Category: science

It’s All In The Data, Maybe

As expert in all things data, I have been examining the COVID-19 case data and am ready make the following observations.

1. All categories of data are inherently wrong. There is at least a two-week lag before data gets reported, and even then is composed of reports from a myriad of sources, not all of whom collect the same sets of data for each case. What you see for today’s numbers is not going to be what today’s numbers are finally tallied to be.

2. Data are reported through public health departments, hospitals, and even the emergency management agencies. The recording formats are diverse, and accuracy depends on the ability of workers to record little things like the sex and race of the case. For example, in Georgia the stats show African-American and White race cases, and also a large number of cases labeled as “Missing”, and “Unknown” where the race has not been recorded. The word useless comes to mind.

3. There are Billion$ allocated in the CARES ACT for help to hospitals in handling COVID cases. Certainly an easily foreseen consequence of this bill would be the obvious incentive for hospitals to categorize as many cases as COVID as possible for the premium the government pays them under the new law. We hear reports that heart attack deaths sometimes turn into COVID deaths.

4. Data on the global status is accumulated from all the various nations’ public health departments. Take ALL of this data, especially if it comes through the World Health Organization with a great deal of cynicism. It is like all the other United Nations efforts, it is biased. The individual countries, like China, have reason to lie, and they do.

This is an exciting time for many academic fields including economics, epidemiology, medical science, psychology, and other disciplines that depend on data to formulate and make their conclusions. It will be decades if ever before we get it all sorted. In the meantime, we make life and death decisions on incomplete, and sometimes false data.

Our future comes down to the normal risk-reward decisions we make everyday.

Sometimes we win. Some times we lose.

 

 

Life – Creation – DNA

How did life begin?

I don’t know what your favorite story is about the creation. From what I have been reading, the most popular hypotheses are listed below.

A) Creationist Accounts (6 thousand year old earth)

B) Primordial Soup (some sort of random march of subatomic particles and forces banging around until lightening strikes the proverbial primordial soup, then magic takes over)

C) Intelligent Design (old earth, but life caused by intelligent designs)

Creationist views take a Biblical version of creation and force it into a six thousand year time-line. In other words Creationists say the earth is only six thousand years old and the actual act of creation is as outlined in the two stories in Genesis taken verbatim. On day one, God created the heavens and the earth. On the second day, God said, “Let there be light.”  God spoke the world and life into existence in exactly seven days.

I have always viewed the Genesis 1:1 account as beautiful poetry. Poets take license to describe events and thoughts in ways that are not always literal. Also, whoever started the Genesis stories could only relate creation in terms contemporary people could understand.

In my opinion the writers of Genesis did not intend for the creation stories to be taken literally. Because of that, I have no problem with an earth that is billions of years old, nor do I have a problem with some form of evolution. Even at that, God is the Creator.

The Primordial Soup hypothesis claims some sort of scientific evidence that life was not created by a higher Intelligence or Being. Instead, evolutionary forces through millions and millions of years managed to crash together the perfect combination of molecules in some sort of soupy ocean, maybe being struck by a gigantic bolt of lightening. Then MAGIC happens and we not only have a single-cell hunk of life, but it comes complete with all the rights and privileges appertaining there-unto, and a complete kit of DNA.

Wow! That’s one big story. The funny thing is that to accept this hypothesis you have to believe in the power of random, whatever that is. In the world of mathematics and our physical world, random means that the cause is uncertain. All this means is that there is nothing scientific about chance beginnings of life.

If you believe in a universe where everything has a cause, primordial soup has no meaning for you.

Intelligent Design is not Creationism or Primordial Soup. Indeed, there is no problem with Intelligent Design recognizing an earth that is over three billion years old. There is no problem in recognizing the processes of evolution. God still is the cause of life itself. The Intelligent Designer.

There is no contradiction between the scientific world and God as creator in Intelligent Design. We know that the earth is billions of years old, and we have physical evidence of evolution, although there is a good bit of disagreement on this evidence and what it means.

I have an Audible Book titled, Signature In The Cell by Stephen C Meyer. The author has tied together the scientific physical evidence world and Intelligent Design. Information theory plays a big part in the realization of this hypothesis. Most people have no idea of information theory and its place in the modern world. It is very mathematical and all of our modern communications system are built on this theory.

The really big deal is DNA. How in the world did DNA come about? Random combinations could never create all the proteins that DNA uses to give meaning and form to life.

This is where information theory comes in.

DNA is information, and is in digital form. The information contained in our DNA would fill a four megabyte memory stick with digital data. That’s a LOT of data. It took decades for scientists to break the DNA code. Now we know that our genetic make-up is housed in our DNA data. It is all we are, or ever could be.

Who put the information into our DNA? It is not noise, nor is it some fake random stuff. DNA is functional, intelligent information.

Therein is the point of Intelligent Design. Simply put, our entire make-up has been delivered to our cells in the form of intelligent instructions, and that intelligence is God.

What do you believe?

 

The New Reality Of Collusion

The Russian collusion hoax has come to an end in spite what the dedicated left-wing politicians and journalists say. With the summary of the Mueller report being announced, the game is now totally different.

Reality has changed.

Like science, once you bet on one version you will inevitably be disappointed in your personal reality. Scientific conclusions change every day. That’s why so-called climate change panic has proven to be junk science. All their supporting data is old, and their forecasts are based on guesses, not real data.

The  Mueller report has changed the reality for the Democrat party. Even though they never had a case for President Trump’s proposed collusion, this didn’t stop them because they had the dominant media outlets on their side. It was all lies.

The Democrat position was lies all the way down. It was lies about all the Trump meetings based on circular reporting based on a so-called dossier that the Democrats bought from the Russians. The whole house of cards has now collapsed.

Where do things go from here? According to liars like Rep Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell there will be no change in the Democrat messaging. If they continue to support this house of cards the Democrat party will become extinct. Defeat is certainly in their future.

I don’t think Nancy Pelosi will let that happen. Strangely enough, she is the adult in the room to keep the little kids from messing all their diapers on the collusion nonsense. It feels strange to say this, but Nancy Pelosi is the only person who can save the Democrats from themselves.

In the meantime some Republicans are planning payback, but Republicans have never been very good in a street fight. That’s where President Trump comes in. He is the best tool to keep defeating the anti-American Democrats, and the best hope for our nation and constitution.

 

 

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez And Climate Change

picture of a donkey
Best Picture I Could Find For Ocasio-Cortez

We all know what an infantile mind AOC has, but we still have to process the babble that comes from her mouth. Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said that there is a consensus of scientists that predict that the future climate will be tough on kids. This is wrong on several levels.

The Dems and liberals say that 97% of scientists support some sort of consensus about global warming. First, nobody has a list of these so-called scientists, and the studies that make that claim are pretty rotten in their methods, just self-serving publications for social scientists that cannot get a real paper published.  Second, nobody knows exactly what that consensus would say if there were one.

When you hear someone ask if you believe in climate change, just ask “what part?”. They are then left speechless with no response. Climate change effects can be in several categories, like more tornadoes. more hurricanes, more and serious droughts. more wild fires. There is no scientific data showing that any of these things are real now, or ever will be. Sure, some ice will melt in the next few centuries, but all forecasts are that it will take possibly thousands of years for all of the Greenland ice pack to melt, and a very long time for the Antarctic ice to melt. In Antarctica there are volcanos under the ice melting from that level, but CO2 has little or no effect on that continent’s warming. For the most part it’s not warming at all.

Why do Democrats rant and scream about so-called Climate Change? Simple. This is the latest crisis they can find with grain of truth that they can exploit to suck money out of the American people. Most of climate change dogma is dog crap.

Ms Ocasio-Cortez believes all this stuff. This woman has a BA in international affairs and economics from Boston University. Oh, the terrible embarrassment BU must be undergoing with this little jewel flashing her ignorance around the world.

She has a sterling resume, but that just reminds me of the prophetic film, Forest Gump. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

Only Fools Believe In Science

scientist
Scientist

Science does not exist as an object in the physical world. In other words you cannot pick up a piece of science and play with it. You can’t go to a store and buy a pound of science. You can’t eat that stuff, either.

Science is a group of IDEAS! Ideas are not physical, even though they can be contained in a book. Science is a metaphysical tool we use to describe the physical world. These ideas are used to fashion experiments, and collect the resulting data with a validated or invalidated hypothesis being noted. A creature called science was never born. We wind up with just an idea and hopefully some new information on how the world works.

Based on the non-physical description of science, it goes further that since the origination of the scientific method (system of ideas), the knowledge resulting from scientific experimentation CHANGES on a regular basis. That which we thought was true will many times abruptly change.

We don’t bleed people anymore in barber shops. We know that ulcers are usually caused by bacteria, not diet. Who knows how good or bad coffee is for ones health (so many studies). The list of scientific failures is very long, and gets longer everyday.

We now know that many if not most of scientific studies in medicine are either false, or not meaningful.  Check this : Dr John Ioannidis.

So, why do people rely so much on “science” when the results are likely to change? My opinion is that scientists have become so proficient in promulgating their stories to get grant money that they are automatically believed. Follow the money.

Many people say they believe in science, and not God. Are you glad you worship something that is likely to change? 

Sustainability Does Not Exist

Oh, boy. Now I can sit back and wait for the Bangs, Whistles, Whammos, Biffs, and Bongs that the environmental and climate change anointed will be throwing at me. Notice the use of onomatopoeia in the previous sentence. But, I digress.

As I was cruising around the blogosphere, I made my regular stop at Watts Up With That, the most popular scientific website in existence. I found an article titled, “UNESCO: We Must Redesign Global Literacy Programmes to Incorporate our Climate Propaganda“.

The article is about a UNESCO worldwide literacy proposal, “International Literacy Day, devoted this year to the connection between literacy and sustainable development, provides us with an opportunity to remember a simple truth: literacy not only changes lives, it saves them.

OK. I will buy that literacy helps save the lives of ignorant people the world over, but what does sustainable development have to do with that? Perhaps Wikipedia can help.

Sustainability:  “In ecology, sustainability (from sustain and ability) is the property of biological systems to remain diverse and productive indefinitely.”

Now that everyone has had a chance to see the definition of sustainability, I have to point out that nothing is forever. The context of the word, indefinitely means “without ending”. Wow, mom and dad. They have found infinity.

NOT!

Do you suppose that our ecologists really think that infinity exists? Their definition of sustainable ecologies makes you wonder if any have ever been to high school, much less college.

This article is all about trying to find a connection between literacy and sustainability. It appears that there is none. A bunch of PhD’s probably originated this fallacy, but it’s not hard to prove that they are either completely wrong, or are trying to perpetuate a scam on the American people.

Nothing is sustainable. Period. Every physical system takes energy, work, supplies, water, effort to continue to exist, etc. An infinitely sustainable system, by definition, is impossible.

How about short-term sustainability? This is what we work for everyday, and we apply all our energy into surviving, or sustaining life for another minute, hour, day…

That, my good friends, is sustainability, but the goal of the ecologists is for some sort of stasis, or death, because nothing is sustainable by their definition. As improbable as it seems, death is exactly what the extreme ecologists advocate. Mankind, according to them, is bad and does not deserve the resources necessary to survive and prosper on the planet. Kill, baby, kill the bad human.

Dr John Holdren, his colleagues and coauthors, Drs Paul and Ann Ehrlich, and a large contingent of ecologists believe that planet Earth is better served by decreasing the human population. In educated circles this idea is called genocide. John Holdren is the personal science advisor to President Barack Obama. Now you know where Obama gets his infantile ideas on environment.

There is no reality about ecological sustainability. There is no connection between ecological sustainability and literacy, unless by becoming literate you can judge this ecological scam accurately. That’s the only connection. Smart people don’t believe ecological sustainability exists.

The idea of sustainability is political, not scientific. The UN, a rogue political body, wants to indoctrinate children with this fallacious idea.

 

Are We In A Computer Simulated World?

Neil deGrasse Thson picture
Neil deGrasse Tyson, Hotdog Scientist

That’s what Neil deGrasse Tyson believes. Tyson is moderating a symposium of pretend academics and scientists at the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate at the American Museum of Natural History. So says the magazine, Scientific American.

Tyson believes that the probability of our universe being part of a computer simulation written and run by super-beings is a high probability. Who is paying this guy, anyway? It does not take a genius to recognize the futility of such an argument.

But, wait. Isn’t this idea tantamount to saying that God created the (our) universe? Or, as some of the scientists say, could there be many Gods in a universe that is “higher” than ours doing the programming and making us all look like modern monkeys?

If this were true we can erase parts of the program we don’t like. If we were to erase some of the monkeys, that would not be murder. If we are all simulations it is not a crime to erase things. I am sure you can come up with some examples of people, places, and things you would like to erase. Why not start with something big?

If we are a big simulation by the Big Programmer in The Sky why not erase Los Angeles, for example?

I am throwing the BS flag on this idea and Scientific American Article. There is no reason to believe we are part of a simulation, or an experiment. I believe we are created beings, and that life is real not only to mankind, but to our Creator.

If  you are looking for someone who has been programmed think of the journalist who wrote this article, and the scientists who attended this soiree. Doesn’t the journallist have something better to write about? Don’t the scientist have better things to do with all the Federal money they take? Who is dreaming up all this stuff? What are they smoking?

This subject has been covered more intelligently at Scott Adams blog. Adams is the creator of Dilbert, and has a good handle on the world, or computer simulation if you will.

Instead of a big computer simulation, maybe a cartoonist has created our world and we are just Looney Tunes characters.

 

 

 

Seven Years Down The Drain

I will never forget the first time I saw John Belushi in the National Lampoon movie, Animal House. Millions of American men connected with characters in that movie. One of the most memorable quotes is when John Belushi’s character, Bluto disconsolately uttered those famous seven words, “Seven years of college down the drain“.

In the last seven years our economy, our foreign relations, our national security, and our national pride have been going down the drain.

The Obama White House has been performing like some college social club that concentrates on the partying and relative social positioning, rather than serious issues. It is as if Delta House has come alive, and Joe Biden has taken on the role of Bluto, and President Obama has taken the role of Otter, the smooth upper-classman who was screwing everything in site. They only thing the White House is serious about is political power, not economic or national security.

To make matters worse, the White House has bought into the genocidal goals of the climate change crazies. These guys are off the deep end. Such disreputable scientists as Paul Ehrlich and Dr John Holdren, the President’s personal science advisor, are paraded front and center. These are the crazies who jointly advocate population control. That plan includes genocide. Obama seems to like their ideas.

As a consequence of their ignorance, the world is starting to crumble as Islamic terrorists have their sway, bombing passenger airplanes from the air, and beheading Christians with impunity. Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, is asserting his influence in the middle-east while Obama is retreating. The Iranians have found a way to construct their much desired nuclear weapons because of a desperate agreement our President wanted for his legacy.

Seven years ago, the US Government started a review process to determine whether Canadian Keystone XL pipeline should be built across portions of the United States to help Canada export some of their oil. The US State Department was involved because the situation involved relations with a foreign country.

During the following seven years, the Environmental Protection Agency, and every other concerned government agency could find no fault or problem with the project. It was obvious from the outset that the whole project was political, especially when there was NO science that showed any harm or danger to the public, or to public lands.

So, what stand does our mighty and super-intelligent President take? Our playboy President announced today that the Keystone XL pipeline project would not be approved.

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

The tragedy of the Keystone XL pipeline saga is that politics have triumphed over science, economics. and common sense. There is no rational argument that one can launch justifying the cancellation of this project. Much needed jobs would have resulted, and the available of more oil would have contributed to a long term stabilization of the world oil markets.

In case you are thinking that the carbon emissions from this project would have contributed to some sort of world-wide catastrophe, you are wrong. There is no science that shows that carbon dioxide is anything more than a moderate greenhouse gas. Indeed, CO2 is necessary for life and the production of the very oxygen we breathe. CO2 is plant food, and  as every high-school biology student learns, is called photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide is life!

For seven years this administration has had the Keystone XL pipeline decision before them. For seven years the administration has been trying to find a way to mitigate the political blowback from their mindless opposition. Now that national elections are looming, Obama had to move. He is counting on the idea that the electorate will forget his insanity of cancelling the Keystone XL pipeline in time to keep the Democrat Party from being erased from electoral politics for generations to come.

Seven years of no gain. Seven years of virtual recession. Seven years of kissing up to terrorists.

Seven years down the drain.

Do Science And Religion Mix?

Charmed-dia-wThere are lots of people on both sides of this issue that will tell you that science and religion do not mix. Evolution is the hot button for many, and there has sprung up a counter idea called Creationism. I am not sure what it is about Creationism that appeals to people, but since it supposedly challenges evolutionary theories, lots of people will string along.

Notice that I said that I really don’t know about Creationism. Well, I really am not deeply conversant with evolutionary theory, either. I will say that I am a Christian, and I am also a person with a scientific view of the world. This is not a contradiction

Let me quote someone from the religion side of things:

“I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things that they weren’t meant to say, and I think we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science.” — Rev. Billy Graham

Some evolutionary enthusiasts may say that Billy Graham was dodging the issue. Certainly, the first chapter of Genesis explains in detail how God created the world. Isn’t the Genesis version of creation a fairy tale? How do you explain the second creation story in Genesis? Why are they in conflict as suggested by Carl Sagan in his book, “Contact”?

I have never considered the Genesis 1:1 account as a literal description, even when I first read it when I was elementary school age. Read it yourselves. It is a beautiful story, poetic, and satisfying for someone trying to tell the story. The second story reverses part of the time line, but it starts a different part of the story. Carl Sagan was simply misguided, and not knowledgeable about the Scriptures, or how a stone age culture would tell a story. The writers of Genesis simply did their best to explain how God did what He did.

Evolutionary theory partly says that humans are descended from apes. Now, my wife will take exception to that, but will somewhat agree that I may be a bit ape like. Ah, the vicissitudes of life and marriage. For millions of people, the fossil record upon which the evolutionists depended was not satisfactory at all. Indeed, the record jumps around all over the place, and it makes you wonder why scientific people were making the assumptions they were. But, that is not the whole story.

It is easy to visualize evolution as a viable way for creation to have happened. Even now, there is substantial debate as to whether evolution can be correct. Enter the science of genetics.

Genetics ruins it all for Creationists. The Creationists who insist on some alternative way people evolved, or worse yet, appeared on earth as functioning, modern adults, have to wake up and take stock. Genetics is not a assumption like the fossil record. Genetics is legitimate science.

Live with it, folks. It certainly looks like some form of evolution has been at work for a very long time. There a lot of questions to be answered, but the truth will be made clear, eventually.

As a Christian I have no problem with genetics, or the idea of an evolutionary process in human development. However, I do not believe in random.

Random is just another word for uncertainty. I cannot buy the idea of a magical, random march of quarks, protons, electrons, and other esoteric particles in the origin of life, and the progression of mankind. I believe in a causal world. For every action there is a cause, and we have not ascertained the cause of every action, much less understand the cause of life,

So, Christians let science do what science does. I don’t think there are any conflicts.

Scientists, let it go about criticizing religion. After all, we are seeing new religions spring up, one of them being that of Science itself. Be careful about what you worship.

Absence Of Evidence Is Not Evidence Of Absence?

Evidence Of Absence?
Evidence Of Absence?

Several famous people have used this phrase in lots of situations. Recently, Neil deGrasse Tyson used it in the following way : “One of our mantras in science is that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.”  This outburst was in defense of a failure of his memory in quoting George W Bush. Tyson got it wrong and after some embarrassing back and forth, finally admitted his error.

In thinking about the meaning of the phrase I realized that the phrase can be nuanced to death. You could spin the phrase to mean pretty much anything.

So, how do you take the meaning?

  • Evidence is evidence, and if there is no evidence to support a theory, there is no evidence. You cannot say that the absence of evidence proves the theory is false. You can only speak of things in the language of uncertainty, i.e., the theory is likely false if there is no empirical evidence to the contrary.
  • If there is no elephant in the room, and if you don’t see any evidence there is an elephant in the room, this lack of evidence means there is no elephant in the room. So, a lack of evidence can be used as evidence of absence.
  • That there is no physical evidence of mental telepathy means that mental telepathy does not exist.
  • There is no evidence mental telepathy does not exist, therefore it exists. This is called an Argument from Ignorance.

Tyson said that the phrase was a scientific mantra. Why would he say that? Maybe his mantra is really, “Everything I say is correct and shame on you for questioning my veracity.”

Everything depends on evidence. In science evidence must be data indicating actual physical parameters. Evidence is measured, counted, photographed, etc.

Of course, there are the ever popular examples as follow:

  1. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it, did it make a sound?
  2. If your wife talks to you during a football game, does this mean you are hard of hearing just because you didn’t hear her?

I am guilty of getting into some deep, unfamiliar waters here. This stuff probably comes under the heading of philosophy. I skillfully endeavored to not take philosophy in college. I was more interested in electrons and women, not necessarily in that order.

It is time to stop this article. I have a headache.