Start of Fall Practice and Arkansas State

Can you feel it only 38 more days till kickoff of the 2009 Virginia Tech football season. I for one am excited. Now we all know that before you have your first game you have to have your fall practices, one of the most hated things you go through as a player trust me 2 a days suck, and at this time next week the players for Virginia Tech will be reporting for camp with the first practice the next day. I can tell it is getting closer.

Virginia Tech also confirmed today that they have added Arkansas State to the schedule for 2011 to replace the vacancy left by Syracuse when they backed out of the commitment they had with VT for a home and home in 2010 and 2011. Now the replacement that VT made for 2010 of Boise State at FedEx field is somewhat respectable. Afterall Boise State is a giant killer at times, now I have a feeling it will be hard for them to come all the way across the country to play in a very pro VT FedEx Field. Arkansas State on the other hand went 6-6 last year in the Sun Belt Conference, if we want to be competitive we need to play the best and this is not the way to do it.

Virginia Tech vs Alabama

I know that this was put together by a Bama fan but that is ok because it is awesome and helps build the anticipation for the start of the season even more:



So I can't let the way that video ends be the actual end to this post so LETS GO HOKIES

Creationist Materials

Now I know most of the rest of the country isn't having the same problems as Louisiana but I figured I would pass this along since I have a feeling these creationists will try to get these into other school classrooms around the US. So for your reading enjoyment: http://lasciencecoalition.org/2009/07/26/louisiana-stealth-creationist-materials/#more-1504

40 years ago today

While I am sure that most people reading this already know this I figured since I was a science blog I had to say something about it. Well here it is today is the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the moon. In my opinion this is probably the greatest scientific achievement ever accomplished by the human race at least as of right now, that is until we put a man another another planet. So to honor those brave men and now women who serve/ed/or will serve in the space program I figured I would post this:



Raise your drink twice tonight one for the past and one for the future.

On a couple of unrelated notes I wanted to post these two videos, the first one because it is very educational and should help anybody who has ever had any long conversation with a creationist debunk much of what they have to say:



This last one because I am a big fan of thinking and it is interesting to see what these famous thinking men, and Homer Simpson, had to say about God:



Final thing I came across this last night but it made me more ready for the football season than before. They are backgrounds for your computer that have the VT football schedule on them so take a look:
http://www.cruhland.com/desktops/downloads.html

As always if you come across anything let me know and remember,

Taylor at the Manning Camp

So as we continue to approach the start of the 2009 NCAA football season (50 days left till kick off) I came across this article:

http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20090715/ARTICLES/907159954/1032?Title=Manning-camp-helps-Va-Tech-QB

It is a good read and nice to see that Tyrod made the most of his opportunity down here in Louisiana. I also liked the point he made about his first playing time being in Tiger Stadium currently being in Baton Rouge I have to hear about that all the time and I always try to admit that LSU is a good team and it is good to hear Tyrod say something similar. It would be really nice though to have VT beat Alabama to quite those SEC fans who keep putting down the ACC.

LETS GO HOKIES

Your WTF moment for today

So I actually came across this last night while cruising conservapedia but I was tired and didn't feel like commenting on it this this morning:

The average public school student spends more than "104 hours and 24 minutes per month watching television." [18] While public school students are boosting the advertising revenue for The Daily Show, homeschoolers are learning!

OK so that might seem legit and all but I want you to go to the link don't worry I'll wait........
So you done? Alright did you what I am trying to point out? No where in the article did it say that home schooled teens are less likely to watch TV or do anything else. Yes that's right conservapedia drew their own conclusions, ones which could be completely right and ones which could be completely wrong. I don't know so I am not going to draw any but I just figured I would point this out so we could have a nice WTF moment.

Global "Warming" and In God We Trust

So I know that over the last few days anyone who follows conservapedia a lot has noticed that they have had a lot of stuff on Global "Warming". It should as you may have noticed on some of my earlier posts be known as global climate change because while some areas will get warmer, some areas will get cooler and in the long run it effects more than just temperature as well. A few days ago they posted on some very local colder than normal days in a few locations as if a couple of days disprove that the earth is changing, I could very well point out to them that June in Baton Rouge was the 3rd warmest on record with the warmest 2nd half ever but I won't. Well today's post I decided I would comment on mostly because it is a misreading of science:

We Told You So Department: Alert Al Gore! A new peer-reviewed study may shake the foundation upon which man-made global warming fears are based. The new study discovered "something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models." The study, which was published on July 14, 2009 in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Geoscience, found CO2 was not to blame for a major ancient global warming period and instead found “unknown processes accounted for much of warming in the ancient hot spell.” The press release for the study was headlined: "Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong."

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models." [21] , [22] and [23]

Alright so here is what I really want to comment on click on link number 22 and it will take you to the abstract of the paper which says this:

The Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 Myr ago) represents a possible analogue for the future and thus may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks1, 2. The key feature of this event is the release of a large mass of 13C-depleted carbon into the carbon reservoirs at the Earth's surface, although the source remains an open issue3, 4. Concurrently, global surface temperatures rose by 5–9 °C within a few thousand years5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Here we use published palaeorecords of deep-sea carbonate dissolution10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and stable carbon isotope composition10, 15, 16, 17 along with a carbon cycle model to constrain the initial carbon pulse to a magnitude of 3,000 Pg C or less, with an isotopic composition lighter than -50. As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.

OK long yes with a lot of numbers which actually go to references. But to summarize their summary they say that global warming happened and our climate models can't completely take it into account. But the one thing I want to point out is this:

At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records.

Yes that is right contrary to what conservapedia would have you think the CO2 increase did still cause an increase in global temperatures we just can't fully explain the complete increase in temps but 1-3.5 is still a large enough temperature change to cause drastic climate change all over the world.

One last thing on this topic while I am here. You read often people who say that in the past CO2 levels where much higher than they are today you can go ahead and believe them because that is true. However, the planet was significantly warmer when that extra CO2 was in the air as well, just think of the Mesozoic era.

Finally for this post and it is a little off topic Conservapedia posted this:

More intolerance by atheists: "Lawsuit seeks to block 'In God We Trust' engraving." Congressman Steve King observed, "This lawsuit is another attempt by liberal activists to rewrite history and deny that America's Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation."[20]

I found the start of this post to be a little funny, more intolerance by atheists. I am sorry I am not by any means an atheist but they are one of the most looked down on groups in the US. Example:



But what really got me about the post by conservapedia was how this not wanting "In God we Trust" on public buildings denied our roots as a judeo-christian founding. This nation was founded on the freedoms of man and at its roots the founding was mostly secular. Yes, there was reference to a creator and even rarely God. But the founders of the US were for the most part deists. Their God was probably similar to the judeo-christian-islamic God because that is what Europe was for the most part and well most of them had roots back to Europe. As the article points out the whole In God We Trust was not put on money or anything until 1956 same with it being in the pledge. Most people don't remember a time without it anymore so they just assume that is the way it has always been. But prior to that most people just accepted that there was religion and then there was the Government and they were two separate things and that was the way the founder's wanted it. So who is really being the conservative here, is it the atheists demanding that it not be put up or is it the republicans demanding that it be put up? I know what I think think but I would more than willing to hear what any of the rest of you have to say on the topic.

Alright but that was a long and varied post if you made it all the way through here is something on topic but that should give you a little laugh.



alright that took far too long to find!

Computer Software Design and Evolution

So I just came across this: http://www.scientificblogging.com/adaptive_complexity/intelligent_software_design_vs_evolution

It is a good read and does a really good job of refuting the same designer same material argument. There is one other thing that I would add and it is quite simply this. Yes most people only see a computer program going from 1.0-2.0 etc for most things like windows, however, if you ever look at the version of software such as Google Earth or AIM you will see that you end up with 4.95 before you finally get to version 5. You also often end up with beta versions of programs out on the market so that people can try them out and find out what works. Having done some programing work myself you will find that each program you make steps from the other ones you have done and you say well this works better. Then you keep looking and next time maybe you find something that works slightly better it is quite simply put evolution not creation.

Virginia Tech 2008 Montage

So I know that I haven't posted anything Virginia Tech related recently but with right around 57 days left till the season kicks off I figured I would post this since I came across it. Enjoy!

Gap between Science and the Public

3 Posts in one day I promise not to make this a regular thing heck I only had 4 posts last month. Anyway on to what I wanted to post. I had just found this http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/science/10survey.html?_r=5

I just want to say one thing about this article. Being a scientist myself I feel that what Alan I. Leshner says at the end of the article is right. I think that far too often scientists look at themselves as far to high and mighty and we don't take the time to properly educate the public to what is actually going on. Something that I think the Internet should allow people to do better with blogs and YouTube and other similar type things unfortunately those who are against science seem to be far better at it. Maybe it is just because they are more willing but that isn't what really matters is it. We need to help educate everyone that is the job of science after all.

Arizona State Senator

If I have anyone reading this from Arizona this should be something to take into consideration next time she comes up for reelection.

Response to The shot heard around the world

So I was bored and decided I would try and find somebody other than conservapedia to criticise especially since they really haven't posted too much in the way of science recently. Well while doing it I came across this: http://conservativeprincipals.blogspot.com/2009/07/shot-heard-around-world.html. It is a really good read actually and I can tell that the person who wrote it clearly put quite a bit of thought into it. I do have a few problems with it that I want to point out quickly though.

The issue in global warming is that science has been perverted to serve a
political agenda. There's plenty of scientific evidence to disprove most of what
global warming enthusiasts assert. That is to say, the science against global
warming is as potent as, or more potent than the science favoring global
warming. All we need is time for the truth to win out - which is what algore and
friends don't want, and why they are pushing so hard for quick action.

Ok I am not going to dive too deeply into this but the science is pretty obvious that global climate change is happening, there are very few scientists who deny this and there will always be people who object to everything (aka the flat earthers), but the major question and the one that has been played to the greatest political agenda is how much of it is human caused. This is something maybe to address at a later time.

And (2) modern scientific inquiry is not at odds with that very Jewish purpose
of history. The earth does not have to be young to make that history true;
therefore to make the Bible true. The age of the earth is irrelevant to the
relevant issue: that it is God who created it, and created it as a Garden for
humankind; and has been at work to restore us to the edenic state since the
beginnings of human recollection. As for evolutionary theory: I think it's fair
to say, on the basis of competing science, competing interpretations of the
gathered data, and gaps in scientific evidence, that it is only a theory. It has
gaps that some say suggest evolutionary theory better shows how creatures adapt
within their niches than how creatures jump from one niche to another. We're
still looking for the evidence, without ruling out the possiblity of some kind
of periodic "quantum leaps" from one state of createdness to another more
complex state of createdness. If we ever demonstrate that those leaps have taken
place, I'd likely argue that those leaps are further evidence of God acting
miraculously and outside the ordinary rules of nature. I won't rule out God
turning water to wine; I won't rule out God turning an ape into a human. We have
yet to produce evidence that makes the case airtight, though. And it seems to me
that any evidence of "quantum leaps" would be food for the Intelligent Design
type of argument.

This is something I think we need to talk about. You start by saying it is only a theory but all of the other things that you are so willing to accept are also only theories in fact the age of the earth has less evidence to support it than does evolution. I do understand that you are talking about a slow stepwise progression but look at the evidence that genetics has shown us. Your problem might be your view of animals jumping niches. This does not happen it is a slow progression from one niche to another I recommend the McFadden horse evolution paper if you want to see what we have supporting evolution from the fossil record. My guess, however, is that you are trying to make a statement regarding punctuated equilibrium and this is also a misunderstanding of this idea. Finally you mention we have yet to make the case airtight. This is true but I think you will be hard pressed to find a scientific theory with more evidence supporting it than evolution.

But the scientific method has advanced to the point that we now discover the
relativity of the scientific method. In other words, in a a way Mike is right to
say that knowledge is faith. We find over and over again that our
presuppositions influence the "objective" results of scientific inquiry. It
begins to look as though the scientific method is also subjective, though in a
different way than is faith.

It strikes me, then, that the scientific method can
lead us down any road we are predisposed to travel. In other words, our
worldview will determine what we discover is "objectively" true. If that's the
case, then at some point we have to reunite scientific method and Christian
worldview. More properly, Judeo-Christian worldview, since Christians are (Paul
assures us) but an engrafted branch on the stump of Jesse. I have been wondering
if the discovery of relativity theory and the quantum world wasn't the real
purpose of, the highest peak available to, decoupled science; and the next set
of mountain ranges will not really be seen, let alone climbed, until science and
the worldview of God revealed in the Bible (both testaments) and in the life of
Jesus are joined.

I wonder what we will discover when we engage scientific
inquiry with a Christian worldview? I don't mean in the pre-modern sense of
requiring that science conclude what faith wants it to, but in the post-modern
sense of a recognition that the assumptions one brings to the scientific enquiry
help determine the discoveries one makes. Literally, that how we think
determines what we can see. So if we are fully and completely the People of the
Book, not anticipating a struggle between science and faith, but anticipating
and looking for the ways that seeing as Christ sees, valuing the way God has
disclosed He values, reveals new scientific truths that bring the world more
into harmony with God's intention for creation, and enables us to do more with
less negative impact on creation; in fact, enables us to do more while also
ennobling God's earth. What will society, technology, human life look like when
we are fully engaged in that exploration? I think, pretty good.

Ok there is a lot to digest here and I just want to make a really quick comment. Science, as this writer states earlier in their work, did originally set out to prove the bible as literally correct. However, using observation and the scientific inquiry we have come to the conclusion that the bible is not literally correct. The general idea behind the scientific method is that you check your political and religious beliefs at the door. He mentions in this section I quoted not being able to see the next mountain range after relativity. We already have it is called quantum physics. I think that a majority of his essay is very correct in that there is no reason to quit believing in God just because science proves the bible is not literally correct. But it is this last section that I do have a problem with. He had already mentioned that science is not 100% objective, and while that is true with initial studies etc the process of scientific cross checks etc slowly irons out these not objective sections until they are no more. It make take time but what doesn't.

That may have been a slightly rushed and poorly worded argument against this piece but I felt it was well written and something for everyone to consider. It is something that really needs to be forwarded to those of you who know people who read the bible very literally. After all we are never all going to agree on everything but we need to at least start somewhere.

US High in Anti-Evolution views again

So I came across this article today: http://www.scientificblogging.com/adaptive_complexity/blog/us_ranks_high_antievolution_beliefs which links to this story: http://www.britishcouncil.org/darwinnow-survey-global.pdf.

I think the article says enough by itself in summarizing what is going on but I just wanted to make a quick statement on why this is bad. While yes we have clearly heard of Darwin and Evolution in this country (71% according to the survey) most Americans don't accept the theory of Evolution. This is a problem if we want to keep being known as the leader in science and medicine. The more we fight against Evolution the more we are setting ourselves back when it comes to the fight against disease. The majority of new drugs still come from the US but if we decide that disease causing agents can't change, can't evolve, then why should we keep researching new ways to fight disease? Why should we improve our antibiotics or even our vaccines? I just feel that this view is missed and is what needs to be stressed most to those who deny evolution.

4th of July

Just wanted to wish everyone out there a Happy 4th of July.

Global climate change

So I came across this earlier today on conservapedia:

Scientists Write Open Letter to Congress: "You Are Being
Deceived About Global Warming -- Earth
has been cooling for ten years. Present cooling was NOT predicted by the
alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them

So when I followed the link to this page http://climatedepot.com/a/1745/Scientists-Write-Open-Letter-to-Congress-You-Are-Being-Deceived-About-Global-Warming--Earth-has-been-cooling-for-ten-years I read the letter that they had submitted.

If you look at the list of signers there are a total of 7 and of that only 2 have climate backgrounds to their education the rest are physicists and one guy worked for Exxon. I don't think that is the background you need to be making any sort of a statement when it comes to global climate change.

As for the actual science well this page covers some of the basics: http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/evidenceforwarming.htm

It is pretty obvious that the climate is changing and not necessarily for the better. Is it our fault, that is a different question and one that I do not feel qualified to answer. But lets pretend for a minute that us pumping CO2 into the air is not the cause of it well why then should we not be trying to clean up the what we are putting into the air. We need to lessen our demand on foreign oil anyway why not move to cleaner fuels, since the quantity of oil is limited. And all the crap that comes out when we burn coal for energy why don't we clean that up anyway so the air we breath is cleaner? Just something to think about.

Finally I just came across this on conservapedia as well:

"Nation's Jobless Rate Hits Highest Yearly Loss in 4 Decades"[8] "Change" is great, isn't it?

If you follow that link you find an article by Fox news that says the June to June jobless rate. So now apparently Obama is responsible for job losses not only before he was sworn in but also prior to him being elected, 4 months before he was elected ok that seems fair. What would this headline have said if McCain had won I wonder?

Nothing New

So I know I haven't really been posting too much recently I have been kind of taking it easy and well to be honest conservapedia hasn't really posted much that has been anti-science and I don't have the patience to say anything about politics because that is a quick way to draw attention that you don't want to yourself. But anyway I just figured I post something since it is the first day of July so I figured I post this for your reading pleasure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/science/30muse.html?_r=5

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090624/ap_on_re_us/us_paleontologists_creation_museum

while I do feel that it is good to learn what the other side thinks about you I don't really want to spend money supporting these people, that and it is a long way away from here.