Saturday, April 28, 2012

Tat's Trivia Bot, v. 3.65

Latest Version: Tat's Trivia 3.69

Download: Tat's Trivia Bot, 3.65

Update: 3.66
A version for every day of the year.

It mostly adds a couple hooks for awards, namely on Champ, TeamAnswer, and TeamVictory


I also added a command /trivia.team.credit

This is to allow one to give points to the entire team (the will transliterate from *) points. Apparently some people don't want to play on teams if the only points you get are individual. That seems reasonable, and I'll make it able to be fixed by you folks on an individual basis. So for pretty much everybody save Brett this version will do nothing for you.

(Fixed odd oversight with 3.61 included)

Friday, April 27, 2012

Grey's Anatomy Quote

It’s awful, it’s tense and it’s cold and it’s dangerous, it feels like defusing a bomb, in an haunted house, that’s built on a minefield, and there are bears everywhere, and the bears have knives. You have to tame them, or you will die, we will all die. Their hate will destroy this hospital and then the whole planet. I am counting on you Bailey… We’re all counting on you.
Callie Torres -8x21

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Into the breech...

Wow this is a boring slog.

Apparently the rule about creationists taking twice as long to refute as they take to make a claim presents us with a divergent series and thus an exchange which expands at about 2^n.


>>You also accuse the studies shown of not taking this into account. However, you then provide no evidence and no data to back that up.

You posted the studies. Do they show tectonic forces being taken into account? We're discussing the study you posted. I'm pointing out something it fails to note. Does it fail to note the massive amount of salt loss?

http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/content/failed_scientific_clocks/ocean_salinity.html 




It continues like this for 15000 words. Literally, I did a word count. 15623 in total. Below the fold.


Tuesday, April 24, 2012

The RSS feed is stuck/broken. You need to actually visit to see new posts.


I mean if somebody is hook line and sinker stuck in cargo cult science. How do they ever free themselves? If they suppose that all the pieces fit together even if they had to glue the thing together with God and hope. How does one rend themselves away from such thinking?


Arguing with BaseSixForty on Youtube, it seems pretty intractable. Apparently the oceans level of salt needs to be overflowing with salt if the earth is old. But there's really only a finite amount of the stuff and it cycles around. The salt from the land typically was once salt from the ocean that was taken away by tectonic forces as salt today is taken away. And independently geologists have found that the level of salt in the ocean has been static. It has not changed. 



Also the Earth Magnetic Field is getting exponentially weaker. Because Barnes at one point made that argument based on 200 years of data. Better readings have found that the field fluctuates all the time and often even reverses every 80k years or so. And that's bipole strength rather than overall field strength. So Barnes got swept aside. So then Humphreys comes along and says that the Earth Magnetic Field is getting exponentially weaker without even Barne's evidence of reading 200 years of data and extrapolating from that exponential decay (the line even better fits linear if you read the data and ignore that there's way more data now). Because such and such and such, but now with zero evidence rather than one point of horrible evidence.


It's rather sad. It's like somebody who knows astrology so well they can tell you  calculate the meaning and signs other than your sun sign and figure out how things work. It's getting really really good at something really really foolish.




BaseSixForty: "The first is the issue of tectonic activity. You claim that this is the major player in removing salts from the ocean. You also accuse the studies shown of not taking this into account. However, you then provide no evidence and no data to back that up. ... Both are rather strong propositions to make without evidence or data. If you think it would be relevant, then provide the evidence to either support or refute the argument."

Tatarize: "The study excludes what geologists say is taking up the vast majority of salts. The problem here is the study says they've accounted for "all" the outputs. And that's just not true, or really even that possible. The fact that they missed what geologists have pointed to as the biggest player is a serious flaw. But, worse than that is the steady state of the salinity. It doesn't matter one jot what the magnitude of the various inputs and outputs might be if the overall effect is no change. Which was the more important point. Regardless of the actual values (See Pinet 1993 and various other estimates of the magnitude if you really care), the point obviously fails if geologists are right. For the last 100 million years the salt level in the ocean has been static, which I'll address shortly."

Unfortunately, you have once again simply made a claim, with no support. You claimed that tectonic activity is the major player in removing salts from the ocean. You claimed that this is what geologists have pointed to as the biggest player. However, you have provided no evidence, as I asked. You have made the claim, but have provided no support. If tectonic activity is responsible for removing vast amounts of salt from the oceans, then provide data. Provide measurements. Provide support. If there isn't any actual data, then provide evidence of the mechanism with approximations for why it should balance things out. Quite frankly, you can talk all you want about such a mechanism, but if it actually exists, then back it up. Don't just sit there and say it exists - show it exists. Honestly, for someone who seems to put such a huge weight upon the methods of science as supporting beliefs, I'm shocked at your double standard to refuse to provide any evidence for your claims but still cling to them as absolute fact.


BaseSixForty: "The second issue seems to be the issue of a steady state of salinity levels."

Tatarize: "http://www.clays.org/journal/archive/volume%208/8-1-203.pdf Paleosalinities is an actual bit of science. Goldschmit determined the relationships needed to directly calculate the salt levels in the ocean over time. They have remained steady. They have been steady and therefore cannot be used as a clock."

This is unfortunately circular reasoning again. All the Goldschmidt's paper really claims (as his conclusion at point number 5 shows) is that the paleosalinities of the sedimentary rock layers at the times they were laid down show no real change in salinity levels. I won't even dispute that. I'll grant you that just for the sake of your argument. Unfortunately, the conclusion uses the assumption that those rock layers are hundreds of millions of years old, and then extrapolates that to show that ocean salinity levels haven't changed over millions of years. But as mentioned, that's circular reasoning. Those sedimentary rock layers aren't actually hundreds of millions of years old - they are only a few thousand years old. As such, all Goldschmidt's data really shows is that the salinity of the ocean hasn't changed significantly in the last few thousand years - a perfectly acceptable conclusion for a creationist.


Friday, April 20, 2012

Arizona to teach the Bible. Bad Move Religious People.

Arizona passes a law to require schools to add a specific elective. Namely, The Bible.

I don't think this will end well for the religious folks pushing this for two reasons. 1) Secular education must be secular, you cannot use such a class to preach. So you must learn facts about the Bible. The facts about the Bible do not put the Bible in a good light. 2) Students might read the Bible. The Bible does not put the Bible in a good light. People tend to think the Bible is full of peace and wisdom; these people have not read the Bible.

Monday, April 9, 2012

Evidence and surprise.

Evidence typically conforms to Bayes theorem. And as such you really can have bad evidence and good evidence and you can rather clearly measure the quality of the evidence. Typically based on the surprise factor. If the thing in question should be true vs. false. How surprising is this particular bit information.

If Christianity is true, how surprising should it be that it supposes a demigod whose blood sacrifice propitiates the alpha-male human-anger emotions of the creator of the entire universe for wrongdoings of human ancestors in a middle-eastern creation story, rather than the particular humans in question. Is this what we should expect as the actual way the real universe actually works? No. It's certifiably insane.

If Christianity is false, how surprising should it be? Well, it isn't. It was first practiced in areas with newly found pagan influences where demigods and their wacky adventures were commonplace, where blood sacrifice to appease an angry God were common. That the sins of the father were given to their children, that one could atone for the sins of another allowing the guilty to go free, that a human sacrifice was the best kind of sacrifice, that the creator of the universe wanted things killed for him. And such a system that allows for god donning a baby suit and sacrificing himself to himself to appease himself, wouldn't shock the mind of anybody and would be expected of the creator of the universe. If somebody around that time invented a religion, it would be a lot like Christianity.

The story of Christianity, the claims that it makes, are remarkably good evidence that it's false.