Rev Blair

So atheists reject the idea that there is a god based on the lack of evidence. We don't have to prove anything. Theists have to prove the existence of their god. We do not have to prove their god doesn't exist. They are the ones making the claim, they have offered no real evidence.

Okay, you are claiming that there's a relatively benevolent, sometimes wrathful god. By Occams razor i can say that's a rather bizarre claim and you have produced no evidence to support it. There is no reason why such a being should exist. Going a little further though, if such a being did exist he is guilty of several counts of genocide, as recounted in the Bible. He has dictated a variety of contradictory statements. His followers often break his edicts with no consequences. The explanations given for the natural world in the Bible do not hold up to even casual scientific scrutiny. His son, who was apparently such an important political threat that the establishment strung him up, does not exist in the historical record. Nobody has been able to provide evidence of this god, and people who claim to have seen him are generally considered to be mentally ill or lying for money, even by his other followers. Using Occam's Razor, there is no reason to believe in the Judeo/Christian/Muslim god.

Can anybody here tell me how gay marriages being allowed in their peculiar jurisdiction would change anything? The law we have here in Canada keep churches from having to perform same sex marriages if they don't want to. I assume the same protection would apply to faith-based prejudices elsewhere. So why would it matter to any straight person if gay people can marry? I've been married for nearly 20 years, and that didn't change when same sex marriages became legal here. What did happen was that a lesbian couple that we know were able to get married. It made them happy, and I got free beer at the wedding. How can you be against free beer?

Leftovers? Hell, we build a lot of them right here. Our autoworkers are taking a thumping right now because we build so many of the trucks and a lot of the retro muscle cars. I feel bad for the autoworkers, but the idiots they work for should have seen this coming. If the North American auto industry would have put their minds to it, they'd be cheering for high gas prices. Instead they sold us pick-up trucks and brought back muscle cars that were almost free when I sixteen because gas had hit almost 40 cents a litre. It's a buck thirty a litre now, and Canada is buildin the new Dodge Charger. I'm sure the Duke Boys are laughing at us down there in Hazzard County...with good reason. What about the multiple universe theory? Speaking of one world though, Mrs. Rev is kind of hot for those Kias. I know nothing about them other than the pictures she showed me were pretty and it looks like the car would hold both of us and the dogs. Are they any good? Can I fix them with a smoke in my mouth and a beer in one hand? Do I need to fix them? I had a Toyota truck once and it never needed anything until it's 20th birthday, when spontaneously self-destructed under the weight of a yard of gravel. Plus she seems to be talking about a new car, which I understand come with warranties. Usually I buy cars in back alleys and "As Is" are generally the biggest words on the bill of sale.

It's up to the theists to prove the existence of their god. Until they provide such proof, their claim has no validity. At this point there is more evidence of Sasquatch than there is of the Judeo/Christian/Muslim deity, and there is no reason to believe Sasquatch exists. Oddly enough, I can't remember the last time my Prime Minister ended a speech with "Sasquatch bless Canada," though, and talk of Sasquatch-based educational and aid programs are nonexistent. The Sasquatch lobby is not trying to interfere with a woman's right to choose, fundamentalist Sasquatch believers are not being appointed to courts and scientific ethics panels.

I'm not so much worried about me trying to falsify them though, lucaspa...I kind of grew up with a wariness of bizarre claims, for reasons I won't get into here. What I'm really after is some way of rating them so that others aren't taken in so easily. Another example: I know a woman who goes ghost hunting, using "scientific" techniques she learned from TV. She's a nice enough woman, and a friend of my wife's, so I sit and feign interest when she shows me her ghost pictures. Of course there's nothing there that buying a new Nikon and some decent lenses wouldn't fix, but she's convinced that every bit of lens flare is a ghost. She knows that because she's been told so by "experts". So is there any way we can rate the scientists and the people who pretend to be scientists, or their theories, so that there's some kind of scale that appears underneath their names when they are putting forth their theories?

We've had same sex marriage up here for a few years now, and it has changed nothing. The sky hasn't fallen, invisible sky gods haven't shot lightning bolts at Parliament, children aren't rutting in the streets. The predictions of the religious right haven't come to pass. So what's the big deal? Let them marry.

Oh, I fully agree that it isn't just genetics. What I was getting at is can you genetically bias somebody towards painting over music or mathematics over writing? Is there a genetic difference between Jimi Hendrix brand of genius, Hunter Thompson's brand of genius, and Albert Einstein's brand of genius, or is each a different expression of the same disposition?

I've had something like this happen a few times, and I think it might go a long way to explaining "alien abductions" and incubus/succubus encounters and likely faeries and leprachauns too. Colloquially, it's known around here as the "Old Hag." Anyway, in the latest one I was awake enough to think I was awake, but asleep enough to think everything I was experiencing was real. There was something hiding behind the plant in the corner. I knew it had to be a malicious something because the dog, who barked at everything, didn't wake up or notice it (dream reasoning being no reasoning at all). When it emerged from behind the plant it was a hideous monster that looked just like the hideous (actually kind of laughable) monster from the movie I'd been watching earlier. It crouched on my chest, and I could smell it. I knew it was going to harm me. I couldn't move to defend myself or fight back. I couldn't speak. I couldn't kick the dog to wake him up (I tried that really hard). Then the monster was gone. This is the fourth time I've experienced this. It is truly terrifying. It is also very real...if you would have asked me just after I woke up, I would have sworn it really happened. The resemblance these experiences have to alien abduction stories is kind of uncanny.

If I could quit smoking it would likely improve my health. It wouldn't cure my arthritis or my hemophilia (don't ever mix those two, btw...the pills make you bleed so you end up settling for limping a lot) but it would likely get Mrs. Rev to quit bitching about the amount I smoke. Generally, speaking of the human race though? Wealth is the best statistical indicator of good health, and education is the best indicator of wealth, so if you want people to be healthy education is a good place to start.

Well, those that want Canada to be a separate state that sets it's own course keep pushing for mass transit. Those that want us to become a satellite of George Bush's Amerika keep telling us to buy huge SUVs on credit.

I'd like to see a genetic modification that kept people from thinking that "22.5 degrees" meant, "Just eyeball it, then blame the guy who wrote the plans when it turns out crooked." Or maybe that's social engineering and I should buy a lathe and begin making baseball bats? Something I was wondering about genetic engineering is how specific it can get. We know that the gene for blonde hair is recessive, for instance, so blondes are becoming endangered as populations mingle. Can we take that recessive gene and make it dominant? What about engineering for intelligence or artistic inclinations? Do you think that kind of thing is generally upped, or are there specific genes? I know we don't know which genes do what, but how specific is it likely to be?

I hope the US dollar quits it's plummet pretty damned fast. Half of my clients pay in US funds. When I started freelancing that was like a 20 cent on the dollar bonus, now it's like a boot in the head every time I go to the bank. We do need a change in the mentality though. It's impossible for me to use public transit on any kind of regular basis...the service just isn't there. If we had light rail, I'd use it fairly extensively. If we had decent bus service, I'd use that too. Instead we have very little, very poor service so ridership is low. The city uses the low ridership as an excuse not to improve service.

What I'm saying though, is that those emotions don't come from nowhere. In our current system, the wealthy will gain further advantage over the poor through genetic modification. That's just a reality of the system. People tend to react emotionally to that reality, but most have also learned that criticizing capitalist doctrine is a bad idea.

As an avowed but somewhat reluctant Greenie, since you seem to like that term, SkepticLance, I can say that I don't really care what people do to try to make themselves look pretty. That's not to say that your appraisal is inaccurate though...you're pretty much right on the money. I'm the exception that pays for their sins. It's okay though...I was raised Catholic, so it matches my martyr complex. When it comes to human modifications, I figure that the sky should be the limit as long as it's a level playing field. Want a genius-baby that looks like a super model, plays the guitar like Jimi Hendrix, and pitches (or at least writes like) like Bill "The Spaceman" Lee? No problem, but everybody needs to have the same opportunity. A lot of the objections from what you term "the Greenies" are because they understand that those opportunities will not be available to anybody but the richest. There will be no level playing field. Most of them will never admit that...they feel it erodes their moral high ground and they've been called commies (or worse) enough times that they've learned not to say such things out loud. You'd do well to try to walk in another's moccasins for a bit, SkepticLance. So would they.

In the Ethanol Subsidies thread, Norman Albers got me thinking when he said: That's what I like to hear. My Big Green Truck was rated for 8 MPG city and 15 hgwy when it was new. It gets about 12 MPG city and 20 hgwy now (smaller motor, different cam, some fussing with carb jets, bigger exhaust, and a performance rebuild kit for the distributor). That's still with a carb and no computers. If a half-assed backyard mechanic like me can manage that kind of gain, what the hell is wrong with the car companies? They've managed about the same increase in mileage for trucks that size (of course the price has gone from 6K to 30K), but they have weight reductions, computers, and fuel injection. I don't have a single piece of technology on my truck that wasn't available in 1980, when it was brand new, and it hasn't gotten any lighter. Er...because I often get jumped on for owning such a huge vehicle, I should likely mention that I only drive it when I need to...to the point where I keep the battery in the garage. I built it from scrap when I started contracting because I needed something that would haul a lot of weight on a regular basis. I keep it around because I need something that hauls a lot of weight every month or so now. I've recently inherited a regular 1986 half ton that, if I can get it through a safety for a reasonable cost, should allow me to leave the Big Green Truck in the driveway even more. I mention these trucks because, if we'd relax some laws a bit and tighten some others a bit, we could encourage people to use these kinds of vehicles only when necessary. My governments, all three levels, are very worried about a few rust spots and, if you can believe it, whether the gear shift indicator tells me what gear I'm in. They don't seem to care about the huge puff of blue smoke that comes out of the smaller truck though (I have a spare engine I plan on rebuilding if I get it through the safety, but there's no law about that). We, of course, drive a relatively fuel efficient little Oldsmobile most of the time and are currently looking at something newer and better for when the big cheques roll in. I'm a freelancer, so my cash flow is kind of like trying to time your partner's orgasm with the exact second they peak on acid...it always feels good, but you have little control over the situation, and sometimes they start screaming about spiders. Anyway, I mention all of this because I think we need to find a way to encourage using inefficient vehicles only when we need them, and to punish people (and manufacturers who encourage them) who use such vehicles to commute etc. I also think we need to kick the big three, at least the bastards running them, around a fair bit. Like I said, I've matched their mileage improvements without using their allegedly new technologies. They've been lying to us at best, robbing us at worst. When their bad habits cause sales to drop, they resort to blackmail. They have entire engineering divisions full of trained professionals. I have a few wrenches, an unheated garage, and some rumours I heard at the bar.

I'm going to start a thread to respond to that in because it took me so far off topic that I was afraid Amtrak was going to be pointing at me as the king of derailments. How can price be used as a proxy when we really don't know the real price? What subsidies? There are ag subsidies going back to before anybody thought about ethanol as a fuel source, ethanol subsidies, oil company subsidies, and such a twisted web of corporate subsidies, pork barreling and bizarre hegemony that chaos theory couldn't even begin to consider it. You want to bring Iraq into the equation for oil, but what about Paul Bremer's edict, back when he was the de facto viceroy, that Iraqi farmers would buy GM seeds (mostly of the terminator variety) from US ag companies? What about decades old WTO policy that has encouraged developing nations to grow export crops instead of food, undermining the only thing they were self-sufficient in? What about the aid and trade deals, many of them ag-heavy, that George Bush used to build the Coaltion of the Bribed and Bullied? I have no doubt that the Attack on Iraq is a major cause of rising oil prices (not to mention Venezuela, Nigeria, the 'stans etc.) and I have no doubt that the US will be paying for that little misadventure for generations to come, but don't over simplify the agricultural crisis either. Humans don't eat that food though. It goes for animal feed. Our food consumption have already twisted that (er...look up where mad cow came from), and now we're adding another bit into the mix. Meanwhile we're getting sick from eating too much meat and not enough veggies. Also, our meat consumption patterns are bizarre. We only eat the best cuts now. The rest we grind up as fodder for Mickey D's or feed to the cats. That's a big shift over maybe the last 20 years. You have to plant corn and wheat every crop. Switchgrass, you just cut and bale...more or less like mowing your lawn...and wait for it to grow long again. Hemp is even better. You combine it to separate the seeds from the leaves. The seeds are an oilseed and go to bio-diesel, the leaves are a good source of cellulosic ethanol. Two crops (if you look at it as only a fuel crop) for the input costs of one, and it will grow back too. There isn't significant data because the cellulosic processes haven't hit the big time yet, but they are beginning to come on-line. One major stumbling block is the USA's (and now Canada's, since we elected Steve Harper) war on drugs. They hate Hemp because it looks like pot, and haven't got the intellectual capacity to understand that it isn't pot. Bush did endorse switchgrass though. Maybe a couple aluminum baseball bats and a quick bribe to the secret service would buy us some hope?

I learned how to balance a cheque book when I was 19, making decent money, and suddenly cheques started bouncing because my account was short by less than a dollar. Nobody ever mentioned it before that. Turns out that the kids in non-university entrance courses, what we called general math, or sometimes practical math (always with a bit of sneer), learned how to balance a cheque book though. I notice both universities here offer courses on how to study and one offers one called "Lecture Notes" which is basically how to take notes. Frankly, I'm pretty amazed that kids aren't learning that in high school anymore. I know a biologist that works up north. They use a lot of students in the summer. According to him what they really need are kids that do things like take accurate measurements and operate power tools/equipment. He says he gets kids who can't operate an auger, can't run a cordless drill, can't drive a standard, and think measurements include the word "about". Apparently last year he had a couple who couldn't set up a tent and complained about the guide with the bear dog and the 30.06 because they were afraid he might kill a bear. Ummm...that's why he's there. I don't know how much of that is just good old fashioned bitching about "these kids today" (we're both old and prone to that kind of thing, and I generally talk to him when he comes back to drink beer for a weekend) and how much of it is a real problem finding people with the right skills, but I can see it happening quite easily.

If you are on a tight budget: If the gas is visible in the spectrum we see in, multiple strobes fired in sequence will work. The equipment is relatively inexpensive that way. You can also build your own Schlieren lighting using an inexpensive fresnel lens on the light head. I used to have a book on special effects and scientific photography (often the same thing) that had some pretty detailed instructions on how to build these things, but I loaned it out, then moved away. Now I can't even remember the title.

How efficient ethanol is in comparison to fossil oil is kind of hard to figure. Sources high in sugar produce ethanol more efficiently. Some sources of oil...like what you in the US buy from the Canadian tarsands...take an incredible amount of energy to produce. So what are you comparing? Gasoline from light sweet crude is cleaner than ethanol from corn. Corn is about the least efficient ethanol crop though, and light sweet crude is the cleanest oil. Then there are some crops...switchgrass and hemp...that can help sequester carbon in marginal soils, at least according to some sources. How effective that is will change with soil type and farming methods though. How do you calculate that into the equation?

I agree to a point, but kids also have to learn the basics of science. They need to learn the scientific method, then some guided experimentation with the amount of guidance dropping off as they become more adept. Something I haven't seen a kid get (or ask for) in about a generation is a chemistry set or microscope. When I was a kid, we had hours of fun with those things. We learned a fair bit too. I'm going to use my grandfather as an example of how science should be taught, at least partially, here. I also don't see a lot of kids just figuring things out for themselves. When I was 11 or 12, our summer project was to take a combine apart. Grandpa said he wanted the spare parts and scrap metal, but he really wanted us to learn how things worked. For anybody interested in mechanics at all, a combine is about the most complex thing out there, so you can learn a lot. We had a conversation like this several times: I'd ask about some part and he'd say, "Well, what does a combine do?" I answered and he said, "Well where is that part?" I answered again and he asked what I thought the part did. We went through the whole thing. It was really the scientific method. Theory, experiment, adjust or discard theory as needed, then try again if necessary. He also explained both nature and farming and farming as everything having a job. Snakes do this and mice do that, cattle do this, and so on. A simple explanation of the ecological niches different organisms fill. When I started asking about how you chose bloodlines for cattle etc., suddenly there were books on evolution and books on animal husbandry. He never told me what to read, but he'd kind of guide me to the bookshelf in the office. I'm pretty sure that he put the books he felt were appropriate up there too.... He did the same kind of thing with photography. Physics and chemistry. Here's the camera, here's the darkroom, there's some books. Go ahead and try it. Anyway, I think that kind of thing combined with classroom learning is the way to go.

I wrote a thing on child soldiers once that made Mrs. Rev cry when she read it. My weakness now is that I tend to judge the success of my articles (at least that type) by her emotional response (she's not very emotional, as a rule)when she does the first proofing. I tend to overuse that technique. It's backfired a couple of times when I've emphasized for emotion over fact. My other weaknesses are tobacco, coffee, and beer.

Yeah, but the corn sweetener issue is a direct result of the USA's bizarre hatred of Fidel Castro, so it might solve itself.

I've seen that series, iNow, and recommend it to everybody who wants to learn a little more. I think it's a little too simplistic, but it covers a lot of the problem. I wouldn't say that any of this is off-topic though. The number one reason that governments cite for their inaction on environmental issues is the economy, and our economy is built on a model of consumerism. Just using automobiles as an example: Every time there is talk about the big three losing money, the issue is the same...they have trouble competing with more efficient cars from overseas. When times are good, they lobby like hell not to have have improve their mileage standards, fight safety innovations, and do very little R&D. When times are bad, they lay off workers and cut back benefits. What the governments of Canada and the US should have been doing since the 1970s is bringing in more and tougher standards. I relate those to emissions, since I don't think it matters how a vehicle is powered as long as it is clean. I'd also relate them to safety...how come Volvo can build a safer car than GM or Ford? Instead we were sold SUVs...glorified pick-up trucks that operated on 50 year old technology. That trend is ending now and the big three are laying people off and screaming for government handouts. Meanwhile they are still flogging their pollution machines every chance they get.

First of all, the free market has nothing to do with freedom. The way large corporations act, you'd think they were hell bent on proving Karl Marx right (read Marx's predictions about corporate behaviour). Second of all, it isn't just the free market. I live in Manitoba. Our electricity is supplied by a crown corporation...a government monopoly. It's fairly clean and relatively environmentally responsible since it's hydro-generated (note the qualifiers). My provincial government is likely the greenest in Canada. The thing is that while Premier Doer really plays that up, he's missing the boat on a lot of other things. Small scale wind in rural areas would work well here, but there is no government plan to encourage it. Suburban solar would also work well here, but again there is no government plan. Same with run of the river personal hydro. Those three things together could create a kind of energy internet. Since every watt of power we produce in excess of local consumption here gets sold south to replace coal-generated electricity, a workable program to promote small-scale electrical production would seem to make sense. The problem is that the crown likes having all Manitobans as its customers, so they actively discourage that kind of production. There are also consumption issues that go along with that. It's only in the last couple of years that Manitoba Hydro has begun encouraging conservation. Electricity is cheap here, since we make so much of it, so we tend to waste it. If we'd save it instead, we'd reduce GHG production in the US because we'd have more to sell, and we'd make more money here because what we export sells for more than the domestic market pays. That's just electricity too. We're also missing the boat on a host of other things. We have all cheap electricity, but we use diesel buses instead of electric trolleys. We don't have much public transit either. We have massive suburban sprawl. We have bylaws that keep people on five acre lots from using goats, sheep and cattle to keep the grass mowed. One interestingly stupid bylaw we have: Homeowners are required to keep up the boulevards in front of their houses. A man in the North End...a poor area of town...decided that instead of mowing the grass, he'd plant veggies. It was a nice, neat garden. The city ripped it up, sodded it, and sent this guy the bill. Seems that the requirement to keep up the boulevard is restricted to planting grass. So it's not just the free market, it's the entire system and the backwards thinking of even our most progressive leaders.