chemical process.
DNA has a four-letter alphabet, and structures very similar
to words, sentences and paragraphs. With very precise
instructions and systems that check for errors and correct them.
The key here is "similar" not "is". We use all kinds of analogies, but an analogy does not make a fact.
To the person who says that life arose naturally,
you need only ask: "Where did the information come from?
Show me just ONE example of a language that didn't come
from a mind."
There are none. This does not make DNA a language just because you think it is.
As simple as this question is, I've personally presented it
in public presentations and Internet discussion forums for
more than four years. I've addressed more than 100,000 people,
including hostile, skeptical audiences who insist that
life arose without the assistance of God.
Just because you say a thing a 100,000 times does not make it true.
But to a person, none of them have ever been able to
explain where the information came from. This riddle is
"So simple any child can understand; so complex, no atheist
Your not willing to listen to the answers. At one point in time we did not know the Big Bang even occurred. Yet we looked and found it. We can't project back to the very smallest of time right after the Big Bang nor can we tell what caused it, yet that does not mean Odin, Thor, or Hera caused it nor any other god. Just because we don't know a thing does not mean we will never know a think. Poor logic and jumping to conclusions does not make it so.
You can hear or read the full presentation on this topic at
Watch it on video:
Matter and energy have to come from somewhere. Everyone can
agree on that. But information has to come from somewhere, too!
Information is separate entity, fully on par with matter and
energy. And information can only come from a mind. If books
and poems and TV shows come from human intelligence, then all
living things inevitably came from a superintelligence.
Poor logic, information comes from the natural world all the time. We as humans collect it use it and derive meaning from it. We have used that "information" that has come from the world around us, from not "minds" to learn how are world works, really works. Things like Germ theory, to prevent disease. We learned to watch the weather so we would know when tornados, hurricanes and floods would come. All this information comes from "non-minds". Not a "superintelligence".
Every word you hear, every sentence you speak, every
dog that barks, every song you sing, every email you read,
every packet of information that zings across the Internet,
is proof of the existence of God. Because information
and language always originate in a mind.
In the beginning were words and language.
Wrong in the beginning there was nothing.
In the Beginning was Information.
When we consider the mystery of life - where it came from
and how this miracle is possible - do we not at the same time
ask the question where it is going, and what its purpose is?
Full presentation: "If you can read this, I can prove God exists":