« Terri Schiavo Daily New - Tuesday Edition | Main | UN Scandal Report Censures, Then Clears Annan »

Scientists Puzzled Over Lack of Tsunami

There's a mystery in the good news.

Scientists Puzzled No Tsunami After Quake

EWA BEACH, Hawaii (AP) - Tsunami experts could not understand why Monday's forceful earthquake off Indonesia failed to produce massive waves similar to those generated by the Dec. 26 quake that killed at least 175,000 people in the same region.

A magnitude 8.7 quake shook Indonesia's west coast, killing hundreds of people and spreading panic that another devastating tsunami was on the way.

There was no tsunami, but a small wave was detected by a tide gauge on Cocos Island near Australia, about 1,500 miles south of the epicenter, according to the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center on Oahu.

"I'm baffled an earthquake this size didn't trigger a tsunami near the epicenter," said Robert Cessaro, a geophysicist at the center, which is operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It is responsible for monitoring seismic and ocean conditions in the Pacific and alerting Pacific Rim nations and U.S. agencies, Center Director Charles McCreery said earthquakes of at least 8.0 magnitude usually generate major tsunamis.

"We expected some destructive tsunami with some distant destructive effects. It was surprising," he said. ...

"The one we initially thought was bigger turns out to have no effect," McCreery said. "The one we initially thought was smaller had a huge effect..."

A scientist was wrong? Boy- whoda thunk it.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Scientists Puzzled Over Lack of Tsunami:

» JRBTech Blog linked with Scientists can't find a tsunami

Comments (74)

Hmmm.I read somepl... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

I read someplace that if the earthquake is too deep in the ocean a tsunami won't form. This is probably why there wasn't a tsunami.

P-waves vs. T-waves? A slip... (Below threshold)
mojo:

P-waves vs. T-waves? A slip fault with no noticable upward movement? Just got lucky?

Who knows.

Paul:A scientis... (Below threshold)
areaman:

Paul:

A scientist was wrong? Boy- whoda thunk it.

So?

From another article:... (Below threshold)
andy:

From another article:

Last year's 9.0-magnitude Indian Ocean earthquake ruptured the ocean floor in a way that pushed a tsunami in nearly the worst possible direction - toward the most vulnerable areas with the most people. But the ground may have split yesterday in a different way that kept the waves and their deadly effects to a minimum, said Eric Geist, a U.S. Geological Survey geophysicist in Menlo Park, Calif.

One possibility is that the earthquake split along a fault plane that was more horizontal than vertical, according to an early estimate out of Harvard, said geologist Brian Atwater, also with the Geological Survey.

Saying a scientist was wrong is one thing; saying the body of knowledge on tsunamis is wrong would be another completely. Our current understanding still leaves plenty of room for there to have not been a tsunami, even though a tsunami was considered likely. Now, if they research the subject and find that everything looks like it should have produced a tsunami, but didn't - then Paul can gloat about those gosh darn dumb scientists.

I suspect everytime the weatherman calls for rain and it doesn't, Paul tells his friends "A-ha! We know nothing about meteorology! Just you wait until the the year 3005!"

Now, if they research th... (Below threshold)
Some Guy:

Now, if they research the subject and find that everything looks like it should have produced a tsunami, but didn't - then Paul can gloat about those gosh darn dumb scientists.

hmmmmm

``We expected some destructive tsunami with some distant destructive effects. It was surprising,'' he said. ...

``The one we initially thought was bigger turns out to have no effect,'' McCreery said. ``The one we initially thought was smaller had a huge effect...


andy:dont take the... (Below threshold)
areaman:

andy:

dont take the bait man.

Lack of tsunami clearly sho... (Below threshold)
Curtis:

Lack of tsunami clearly shows that the theory of evolution is false.

areaman - It's dif... (Below threshold)
andy:

areaman -

It's difficult not to... as I've said on my own site previously, and as others have said during the latest debacle, very little of this is about trying to change Paul's mind on anything. It's more about the audience and those who might see it and think "Yeah, dumb scientists!"

someguy -

The strength of the quake is not the only indicator of a tsunami being formed. As I said, they may have felt one was likely - that's a far cry from saying one is certain. See the meteorology comment.

``We expected some destr... (Below threshold)
areaman:

``We expected some destructive tsunami with some distant destructive effects. It was surprising,'' he said. ...

``The one we initially thought was bigger turns out to have no effect,'' McCreery said. ``The one we initially thought was smaller had a huge effect...

Ok. So what?

How about the "underwater l... (Below threshold)

How about the "underwater landslide theory" (of which I know very little, other than those cool Discovery Channel shows with the wave pool)?

What if the December 'quake took out the susceptible landslide areas and this one had nothing to knock loose?

Now, if they research th... (Below threshold)
Some Guy:

Now, if they research the subject and find that everything looks like it should have produced a tsunami, but didn't - then Paul can gloat about those gosh darn dumb scientists.


hmmmmm

``We expected some destructive tsunami with some distant destructive effects. It was surprising,'' he said. ...

``The one we initially thought was bigger turns out to have no effect,'' McCreery said. ``The one we initially thought was smaller had a huge effect...

I read somewhere that the b... (Below threshold)
Curtis:

I read somewhere that the big difference (like ed said) was the depth of the epicenter. This earthquake was centered something like 18 miles below sea level, the Dec 26th one was like 5 miles? I don't recall the numbers exactly. But the article made the point that tsunamis are more likely to occur with a shallow epicenter.

andy:I know what y... (Below threshold)
areaman:

andy:

I know what you're saying. Howver, anybody who reads this post and then makes the assumption that scientists are stupid because they arent always correct is a fool. Was Leonardo DaVinci always correct? Nope. Does that mean he was stupid? Definitely not.

One of the best attributes of scientists is that they can admit when they are wrong, and this article is a good case in point. They dont seemt to have a problem saying they were incorrect...and thats where science differs from religious belief.

However, there ARE scientists who dont like to admit when they are wrong, and who dont want to hear different ideas that might contradict their own...but those types go against the whole idea of scientific learning.

This little article is a good example of what scientists SHOULD be doing...they did their work, figured out what they thought would happen...but then they turned out to be wrong. Ok. So now they get back to work and figure out WHY they were wrong. Thats the normal process.

While no tsunami was detect... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

While no tsunami was detected, a "small wave" (aka not a tsunami) was which exemplifies an incomplete understanding of the phenomenon - actually, natural event. But andy expresses this point quite well.

Scientists are wrong much of the time. They are also right much of the time. I believe that ratio of right:wrong hovers around 42:42 which is equivalently 1:1, so they are right about as often as they are wrong. Yet those odds are still better than the ones proposed by non-scientists. Thank you, I'll still stick with the dumb scientists and let my knuckles drag a bit longer. I just hope I can avoid the tsunamis.


PS - My new obsession with "42" may soon approach your obsession with "debunking the scientist" stories... not that there's anything wrong with that.

One of the best attributes ... (Below threshold)
Some Guy:

One of the best attributes of scientists is that they can admit when they are wrong, and this article is a good case in point. They dont seemt to have a problem saying they were incorrect...and thats where science differs from religious belief.

However, there ARE scientists who dont like to admit when they are wrong, and who dont want to hear different ideas that might contradict their own...but those types go against the whole idea of scientific learning.

This little article is a good example of what scientists SHOULD be doing...they did their work, figured out what they thought would happen...but then they turned out to be wrong. Ok. So now they get back to work and figure out WHY they were wrong. Thats the normal process.

Oops. Change "proposed" to ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Oops. Change "proposed" to "earned".

"Scientists are wrong mu... (Below threshold)
Some Guy:

"Scientists are wrong much of the time. They are also right much of the time. I believe that ratio of right:wrong hovers around 42:42 which is equivalently 1:1, so they are right about as often as they are wrong."

some guy:oh you're... (Below threshold)
areaman:

some guy:

oh you're so subtle and mysterious.

if paul wants to gloat about how stupid scientists are because of this example...well thats up to him. what that means is that he doesnt understand the whole process of science. or maybe you dont.

darwin wasnt right all the time. gregor mendel wasnt either. einstein? nope.

assuming that people are stupid because they arent always right is pretty faulty logic.

However, there ARE scien... (Below threshold)
areaman:

However, there ARE scientists who dont like to admit when they are wrong, and who dont want to hear different ideas that might contradict their own...but those types go against the whole idea of scientific learning.

It's true.

a scientist was baffled not... (Below threshold)

a scientist was baffled not wrong.

now, why there was no tsunami, it has to do with plate techtonics. If the quake didn't cause techtonic shift, then there would be no displacement large enough or fast enough to create the wave.

However, warning everyone to run for the hills was a good thing, and since they did it this time there is no reason they shouldn't have done it back in december when it would have counted.

science does something that religion does not. it weighs facts and evidence in its decisions.

wingnut

Clearly the lack of a tsuna... (Below threshold)

Clearly the lack of a tsunami show MAJOR HOLES in plate tectonic theory. Yeah, right, all of these GZ's (Geology Zealots), these Quakers, claim that the surface of the earth consists of hard plates floating on the mantle.

See, there is NO PROOF of Plate Tectonic Theory. It's just a "theory." I don't buy it. A bunch of plates slipping around some so-called mantle? Ya know what I think? The plates would get cracked! Just like those silly scientists who try to prevent other points of view. THEY'RE CRACKED TOO!!

Quakers!

The majority of the engery ... (Below threshold)
The Enigma:

The majority of the engery from this latest earthquake was directed toward the south, thus averting the possibility of a major tsunami.

Tsumani Fears Ease

In the event my Link Posting Fails

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/ap_050328_tsunami_ease.html

areaman: Don't take the bai... (Below threshold)
andy:

areaman: Don't take the bait. :)

Yikes: Speaking of strawmen... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Yikes: Speaking of strawmen.

I don't recall ever saying scientists were dumb or stupid. You guys are funny. Obsessively compulsive, but funny. (smile)

Some Guy,Would you... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Some Guy,

Would you be kind enough to include the full point of my post rather than edit without required context? Remember, there's a bit of facetiousness in there, so when you pull out the humor from the main point, you twist my intent. If you've ever had your intent twisted, you know how painful that can be.

andy:damn! lol</p... (Below threshold)
areaman:

andy:

damn! lol

Paul:I don't re... (Below threshold)
areaman:

Paul:

I don't recall ever saying scientists were dumb or stupid. You guys are funny. Obsessively compulsive, but funny. (smile)

You're right, you didnt. "Some guy" was quoting everyone else and attempting to make a point, and was assuming that based on this article you (Paul) could go around saying that scientists are stupid...

Confusing. "Some guy" doesnt like to come right out and say things, for some reason.

Anyway Paul, I know that you dont think that scientists are all stupid.

I believe Mojo is right on<... (Below threshold)
wannabe:

I believe Mojo is right on

when Canadian radio was covering the earthquake, firstly, they were saying this was an aftershock from the major earthquake on Boxing Day,

they were commenting on who knew aftershocks could take that long

secondly the expert they had on air said they didn't have any information as to whether it was a vertical or horizontal ground shift and that would determine whether there was likely to be a tsunami wave...

Paul:A s... (Below threshold)
areaman:

Paul:

A scientist was wrong? Boy- whoda thunk it.

So?

Confusing. "Some guy" do... (Below threshold)
Some Guy:

Confusing. "Some guy" doesnt like to come right out and say things, for some reason.

You fellas are doing just fine.

Paul,My question i... (Below threshold)
areaman:

Paul,

My question is this: Do you have a point beside "Scientists arent always right?"

Just wondering.

RE: Some Guy's post (March ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Some Guy's post (March 29, 2005 02:32 PM)
"fellas are ... fine."

Thank you for sharing that with us, Some Guy.


PS - You mean that wasn't your intent? Oops.

AnonymousDrivel:lo... (Below threshold)
areaman:

AnonymousDrivel:

lol

Stimulus, response. Stimulu... (Below threshold)

Stimulus, response. Stimulus, response.

A great many of the commenters taking issue with this post are exhibiting symptoms allegedly associated with PVS...

How about this headline:</p... (Below threshold)
areaman:

How about this headline:

"Creation Scientists Unsure Whether Apple Was Metaphor Or Not"

Dateline The Bible Belt: Creation Scientists released a statement Tuesday that they are still unclear whether or not the "apple" that Adam and Eve ate in the Garden of Eden was an actual apple, or just a literary device. Despite re-reading Genesis multiple times, even upside down, the "scientists" could find no answers. The hot question in thier "lab" these days is this: if the apple was just a literary device, how could Adam have bit into it? Does that mean that there may have been other literary devices in the sacred texts? The debate has the Creation Science communtiy in an uproar.

That was just for fun.

RE: McGehee's post (March 2... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: McGehee's post (March 29, 2005 02:53 PM)
Stimulus, response. Stimulus, response.

A great many of the commenters taking issue with this post are exhibiting symptoms allegedly associated with PVS...

In the spirit of your post, at least there is a response. And does the Schiavo subtext need to enter practically every thread?

Megehee:A great... (Below threshold)
areaman:

Megehee:

A great many of the commenters taking issue with this post are exhibiting symptoms allegedly associated with PVS...

All I'm wondering is whether Paul has another point he's trying to make, or not.

I think God must have creat... (Below threshold)
Master of None:

I think God must have created an anti-tsunami to cancel out the one the scientists knew was going to happen. That way everybody can be happy.

While tsunami is the offici... (Below threshold)
Paul Langly:

While tsunami is the official term, it's actually a misnomer. Tsunami translates roughly to "harbor wave", and these destructive waves have little to do with harbors other than it's one location where their power is manifested. A more exact term is "Displacement wave" now favored by a growing number of scientists. Displacement waves are caused by displacement of the water. The larger and faster the displacement, the bigger and more powerful the resulting wave. While an earthquake can cause large rapid displacements, either directly or indirectly, it's not necessarily the case. It's common for earthquakes along strike-slip faults to occur without producing displacement waves.

What the scientist may be assuming the audience knows is that the fault involved in this 8.7 earthquake is a thrust fault, and with such a fault, displacement is the norm.

Master of None:I k... (Below threshold)
areaman:

Master of None:

I knew it. The old create an anti-tsunami trick. Better than His old "kill everyone with a flood" trick, IMHO.

It looks like to me that th... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

It looks like to me that the Evil Genius Rove is going to have to go back to the drawing board. This was cause by some kind of dastardly device owned by the republicans and if you don't believe that just go read about it at DU.

RE: areaman's post (March 2... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: areaman's post (March 29, 2005 03:27 PM)
The old create an anti-tsunami trick. Better than His old "kill everyone with a flood" trick, IMHO.

For some reason I'm thinking of KAOS. Oh, Agent 86... where art thou?

There is no tsunami because... (Below threshold)
DU Stray:

There is no tsunami because Bush forgot to set it to kill some Muslims today.

Paul is a pompous idiot? B... (Below threshold)
John:

Paul is a pompous idiot? Boy- whoda thunk it.

Oh, wait, everyone.

I've had some good question... (Below threshold)

I've had some good questions posed by Evolution critics:
http://acepilots.com/mt/archives/001905.html

Questions and answers in Comments.

In all seriousness, it's in interesting, fact-based discussion.

Well, being someone who HAS... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Well, being someone who HAS read a certain amount of credible information about the history of medicine (although I am not a 'scientist', not that there's anything wrong with that)...

Acceptable medical practice used to include drilling a hole or holes in someone's head if they had a headache. And that was before anasthesia existed beyond giving someone a glass o'grog to drink first, during and worse, after, at which time they were given many glasses o' grog to drink while they died an excruciating death due to massive bacterial infection(s) in their head and blood stream (a very, very gruesome way to die).

When there was a headache, or when a human fell over and impacted their head or did so otherwise by any means, and their head hurt afterward, they were thought to have some "bad vapor" or thereabout contained within their skull and so a doctor had to drill a hole in their head (and leave it there by removing a part of their skull) to "let the bad air out" or thereabouts.

People would almost routinely die a terrible death many weeks, sometimes months later. And, it was thought that they'd died from the original bad vapor, because no one even perceived what bacteria and viruses were, or that they existed.

Oh, those pesky scientists. I agree with the 42:42 theory, however and that it's a fallacy of thought to assume that there's nothing to learn, that knowledge is fixed and final. Some things are within perameters of definitions but academicallly, there is more to know than is already known. Certainly as to the physical sciences.

Typo (^^)...should read, "p... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Typo (^^)...should read, "parameters."

I frequently misspell that word when I rush, sorry.

areaman: be very glad that... (Below threshold)
-S-:

areaman: be very glad that God has a sense of humor -- among other qualities -- be very glad about that this day.

Maybe He just wanted to save the cattle, bees and trees for a change and decided to vacuum a part of the Indian Ocean floor. Not like you can disprove that, any or all of it.

"My question is this: Do yo... (Below threshold)
Former Texan:

"My question is this: Do you have a point beside "Scientists arent always right?"

Just wondering."


Of course Paul has a point besides the fact that scientists are sometimes wrong. "Whoda thunk it" is obviously sarcastic. The sarcasm makes the point obvious.

Paul has clearly stated that he believes that science is nowhere near as far along as many others do, especially scientists themselves. Hence his goofy graph. He is not saying scientists (even evolutionary biologists) are stupid, nor that they are always wrong, nor that they are evil or irreligious or anything else. But his (necessarily subjective) veiwpoint, repeated innumerable times, is that scientists attribute to themselves a degree of knowledge they do not possess, and assume for themselves a level of credibility and authority which they do not deserve. -S- makes pretty much the same point with his post on the history of medical quackery. Paul thinks that excessive faith in science is akin to religion.

Paul does accuse scientists and their acolytes of pomposity. He has repeatedly said that those who challenge the credibility and authority of science will be belittled, ridiculed, dismissed as bible-thumpers, and so on. The dismissive and condescending tone taken towards Paul in many of these posts (like the simplistic question quoted above) tends to support his viewpoint.


"Paul does accuse scientist... (Below threshold)
frameone:

"Paul does accuse scientists and their acolytes of pomposity. He has repeatedly said that those who challenge the credibility and authority of science will be belittled, ridiculed, dismissed as bible-thumpers, and so on."

Challenging the validity of a scientific theory or study has been a part of the scientific method for centuries.
That's part of what makes science science: rational inquiry tested by informed scepticism. No one belittles rational challenges to hypothetical claims.
There's a big difference, however, between rational inquiry and jumping on every failed hypothesis as proof positive that God exists because the universe is just too mysterious and complex for science to explain. If science can't prove something then God exists? Why does faith get to win by default?
Doesn't this argument boil down to the equation that God must exist because people are too dumb to figure out how the universe works?
My goodness, give it some time. We'll get there. Look how far headache remedies have come!

frameone:Noone<... (Below threshold)
Former Texan:

frameone:

Noone is challenging scientific theoryor study. Noone is claiming that science has not made progress. Noone is arguing that a failed hypothesis proves the existence of God.

Paul is just fed up with the unwarranted certitude with which scientists often present their findings to an often gullible public. Much of accepted medical practice today is likely to be be regarded as quackery in the future, but you are hard put to find a doctor who will admit it.

Look at the advice we get from scientists about our diet. Avocados are a wonderful health food. No wait, they are a cholesterol bomb. No wait, they are good for you after all. Remember when liver was touted as a health food? Remember the saccharin fiasco?

The point is not that theories about interspecial evolution (or global warming, or avocados) are necessarily wrong. Paul thinks, and I agree, that scientists often address these subjects with a degree of confidence, and a lack of humility, which is offensive given their track record and the ambiguity of their evidence. And I also have the same impression as Paul about the pomposity of scientists -- if you question whether their evidence really supports the unqualified assertions they make, they tend to resort to ridicule and write you off as a Thumper.

Which, by the way, is what you are attempting to do by interjecting the gratuitous remark about "jumping on every failed hypothesis as proof positive that God exists," a subject that is completely irrelevant to my post (or any one of Paul's gazillion posts). It's just your way of taking a cheap shot to write me off as a Thumper. Once again, Paul's comment thread proves his point.

If you want my advice, picke a better example than headache remedies. For my money, headache remedies haven't gotten any better than aspirin, which is the product of tribal healers noticing the effects of willow bark without the benefit of the scientific method. And last I read, science still can't explain why it works.

RE: Former Texan's post (Ma... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Former Texan's post (March 29, 2005 07:51 PM)
Paul is just fed up with the unwarranted certitude with which scientists often present their findings to an often gullible public. Much of accepted medical practice today is likely to be be regarded as quackery in the future, but you are hard put to find a doctor who will admit it.

This just isn't true. The vast and overwhelming volume of research from scientists is defined within parameters and conditions described by methods and concluded based on their interpretation of their experiments and those of others. While some reporter may winnow down a peer reviewed paper to a quip in the news and call it scientific fact, or some shill may push the latest and greatest dietary fad based on a gross misunderstanding of metabolism, scientists do not do this. It is a fallacy to perpetuate such a simplification. I suggest you attend a medical or research convention where researchers and scientists present their findings to the public and peers and see exactly how such data is presented. I think you'll change your misconception. If you opt not to attend, start reading legitimately peer-reviewed journals with a scientifically jaundiced eye and you'll see that very little is proclaimed as outright truth.

What Former Texan wrote on ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

What Former Texan wrote on both occasions, this thread (^^).

AnonymousDrivel:Fa... (Below threshold)
Former Texan:

AnonymousDrivel:

Fair point. I can readily accept that at least some of the frustration I feel towards scientists can be attributed to glib and misleading treatment of their work by the media.

So, let's stop bashing Paul and move back to common ground -- is Dan Rather an asshole or what?

I was (also, but didn't [d'... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I was (also, but didn't [d'oh]) going to include here the quite current medical practice of administering GOLD (the actual substance [mineral/metal]) to some people displaying certain auto immune disorders.

No one knows HOW or even WHY it produces a beneficial effect, just that it does. And so it is among the listed treatments available to physicians today to prescribe/administer to certain people suffering certain complications within Rheumatology and other areas of practice treating auto immune disorders. They actually and truly administer GOLD orally. And it has some sort of beneficial result. No one can explain why.

AnonymousDrivel:BT... (Below threshold)
Former Texan:

AnonymousDrivel:

BTW, when you mentioned a "gross misunderstanding of metabolism," were you thinking of the Atkins Diet?

But, my approach to and abo... (Below threshold)
-S-:

But, my approach to and about much that is included in medicine today is that if it works, do it, or at least try. I think there is much that makes risks worthwhile and many risky issues ought not be discounted due to unprovability, etc.

But I agree with how and what Former Texan has capsulized (and very well) the ongoing thing here where Paul and his comments early on have been distorted, misrepresented, used to promote other websites (that last thing is what I think is the driving motivation for some who've made the biggest deal out of what I originally read to be nearly uneventful comments by Paul).

Anyway, ever since I mischaracterized Copernicus, I haven't been able to sleep.

That last part was sarcasm.

RE: Former Texan's post (Ma... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Former Texan's post (March 29, 2005 08:22 PM)
So, let's stop bashing Paul and move back to common ground -- is Dan Rather an asshole or what?

LOL

I would say that given the MSM bias quotient, CBS propensity to CYA, and the historical record of leftward slant by Nixonian era reporters that your conclusion regarding the assholedness of one Dan Rather approaches 1 (actually 0.952 +/- 0.03) and well within the acceptable exclusionary statistical error. Some, of course, wince with the coarsely dehumanizing definition and prefer "jerk" or "driveler" (eek!). We should let the misinformed and readily stumped media choose whichever nomenclature it prefers to disseminate this "truth".

Ultimately, our derived interpretations concur. ;)

RE: Former Texan's post (Ma... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Former Texan's post (March 29, 2005 08:25 PM)
... a "gross misunderstanding of metabolism," were you thinking of the Atkins Diet?

Not really. I don't know enough about that particular diet to draw a conclusion. My gut (heh) tells me to be highly sceptical of anything as radical as his diet appears - my limited understanding of the diet not withstanding. I was actually thinking of any "miracle" diet or compound episodically trotted out as the silver bullet of health without the required recognition that only balance, moderation, and time generally produce valid healthy returns. Any extreme is almost certainly BS and I'll take the diet tips with a healthy dose of scepticism by default.

AnonymousDrivelAgr... (Below threshold)
Former Texan:

AnonymousDrivel

Agree fully with your scientifically accurate coefficient of determination regarding Rather.

-s-

FYI, we have been in agreement before. Former Texan = Michael from previous threads. I decided to change names after I got outed as a genuine Thumper. ;>)

RE: -S-'s post (March 29, 2... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: -S-'s post (March 29, 2005 08:24 PM)
No one knows HOW or even WHY it [gold] produces a beneficial effect, just that it does...

Much of science is serendipitous and a good healer will take advantage of such discoveries to ease human suffering. It is up to scientific researchers to methodically and rationally investigate the "hows" and "whys" and test their hypotheses. They may discover that it is not actually the element that cures but rather some as of yet uncharacterized microbe that likes gold (and sticks to its surface) that is the real "magic" bullet. Science, hopefully, provides for us the tools to make such determinations in as efficient a manner as possible.

skybird:How much h... (Below threshold)
Former Texan:

skybird:

How much have you had to drink?

Former Texan: I'm af... (Below threshold)
frameone:

Former Texan:
I'm afraid you completely misconstrued what I wrote. Being wrong is part of the scientific method of inquiry: propose a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, if evidence doesn't support it, go back to the drawing board. Paul's initial comment then, even in jest, is pointless on its face.
As to your own comments I have no doubt that there are plenty of arrogant scientists out there but you if you don't want to be called a "Thumper" don't argue faith-based theories in the face of empirical evidence. For example, creationsim or intelligent design.

frameone:When did ... (Below threshold)
Former Texan:

frameone:

When did I argue a faith-based theory in the face of empirical evidence? When did I (or Paul) advocate creationism or intelligent design? (Including my ID in previous theads as Michael).

Still, you can call me a Thumper any time you want. But I will not attempt to support my ideas with empirical evidence. Want to hear a faith-based theory? I have been teaching a class on Isaiah. It's really freaky stuff. Blows my mind, especially after you having just studied Paul's letter to the Romans. Paul and Isaiah are like two peas in a pod. (For example, they are both preoccupied with the role of the Remnant of Israel. For example, they are both preoccupied with idolatry.)

So, here is my faith-based theory: When God visits his wrath upon this planet, the ground will shake and idolaters will hide in holes in the earth.

My empirical evidence? None. But I think Isaiah has it nailed. There is no empirical support for this, and I would never claim otherwise. I just take it as fact that God was talking to Isaiah, and Isaiah honestly reported God's opinion on this subject.

Want more Thumperism? I think science has become a form of idolatry for many people. In Romans, Paul makes the observation that we worship creation rather than the Creator. That basically sums up my view of Darwinism. BUT, that does NOT mean that the insights afforded by evolutionary biology are necessarily false.

None of which affects my appreciation for the scientific method or the many advances of science that benefit me. Forget headache remedies -- I just got a new ultra-thin cell phone with digital camera that I think is really cool. THANK YOU SCIENTISTS!!!!!!

And does the Schiavo sub... (Below threshold)

And does the Schiavo subtext need to enter practically every thread?

Guess I inadvertently stimulated another response. ;-)

RE: McGehee's post (March 2... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: McGehee's post (March 29, 2005 10:03 PM)

Dr. Pavlov? Is that you?

"When did I argue a faith-b... (Below threshold)
frameone:

"When did I argue a faith-based theory in the face of empirical evidence? When did I (or Paul) advocate creationism or intelligent design? (Including my ID in previous theads as Michael)."

You didn't. I said "for example." You said that scientists and the scientific community "belittle" and dismiss people who question their theories by calling them "thumpers." This is patently a strawman argument because no legitimate scientist would belittle anyone who could present valid empirical evidence in support of an opposing hypothesis. You only get called a "thumper" when you make "thumper" arguments. Does being a "thumper" mean you should be belittled? No, not necessarily.

"Does being a "thumper" ... (Below threshold)
Former Texan:

"Does being a "thumper" mean you should be belittled? No, not necessarily."

Thank you.

It's the end of the thread,... (Below threshold)
-S-:

It's the end of the thread, or thereabouts, so I thought I'd share something that the atheists won't read anyway and that others will enjoy reading if they have some time to do so, so no harms done:

Here...

The Slippery Slope: From Trust to Presumption
by Friar Jack Wintz, O.F.M.


A reader responded to my last E-spiration, “Trusting God in the Desert: A Lenten Meditation,” with this comment: “I believe it can be very easy to slip from trust to presumption and not even realize one is doing that.” The reader wanted to know my thoughts on the subject. So here they are:

A great example of how a person can slip into presumption is demonstrated, I believe, in Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. The Pharisee has a lot of trust all right, but it is all placed upon his own virtue (rather than upon the power of God). He has slipped into presumption big time.

Listen to him: “Oh God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income” (Luke 18: 11-12). A paragon of virtue in his own eyes, he is presuming that his personal acts of fasting and contributions to a holy cause are automatically making him holy in God’s sight—without any help from God. He is not trusting in God’s power to elevate him to sainthood, but in his own. He presumes he is much closer to God than that poor tax collector he looks upon with scorn in the back of the temple.

The Pharisee’s overblown self-trust is really presumption, the placing of too much trust in himself rather than in God. It’s a kind of blindness. Jesus presents the tax collector, on the other hand, as much more pleasing to God, because he has a better understanding of who he is before God—a fallible human being, a self-acknowledged vessel of clay. He does not presume he is more than he is, or that he can save himself by his own power. He knows that the true source of his healing and his salvation is God, and he puts his trust in this source. In touch with his own smallness in contrast to God’s greatness, he strikes his breast and says, “O God, be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18:13). Jesus tells us that this man of humble trust went home “justified,” that is, in right relationship with God, while the Pharisee did not.


From:
Friar Jack's E-spirations
[email protected]
americancatholic.org

Areaman asks:"M... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Areaman asks:

"My question is this: Do you have a point beside "Scientists arent always right?""

Well... My point might have been that there were so many freaking zealots out there that a simple mention that there was a question science could not answer might elicit over 50 replies from people wanting to bash me for pointing it out.

-- Of course that would never really happen now would it.

Paul:I know who an... (Below threshold)
areaman:

Paul:

I know who and what you are talking about...and that Steven Jay Gould quote that I posted on another thread sums it up well for me. There ARE scientists who are so dogmatic that their views are akin to religious belief. I see it, and dont like it. But then, I have a problem with anyone who claims to be correct all the time.

Former Texan:So... (Below threshold)
areaman:

Former Texan:

So, here is my faith-based theory: When God visits his wrath upon this planet, the ground will shake and idolaters will hide in holes in the earth.

Okay, that sounds good enough to me. What do you consider to be an "idolater". From what I have read in Judeo Christian texts, idolators are usually people who worship false gods, etc. Now, thats something to look at critically. I have no problem with religious people, with belief, faith, etc. But when one group of people claims that theirs is the only universal god, and that all other gods are false, well thats religious bigotry IMHO.

Ben Franklin wrote about this in regards to Native Americans. One Indian man said to him (paraphrased): We listened to your stories, and believed them to be true, but when you heard ours, you claimed they were all false. That is unfair for you to think that you are the only one who is right.

I just take it as fact that God was talking to Isaiah, and Isaiah honestly reported God's opinion on this subject.

I can respect that. In fact, I find it interesting to haer about what people believe. Good stuff.

Want more Thumperism? I think science has become a form of idolatry for many people. In Romans, Paul makes the observation that we worship creation rather than the Creator. That basically sums up my view of Darwinism.

Now, I might have to take issue with this comment. I dont understand where you get the idea that people are worshipping creation, as you say. I know alot of anthropologists, archaeologists, and biologists who have a thorough understanding of evolution, but I dont think that they "worship" it. Most of them just feel that its a pretty good explanation of how life diversified. Not a perfect answer, but definitely a good start.

And what does "Darwinism" mean to you anyway? I would be interested to know that. I honestly dont see any need for your faith to clash with science, with evolutionary theory at all. But thats just me.

Here's my definition of a bible thumper, FYI: someone who believes that their religion is the only right religion, and who decries as false anything that conflicts with a strict interpretation of their sacred texts.

RE: areaman's post (March 3... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: areaman's post (March 30, 2005 11:52 AM)
bible thumper - FYI: someone who believes that their religion is the only right religion, and who decries as false anything that conflicts with a strict interpretation of their sacred texts.

Hmm. Sounds suspiciously Talebanish. Are there "Koran Thumpers"? And should I now go into hiding for such blasphemy?

AnonD:Hmm. Soun... (Below threshold)
areaman:

AnonD:

Hmm. Sounds suspiciously Talebanish. Are there "Koran Thumpers"? And should I now go into hiding for such blasphemy?

lol It's true.

Now...run blasphemer!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy