Hooorrraaahhh
By The Troll On August 6th, 2012We just parked a nuclear powered car on Mars.
And before you even go there, every dollar spent on the American space program has generated 23 dollars worth of wealth and products. That’s what is called investing in our future, with a payoff. Not nonsense like wind turbines. Our technical world as we know it today would not exist without the space program.
The $2.5 billion Curiosity project, formally called the Mars Science Laboratory, is NASA’s first astrobiology mission since the 1970s-era Viking probes. Now that being said.
Curiosity landed last night at 1:32 a.m. EDT/0532 GMT. It entered the Martian atmosphere at 13,000 mph descending into the atmosphere firing retro rockets slowing it’s decent till the craft actually hovered over the Martian surface. It then lowered the 1 ton Robot/Car via cable placing it softly inside the Gale Crater.
Curiosity has 17 cameras, 10 science labs, a robotic arm, drill, and laser. It will over the next year explore the giant crater that it has been estimated was caused by a 10 mile wide meteor climbing the 3 mile high Mount Sharp that curiously sits in the middle of the impact zone.
After its first year Curiosity will begin to rove, it’s snap nuclear power system is an upgraded version of the power sources used in the Voyager probes that 30 years later are still alive sending us data as they hurtle out of our Solar System.
Boldly go gentleman boldly go
As well as the direct financial benefits mentioned above, let’s not forget the role of such high-profile space missions in inspiring people, especially youngsters, with curiosity about our world and interesting them in science and engineering.
Boldly go Sir Arthur,
man is a species of endless curiosity. The more we learn, the more we realize how little we know.
A monumental achievement. Well done, USA!
Like thousands of others I was keeping my fingers crossed. Nailbiting. But it’s there!
This ought to put the damned Olympics in the shade but of course it won’t. But I’m glad I can switch my TV on again
Listening to and reading about this fantastic piece of engineering, and the vision and purpose for which it was built, – to discover whether Mars had supported life, or was capable of supporting life in the future, perhaps as a step to finding some future abode for mankind.
Coupled with your remark re man’s endless curiosity, it stuck me how similar an aim was the space programme’s to that of so many religions. To find a future place, perhaps a ‘perfect place’, a nirvana, where we could dwell in peace and harmony for evermore, when mankind finally exhausts everything that Earth has to offer.
You have to admit it does all sound rather heavenly, doesn’ it? and isn’t heaven what most religions promise us?
Of course, there have been many sci-f scenarios suggesting pretty much the same thing, but isn’t it exciting to see the first few steps and facts fall into place, and to realise what just may be possible.
Is this where old style ‘faith’ religions join with a new style ‘fact’ religion, to reinforce man’s belief in mankind. Could this be the start of a ‘grand unification’? and perhaps lead to an answer for man’s greatest fear – that of dying.
All fantasy, of course, but could our forebears have been so visionary as to anticipate where our curiosity might lead us, and are we now seeing the fulfilment of those visions.
If any ‘Man of the cloth’ reads this – please believe me this not meant to be in any blasphemous or derogatory of our old faiths, quite the contrary, it is surely a compliment to the real thinkers of the past
Ernest,
Are you forgetting that Mars is the God of War?
An amazing achievement, well done NASA bods. By the way, it is the Voyagers which are currently hurtling out of the solar system. The Vikings are still on Mars, and dead.
Cheers,
Captain Fatty
This is one of the things that government does well, and that it should continue to do.
No private company on the planet would have an interest in doing something like this.
Dream big. We are more than small minded economic units.
Richard,
So? what’s in a name? that’s what the oiks called him, his friends called him ‘Cute’…
LOL @ Ernest
Yet another communist waste of money.
“No private company on the planet would have an interest in doing something like this.”
No, they generally prefer productive enterprises.
That same criticism might have been made of Columbus’ voyage of exploration.
It is good to set very high goals for a person, and nation.
John F Kennedy, September 1962
“No, they generally prefer productive enterprises.”
Like the billion dollar market for ringtones, or the billion dollar market for homeopathy.
Do you want to land a freaking SUV on Mars using a skycrane, or do you want Crazy Frog and woo.
It’s a toughie, alright.
“Do you want to land a freaking SUV on Mars using a skycrane, or do you want Crazy Frog and woo.”
If I’m looking for a return on investment then the frogs have it.
If I can blow a few billion of others people’s money, sending stuff to Mars will keep me in a job for a few years.
It’s not other people’s anything.
All Americans are shareholders in this endeavor, and we’re pretty proud of such things, truth be told.
I totally get where Pete Moore is coming from on this.
The billions spent could have been more prouctively spent on a technological fix to stop the climate warming by 6 degrees celsius this century. Because that’s where we’re headed.
I don’t think that Pete approached this issue with that in mind.
what with this, the other US trundlers and the Russian trundlers it must be getting quite a traffic jam up there before long. Bet the HM Gov will want a speed camera put up and toll roads on Mars before long.
Dig -
HMS Mars Trundler must be a go. It will bring glory on us. Without it we are diminished as a people. We will all be shareholder in make glorious venture and watch 23-to-1 returns roll in.
Hang on.
23-to-1 returns?
Sod it, why work? Let’s send everything to Mars and get rich.
Pete,
There’s more to life than getting rich. More to my life anyhow.
I think we need to send a UK manned mission to Mars….thousands of Traffic Wardens…..and lawyers..lets not forget the ‘uman roights lawyers, judges etc.
One way natch!
US mosque burns to ground in suspected arson attack
Gunman in Sikh temple attack was a white supremacist
http://www.thejournal.ie/muslim-attack-mosque-fire-arson-548304-Aug2012/
http://www.thejournal.ie/sikh-temple-shooting-wade-page-548280-Aug2012/
If you haven’t seen it, indeed even if you have, the engineering behind how they landed that thing will blow your mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISmWAyQxqqs
It’s an amazing achievement, and one only the USA could have achieved. No other nation has the wealth, both financially and technologically, combined with the stubbornness and determination, to have done this. Which is why they were also first to the Moon.
I reckon Pete’s just jealous the Brits didn’t do it.
Hansard recording of Prime Minister’s Mars proposal.
Prime Minister: ‘I say you chaps, what about sending a jolly old car to Mars, what?
Parliament: ‘What?’
P M ‘That’s what I said. What? What?’
Parliament: ‘Oh I see. Mars, what?’
P M: ‘Precisely, old bean. Well, what about it?’
Parliament: ‘Well, what about it?’
P M ‘That’s what I said! What about it? The jolly old car? Mars? What?’
Parliament: ‘Oh, I say. Do you think we ought to? Won’t it be frightfully expensive and whatnot?’
P M: ‘Oh, well, if that’s how you feel about it, then tinkerty tonk…’
thank you capt fatty I meant voyager in the last paragraph good catch.
Pete… your an ass and a fool.
I have posted a link in the past to the thousands of advances that have been a direct result of the space program. they have touched every part of our lives no other venture of man has given it more benefits.
I know your a very smart man, but you really have your head up your ass on quite a few issues, between your conspiracies and your insistence that exploration and the advancement it brings to mankind is socialism. The only conclusion one can come to is your are truly just a fool.
If anyone wants a laugh and wants to see the truth of two things, one the 23-1 return, and two the true depth of how big a fool Pete is here is a PARTIAL list of the benefits that can be traced to the space program
http://thecitytroll.blogspot.com/2005/07/partial-list-of-some-of-space-program.html
If you click the link give it about 30 seconds to load on the other blog even though it’s a a partial list it is a wee bit long and takes some time to load
Frank that engineering is just socialist propaganda. Right Pete? Oh and It was a socialist program for Drake, Magellan, Columbus…. etc etc f**king maroon
… and why the smart money is on the US space program:
Trollski -
Adjusted for inflation, NASA has consumed the fat end of a trillion dollars since its inception. I’d expect some inventions for that money. The unseen is the economic damage, the loss of investment, the jobs destroyed and the inventions never brought into existence because of it.
Drake and Columbus were, in great part, privately funded.
I certainly do not insist that exploration is socialism. In fact mankind’s greatest advance – the spread of British Liberty via the Empire – was a side effect of private exploration and trade. There was never any central state plan to build an empire, it was all a bit of an accident.
I am neither an arse nor a fool and I am not a f**king maroon. Have respect for this blog and the reader, and when you address me you will be polite.
Unlike you, I am also not a socialist begging the state to take and spend my money, or borrow and spend it and give my children the tab.
Your country is bust and going further into the pit every day. You cannot even afford a military or social security, let alone boondoggles to keep scientists and engineers in jobs for years and mega-welfare bums like Boeing and McDonnell Dounglas wallowing in tax loot.
While you defend NASA and its communist programmes, you don’t have the slightest moral right to claim that government overspends, that you are a fiscal conservative or that you have any regard for the Constitution.
Pete,
“In fact mankind’s greatest advance – the spread of British Liberty via the Empire – was a side effect of private exploration and trade. There was never any central state plan to build an empire, it was all a bit of an accident.”
That’s a joke, right? Drake and many of his contemporaries were pirates and “adventurers”. Woe betide you if you and your community lay in their vicious path. You could indeed meet with “a bit of an accident”. Mythology should not whitewash history.
But to return to the, er, present: great stuff coming in from Mars: http://www.timeslive.co.za/scitech/2012/08/07/curiosity-sends-stunning-pictures-from-mars
richard click on the picture of the crater above, it’s a real nice high res pic. The two circles were where they were aiming for and placed it down. Look at the landscape to the right doesn’t look like erosion from and a big stain where water once flooded in.
I can’t wait till they kick on the high def color camera and 3d cameras
Troll,
Yes, done that. Amazing resolution!
Can’t wait to see those colour images. But hey, if we’ve waited all these millennia, a few more days won’t hurt
Richard …. It’s sad I feel like a little kid waiting on Christmas. I actually sat up and watched the and listened to the live feed of the landing from NASA and JPL. Can’t wait till the real flood of pics start pouring in.
Pete
What makes you special? Be Polite… why?
You spout nonsense on a daily basis. Oh gee the Space program has cost a trillion dollars over 50 years. Obama spent 5 Trillion in 3 years, and what do we have to show for it? The second great depression.
Did you ever read that list ? Did you ever see some of the things on it ? The profit made by private industry with the equipment and technology developed has turned a profit of 23-1. I rarely post hard numbers, when I do they have been researched.
Unlike me you are a maroon, first off you live in GB you ever go to the doctor? Then your a socialist.
I have every moral right, It’s America, and I’m American are you? You live in an imaginary world where you believe that you not only understand my country, but you have the right to tell americans that we don’t.
YOU SIR ARE A FOOL! oh and simple truths like that may offend you, but they don’t offend the “readers”….lol
Troll,
Re the Mars landing.!
What a fantastic achievement. I too am looking forward to seeing the photos taken by the Curiousity.
Hope to God they don’t discover any Irish or Iranian bases up there..
I seem to remember that many years ago when man landed on the moon, the scientists had anticipated that the surface would probably be covered feet thick in dust (I think) because of the great age of the universe.
Whatever happened to that hypothesis?
Troll -
“Pete
What makes you special?”
Cripes, you have to ask an Englishman that?
Pete,
“Cripes, you have to ask an Englishman that?”
You mean we’re special??!
Agit8ed -
As a great man said: “Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life.”
Not that we like to talk about such things.
Pete,
I wish somebody had told me that before..
Been to Norfolk recently?
“Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life.”
And that dear friends conclusively proves that ‘delusional nationalism’ really is a congenital disease. Often found in conjunction with that other proven delusional malady, – socialism…
Agit8ed -
Yes I have, unlike the parochial Colm who probably doesn’t know what what the country looks like beyond the M25.
I had to be in Norwich and Thetford last week, so I managed to squeeze in a couple of hours walking in Thetford Forest. It’s all very nice and primeval in there, I like it.
Ernest,
you m-m-m-mean
(cue lower lip tremble)
I ain’t special after all?
Pete,
We’re supposed to be going for a walk in Thetford forest with our neighbours.
I shall keep a sharp eye out for your “scent marks”….
Don’t totaly agree with your wind turbine statement Troll, but behind you on everything else. Well done NASA. Excellent work.
“Yes I have, unlike the parochial Colm who probably doesn’t know what what the country looks like beyond the M25″.
What a strange not to mention false comment. I haven’t even been on this thread so I fail to see why Pete felt the need to make up that stupid and utterly irrelevent line.
Just a bit of humour Colm, a tongue in cheek comment following yours from last week about you having no intention of going to Norfolk because it’s boring. Or something like that.
OK fair enough – I thought it was a reference to my being ignorant of my country and related to the discussion on this thread and I was trying to work out where it had come from.
For the record I have travelled very widely throughout the UK and Ireland, but alas I must confess Norfolk has so far passed me by. I may have travelled though it once on a train but I was probably asleep
thanks Dave, I’ll have to do a cost analysis post on wind turbines, might be able to change your view.
Pete yeah your special…. you went to school in one those short buses didn’t ya?
Colm you have been very quit of late, is everything OK?
A8 the dust theory went to dust with Neil’s first step
Troll,
that’s what I thought. Part of the argument for an ancient universe was the assumption that dust from the aftermath of the Big Bang would cover the surface of planets..
We haven’t seen that proven. Then there are the Creationist arguments for a young Earth…
http://www.creationresearch.net/
BTW
How’s the job situation going?
Those who support the ‘creationist’ theory can be found in the strangest places:
Frank ODwyer, on August 4th, 2012 at 11:10 pm Said:
Agit8ed, Sure you are. You, Allan and Mo Farah are all genetically related to the same African woman. You also have a common ancestor that lived much more recently, probably between 2,000 to 5,000 years ago. -
Allan,
I remain unconvinced about the theory of evolution. I have said a few times now that there cannot be a conflict between true science and true Christian faith.
Frank’s comment about us being descended from “the same African woman” or by implication, “upright female ape” – and even that is stupid: where did her lineage start?- is a smokescreen.
I do subscribe to various Christian Creationist websites where these issues are debated.
Incidentally during my recent colonoscopy, when I was listening half drugged to the surgeon talking about how various parts of our innards work, it struck me how incredible our human body is; and to believe that we evolved from the “simplest” life forms to our present complexity also requires a miracle of unthinking design…
another website I visit is
http://creationrevolution.com/2012/08/objecting-to-a-biblical-age-for-the-earth/
Agit8ed,
There’s no “miracle” involved and no designer. The fact that we must measure the origin of life in terms of billions of years is too much for us to take in—we whose lifespan is unlikely to be longer than 100 years.
But the human body is far from being a perfect “design”, as a quick look at your vas deferens for example will show. And why most of us will suffer back pain in later life, whereas a four-footer won’t.
Creationism is largely a grand deceit. The premise is flawed. In order for it to work, one must accept the veracity of an ancient book—and reject the evidence presented by modern science.
To the logical mind that is fallacy. Yet creationists must believe the spurious genealogy (or genealogies) of a non-historical being. Remove a single element of the myth and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
Agit – the theory of evolution is sound and is evident in real-time when one considers bacteria and antibiotics. Bacteria evolve quickly to overcome the new challenge presented by the change in environment (antibiotics killing most, but not all and those which have resistance will prevail) just as all life forms must do or perish. This can be seen by the white race which is failing to meet the challenge of mass immigration of other races and is disappearing through loss of territory, miscegenation, and collapsing reproduction abetted by abortion
What I see as the huge own-goal is why religion did not claim evolution as being God’s design, His system – why not? Why does evolution have to be in conflict with God given that, if evolution is finally proven beyond doubt, a religious person will have no alternative but to claim evolution as God’s system.
Golly gee, Allan, you really ought to do something about that race bug you’ve picked up. Perhaps there’s an antibiotic that’ll do the trick
As I said the other day, we is all one big race: the human race. Your “white race” exists only in your mind.
Take a cruise, why don’t you. Start in Scandinavia and sail south. Watch how the pale Norwegian complexion gives way to the British, German and French. Note how the sallow-skinned Spaniards, Italians and Greeks give way to the swarthier skins of the North Africans. Continue down to Nigeria and southern Africa and observe the subtle hue changes as you go.
It’s called adaptation to the environment. If after all that you’re still not convinced, why not pay a visit to a tanning salon—or pick up a book on phrenology
Richard Clinton -
“As I said the other day, we is all one big race: the human race.”
That’s nonsense, a meaningless statement. You may as well talk of “the bird race” and “the insect race”, but no-one does because they are not races either.
Moore Pete,
Damn, now I’ll have to go through my library and amend each and every mention of “human race”.
Allan,
There are Christians who believe in evolution, but others would say that as the central tenet of Christianity is Redemption, and Christ as the Son of God came to save or redeem fallen man, where did Christ come from? If he also is only the product of evolution, then his death on the cross has no meaning. And then Christianity is reduced to being either good advice or a “wishy washy, touchy feely love everybody accept everything” mush.
So I ain’t solved anything have I?
Richard,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29
That is for you.
I agree there is one big human race, but most people use the idea of race to denote different and distinct groups of people, who through a combination of environmental adaptations and (usually) religious concepts, have developed distinct physical features and world views.
I don’t know what else you would call them – people groups? kinds of people? I don’t know.
I am sure Allan is well aware of the differences without having to take a cruise, so send ME the ticket: I could do with a nice sea voyage…
Agit8ed,
Thanks for the link. I’ve glanced through it and will certainly read it later.
Of course there are many races on the planet. I was only baiting the racists here on ATW—you know who you are
One of my favourite stories goes like this:
A New York Jew is stopping over in Beijing, having done some business in several Asian countries.
He realizes it’s Saturday and thinks: I wonder if there’s a synagogue I could visit. He dresses, puts his yarmulke in his briefcase and goes down to the lobby.
To his surprise and delight, the receptionist tells him there’s a synagogue a short taxi-ride from the hotel.
The businessman is duly dropped off at the temple. Sure enough, it has all the trappings, including a large Star of David on the roof. He pays the cabbie, dons his yarmulke and enters.
It’s exactly like home. The Torah has just been passed round and the Rabbi begins his spiel. The only difference is that he and the congregation are unmistakably Chinese. The Rabbi even has a long Fu-Manchu beard.
The worship ends and the people begin to disperse. The Rabbi has noticed the stranger in his temple and approaches him.
“You Jewish?” he asks.
“Of course I’m Jewish,” says the New Yorker.
“That’s funny,” says the Rabbi with a frown. “You no rook Jewish.”
Richard,
Good one!
May I quote it?
Back to your gazillions of years plus matter and chance thing.
Were I to try the same experiment by design what are the chances of me running out of gazillions before my experiment produced anyting?
In line with your observations about race(ism) evolutionists have often regaled me with the wonders of being made from “star stuff” and we just “happened”.
They talk about evolution as being impersonal, and then start talking about how life did this and nature found a way to adapt to that. Consciously or unconsciously they start talking as though evolution has a “mind.”
But as you know that has to be bunkum, because there is no mind controlling evolutionary adaptation. It’s all chance.
Then there is the problem with creatures adapting to
or “blindly” varying from the norm and accidentally introducing an improvement, so that all the other variations die out and only that one survives and thrives. But when you consider the complexity of say, the eye, how did the creatures with the random mutation moving towards the formation of an eye survive? How did it hunt or feed?
Is this perhaps where language/communication also had its origins, as animals and insects wandered around bumping into each other saying “Excuse me old chap”
or
“I say, I do beg your pardon!”
whilst waiting for one of their pals to give birth to progeny with fully functioning eyes?
An eye either works or it doesn’t, the same with ears, tongues and digestive systems..
A8,
“An eye either works or it doesn’t”
That’s a very common and natural misconception but it’s not actually true, because it’s not about ‘working’ it’s about having something better than your competitors. A creature with a partially functional eye or even just a light sensitive patch has an advantage over one with no eye at all. It’s like when two guys are running away from a lion, neither of them can outrun the lion, but one of them doesn’t need to. He just needs to outrun the other guy.
The eye has actually evolved multiple times in different species (not all with the same ‘design’ either). For example we have a blind spot, but not all creatures with eyes have that. This is all explained extremely well in books like ‘The Blind Watchmaker’.
A8,
“Frank’s comment about us being descended from “the same African woman” or by implication, “upright female ape” – and even that is stupid: where did her lineage start?- is a smokescreen.”
No it’s a simple fact that everyone alive today has a common ancestor on the maternal line and it is nothing to do with evolution. It is a mathematical necessity that follows from the fact that everyone has a mother and the assumption that the human species only arose once.
Take the set of all people alive today, about 7 billion people. Now take the set of all those people’s mothers, whether still alive or dead. This necessarily contains fewer than 7 billion people. Now take the set of *those* people’s mothers, and repeat. By induction you must ultimately arrive at a set containing a single woman and this person is the most recent common ancestor on the maternal line, known as mitochondrial eve.
The only question then is how long ago that person lived, and where. And the estimate for that comes from molecular biology – analysis of mitochondrial DNA says the current holder of that title most likely lived around 200,000 years ago in Africa.
Even more interesting and surprising is the estimate of when the *most recent common ancestor* of all people alive today lived. That as I said has been estimated to be surprisingly recent, perhaps within the last 3000 years. The estimate of the ‘identical ancestor point’ is also staggering – this is the time when *everyone* alive then was either an ancestor of everybody alive today, or an ancestor of nobody alive today – estimated to be within the last 6000 years.
As the author says:
Frank,
granted that you know much more about the science of this stuff than I do, but
our common mother could be Eve, because at what point did an organism decide to become two -male and female, and who witnessed it and why isn’t it happening now?
Surely if evolution is without direction, we should see observable adaptations happening everywhere.
And introducing gazillions of years of barely imperceptible change is convenient, but there still has to be transitional development.
Here’s a website that might interest you re your Blind Watchmaker…
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/01/21/response-blind-watchmaker
I don’t much understand any of it, but what this shows Frank is that there are other clever people who don’t agree with the theory of evolution.
“But to the extent that ancestry is considered in genealogical rather than genetic terms, our findings suggest a remarkable proposition: no matter the languages we speak or the colour of our skin, we share ancestors who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who first domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forests of North and South America, and who laboured to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu.”
Creationists believe that. We all have one common ancestor: Adam!
Madam, I’m Adam
A8,
“but our common mother could be Eve, because at what point did an organism decide to become two -male and female, and who witnessed it and why isn’t it happening now?”
If you mean Eve as in genesis then no, and really this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution (as in natural selection), or even the fact of evolution (the fact that apes and humans have a common ancestor).
You can follow the maternal line of all people alive today and get to a Mitochondrial Eve – but that woman would not have been the only woman alive at that time. The holder of that title also varies from one time or another (i.e. it is based on who is alive today. At the time of Mitochondrial Eve, some other woman among *her* ancestors would have been Mitochondrial Eve to the population that was then alive).
You can also follow the paternal line and get to a y-chromosomal Adam. But again this is nothing like the Adam in genesis – he also wouldn’t have been the only man alive then, and he wouldn’t even have been alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve. In other words this pair weren’t and could not have been a couple.
The things I mention above follow just from genealogy and molecular biology (and/or genetics if you prefer). They would be still be true even if evolution (natural selection) never happened. It’s more along the lines of a paternity test if you like. The same is true of apes (and other creatures) and our common descent. Those are facts, things we know happened, in exactly the same way that we know you had a grandmother and could in principle figure out who it was from DNA.
Natural selection is (part of) the theory that explains *how* all that happened – it is not a fact in the same way as the fact they *did* happen, but it is so likely that it would be silly to deny it.
Your link is talking about something else – abiogenesis, i.e. how did life get started in the first place. But this is completely irrelevant to evolution because we know for a fact that life did get started (just look around). Evolution isn’t about that, it’s about what happened next.
Frank
too deep for me!
I just cannot see how just energy/matter presumably lying about somewhere, metaphorically kicking its heels, somehow starts to organise itself into into ANY kind of meaningful and self replicating organism. What initiated the process in the first place i.e. what acted upon the matter/energy to kickstart the changes? An accident?
Then after the process started, why would/how would a self replicating organism decide to change in any way at all? If you say it was existing conditions, well presumably the organism was dependent on external influences to make it happen? But those external influences would have to keep on influencing the organism in order to induce changes, and why would they do that?
Regarding the link, it was actually a review of Dawkins book, so presumably the criticisms addressed the contents?
“Creationists believe that. We all have one common ancestor: Adam!”
No – read it again.
It says we – all of us alive today – have *many* common ancestors.
This of course is necessarily true, the surprising part about it is how recent it may have been. But it had to have been so and the only uncertainty is about when.
Frank,
Found another review of the book..
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/174132767
Many common ancestors must still lead back to an original pair?
After all to use an analogy, the bikes used in the Olympics are a world away from the old boneshakers, but still recognisable and someone somewhere came up with the idea of a bike?
Okay, not the best analogy, but you get my drift..
I’m going to have to wrap this up, I’m getting tired again!
“Regarding the link, it was actually a review of Dawkins book, so presumably the criticisms addressed the contents?”
No it didn’t. My reason for recommending the book is not to convince you that evolution is true, but just so you would at least understand what the theory is. For me at least the penny did not drop until I read that book. Also, whether or not evolution occurred in the natural world, the mechanism is known to work, for example in computer science. Something analogous to evolution also occurs in culture and technology. So understanding it is useful anyway.
“I just cannot see how just energy/matter presumably lying about somewhere, metaphorically kicking its heels, somehow starts to organise itself into into ANY kind of meaningful and self replicating organism. What initiated the process in the first place i.e. what acted upon the matter/energy to kickstart the changes? An accident?”
Again, evolution is not about that. It is about what happens next.
“Then after the process started, why would/how would a self replicating organism decide to change in any way at all?”
It doesn’t decide to. Given that the replication process isn’t perfect, and we know it isn’t, differences will necessarily arise from one generation to another. It can’t be otherwise. And once you have different types of replicator, they will compete (in that some of them will reproduce better than others), and evolution necessarily happens. The only legitimate question is not whether it happened or happens – we know it happened and it must happen – it would be whether it is sufficient to account for the diversity of life, etc. And the answer appears to be yes.
Frank,
I will have to re read the God Delusion and then maybe buy the Blind Watchmaker. How much I will understand is another matter entirely!
I remain unconvinced, even though I do have questions on creationism. For example I know Christians who say that the Biblical account of creation is not meant to be science, it just says God did it -how He did it the scientists are finding out. Others are equally fervent about a literal seven day creation. Both these views are held by folk far more intelligent than me.
A8,
“I will have to re read the God Delusion and then maybe buy the Blind Watchmaker. How much I will understand is another matter entirely!”
It’s the sort of book you feel you understand perfectly while you’re reading it and then the minute you put it down you no longer understand it
It’s a better book than the God Delusion and (from memory) should be a lot less obnoxious to religious people. There are a few remarks about atheism but it’s not the main point – it’s basically refuting the argument from design and in the process gets into a lot of misconceptions about evolution. That’s what I liked about it. The selfish gene is also excellent, and ‘an ancestor’s tale’ – also neither of these are really Dawkins banging the atheist drum, but mainly excellent science writing.
A8,
Out of curiosity, what did you think of the God delusion?
There is such a thing as race and which race you are is an important determinant of who and what you are and can be. It may be the case that all humans come from a common ancestor but, because of geographic dispersion, all people who left Africa evolved to become different races to meet the challenges of their new environments while those who remained barely evolved at all. Take how the challenge of cold was met by Europeans and orientals. Europeans (broadly including other groups such as Persians) evolved to grow body hair to retain air near the skin for insulation whereas orientals evolved to retain a thicker layer of sub-cutaneous fat which actually does give a slightly yellowish hue.
On the most recent common ancestor being within the last 6,000 years, I reckon that it’s unlikely but we apparently all have atoms in our body which came from Julius Caesar. Britons have been established in this island for over 10,000 years and prior to the recent influx of less accomplished races, the only minor waves of invaders were norse and saxon – the Romans left little behind.
About a year ago, I downloaded The God Delusion by Prof. Dawkins, and I started to read it, hoping for a robust, scientific rebuttal of religion which would give me pause for thought and which would really make me question my religious beliefs. (I accepted from the outset that I would probably disagree with the Prof., but still, I wanted to hear his arguments).
I got as far as Chapter 4 or 5, I could continue no further, because it quickly became clear to me that “science” was not the basis of his book, but rather, it was little more than a subjective rant. I found myself thinking (not for the first time), “My goodness, this chap may not believe in the Christian god, but he certainly hates this god whom he doesn’t believe in! How can this ‘non-existent’ god arouse so much contempt within him? Something must be getting right under his skin about this non-existent god, and that is most curious in itself, for he does not apply this contempt equally unto the Buddha, or unto Mohammed, or unto the multitude of Sikh gods, no, his rage is directed unequivocally towards Christ”. It’s a familiar pattern.
Dawkins’ rage reminded me very much of when I was a sixth-form A-level student. I was studying A-level Art, as well as Physics and Maths. Now, a very strange thing was going on. My art teacher was trying to impress upon me the importance of studying the history of art, but I was contemptuous of art history. The way I saw it, “art” was a subliminal, “spiritual” sort of thing, and the only criteria for judging “art” was therefore my own subjective experience of it. If I did not get a subjective, emotional experience from looking at, say, Van Gogh’s works, then, to me, Van Gogh therefore counted for naught as an artist – I wrote him off in my mind as a nobody.
Strangely, I did not apply this same technique while studying physics or mathematics. I studied the texts of those who had gone before me, such as Newton and Einstein, and I counted their works as genuine and authorative, even though I had no subjective experience of their discoveries.
Why did I trust my maths textbooks, but not my art ones? Isn’t that a curious thing?
I feel that this same inconsistency is applied towards, say, the Bible, by many an atheist these days, including Dawkins. I’ll bet that Prof Dawkins accepts Einstein’s theories as the groundwork for his own physics, even though Dawkins may not have replicated all of Einstein’s experiments for himself, and personally proven them to be correct. -But when it comes to The Bible, oh no, that’s all hogwash, written by primitives, and it’s all wrong, and he knows better.
Now, it may well be so that the Bible is wrong, but that’s not the point here. The point is the inconsistency. When we start to study chemistry or physics, we automatically accept the texts of those who have gone before us. Yet strangely, for many, when they might start to explore religion, the old texts seem to count for nothing; one has to make it up all out of one’s own head.
Very strange.
Allan,
“There is such a thing as race and which race you are is an important determinant of who and what you are and can be.”
Not as important as you pretend (indeed it is not a determinant at all because environment definitely matters and race may not matter at all). Race might not be biologically meaningless but it is of pretty much no practical use unless we are somehow prevented from learning individual differences, which is pretty much never the case.
For example, racists are fond of pointing out that an olympic sprinter is much more likely to be black than white, but so what? There are much more reliable and direct ways of finding out if someone is black, if that’s what interests you. Just look at them. There are also more reliable and direct ways of finding out if someone is an olympic sprinter. For example you can ask them their name. If for example his name is Usain Bolt then he’s probably an olympic sprinter. If all you know about him is that he’s black, then the chances are he is not any kind of sprinter at all.
I’ll also note that sexual differences are much larger and better supported by evidence than are racial differences. For example Racists are fond of pointing out that criminals are more likely to be black. But criminals are much more likely to be men than they are to be women or black. Nobody suggests that this inform public policy.
Furthermore there is no objective biological (or any other) criterion for what constitutes a race – a race is just a subspecies. Usually that will mean genetic correlations however any such criterion results in overlapping groups, and you could define as many larger or ever-smaller groups as you like. Men and women are also races in the biological sense. But subspecies don’t even have to be defined by genetics at all – they could equally be defined by cultural differences. In this sense Catholics and Atheists are also races, and so are Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. These sorts of groupings are much more informative than Allan’s preferred set of races, and even those are not as good as looking at individual differences.
Frank- race differences (whether caused by genes or culture) shouldn’t matter that much.
However as racial discrepencies in any particular area is considered scandalous then it does matter.
To take your example of crime- sex and age are far stronger indicators of someone’s propensity to commit crime than race. However the over representation of young men in prison is not considered notable but the over representation of black people in prison is taken as prima facie evidence of racism in the criminal justice system
Race “is not a determinant at all because environment definitely matters and race may not matter at all”.
But surely adapting to environment is what life forms do and that is evolution? After all, for what reason other than adaptation to environment would species evolve. This pretence that man is somehow exempt from the laws of evolution because claiming otherwise is ‘racist’ is utterly absurd. One cannot claim that race is meaningless yet acknowledge evolution of the species.
As for men and women being races in the biological sense, certainly not. Men and women are genders. If men and women were ‘races’ then men and women could copulate and reproduce without the presence of the other – but they can’t, or at least, not without the assistance of perverted science.
What an amazing few days newswise! First we had Curiosity, now this:
Ref Tom Tylers, and earlier comments – @ 10.44
Human beings have always had curiosity and imagination. Curiosity is what tempts us to ‘look behind the bush’, and when we do look and all we see is a foot or paw print, that is when our imagination kicks in, and we try to visualise the creature that made them.
It has always been so, and the Bible and other religious writings of that era follow the pattern. They were written by the equivalent of todays scienists. No, not in the strictest sense of the word, but they to looked at the sky and saw stars etc, and their curiosity was aroused, pretty much as so many of us do today, the difference being that we now have some scientific facts to further stimulate our imagination, ideas are either proved or dismissed and the knowledge base is continually built on.
What I find puzzling is that the likes of Dawkins are quite prepared to spend so much time and effort in denying, belittling or otherwise denigrating writing that was written two or more millenia ago, for people of that era, people, who although having a natural intelligence were uneducated and naive when compared with the average folk of today.
I doubt that the concept of space travel, in machines designed to support humans to the edge of the universe, could even be contemplated by people whose main method of travel was either ‘Shank’s Pony’, or by donkey, camel, or a wind powered vessel.
The Bible was written in terms and a fashion that was appropritae for the age in which it was written – not for the edification of us, some two thousand years hence. In two thousand years time, I am sure todays ideas will seem equally idiotic as Dawkins today finds the Bible.
That a man can spend so much time and intellect, and bile in criticism of writings so totally out of context does, – as Tom Tyler mentions above, – make his, and perhaps of his followers, state of mind or purpose very suspect. It is almost as though he were trying to compete with that other sci-fi based religion, Scientology.
Perhaps if he had citicised the ‘Church’ for being just too indolent to bring the fables of the past up-to-date, and thus make the concepts they were trying to impart more generally acceptable to us in this modern era, he might have some justification. After all, isn’t that the very definition of a fable, whether written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or even Aesop, – to convey ideas in a manner that even the simplest of folk can understand.
A8,
Out of curiosity, what did you think of the God delusion?
Frank,
Without wishing to sound partisan, I have to agree with Tom Tyler and Ernest.
I would not pretend to understand all of the complexities that Dawkins describes, but as I mentioned last night the fact is that there are other academics who disagree with him, both atheistic and religious.
As an illustration I pulled this testimony out for you as an example of an intelligent/educated person finding faith..
http://creationrevolution.com/2012/07/from-skepticism-to-faith-in-christ-a-nobel-laureate%E2%80%99s-journey/
I think what it boils down to Frank is how we put our case across. Now recently I got quite shirty with you and was rather rude and abrasive. I was out of order and I apologise for that.
It is the attitude in which an argument is put forward which influences us almost as much as the logic of the argument!
I find that Richard Dawkins speaks/writes with the fervour of a religious person, and at the end he leaves you with nothing. I contrast that with what Jesus said,
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John 6:63
So Richard Dawkins is a clever man, but as in Shakespeare’s Hamlet,
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
There is something strange in the way that he constantly attacks religion. It is almost a personal crusade. That is my reaction to his writings.
Either there is no ultimate meaning in anything we do, or feel or experience, or there is. I believe that man hungers after meaning and significance. I don’t think Dawkins supplies that. The question is whether a person can find sufficient objective, intellectual evidence to justify faith in God, and I would still argue that there are plenty of clever people in all religions who do.
Tom,
Good thoughtful points made in your 10:44pm
Ernest,
“What I find puzzling is that the likes of Dawkins are quite prepared to spend so much time and effort in denying, belittling or otherwise denigrating writing that was written two or more millenia ago, for people of that era, people, who although having a natural intelligence were uneducated and naive when compared with the average folk of today.”
[...]
“The Bible was written in terms and a fashion that was appropritae for the age in which it was written – not for the edification of us, some two thousand years hence.”
That is pretty much what Dawkins says about the Bible – and if he’d written that Tom would have called him angry (which is clearly not true and also irrelevant to whether Dawkins is right).
Obviously what you say is true and equally obviously it is not what believers claim about the Bible (or other ‘holy’ texts) at all. They say it is the word of God and almost no matter the topic they act like these bronze age texts have something very important to say about it.
It is hardly surprising or puzzling that somebody who thinks they don’t is going to respond by spending a bit of time pointing out why they don’t.
A8,
Apology unnecessary but thank you.
“I find that Richard Dawkins speaks/writes with the fervour of a religious person”
This is often claimed but really it’s as much of a stretch as the notion of his ‘rage’. I’ve never seen Dawkins more than mildly irritated – he is the Anglican of atheists. You could maybe make that kind of claim of Harris or Hitchens. But in case it’s a diversion to talk about his tone or his ‘fundamentalism’ – what about his argument?
“Either there is no ultimate meaning in anything we do, or feel or experience, or there is. I believe that man hungers after meaning and significance. I don’t think Dawkins supplies that.”
What makes you think it exists to be supplied? I find this rather ironic too because I don’t think religion supplies it. I can’t imagine anything that would be more disappointing or that would supply less meaning to life than the news that Christianity or any of the major religions (with the possible exception of Buddhism or some of the eastern religions) was true. Thankfully I also consider that unlikely.
For example consider the Boxing day tsunami – thousands of children washed off shores and drowned in what the religious must consider an act of God, in that he either was powerless to prevent it or he could prevent it and couldn’t be bothered, or maybe some of them even believe he caused it because two guys somewhere wanted to get married. Where is the meaning and significance for those children?
“The question is whether a person can find sufficient objective, intellectual evidence to justify faith in God, and I would still argue that there are plenty of clever people in all religions who do.”
Well, they seem to be keeping it to themselves. In any case it seems to be pretty incoherent to talk about evidence for faith. If there were a god and it wanted people to believe in it so badly I’m sure it could manage to come with evidence that would convince everyone. On the other hand since most religions make the claim that there there is a god (which one?) that wants people to have faith (why?) and believe in it in spite of no evidence or even contrary to evidence, then do why do they also claim there IS evidence? Objective evidence even! Sorry but it just makes no sense at all.
“Either there is no ultimate meaning in anything we do, or feel or experience, or there is. I believe that man hungers after meaning and significance. I don’t think Dawkins supplies that.”
Frank: religion supplies no meaning – for you. But for others, it does. So, provided that they don’t affect you adversely, why does the religious credo of another matter so much to you?
Allan,
” So, provided that they don’t affect you adversely, why does the religious credo of another matter so much to you?”
Who said it did? I didn’t bring up religion here. Ernest did, Agit8ed did, you did. I just responded to that.
Religion would not be part of the conversation if the religious didn’t keep bringing it into everything. As long as they do I see no reason why I shouldn’t treat it like any other opinion – on economics, on whether tennis should be an olympic sport, etc. It is simply opinion like any other and it is as much up for debate as any other.
And of course, it often does affect me adversely. In my opinion it also affects its adherents adversely but of course that’s their own business.
The first sentence I could dispute as applied to me as I can’t think of any reason why Christian beliefs per se have adversely affected me, though the organised Churches are deeply hypocritical and corrupt in all senses. The second sentence is certainly true for many religious adherents.
I’ll pray for all of you
“For example consider the Boxing day tsunami – thousands of children washed off shores and drowned in what the religious must consider an act of God, in that he either was powerless to prevent it or he could prevent it and couldn’t be bothered, or maybe some of them even believe he caused it because two guys somewhere wanted to get married. Where is the meaning and significance for those children?”
Interesting point Frank, one which has been asked many times. I have to admit that I have never had a problem with it. Not of course that I don’t care, but I see no conflict with faith.
Luke 13:3-5
“Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them–do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?
The question Jesus is addressing is not why did God not save those men, but whether they were at peace/ in a state of grace when they died.
As I understand it (one of the few areas I feel relatively confident!) we live in a cause and effect world. Leaving aside the origins of our world for the moment, and just looking at the mechanics of how it all works, we have tectonic plates over a molten core, volcanoes, earthquakes and extreme weather. That’s how it is.
If there is a God and He stepped in like Superman every time a disaster threatened, where would be the need for faith? We would all believe.
Similarly with free will. According to Christianity we live in a fallen world where man refuses or finds reasons not to acknowledge God and “does his own thing”. So free will means that human beings commit the most awful acts of violence and discrimination against each other.
Again, were God to step in every time, what would happen to our freedom to act? We would be no more than robots. Instead God says that one day He will wrap up this world and ALL who ever lived will be judged according to their deeds and their faith.
So God allows us our free will, but ultimately all will be called to give an account of themselves. Those who have heard the Gospel and what they did with it, and those who never heard and how they lived their lives according to their consciences.
” On the other hand since most religions make the claim that there there is a god (which one?) that wants people to have faith (why?) and believe in it in spite of no evidence or even contrary to evidence, then do why do they also claim there IS evidence? Objective evidence even! Sorry but it just makes no sense at all.”
Again, points which many have reflected on through the ages. My understanding is that Christianity is a witnessing faith. Christians witness through their lives and words to the reality of Christ’s death, resurrection and power to redeem. Most other major religions do not make those claims.
Jews and Christians are in agreement that God promised that He would send a Redeemer. Christians believe He has been, Jews think He is yet to arrive! But according to the Bible God made man in his own image. Man is important, man even sinful man is loved of God, and God through Christ can forgive and restore.
Anyway, I am afraid I am getting “preachy” again, but I don’t disagree with all you say Frank. I am just trying to point out that there are many educated and intelligent men and women who are also able to evaluate the evidence for evolution and have decided that Creation and the claims of Jesus Christ make more sense.
In those links I have supplied there is that Nobel Laureate scientist Richard Smalley, there is Dr. Jonathan Safarti, Carl Wieland, Henry M Morris, Mary Schweitzer, and many many others. Of course arguments rage back and forth. As you know there disagreements between evolutionists, and changes and refinements continue to be made.
My take is that each person must make up their mind according to their own understanding of the evidence., But let’s not make the mistake of thinking that anyone who believes in Jesus is a wild eyed eeejit! Many people hold down highly responsible jobs of all kinds, make discoveries and invent things. Their faith is not a hindrance to their professional ability or integrity.
“Religion would not be part of the conversation if the religious didn’t keep bringing it into everything. As long as they do I see no reason why I shouldn’t treat it like any other opinion – on economics, on whether tennis should be an olympic sport, etc. It is simply opinion like any other and it is as much up for debate as any other.”
Again,
I find myself agreeing with you! My only regret is that I can’t enter more fully into the scientific arguments with you.