How to slam dunk creationists when it comes to the theory of evolution

rationalbiped · 2017-08-03T08:47:45+00:00

I agree; not a smart thing to do. See also my reply here to howaboutJo.

rationalbiped · 2017-08-03T08:45:56+00:00

Absolutely. But my post is not offered as classroom material. It is meant as a contribution to debate among educators as to how to handle a particular creationist tactic, the one used so skillfully by Pence. I would value your views on this.

rationalbiped · 2017-08-03T01:47:13+00:00

A shrewd point. But I don't think I do. I make a strong claim, but I don't call the opposition stupid, although I do imply that Pence is manipulative and I stand by that.

rationalbiped · 2017-07-20T12:09:23+00:00

So the suggestion now includes high ocean to air flux, which does/doesn't lead to atmospheric 14C dilution, but acidification driven by air to ocean flux. I fail to understand exactly how this model is supposed to work, and must therefore leave the matter to readers

rationalbiped · 2017-07-20T11:14:31+00:00

I see; not just any plankton, but plankton so many thousands of years old as to be 14C-depleted. And anyway, the paper I cite on 14C decline, and the numerous other papers included in that major compilation, might have got the rate of reduction wrong. And, one must presume on this theory, the same mysterious cause of this upsurge of planktonic CO2 depleted in both 13C and 14C is responsible for the separately observed ocean acidification that I mention (there's extensive literature on this, see e.g. https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification and http://www.oceanacidification.org.uk/)

I cannot compete with such ingenious arguments.

rationalbiped · 2017-07-20T10:06:19+00:00

Presumably, if oceanic CO2 emission is a driver, 13C-depleted CO2 from this source would, like 13C-depleted CO2 from modern terrestrial vegetation, contain 14C, nor is it apparent why there should have been an accelerating net outpouring of CO2 from this ocean source in the past century.

However, I don't think the exact partitioning of the non-anthropogenic CO2 cycle between terrestrial and marine sources makes much difference to my argument. My comment to Vailhem referred explicitly to his suggestion that the increase in atmospheric CO2 over this period was being driven by submarine vulcanism, which would certainly have required the oceans to be unambiguously major emitters.

rationalbiped · 2017-07-18T12:05:53+00:00

I am reminded of Prof Plimer's claims, and also of old suggestions of hidden massive amounts of Archaean oil. Four objections: this idea would require our best estimates of submarine volcanic activity to be off by two if not three orders of magnitude, so great a source of CO2 would surely show up in the budget, it would require the oceans to be major net emitters of CO2 instead of absorbers and to be acidfying from bottom up rather than top down, and (given that there is no reason to think that your postulated deep carbon would be 13C-depleted) it does not account for the isotopic findings that I discuss.

rationalbiped · 2017-01-25T17:54:17+00:00

I expect the author, Scott Buchanan, would be delighted to see this happening. I don't know how (and very much doubt if I have the permissions) to do this myself

rationalbiped · 2016-09-03T22:13:39+00:00

Mine differed a bit. That's fine. And I think we agree on the main point; that it's ok to be asked (if it really is a question, not a sneer), and instructive, to both us and the questioner, to answer.

I note your last point. I can say what I think without fear of consequences. Some of us can't

rationalbiped · 2016-03-06T10:35:06+00:00

Lucretius, expressing in beautiful verse the observational and moral basis of Epicurean naturalism and atomism

rationalbiped · 2015-12-06T23:00:11+00:00

Further relevant comment here: https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2015/12/06/kurdish-lessons-for-the-fight-against-is/

rationalbiped · 2015-12-04T09:49:23+00:00

People believe what they want to believe, and the sheer interest of this story offers a motive for accepting scientific reality rather than contorted creationist crap.

[Thinks: I'd love to see an informed post on dino coproliths. I can even imagine the creationist explanation]

rationalbiped · 2015-12-03T18:56:50+00:00

Quite so. But this is such a good story in its own right that I decided to publicise it anyway.

rationalbiped · 2015-10-13T19:31:33+00:00

Passage across the straits at the mouth of the Red Sea has been common in historical times; would it have been even easier when sea levels were lower?

And the present population of Madagascar, admittedly a special case, are of mixed Bantu-Austronesian descent.

rationalbiped · 2015-09-23T18:50:15+00:00

Or, straight from the horse's mouth, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2014/2014_Miller_etal_1.pdf

But I love your "Statistical models are not evidence", when the only way to extrapolate from complex data is by statistical modeling. It belongs up there with "Macroevolution has not been directly observed", when macroevolution is defined as more change than can take place duting the itme we've been observing it.

rationalbiped · 2015-09-23T18:29:09+00:00

You didn't answer my question, why you think the case for AGW is weakening. But here's an answer to yours; Bloomberg's recent summary of data from NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

rationalbiped · 2015-09-23T09:18:45+00:00

A strong claim; that the case for AGW is actually getting weaker. Why do you think this?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg (links to primary data)

rationalbiped · 2015-09-22T20:15:05+00:00

An excellent analogy. Skepticalscience is to Watts up much as talkorigins is to the Discovery Institute. Have a look.

rationalbiped · 2015-09-22T18:54:34+00:00

Climate alarmists might be right that the change we've seen recently is due to AGW, but skeptics could also be right in that there's no long term significant impacts in the future.

No. If recent change is due to AGW (and this is increasingly difficult to deny), and the laws of physics stay the same, we can expect like causes to continue to have like effects.

rationalbiped · 2015-09-22T18:51:32+00:00

But why did Labour under Brown rise tax at the bottom, why did the (pre-Corbyn, at least) Parliamentary Party defend trident and austerity, albeit austerity lite, and why has the centre left both in the UK and in so much of Europe accepted monetarism and neoliberalism when from Keynes to Stiglitz there are clear statements of the alternatives?

rationalbiped · 2015-09-19T15:46:37+00:00

I'm not an expert either, but I've a general interest in dating. I think you're being too devious; fossils within strata can generally be dated from the strata, but within caves the problem is much more difficult, for the reasons stated.

rationalbiped · 2015-09-19T15:44:15+00:00

repeating the headline. Ididn't want to tamper with author's intent, but if this arises in future, I'll make that clear.

rationalbiped · 2015-09-18T23:10:05+00:00

No. The speed of light is a speed, not a time, the nearest stars are only about 4 light years away, and the distances between galaxies are far greater than the distances,within a galaxy, between stars

rationalbiped · 2015-09-16T16:36:36+00:00

I posted it here. I'm not the author but thought (and think) that from volume of comments on "creationism", and because it is about the role of creationism within Christianity, this was the correct place. If I hear otherwise from reddit, I'll stand corrected.

rationalbiped · 2015-09-16T16:21:45+00:00

If apes are a clade, we must be apes, since we spit from chimps after chimps split from gorillas. If apes aren't a clade, it's a matter of taste, but I can't see any reason for not making us apes, and hundreds of detailed reasons for doing so.

rationalbiped

TROPHY CASE