PDA

View Full Version : Is there something behind the elation?



William_Thompson
2005-Sep-21, 09:06 PM
Changed title to "Is there something behind the elation?"

I have to ask. This IS all about SCIENCE and LOGIC, isn't it? No one swayed by passion, right?

Science and religion don't mix. This is not anything new.

So why is this (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/) even news at all? I read it and thought "and, so....?"

It seemed Dr. Plait is getting pretty emotional about this. How come?

Comments like "Woohoo! That was pretty succinct." and "And they make their feelings about ID clear" ("feelings?!") and "here here"

Neither theism nor atheism belongs in the class room. Cheering a defeat of theism makes me wonder what is going on just as if someone cheered the defeat of atheism.

I would, likewise think “and, so…?” Why cheer at all?

The wackiest cults I have heard of are the atheistic ones. Every hear of the Raelains?

Don't think that just because Hawking is an atheist he has all the answers either. Last I heard, he was stuck on trying to figure out "why the Universe even bothers to exist".

Reminds me of that old cartoon of the vacuum cleaner attaching itself to itself and eventually it disappears. Reality does not work that way and it does not work that way in reverse. Nothing can be the cause of itself.

My Grand Unification Theory says many things. One of which is "Everything that we will ever know will either be incomplete or wrong."

And there is the ol’ saying “God is that which no greater can be thought”.

So even if its reduced to a figure of speech, there is a “God”. Because there will always be something more than ourselves yet to learn.

Maksutov
2005-Sep-21, 09:12 PM
Well, here's another post that's attempting to drag religion into the mix, which is a no-no.

Plus even if it were allowed, it's kind of hard to tell just what the point of the post is.

A quick lock would appear to be in order here.


PS: To politely quote another poster's sig:

Voltaire: "A witty saying proves nothing."

William_Thompson
2005-Sep-21, 09:19 PM
Well, here's another post that's attempting to drag religion into the mix, which is a no-no.

Plus even if it were allowed, it's kind of hard to tell just what the point of the post is.

A quick lock would appear to be in order here.


PS: To politely quote another poster's sig:

Voltaire: "A witty saying proves nothing."


If anything I was trying to pull religion out of the mix. (maybe my last few comments are too easily misinterpreted)

I give up. It isn't the first time someone missed my point.

montebianco
2005-Sep-21, 09:27 PM
Voltaire: "A witty saying proves nothing."

Would that qualify as a witty saying? :)

Archer17
2005-Sep-21, 09:28 PM
Not not sure what you're trying to say myself, but if it involves the BA's blog .. why comment on it here?

William_Thompson
2005-Sep-21, 09:33 PM
Not not sure what you're trying to say myself, but if it involves the BA's blog .. why comment on it here?

I tried but it didn't look like it posted. Maybe I did something wrong.

And NO I am not trying to debate religion. Having an OPEN MIND is probaby very UNRELIGIOUS if you think about it.

All I wondering about was about the elation he had expressed. It struck me as odd. That is it. I will stop writing. The less I write, the less is open to misinterpretation.

William_Thompson
2005-Sep-21, 09:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksutov
Voltaire: "A witty saying proves nothing."

Would that qualify as a witty saying?


That is beautiful !!

Moose
2005-Sep-21, 09:41 PM
All I wondering about was about the elation he had expressed.

a) He's no less human than you are.

b) That's nothing. You should hear him speak his mind on podcasts where the rules are much, much looser.

c) The rules are somewhat different on the blog than they are on the message board.

d) Bad Astronomy and the BABBlog are both parts of the site that are his and his alone. If he wants to swear like an itchy pirate who hasn't yet gotten used to the hook on his wrist, he certainly can.

Just sayin'.

Maksutov
2005-Sep-21, 09:48 PM
Originally Posted by Maksutov
Voltaire: "A witty saying proves nothing."

Would that qualify as a witty saying? :)Yup. Also known as a self-prophesying fulfillment. http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif (http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif)

Jorge
2005-Sep-21, 09:52 PM
I hope Phil's head is still on his body.

(sry coudln't resist posting this, came and left for about 4 times)

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Sep-21, 10:12 PM
It isn't the first time someone missed my point.

Then perhaps you need to make your point more clearly. I'll admit the point of your starting this thread eludes me. The title of the thread strikes me as being inflammatory, especially since you know I'm here.

I'll note that this thread must not devolve into a religious argument. It would be ironic if it needed to be locked.

Now, to address the issue:

1) My blog is my place to discuss issues I'd rather keep off the site itself. If I want to discuss religion, politics, or a poster of "Big Trouble in Little China" I have on my office wall, I can do that. BAUT is, for the moment, totally separate from that.

2) Being against ID does not mean being for atheism, and more than being for evolution means being for atheism. This is a false dichotomy that is a favorite of IDers. ID is not science, and should not be taught in a science classroom. ID is religion, a peculiarly dogmatic form of it. But many religions have no qualms with evolution at all.

3) Beyond any of the more philosophical aspects of this, ID is empirically wrong. It can be shown to be wrong, which is a point I have made and provided links to on my blog. The fact that some people try to ram ID down the throats of schoolchildren is particularly distasteful to me (just as would be geocentrism, or phlogiston theory), so when someone makes a strong stand against it, I am delighted. I find it odd that anyone would be surprised when I show a reaction. I am a scientist, not an emotionless robot (ironically, this a point I made in the blog entry about Skepchicks, right before the one in question). Why should you think scientists don't have feelings?

4) I never brought up Hawking, so I am not sure why you did. I didn't know he was an atheist, nor do I particularly care. I don't recall him ever commenting on ID or evolution either. As it happens, he's not a member of the AAS either (he's British). So your point there eludes me.

5) Finally, I try not to let passion sway my thinking, but I have no problems letting my passion show, either. My blog is loaded with my passion for science and astronomy, which is one of the reasons I started it in the first place.

Astrobairn
2005-Sep-21, 10:37 PM
Dogma attacks science.

Scientist defends science from dogma.

Cheers when dogma is humiliated.

Don't see anything wrong with that.

SciFi Chick
2005-Sep-21, 10:42 PM
Big Trouble in Little China - Great movie. :D

Candy
2005-Sep-21, 10:45 PM
I hope Phil's head is still on his body.

I found it! :)
http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/phil_shuttle.jpg

William_Thompson, be nice!
The BA has been, I do believe more than once, with you and I. ;)

tbm
2005-Sep-21, 10:53 PM
Greetings.

"So even if its reduced to a figure of speech, there is a ?God?. Because there will always be something more than ourselves yet to learn."

Reducing it to a figure of speech means nothing. Learning more about ourselves will probably reveal the need for many of us FOR a god. That has nothing to do with evolution and is a good reason for evolution to remain in science class and ID to remain in Sunday school.

Regards, tbm

Gillianren
2005-Sep-21, 10:53 PM
hey, Phil, I for one am behind you with the cheering. I don't even consider it a religious issue, given that a lot of religious people accept evolution. I consider it a victory of sense over nonsense, and shouldn't we all be cheering that?

Monique
2005-Sep-21, 11:01 PM
I tried but it didn't look like it posted. Maybe I did something wrong.

And NO I am not trying to debate religion. Having an OPEN MIND is probaby very UNRELIGIOUS if you think about it.

All I wondering about was about the elation he had expressed. It struck me as odd. That is it. I will stop writing. The less I write, the less is open to misinterpretation.Let us be dispassionate. Is no evidence for ID, is no logical reason for consider of ID. Why debate ID? Pushed in for other agenda.


Neither theism nor atheism belongs in the class room.I agree



Cheering a defeat of theism makes me wonder what is going on just as if someone cheered the defeat of atheism.Not cheering theism or atheism, cheering victory for scientific debate to ignore unfounded theory. Is correct way for science.

soylentgreen
2005-Sep-21, 11:16 PM
Jeez, all he said was "Woohoo!"...it's not like he called someone a "refugee" or something! ;)

William_Thompson
2005-Sep-21, 11:58 PM
I agree with what you have said and I appreciate the fact that you made that posting. For the record, I was just asking questions and I am a little saddened that you took the title as being “inflammatory”. OK, it just dawned on me what you could mean. Maybe I am spending too much time in languages other than English these days.

--------------

Wait a second. It is my avatar, right? I think maybe I should change my avatar.

MrObvious
2005-Sep-22, 02:34 AM
I agree with what you have said and I appreciate the fact that you made that posting. For the record, I was just asking questions and I am a little saddened that you took the title as being “inflammatory”. OK, it just dawned on me what you could mean. Maybe I am spending too much time in languages other than English these days.

--------------

Wait a second. It is my avatar, right? I think maybe I should change my avatar.

Maybe you are, I too found the title "inflammatory" it's quite easy to do.



The wackiest cults I have heard of are the atheistic ones. Every hear of the Raelains?

Sure have heard of them, but I wouldn't call them atheists as followers that beleive in them also require belief in a higher being last I checked. Not that I care either way but the example you used appears to be wrong so I'm correcting it. Your summation of it is however very correct IMHO.

William_Thompson
2005-Sep-22, 03:18 AM
Maybe you are, I too found the title "inflammatory" it's quite easy to do.
Well, I did not mean it that way.

I remember after the military captured someone in Pakistan I heard an interview with one of the American military officers saying "we don't know if he is an Ideolog or motivated by something else. We just don't know where his head is at" meaning how the person thinks on a fundamental and foundational level and if there is an inner motive for what he says and does. That is what I had in mind. It wasn't until long after the post did I remember the other use for that expression. <add icon for embarassed here>

crosscountry
2005-Sep-22, 03:23 AM
ssshhhh....

MrObvious
2005-Sep-22, 04:43 AM
Don't sweat it Will, I'm a master at getting people to wonder what I'm on about, but, it does get better the more its pointed out. Thats why I pointed it out, it wasn't to grill you :)

Lianachan
2005-Sep-22, 09:38 AM
We just don't know where his head is at" meaning how the person thinks on a fundamental and foundational level and if there is an inner motive for what he says and does. That is what I had in mind.

Your intended meaning was the only one that occured to me. I thought that people could have interpreted your post as inflammatory, but not the chosen subject description. Even then, the inflammatory nature of the post is only because you would have known the object of your criticism would have read the post and be likely to respond.

Candy
2005-Sep-22, 09:47 AM
His head was found!
Shhhhh, William!

http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/phil_shuttle.jpg

ToSeek
2005-Sep-22, 01:53 PM
Neither theism nor atheism belongs in the class room. Cheering a defeat of theism makes me wonder what is going on just as if someone cheered the defeat of atheism.

This is not a defeat of theism. This is a rebuttal against a small but politically influential group of theists who want their religious beliefs to be aired in science classrooms. There are plenty of religious people who find no contradiction between the theory of evolution and their beliefs.

William_Thompson
2005-Sep-22, 02:50 PM
Sometimes words and sometimes entire expressions can mean entirely different things. Although we might be speaking English we can be speaking different languages. And if we are accustomed to one particular meaning it is not immediately believable that there is some other accepted definition to the exact same expression.

I have evidence. I have a video where I am seen talking to some of my military peers back in the 80's. We were wondering how our Soviet counter-parts view the world and were expressing a desire to understand "where their heads are at".

Only recently I have learned that in the academia world -- and possibly in other worlds --this means something entirely different. I attribute this to the practice of "grading" people on a scale and “where someone’s head is at” as in from A to F where their brains are.

There is a third definition which I will not get into.

Another example is the term “SWAG”. Most software engineers and military persons think that this means a guess or estimate as in “Some Wild ___ Guess”. And it is only recently I have leaned that the term has been redefined by the little gift bags given out at conventions and trade shows as “Stuff We All Get” and now it seems that this is the dominant definition.

hhEb09'1
2005-Sep-22, 03:13 PM
Another example is the term “SWAG”. Most software engineers and military persons think that this means a guess or estimate as in “Some Wild ___ Guess”. And it is only recently I have leaned that the term has been redefined by the little gift bags given out at conventions and trade shows as “Stuff We All Get” and now it seems that this is the dominant definition.That's not really a redefinition--it's an extension of an old (slang) definition, where swag meant "loot".

One always has to be aware of context. A lot of words in English have multiple meanings. In the case of "swag", those two are not often confused. :)

BTW, you have managed to change the title of the original post, but the title of the thread is still unchanged.

William_Thompson
2005-Sep-22, 03:16 PM
That's not really a redefinition--it's an extension of an old (slang) definition, where swag meant "loot".

One always has to be aware of context. A lot of words in English have multiple meanings. In the case of "swag", those two are not often confused. :)

I should show you the lenghty email exchange I have about this topic with a number of people rather than trek down that path again. There is swag and there is SWAG as in S.W.A.G.

But I don't want to go down that path again.

ToSeek
2005-Sep-22, 03:36 PM
That's not really a redefinition--it's an extension of an old (slang) definition, where swag meant "loot".

One always has to be aware of context. A lot of words in English have multiple meanings. In the case of "swag", those two are not often confused. :)

BTW, you have managed to change the title of the original post, but the title of the thread is still unchanged.

Only moderators can change thread titles (at least after some time limit has elapsed). I have made the desired change.

George
2005-Sep-22, 07:42 PM
This is not a defeat of theism. This is a rebuttal against a small but politically influential group of theists who want their religious beliefs to be aired in science classrooms. There are plenty of religious people who find no contradiction between the theory of evolution and their beliefs.
It is always nice to see this clarification. Thanks for stating it.

There is a great deal of personal feelings involved in this matter, albeit I haven't seen much in any inflammatory statements from the BA, IMO. Any time one group, religious or otherwise, trys to dictate terms to science and science classes, I would hope the BA would support a direct response.

FWIW, I think the BA is calling ‘em as he sees ‘em and that’s what his blog is all about. News of the AAS’s statements and his thoughts are appreciated by this neo-literal creationist (or whatever I am). I look forward to nailing the BA on a mistake, though I grow weary in this vigil.

My hope is more plausible viewpoints will be considered for Genesis than ID’s approach. I believe astronomers and AAS will prove helpful in this endeavor, even if they only contribute indirectly

William_Thompson
2005-Sep-25, 03:03 AM
The best way to validity and affirm your position or views or opinions is to study someone opposing views. My personal philosophy of respect suggests that it is necessary that I force myself to read and research material even if my instincts, prior knowledge, or experiences tell me that it is garbage.

For example, I forced myself to read a particular book that was supposed to show that evolution was wrong. Now, I don't want to get sued so I won't say here what the book was but it was difficult to get through the first three chapters. I was jotting down all sorts of misrepresentations and errors and bad logic until I had to give up eventhough I had promised someone (who will remain nameless) that I was reading it with an open mind (and I was).

If I had the patience of a saint, I might get through it. But since I am human it was making me sick and after 3 chapters I had to stop.

But it was a good thing that I did read enough of it as I could bear because it solidified my position (I hope it is needless to say that my position supports evolution)

What are some books about this ID stuff? Does anyone have any suggestions?

If we are all just jumping on the bandwagon and denouncing it I think it is not good science. Since Existence itself (with a capitol "E") is a kind of "miracle" (I put it in quotes, note) whose to say that there might be some little gem in all their rhetoric that might lead to something interesting? At the very least, it might be something interesting to debunk!

-------------------------------

This is a hot topic and no matter how carefully I word what I say there is a worry that I have someone might take something out of context. I think half of cognition is presupposition © (that's one of mine) as in, if you THINK I am going to say something and EXPECT my views to be leaning a certain way, you might be prone to read something into what I write that isn't there at all.

UGH! The stories I could tell !!

dakini
2005-Sep-25, 03:11 AM
It makes me happy that there are people are taking action against the tendency towards scientific ignorance in the U.S., in a recent survey, 1 in 5 americans believed the sun orbited the earth (and not in the relativistic sense where you could consider the earth a stationary refrence frame...) there was another large % who believed that the earth orbited the sun once a day.

We don't need to teach things that aren't scientific, such as intelligent design in a science classroom. It has nothing to do with cheering atheism, it has everything to do with cheering science and dispelling ignorance.

William_Thompson
2005-Sep-25, 07:29 AM
It makes me happy that there are people are taking action against the tendency towards scientific ignorance in the U.S., in a recent survey, 1 in 5 americans believed the sun orbited the earth (and not in the relativistic sense where you could consider the earth a stationary refrence frame...) there was another large % who believed that the earth orbited the sun once a day.

We don't need to teach things that aren't scientific, such as intelligent design in a science classroom. It has nothing to do with cheering atheism, it has everything to do with cheering science and dispelling ignorance.

I had made a list of 10 such questions once. It started as a joke but as I asked some people I met I was saddened by how many got the answers wrong:
I remember the list included:
How many moons does the Earth have? (I am serious. People got this wrong. I don't know if they thought it was a trick question or what) How long does it take the Earth to go around the sun? How does soap work? (almost everyone did not know even though I would hope they would use it everyday and you would think they would be curious) What does gasoline do to make a car run?

Candy
2005-Sep-25, 07:39 AM
May we have the answers please?

And stop deleting posts - it screws up the time slice as we know it! ;)

William_Thompson
2005-Sep-25, 07:50 AM
May we have the answers please?

And stop deleting posts - it screws up the time slice as we know it! ;)

* The Earth has one moon.
* It takes the Earth one year go around the sun. Basically, one year, that is (without getting into precise definitions of what year is and how the calendar does not match up precisely and cause us to have leap year etc.) (I feel I have to be very precise with my answers in this forum)
* Soap breaks down the surface tension of the water. In other words, you can think of it as working by making water wetter.
* What does gasoline do to make a car run? It explodes. Actually, the vapor of gasoline explodes, if you want to be specific.

Candy
2005-Sep-25, 07:59 AM
Okay.

Time slice: All of space at one moment of time; a single slice though the space time block or loaf.

Ain't science grand, or is it grande?

MrObvious
2005-Sep-25, 10:55 AM
* The Earth has one moon.
* It takes the Earth one year go around the sun. Basically, one year, that is (without getting into precise definitions of what year is and how the calendar does not match up precisely and cause us to have leap year etc.) (I feel I have to be very precise with my answers in this forum)
* Soap breaks down the surface tension of the water. In other words, you can think of it as working by making water wetter.
* What does gasoline do to make a car run? It explodes. Actually, the vapor of gasoline explodes, if you want to be specific.


Actually it expands at a slower rate than an explosion. Its an expansion not an explosion that forces the piston down. The same as the powder in a rifle doesn't cause an explosion it causes a gas expansion.

ToSeek
2005-Sep-25, 05:03 PM
What are some books about this ID stuff? Does anyone have any suggestions?

I haven't read any of these so can't make any recommendations, but the key books supporting Intelligent Design are supposed to be:

Darwin on Trial, by Philip E. Johnson. A trial lawyer takes on Darwin in the book that's credited with inspiring the ID movement.

Icons of Evolution, by Jonathan Wells. A critique of the arguments for evolution given in high school textbooks. This is touted as a near-fatal blow to evolutionary theory by some ID proponents, though how critiquing textbooks rather than the primary literature accomplishes this is beyond me.

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael J. Behe. Biochemist Behe claims that there are irreducibly complex structures found in life that could not possibly have evolved.

The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design, by William A. Dembski. Dembski addresses or skirts, depending on whom you talk to, key ID issues.

(Dembski has also written or edited several other books on the topic.)

dakini
2005-Sep-25, 05:24 PM
* Soap breaks down the surface tension of the water. In other words, you can think of it as working by making water wetter.
Actually, doesn't soap act as an emulsifying agent? Since water is a polar molecule, it can't stick tonon-polar molecules, but an emulsifying agent sticks to both the water molecule and the non-polar dirt/oil molecule and takes them off your skin (or dishes or whathave you)

N C More
2005-Sep-25, 06:34 PM
Actually, doesn't soap act as an emulsifying agent? Since water is a polar molecule, it can't stick tonon-polar molecules, but an emulsifying agent sticks to both the water molecule and the non-polar dirt/oil molecule and takes them off your skin (or dishes or whathave you)

Yes indeed, here's a good soap explanation (http://www.edinformatics.com/interactive_molecules/soap.htm) complete with illustrations!

dakini
2005-Sep-25, 08:59 PM
Yes indeed, here's a good soap explanation (http://www.edinformatics.com/interactive_molecules/soap.htm) complete with illustrations!
Yay!

I knew first year chem would have to come in handy at some point.

Musashi
2005-Sep-25, 09:31 PM
Now you two have done it...

William_Thompson
2005-Sep-26, 02:29 AM
I haven't read any of these so can't make any recommendations, but the key books supporting Intelligent Design are supposed to be:

Darwin on Trial, by Philip E. Johnson. A trial lawyer takes on Darwin in the book that's credited with inspiring the ID movement.

Icons of Evolution, by Jonathan Wells. A critique of the arguments for evolution given in high school textbooks. This is touted as a near-fatal blow to evolutionary theory by some ID proponents, though how critiquing textbooks rather than the primary literature accomplishes this is beyond me.

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael J. Behe. Biochemist Behe claims that there are irreducibly complex structures found in life that could not possibly have evolved.

The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design, by William A. Dembski. Dembski addresses or skirts, depending on whom you talk to, key ID issues.

(Dembski has also written or edited several other books on the topic.)


One of these was the one I could hardly stand.

William_Thompson
2005-Sep-26, 02:34 AM
Actually it expands at a slower rate than an explosion. Its an expansion not an explosion that forces the piston down. The same as the powder in a rifle doesn't cause an explosion it causes a gas expansion.

It is a good thing I went into some detail with the other answers! Rapid gas expansion is what a common Joe and a common Jane would regard as an explosion, don't you think?

William_Thompson
2005-Sep-26, 02:36 AM
Actually, doesn't soap act as an emulsifying agent? Since water is a polar molecule, it can't stick tonon-polar molecules, but an emulsifying agent sticks to both the water molecule and the non-polar dirt/oil molecule and takes them off your skin (or dishes or whathave you)

I will have to pull out my sources. It has been a long time. You might be right while at the same time I might not be wrong.

William_Thompson
2005-Sep-26, 03:08 AM
Actually, doesn't soap act as an emulsifying agent? Since water is a polar molecule, it can't stick tonon-polar molecules, but an emulsifying agent sticks to both the water molecule and the non-polar dirt/oil molecule and takes them off your skin (or dishes or whathave you)

Well, thanks for the homework I have to do now to see what that is all about. But before I do...

Do you know those flimsy plastic boxes that strawberries come in when you buy strawberries at a grocery store?

Here is an experiment.

Get a bucket of water.

See if you can place the empty strawberry box on the surface of the water.

Ta-da! It rests on top of the water.

And It isn't floating because there is no air involved.

It rests on the surface tension of the water!

It is because this thing is very light and the bottom of it covers a lot of surface area.

Now, get a spay bottle with soapy water inside.

If you spray it at the strawberry box that is sitting on the
surface of the water, it will sink. Also if you try to rest the strawberry box on the surface of water that has some soap dissolved in it, you cannot. Soap has broken down the surface tension of the water. It has made water "wetter".

It is a simple science experiment I saw on a science program when I was a kid. And the scientist even explained it this way. What are your sources for "emulsifying agent"?

dakini
2005-Sep-26, 03:26 AM
What are your sources for "emulsifying agent"?
First year chemistry class lectures and NC Moore provided a website above with a nice explanation. Here's another one: http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aa081301a.htm though the earlier link has some pretty pictures.

William_Thompson
2005-Sep-26, 08:34 AM
It seems ID is mostly about biology. So why are Astronomers involved? It isn't just because of that nutty thing about trying to force the universe into a 4 thousand year time-frame, is it?

William_Thompson
2005-Sep-26, 08:38 AM
First year chemistry class lectures and NC Moore provided a website above with a nice explanation. Here's another one: http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aa081301a.htm though the earlier link has some pretty pictures.

What you are saying and what that link says is not contradictory to what I said. It seems chemistry has one view while physics has another. It depends how deep you want to go.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct98/908808283.Ph.q.html
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct98/908808283.Ph.r.html

dakini
2005-Sep-26, 12:02 PM
It seems ID is mostly about biology. So why are Astronomers involved? It isn't just because of that nutty thing about trying to force the universe into a 4 thousand year time-frame, is it?
Intelligent design doesn't stop with biology, it also has the stance that the universe was designed.

dakini
2005-Sep-26, 12:03 PM
What you are saying and what that link says is not contradictory to what I said. It seems chemistry has one view while physics has another. It depends how deep you want to go.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct98/908808283.Ph.q.html
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct98/908808283.Ph.r.html
Actually, the first link describes the exact same thing as I was saying but with different words.

MrObvious
2005-Sep-27, 03:01 AM
It is a good thing I went into some detail with the other answers! Rapid gas expansion is what a common Joe and a common Jane would regard as an explosion, don't you think?

Not IMO, eg, lighting a gas BBQ or a gas stove. The "pfffft" sound is rapid expansion of gas. Not may people would equate that to their oven or BBQ exploding.

Also when a car engine does start to ping (detonation) the engine won't last long at all if constantly run that way.

Likewise, a rifle with a cartrage that does explode is very distinct and dangerous whereas normal firing isn't except in the direction of fire. That was the initial reason I used the rifle example. Some people assume it's an explosion but it too isn't.

Maksutov
2005-Sep-27, 05:06 AM
It seems ID is mostly about biology. So why are Astronomers involved? It isn't just because of that nutty thing about trying to force the universe into a 4 thousand year time-frame, is it?The primary perpetrators of ID are members of The Discovery Institute, an ID front based in Seattle. In 1998 they published an internal memo called The Wedge Strategy. That document has since been leaked to the outside. Here is a section of it called "Goals":


GOALS
Governing Goals
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral,
cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic
understanding that nature and human beings are created by
God.
Five Year Goals
* To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in
the sciences and scientific research being done from the
perspective of design theory.
* To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in
spheres other than natural science.
* To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and
personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national
agenda.
Twenty Year Goals
* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective
in science.
* To see design theory application in specific fields, including
molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and
cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics,
theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence
in the fine arts.
* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral
and political life.They don't only want to take over all of science and education, they want to take over your life, and everyone else's.

Taks
2005-Sep-27, 05:31 AM
being a skeptic, i'm curious of the accuracy of this "wedge strategy." don't get me wrong, i agree there is an underlying agenda, but this far? it just seems like some of those infamous quotes by reknown scientists that religious groups use as "evidence" of a higher power. quotes nobody can verify said scientists have ever made... i.e. similar tactic.

taks

Taks
2005-Sep-27, 05:39 AM
follow up... seems legit. amazing.
taks

N C More
2005-Sep-27, 11:53 AM
They don't only want to take over all of science and education, they want to take over your life, and everyone else's.

Yes, that is the goal. It doesn't seem to be enough for these folks to have the freedom to practice their religion, they seem to desire the removal of that very same freedom from others. By destroying the scientific method and replacing it with faith-based beliefs, that really is what this is all about, they would have a platform from which to literally control society. This is very, very scarey stuff and smacks of faith based fascism.

For all of us who enjoy the freedom to practice our own religion, for all of us who see the need to support scientific thought, I strongly suggest that intelligent design be kept out of all science curriculums.

Candy
2005-Sep-27, 04:47 PM
freedom
Not
Again!
;)

SciFi Chick
2005-Sep-27, 07:41 PM
It is a good thing I went into some detail with the other answers! Rapid gas expansion is what a common Joe and a common Jane would regard as an explosion, don't you think?

That would be okay, except that in the same statement in which you used the word explodes, you also said you wanted to be specific. You didn't say what the common Joe or Jane would think. :D

William_Thompson
2005-Sep-27, 08:22 PM
That would be okay, except that in the same statement in which you used the word explodes, you also said you wanted to be specific. You didn't say what the common Joe or Jane would think. :D
who would say that fundamental way that gasoline makes an engine go is through rapid gas expansion when explaining this principle? Who would say "we have a fuel (which is the gasoline), air, a spark and then..... yes, folks, it is rapid gas expansion" Wouldn't almost everyone and anyone explaining this principle say "explosion"? Where is the line between rapid gas expansion and explosion? And is that line only there because the event driving the piston is controlled and not left to actually explode the engine into bits? Is that the only reason it isn't called an explosion? If the event was not controlled, and the engine did blow apart, can you imagine anyone pointing and saying "look that engine was influenced by rapid gas expansion"?

N C More
2005-Sep-27, 08:28 PM
Not
Again!
;)

You'll have to excuse me...I don't get this particular joke. Perhaps it's because I'm old, or maybe because I still have a son in school and don't want him to be taught faith based beliefs disguised as science.

When I look at the ultimate goals of this "Discovery Institute":


* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective
in science.
* To see design theory application in specific fields, including
molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and
cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics,
theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence
in the fine arts.
* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral
and political life.

This looks (to me) like a good representation of an oppressive agenda.

Swift
2005-Sep-27, 08:31 PM
What you are saying and what that link says is not contradictory to what I said. It seems chemistry has one view while physics has another. It depends how deep you want to go.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct98/908808283.Ph.q.html
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct98/908808283.Ph.r.html
Actually, they are both correct. Soap changes the surface tension of water (makes water "wetter") and acts as an emulsifying agent. Both properties are involved in soap's cleaning ability. The emulsification seems to be the one that gets more discussion if you google "soap works", but the surface tension is also a factor. I use "wet water" in model railroading ( this link, 2nd paragraph from the bottom (http://www.gatewaynmra.org/mhslayout/mhstrackplan.htm) ). Ethanol will also make water wet, but it won't act as an emulsifying agent and thus is not as good a cleaner.

MrObvious
2005-Sep-28, 12:19 PM
who would say that fundamental way that gasoline makes an engine go is through rapid gas expansion when explaining this principle?

I would, so would anyone teaching the principle of engine operation.




Who would say "we have a fuel (which is the gasoline), air, a spark and then..... yes, folks, it is rapid gas expansion" Wouldn't almost everyone and anyone explaining this principle say "explosion"?


No almost everyone wouldn't. Most people have no idea how an engine works. I've never heard anyone describe an engine working on the principle of exploding gas. It's refered to as igniton, the power stroke, expansion etc. Explosion is wrong.



Where is the line between rapid gas expansion and explosion? And is that line only there because the event driving the piston is controlled and not left to actually explode the engine into bits? Is that the only reason it isn't called an explosion? If the event was not controlled, and the engine did blow apart, can you imagine anyone pointing and saying "look that engine was influenced by rapid gas expansion"?

Like I posted previously, when pinging occurs the engine fails. Thats a case of detonation. The engine in most cases can withstand the pressures and survives but that is not normal operating conditions. If you want a more accurate description of explosion vs expansion then a simplistic difference is that an expansion travels building up pressure following some function, linear, log etc, in other words it is a continuous function. An explosion occurs for all intents and purposes everywhere simultaneously. It is very discontinuous by nature.

A fine line to be sure, but a well established and understood line it stands.

Candy
2005-Sep-28, 12:49 PM
You'll have to excuse me...I don't get this particular joke. Perhaps it's because I'm old, or maybe because I still have a son in school and don't want him to be taught faith based beliefs disguised as science.
No joke, I was thinking of French/Freedom from another thread.

I’ll unsubscribe now.

SciFi Chick
2005-Sep-28, 01:11 PM
who would say that fundamental way that gasoline makes an engine go is through rapid gas expansion when explaining this principle? Who would say "we have a fuel (which is the gasoline), air, a spark and then..... yes, folks, it is rapid gas expansion" Wouldn't almost everyone and anyone explaining this principle say "explosion"? Where is the line between rapid gas expansion and explosion? And is that line only there because the event driving the piston is controlled and not left to actually explode the engine into bits? Is that the only reason it isn't called an explosion? If the event was not controlled, and the engine did blow apart, can you imagine anyone pointing and saying "look that engine was influenced by rapid gas expansion"?

In general, I've always been taught in science classes that an explosion is uncontrolled and causes damage. I was never taught that gasoline explodes in a car engine. I've always heard it referred to as rapid gas expansion.

I can't even imagine how many people refer to it one way or the other, and again, you did not ask what the general public would say, you asked for specificity. :)