[AgentR11]

What makes Creationism so vile is that it is taught in schools. "

I don't think its vile at all for Creationism to be taught in schools. Its wrong to teach it as SCIENCE. If our public schools were allowed to teach religion&ethics, a creation doctrine section would fit in just fine, and people wouldn't be trying to squish a religion topic into a science class.

Part of the reason I send mine to a private Catholic school; they get both, unimpeded by the political stupidities of the day.

This video shows a college lecture where a student ask about why the limits to oil are not part of the lecturer's considerations only to be told that some countries have "unlimited oil" and then when pressed the lecturer reaffirms this statement:

There is an accounting / business line of thought, that when considering long term investments, you have to accept that there is a certain point beyond which it is irrelevant to consider because it exceeds the expected productive lifetimes of all the participants. So, if a lecturer mentions "unlimited oil"; it wouldn't be surprising if that's the frame from which its being said, ie, that by the time the max long term is reached, there will still be some amount of oil being produced, thus, "unlimited".

Its a kind of thinking that is pretty repulsive to me though; as it assumes almost no concern for the succeeding generation. It sure does make itself felt in American thought though. How many of the moderately wealthy, use their wealth to secure luxury, and expensive dalliances in their old age, and (perhaps rightly) assume that any wealth passed on to heirs will simply be consumed immediately when received? So perhaps the max long term limit thought is an understandable position to hold....

[Plantagenet]

... perhaps the max long term limit thought is an understandable position to hold....

Its one thing for a poorly educated private individual to believe there is unlimited oil and hold other unscientific beliefs like creationism.

Its quite another to have someone who believes there is unlimited oil as Ray Lahood does running the US department of transportation and setting policy for the future direction of the transportation sector of the US economy.

[AgentR11]

Its quite another to have someone who believes there is unlimited oil as Ray Lahood does running the US department of transportation and setting policy for the future direction of the transportation sector of the US economy.

You aren't getting what "unlimited" means in this context.

So, I'll be more blunt.

As an upper bound, the mass of the earth is limited, the mass of all oil within the earth is less than the mass of the earth, therefore, any statement concerning the quantity of oil available implies a finite amount of oil.

So, what does "unlimited" mean, when spoken by this tool?

It means that when his business partners die of old age, someone on earth, somewhere, will be pumping some amount of oil.

I think it is fair to say, that 40 years from now, most of his business partners will either be dead, or decrepit somewhere in a rocking chair. I think it is also fair to suggest that somewhere, 40 years from now, someone will still be pumping some oil, of some sort. QED, unlimited.

That's all it means.

Coincidentally, most transportation infrastructure is considered to have lifespans of about that range; so he could go further and suggest that anything built today for gasoline powered, motor vehicle use, will be utilized by gasoline powered, motor vehicles for its entire useful lifespan.

[Plantagenet]

Its quite another to have someone who believes there is unlimited oil as Ray Lahood does running the US department of transportation and setting policy for the future direction of the transportation sector of the US economy.

You aren't getting what "unlimited" means in this context.... somewhere, 40 years from now, someone will still be pumping some oil, of some sort.

So you think "unlimited" means there will be very little oil left to produce in 40 years. And you think when Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says "some countries have unlimited oil" he means that they'll have very little oil left in several decades.

I think you aren't getting what "unlimited" means.


def: unlimited
---An unlimited or infinite quantity
---not limited; unrestricted; unconfined
---boundless; infinite; vast.

[AgentR11]

I know what the standard English definition of the word is.
I think its a fair bet that the Transportation Secretary knows what the standard definition of the word is.

As the standard definition is excluded by factual reality, the next reasonable assumption is to look for "terms of art"; and in this particular case, it fits, as I have described.

He means that he'll be dead, and the questioner will be dead, before the anything horribly critical happens to oil.

We might disagree with that assertion of course.

[jedrider]

The Transportation Secretary is a good industry Lackey. That is all. 'God help our country' even if Creationism is a fairytale.

[AgentR11]

You can also state this idea mathematically, as the present value of the object at a point far in the future. As you expand the time horizon, the present value approaches zero.

Now, interesting aside, anyone consider what the current ZIRP and modest real inflation do to all those present value computations that underlie business choices? What is the present value, of a barrel of oil 50 years from now, when interest rates have been held at zero while true inflation has remained positive (but not huge). Weird choices incoming, if you ask me.

[Plantagenet]

I think its a fair bet that the Transportation Secretary knows what the standard definition of the word is.

Of course the Transportation Secretary knows what the word unlimited means. Thats why his ridiculous claim that some countries have "unlimited amounts of oil" reveals him to be a scientifically illiterate dope.

[AgentR11]

Of course the Transportation Secretary knows what the word unlimited means. Thats why his ridiculous claim that some countries have "unlimited amounts of oil" reveals him to be a scientifically illiterate dope.

While it is true that insulting members of a democratic administration makes me a happy camper, in this particular case, I can guarantee you that the Transportation Secretary does not believe that the mass of the oil held by other countries exceeds the mass of the earth.

[Serial_Worrier]

Don't worry be happy!

[PrestonSturges]

... far right politics.

Bzzzzt!
The ignorant Ray LaHood is a prominent LIBERAL DEMOCRAT. He was picked by Obama to be the in the cabinet as US transporation secretary.
Ray LaHood is on the left, not the right.

Well that's true, and people have conflicts of interest. LaHood is probably going to be reincarnated as a lobbyist for some oil company.

In the same way, seemingly reputable AGW denialists usually have ties to the fossil fuels industry, or (going back to the Venn diagram), or their physics background makes them dependent on the defense industry and a very right wing culture. So that's the other motivation for denialism - financial gain.

But if you go to the right side of the political spectrum, you could probably find lots of people that embrace several forms of denialism.

The other way to recognize denialism is the use of conspiracy theories. Believing in evolution doesn't require a belief in conspiracy theories, but Creationism is largely a conspiracy theory.

[SeaGypsy]

I think at it's root it's something which every culture has some version of, including cultures which claim not to have. No scientist in the world claims to know how life came into existence in the first place, regardless of where or when in the universe. There are deep philosophical questions in life which should not just be dismissed outright. As the Zen Buddah says: "Always seek the truth, the whole perfect and absolute truth, never give up searching but never ever believe that you have found it."

If there is one thing I resent in standardized creationism, it's the ridicule of intelligence to expect anyone to believe the ultra-simplification and dumbing down effect of such belief.
As if there is a God there is no need to know the mechanics of how S/He built the universe or the living being that is us. The questions don't go away. There are many scientists who realize that there are some gaping holes still in theory, specifically where physics and biology meet, right here in front of us and in us. Folks who think science has all the answers don't know science.

[Keith_McClary]

def: unlimited
---An unlimited or infinite quantity
---not limited; unrestricted; unconfined
---boundless; infinite; vast.

Synonyms for "vast" are: large, big, high, enormous, great, huge, immense, wide, king-size, giant, ...

-Cornypedia.

Seriously, cornys fail to grasp the concept of "finite". They will agree that something is finite, but still believe it can grow without limit (which is, of course, the definition of "infinite").

Creationists have a similar "logic": the universe must have a "creator", but don't ask what created the creator.

[Keith_McClary]

"We’re producing more oil in this country than we ever have.'' -- President Obama

Maybe "we" means his administration.

Or maybe he is including snake oil.

[vision-master]

def: unlimited
---An unlimited or infinite quantity
---not limited; unrestricted; unconfined
---boundless; infinite; vast.

Synonyms for "vast" are: large, big, high, enormous, great, huge, immense, wide, king-size, giant, ...

-Cornypedia.

Seriously, cornys fail to grasp the concept of "finite". They will agree that something is finite, but still believe it can grow without limit (which is, of course, the definition of "infinite").

Creationists have a similar "logic": the universe must have a "creator", but don't ask what created the creator.

What seems to manifest from outside ourselves, comes from within.

What which we see outside ourself, comes from within.

There is not one without the other. Which is the illusion?

vm

[babystrangeloop]

What seems to manifest from outside ourselves, comes from within.

What which we see outside ourself, comes from within.

There is not one without the other. Which is the illusion?

Consider the lilies of the field, they google not.

Re: Is the afterlife an accurate word?
vision-master / Feb 02, 2012

What seems to manifest from outside ourselves, comes from within.

What which we see outside ourself, comes from within.

There is not one without the other. Which is the illusion?

vm

[babystrangeloop]

I've decided that cornucopianism is not new. The origins can be seen in a story.

A Mad Tea Party
Lewis Carroll / ALICE'S ADVENTURES IN WONDERLAND / Chapter VII - A Mad Tea Party / 1869

... the Hatter went on in a mournful tone, `he won't do a thing I ask! It's always six o'clock now.'

A bright idea came into Alice's head. `Is that the reason so many tea-things are put out here?' she asked.

`Yes, that's it,' said the Hatter with a sigh: `it's always tea-time, and we've no time to wash the things between whiles.'

`Then you keep moving round, I suppose?' said Alice.

`Exactly so,' said the Hatter: `as the things get used up.'

`But what happens when you come to the beginning again?' Alice ventured to ask.

`Suppose we change the subject,' the March Hare interrupted, yawning.

So you can see that in 1869 the March Hare was mad enough to be a practitioner of cornucopianism as demonstrated by his staunch refusal to discuss the ramifications of the exhaustion of a finite resource which he partakes in consuming. Therefore cornucopianism is not new. See also

Organon Or"ga*non, Organum Or"ga*num, n. [NL. organon, L. organum. See Organ.]
An organ or instrument; hence, a method by which
philosophical or scientific investigation may be conducted;
-- a term adopted from the Aristotelian writers by Lord
Bacon, as the title ("Novum Organon") of part of his treatise
on philosophical method. --Sir. W. Hamilton.
[1913 Webster]

While I'm on the topic of Organon, the term appears in the lyrics of the song Rongwrong by Quiet Sun (eg.) but not in the lyrics of the song Rongwrong by 801 (eg.). Admittedly some of the Quiet Sun variations use he word whoremonger instead of Organon

Ibid.
`At any rate I'll never go there again!' said Alice as she picked her way through the wood. `It's the stupidest tea-party I ever was at in all my life!'

[vision-master]

I've decided that cornucopianism is not new. The origins can be seen in a story.

A Mad Tea Party
Lewis Carroll / ALICE'S ADVENTURES IN WONDERLAND / Chapter VII - A Mad Tea Party / 1869

... the Hatter went on in a mournful tone, `he won't do a thing I ask! It's always six o'clock now.'

A bright idea came into Alice's head. `Is that the reason so many tea-things are put out here?' she asked.

`Yes, that's it,' said the Hatter with a sigh: `it's always tea-time, and we've no time to wash the things between whiles.'

`Then you keep moving round, I suppose?' said Alice.

`Exactly so,' said the Hatter: `as the things get used up.'

`But what happens when you come to the beginning again?' Alice ventured to ask.

`Suppose we change the subject,' the March Hare interrupted, yawning.

So you can see that in 1869 the March Hare was mad enough to be a practitioner of cornucopianism as demonstrated by his staunch refusal to discuss the ramifications of the exhaustion of a finite resource which he partakes in consuming. Therefore cornucopianism is not new. See also

Organon Or"ga*non, Organum Or"ga*num, n. [NL. organon, L. organum. See Organ.]
An organ or instrument; hence, a method by which
philosophical or scientific investigation may be conducted;
-- a term adopted from the Aristotelian writers by Lord
Bacon, as the title ("Novum Organon") of part of his treatise
on philosophical method. --Sir. W. Hamilton.
[1913 Webster]

While I'm on the topic of Organon, the term appears in the lyrics of the song Rongwrong by Quiet Sun (eg.) but not in the lyrics of the song Rongwrong by 801 (eg.). Admittedly some of the Quiet Sun variations use he word whoremonger instead of Organon

Ibid.
`At any rate I'll never go there again!' said Alice as she picked her way through the wood. `It's the stupidest tea-party I ever was at in all my life!'

White Rabbit

[babystrangeloop]

I suppose I used "Creationism" as a euphemism for "bad science". Should I apologize?

Once it was almost universally believed that the universe revolved around the Earth. As astronomy developed systems which depicted planets going around the Earth started to show deficiencies which made them impossible to use without making corrections. Rather than abandon the fundamental idea that the Earth was at the center modifications were made to the model of the Earth at center. A major modification was called "epicycles" that described the planets as not only going around the Earth but also being attached to invisible spheres that rotated causing effects.

Fast-forward to now and you will find that there are "epicycle apologists"

Slang for bad science

In part, due to misunderstandings about how deferent/epicycle models worked, "adding epicycles" has come to be used as a derogatory comment in modern scientific discussion. The term might be used, for example, to describe continuing to try to adjust a theory to make its predictions match the facts. According to this notion, epicycles are regarded by some as the paradigmatic example of Bad Science.[18] Part of the problem may be due to the misconception of the epicycle as an explanation of a body's motion rather than merely a description. Toomer explains as follows,

"Whereas we use 'hypothesis' to denote a tentative theory which is still to be verified, Ptolemy usually means by ύπόθεσις something more like 'model', 'system of explanation', often indeed referring to 'the hypotheses which we have demonstrated'."[19]

See, epicycles are OK scientifically. Therefore Creationism is also cool, just ask an apologist.

[AgentR11]

Creationism, is without a doubt, bad science. But do you even care WHY its bad science? It isn't its truth or false-ness; its the method. There is nothing experimental, repeatable, testable about creationism, it isn't properly falsifiable, it is, a horrible blob of regurgitated doctrine, wrapped in an equally worthless bag of technobabble in an attempt to appear scientific.

Creationism, if one were to toss the technobabble garbage, and teach it as what it is in truth, religious doctrine, would be a perfectly fine subject (and is a perfectly fine subject) for teaching in schools.