Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 02-09-2005

With even the science news sites mesmerized by New Orleans’ unfolding disaster, finding other news was a challenge. Here’s a bit of both.

Thanks Shadows

Quote of the Day:

If you had the right kind of storm come in there, you’d really be in trouble.

New Orleans’ Times-Picayune engineering consultant Lee Butler, 2002

  1. Good stuff Kat
    I can really only focus on the New Orleans stuff at present, it is such an enormous and appalling situation.
    I will bookmark the rest for next week.
    Thanks sweetie,

    shadows

  2. Good Post!
    Kat

    This was a very good post! The most interesting articles were Quantum Leap and Easter Island Mysteries. The most depressing were the articles about New Orleans. Under what must be difficult circumstances for you, you did your usual good job! Bonsai!

    kennc

  3. Well done, Kat
    If the New York Times owners ever decide to make an homest woman out of the “grey Lady”, you’ve got my vote for Editor-in-Chief. Your efforts are one more reason why more and more people are turning to the Internet for information.

    You have truly demonstrated “Grace under pressure” to all of us.

    Thank you,

    Michael Scott

    1. Oh that is beautiful..
      …and she deserves it so much!
      I know how much effort Kat puts into the work she does here.I’m glad you and others appreciate her.I know I do.

      Thereyago Kitty Kat, others love you besides me,

      shadows

  4. Richard Dawkins
    Dawkins is irritating. I have read much of his work, and he arrogantly mistakes his excellent writing skills for proof that he is right, and so do many of his fans. Through clever verbal sophistry, he sidesteps the arguments of Behe and others. Sort of like Thomas Friedman does regarding current affairs. Dawkins depicts those who oppose his ideas as fools and idiots, often using exactly these sort of immature adjectives. He is a fine example of a religious fanatic from the church of Materialist Reductionism. He gives the impression that he has addressed all the objections of intelligent design, when in fact he has not. He further tries to characterize ID as creationism, and/or something only people who believe in “God” accept. That is misleading and ignorant. It is quite possible to believe in some form of ID, but not at all accept religious concepts of “God”, or even be religious at all. In a consciousness based model of the universe, for example, the “intelligence” behind evolution is within the very components of a living cell, not in a heaven somewhere.

    1. That’s your best yet, Dash
      Dash,
      That is very well put, and I agree with you.Dawkins irritates me beyond belief and sometimes I can’t quite understand why.
      Its almost as if he feels insulted by the idea that someone might not blindly follow what he believes.
      I don’t always understand what he is talking about but I know that he is a one idea man and thus not open to any other ideas.
      But then aren’t most scientists?

      shadows

      1. Dawkins and beliefs
        I think the problem here is not that Dawkins is trying to tell people what to believe, but that he’s trying to tell holders of “beliefs” that just because they “believe” something, doesn’t mean it should be taught as “science”.

        Science has no capacity for beliefs. It’s about what can be proved and disproved through controlled studies that can produce repeatable results. Admittedly, there is no evidence to suggest that ID isn’t true. However, conversely, there is no evidence to suggest that it is true.

        The proponents of ID seem to cling tenaciously to the first point, and suggest dubious “unprovable” things for the second point. Conclusion – ID has no place in science.

        yer ol’ pal,

        Xibalba
        (This post was brought to you by “Realm of the Dead”)

    2. Dawkins IS right
      That’s because Dawkins IS right. Anyone who believes in ID IS an idiot. And

      Show me some imperical evidence to suggest that ID has any foothold in fact (or “science” as we like to refer to it sometimes) and I’ll be willing to listen. Until then, the proponents of ID should keep their stupid, misguided, whacko theories confined to the church, or whatever institution they like to relate themselves to, and stop trying to interfere with our kids’ education.

      Good god, they’ll be up in arms trying to have the “Easter Bunny” taught in schools next. Well, there’s no evidence to suggest that the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist, is there?

      yer ol’ pal,

      Xibalba
      (This Intelligently designed post was brought to you by “Realm of the Dead”)

        1. Beliefs again
          I’m very happy for you to believe in the Easter Bunny. Good for you.

          Do you also believe that it should be taught in science classes in schools, because kids have to be given “all possible sides of the story”?

          yer ol’ pal,

          Xibalba
          (This post was brought to you by “Realm of the Dead”)

          1. I don’t believe in Creationism
            but I am inclined to think that there could have been interference in our DNA in some way.
            Is that OK for me to think that?
            Good.
            Thank you.
            I still believe in evolution.
            Kisses,

            shadows

      1. X
        you know…it’s not a matter of what is taught. It’s how it’s taught.

        DISCLAIMER:the opinions and veiws in this post are mine only and do not nesessarily reflect those of others.

        1. How right you are floppy
          I never thought of that but it sounds right to me.If you taught Creationism as being some belief that is out there then that would be OK.
          Well done flopbaby.

          shadows

          1. evidence
            Until human evolution is proven, it’s just a theory. There’s lots of evidence to support it — but then there’s quite a bit of evidence that suggests there’s more to it than Darwin’s theory of evolution. Intelligent Design should be discussed — including Erich Von Daniken’s Ancient Astronauts theory. 😉

            And wait until Graham Hancock’s Supernatual is released in October. His new book will open a big can of worms Evolutionists and Creationists both won’t be able to ignore.

            I must sleep now (unlike Kat, who is some kind of Lovecraftian creature of the occult).

          2. it’s the kats……
            I mean cats..that do it…..they have some kind of power over her….
            Hey Kat, if you read this, I gotta tell you I indentified that strange cat of mine….his a RAGDOLL cat….now that explains his odd behavior!

            DISCLAIMER:the opinions and veiws in this post are mine only and do not nesessarily reflect those of others.

          3. Intelligent design
            ID should not be taught in schools. It is not a theory. It is not scientific. Proponents of ID are Christians pretending to be scientists, but they are liars. ID is a code word for God.

            It’s hard to understand why such American stupidity should be embraced by Australians.

      2. ID and ‘idiots’
        I don’t want to get too involved here, but i have to say that when you start using that kind of terminology you really do sound like one of ‘them’, so wether or not i agree with you, all i here is ‘idiot’ which may well be true but surely there’s a nicer way of putting it. Couldn’t we all be a little more constructive?

        1. See my other posts
          OK OK. That was the “bad boy” in me posting that. I’ve had a word with him, and he’s allowed the “good, rational” side of me to make a few other constructive points. (Thanks, bad boy).

          I’m afraid the bad boy in me does not suffer fools gladly; very often he jumps right in with both feet, when the rational side would want to take stock, consider a response and deliver it in a convincing and eloquent manner (as any educated adult capable of reasonable thought would do).

          Apologies to you Kunti. (BTW – is that name pronounced as I’m pronouncing it, ‘cos it sounds a bit rude!!!) :-p

          Oh dear – I’m starting to talk about myself in the third person. Am I turning into Oscar?

          yer ol’ pal,

          Xibalba
          (This post was brought to you by “Realm of the Dead”)

      3. how about santa claus ?
        Hi Xibalba,

        Your belief in science is almost endearing, yet if anything for the last 300 years science has proven to be wrong time and again. some big issues are explained twisting and turning to keep the belief alive (think electric universe, ‘ether’concept) yet you find reason to support them aslong as they say, you are a fluke monkey, supported by fluke serials.

        I understand you fear those christian right inquisitors will want to imprint their mindset in everybody else. This however is about the ID concept, not jehova waving his magic wand. So please dont shout as you do because -one you loose, two the best and most organised of the opposition are those christian right and yes they might be able to run with it , if people like you cant make a distinction.

        ” do unto others as you would have them do unto you “

        1. “Belief” in science (!)
          Hi TL,

          You’re absolutely right: time and again science has come up with whoppers of ideas that have run and run, eventually to be proved hopelessly false, and the proponents of the those theories ridiculed.

          My “belief” in science (nice choice of words, BTW) is not so much in believing all that science currently tells us is absolute fact. My belief is in the scientific principle – i.e. that of taking a subject, breaking it down into various constituent parts, and applying tests to those parts which yield consistent and repeatable results.

          Where science so often fails, is that the results of those experiments are interpreted in terms of contemporaneous knowledge (which may, or may not, be entirely correct). So what we end up with is something which has been tested in lab conditions, is repeatable with consistent results, but which is interpreted incorrectly.

          It’s not perfect – but it’s the best method we’ve got for the moment.

          I don’t see the Christian right, or holders of the ID belief, putting their tenets under the same scrutiny that science places its theories.

          yer ol’ pal,

          Xibalba
          (This post was brought to you by “Realm of the Dead”)

          1. politics………………..
            X, your forgetting the interference of politics in science and religion. In principal, science is great, but personal politics intervenes and twists what is right. Religion is the same and so on and so on……..Until a ego free system that is truely tranparent exists….there will always be wrong info, and mis-info, and down right lies.

            DISCLAIMER:the opinions and veiws in this post are mine only and do not nesessarily reflect those of others.

          2. Religion and science
            In principle, science is great, but personal politics intervenes and twists what is right. Religion is the same ..

            No, they’re complete opposites.

            In principle, science demands that its theories be put to the test. In principle, religion demands that nothing be tested.

            Science questions. Religion demands there be no questioning.

          3. Politics and religion
            Hi TF2,

            I wasn’t forgetting the interference of politics. These days, I see the interfering religious groups (which are more and more organised as huge heavily-funded organisations) as a wing of the political establishment. Whilst various national constitutions aim as much to keep politics and religion separated (church and state), this is becoming less adhered to. More and more we’re seeing politicians making religious statements (like Dubya), and religious leaders interfering into the political realm (see various comments over the last year by Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury).

            It really is a sorry mess they’re making for themselves and everyone else.

            yer ol’ pal,

            Xibalba
            (This post was brought to you by “Realm of the Dead”)

          4. Beef
            Hi Xibalba,

            Glad you put some nuance in here, my beef is not as much with the scientific principle , though i wonder where the synergy goes applying relentless reductionism. No, it’s about the way science treats it’s heretics- the sidelining, the ridiculising and the shouting down. This Xibalba happens to scientists that don’t tow the ‘party’line. Internet has exposed this attitude/policy for all to see , in all not very scientific and in general a display of uncertainty.

            Thus the opposition are withheld the tools, and the fact they lack the right tools is argumented as proof for their faulty ideas/theories…yeah right.

            ” do unto others as you would have them do unto you “

          5. Beef
            “It’s about the way science treats it’s heretics — the sidelining, the ridiculising and the shouting down…”

            ID is not scientific “heresy”. That is religious talk. ID is simply unscientific. Scientists have every right to reject speculations about God. ID provides no evidence for the existence of God apart from the Bible.

            “Internet has exposed this attitude/policy for all to see…”

            Prove this statement. Provide a link.

            “The opposition are withheld the tools.”

            ID is not a scientific opposition. It is a religious opposition — to scientific principle.

            Furthermore, “Science” does not withold any of its tools from “ID”. That is a foul cry from ID proponents.

            The only thing witheld from ID proponents is knowledge, and they withold it from themselves.

            ID as a “theory” is simply a means for American Protestants to get God taught in their public schools, which they already have as religious education.

            If ID proponents they had any scientific case at all, they would submit a curriculum to a university, but they can’t, because there is no ID curriculum to present.

          6. lighten up
            Hi Lee.

            Well i’m not here to convince you or anyone, mindsets tend to be too deeply engraved, however you asked for ‘ proof’, well this is a site that offers plenty of possibilities to exorcise.

            http://www.alternativescience.com/

            ” do unto others as you would have them do unto you “

          7. Brilliant!
            Hi TL,

            That is a BRILLIANT link! Thanks for posting it – scientists can be really amazing. Unfortunately, they can also be a crock of pig-headed sh!t-for-brains.

            yer ol’ pal,

            Xibalba
            (This post was brought to you by “Realm of the Dead”)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal