Dexterity Unlimited

The Tide Has Turned

Dan J — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:36:43 +0000

It was refreshing to read this article at the Rhode Island Public Radio web site this evening: Algiere, Bates join RI Senate GOP bloc in backing bill favored by same-sex marriage supporters. This marks the first time that a partisan state legislative caucus has expressed unanimous backing for a bill in support of same-sex marriage.

Marriage equality is right, and it is just. Denying the ability of two consenting adults to marry has no rational basis. There are religious arguments against it, but as religious rule has no binding on laws within our country, those apply solely to those members of religious groups who choose to follow them.

Here is a portion of the statement released by the GOP caucus on the morning of 23 April 2013:

Our Senate Republican Caucus is deeply committed to the values of freedom, liberty and limited government. In accordance with those values, we believe that freedom means freedom for everyone, and that every citizen of Rhode Island deserves the freedom to marry the person they love.

We support Senate Bill 38 because it rightfully extends the civil aspects of marriage to all Rhode Islanders while protecting the freedom of religion our state was founded upon. Gay and lesbian couples deserve to be treated equally under the law, and at the same time churches, synagogues and mosques in our state must be free to exercise their faith and their sacraments as they see fit. This bill strikes the right balance and should be passed by the Senate.

The mention of religious institutions being able to “exercise their faith and their sacraments as they see fit” should allay some of the irrational fears expressed by some of those who oppose same-sex marriage. Some people, though, will never be convinced by facts.

Many people seem to be convinced that our country should be governed by laws based on their particular interpretation of their holy book. They state (without any justification) that the United States is a “Christian nation.” To them, anything they see as “sin” should be against the law. They are wrong, and they will be on the wrong side of history when the next century’s textbooks are written.

Misinformation Works; Dangerously So

Dan J — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:31:19 +0000

Yes; misinformation works. Places like Fox News excel at it. Nutjobs like Pam Geller and her ilk have been very successful at promoting fear of anything associated with Islam. They achieve this by simply lying, and playing into the xenophobia already present in many members of the far-right-wing.

I follow someone on Twitter named Joe Cienkowski. I’ve given Joe a lot of grief over his lack of understanding when it comes to basic concepts of science, etc., in the past. I still like the guy, though. I really do think that Joe means well. Unfortunately, his gullibility for anything that hypes his existing fears and religious beliefs makes him horribly misinformed about reality.

When misinformation becomes the basis of some people’s mind-set, it can be very dangerous. If you don’t think that’s a problem, perhaps you should check out the Randolph Linn case.

An Indiana man who pleaded guilty yesterday to setting an Ohio mosque on fire told a judge he was motivated by media accounts – specifically those on Fox News – suggesting Muslims were threatening Americans and were in control of parts of the federal government. —Morlin, Bill. “Mosque Arsonist: Fox News Made Me Do It!” Salon. Salon Media Group, Inc., 22 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2013. .

That’s why it bothers me when I see things like this posted on Twitter:

If John Brennan converted to Islam, it would pay [sic] a conflict of interest for him to be CIA director. He won’t even say ‘war on terror’.

The rest of our brief exchange on this subject went as I expected it to.

.@JoeCienkowski The position of CIA director, as well as any other position in our government, has NOTHING to do with a person’s religion.

@RelUnrelated this is where beliefs like yours become dangerous. You are blind to the reality that there’s a huge conflict with Islamists.

.@JoeCienkowski Joe; just because someone is a Muslim doesn’t make them a terrorist.

Misinformation is making a segment of our population dangerously afraid of anyone who happens to be Muslim or who appears (to them) to be of Middle Eastern descent. The blatant sources of misinformation are easy enough to identify, but not easy to counter. When lies are profitable, and protected speech, what more can we do than continue to point it out?

A Mad Rush

Dan J — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 23:59:21 +0000

It’s not the rush you’d expect. This one happens to be Erik Rush, and I refer to him as mad not because he’s angry, but because he seems to be rather mentally unhinged.

My story begins with a blog post by Ed Brayton. Ed’s post is “Rush: The Commies are Coming, Led by Obama!” The post was referencing one of Erik Rush’s recent columns; Resurrecting Communism’s Glory Days. You’ll notice that the article is posted on the Canada Free Press web site. The “subtitle” for that site is “…Because without America there is no Free World.” That should give you a hint as to their usual type of content.

Yes, Erik Rush is convinced that we need to be afraid of the Red Menace that is communism. I had to look at my calendar to be sure that the year wasn’t 1958, and that the date wasn’t April 1^st.

It’s simply amazing how the nutjobs like Erik Rush feed off of each others’ delusions. Erik’s article starts with this gem:

In his February 1 column, Dr. Steven Lambert reprinted in part a section of testimony that was given before the House of Representatives in 1963; this cited 45 declared goals the Communist Party in America had in their strategy for taking the country over. The entire reprint is available in several places online, so I won’t use up space to include them here.

How could one argue with testimony given before the US House of Representatives? Here’s a hint for you: All sort of bullshit gets read into the congressional record. To paraphrase a meme, “I saw it in the Congressional Record, so it must be true!” The post Mr. Rush refers to is citing the US Congressional Record for January 10, 1963. If you’ll take time to examine this citation, you’ll find mention of the original source.

Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
⋮
[It continues with the remaining “Communist Goals.”]
Congressional Record, Vol. 109, 88th Congress, 1st Session,Appendix Pages A1-A2842, Jan. 9-May 7, 1963.

Here’s another tip for those interested in the Congressional Record: Note the term “Extension of Remarks.” You might be interested in what the Library of Congress has to say about Extensions of Remarks.

The section in each day’s Record following the House and Senate proceedings is known as the Extensions of Remarks. This section is now used only by Members of the House to include additional legislative statements not delivered on the House floor as well as extraneous materials such as the text of speeches delivered outside Congress, letters from and tributes to constituents, and newspaper or magazine articles.

That’s right. The citation that they refer to was never read as testimony before congress. It was another bit of bullshit that a congressman put into the record to placate an anti-communist constituent and highlight his own sense of patriotic nationalism.

The really strange part is that you’ll find no such list in the original version of The Naked Communist by W. Cleon Skousen. The author discusses these goals in his book, but someone else created the list from his work.

Here’s the beginning of the Wikipedia entry for Skousen:

Willard Cleon Skousen (January 20, 1913 – January 9, 2006) was an American author, conservative American constitutionalist and faith-based political theorist. He was also a prolific popularizer among Latter-day Saints (Mormons) (LDS) of their theology. A notable anti-communist and supporter of the John Birch Society, Skousen’s works involved a wide range of subjects including the Six-Day War, Mormon eschatology, New World Order conspiracies, and parenting. His most popular works are The 5,000 Year Leap and The Naked Communist. A book by Skousen on end times prophecy, The Cleansing of America, was published by Valor Publishing Group in 2010, four years after his death.

If you’d like an interesting read about Skousen and how Glenn Beck came to worship his words, check out Meet the man who changed Glenn Beck’s life by Alexander Zaitchik. Zaitchik’s article is subtitled, “Cleon Skousen was a right-wing crank whom even conservatives despised. Then Beck discovered him.” Let’s just say that I think Alexander is being kind with that description.

A brief Twitter Exchange

I frequently share posts from Ed Brayton’s blog with my followers on Twitter. If the subject of Ed’s posts have accounts on Twitter, I like to include their account when I share the links. This was my tweet [please excuse my doubled 'and.']:

Did Mr. Rush (or whomever manages his Twitter presence) see my tweet? Indeed, they did. Was there any mention of refuting my accusations of ignorance and insanity? See for yourself:

That’s right. He thanked me for “free publicity” (There’s no such thing as bad publicity, right?) Then he calls me a “reetard,”, which I can only assume is a misspelling of “retard.” Yes, Erik Rush went for the R word.

I have some friends on Twitter who are working very hard at curbing the use of that word. I know there are many more who do the same. I felt the need to let the world know how Erik Rush thinks of people who aren’t just like him.

Of course, my own words would no longer reach Mr. Rush. You see, he also took the expedient step of blocking my account from his Twitter feed.

The crazy will continue

I have no doubts at all that Erik Rush’s crazy diatribes about the Obama in his head, and the Reds under his bed, will continue. It would be completely laughable for but one reason: Some people take him seriously.

Search Engine Bot Verification Woes — Repost

Dan J — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:13:02 +0000

Another article from the 2008 version of my web site continues to receive inbound traffic. I repost the article here in hopes that someone might still find it useful. Again, the information is at least four years old.

The Original Article

Along with many of you, I have read several articles about "proxy hacking" and other issues related to the need to verify the source of user agents purporting to be a known search engine spider. For those of you unfamiliar with such problems, "proxy hacking" involves routing a bot through a proxy server in order to get to your site. Page ranking associated with your site could then be transferred to the URL of the proxy server. Other issues involve browsers or bots masquerading as a known search engine spider for any purpose.

After reading some of these articles, I decided to do something to protect my site. What is there to fear? Proxy hacking can be a legitimate concern. As for the matter of simple masquerading; if you enter my establishment while flashing a fake I.D., it makes me think you’re up to something.

The means of identification that has been most often noted as being the most effective, even by the search engines themselves, is a two step process. First, perform a reverse-DNS lookup of the purported bot’s IP address. If the host name returned does not match the domain to which the bot belongs, then it has failed the test. If the resulting host name is, indeed, in the domain associated with the bot, then you perform a forward DNS to IP lookup to determine if that host name is actually associated with the IP address where the request originated.

This method has been described by Matt Cutts in an article entitled How to verify Googlebot on the Official Google Webmaster Central Blog. Matt also makes note of MSN approving the same method for MSNbot, and Ask Jeeves doing the same for their Teoma bot in MSFT adds bot verification, an article on his blog.

The Yahoo! Search Blog has an article entitled Yahoo! Search Crawler, Slurp, has a new Address and Signature Card where they state:

Once you have the host name (in this case, lj612134.crawl.yahoo.net), you can then check if it really is coming from Yahoo! Search. The name of all Yahoo! Search crawlers will end with ‘crawl.yahoo.net,’ so if the name doesn’t end with this, you know it’s not really our crawler.

Ask.com has roughly the same advice on their About Ask.com: Webmasters page, where they state:

A User-Agent is no guarantee of authenticity as it is trivial for a malicious user to mimic the properties of the Ask Crawler. In order to properly authenticate the Ask Crawler, a round trip DNS lookup is required. This involves first taking the IP address of the Ask Crawler and performing a reverse DNS lookup ensuring that the IP address belongs to the ask.com domain. Then perform a forward DNS lookup with the host name ensuring that the resulting IP address matches the original.

MSN, not to be left out, has on their page Live Search: Search robots in disguise the following:

Once you have the host name (in this case, livebot-207-46-98-149.search.live.com), you can check that it really is coming from Live Search. The name of all live search crawlers will end with ‘search.live.com’. If the name doesn’t end with ‘search.live.com’, you know it’s not really our crawler.

Finally, you need to verify that the name is accurate. In order to do this, you can use Forward DNS to see the IP address associated with the host name. This should match the IP address you used in Step 2 — if it doesn’t, it means the name was fake.

The method is valid, and it works… most of the time. When does it not work? When the search engine company doesn’t have their DNS set up properly. “What’s that?” you say, “How can you accuse the likes of Google, Yahoo!, MSN, and Ask Jeeves of something like that?”

As I said above, I decided to do something to protect my site from fake bots. I made a nice little PHP script to perform the checks outlined by the search engine companies, and I put an include statement at the top of my site’s pages to run that piece of code. Bots that weren’t who they said they were received a 503 HTTP status code (service unavailable). Everyone else got the regular page.

I had set up the PHP script to keep a log of all requests that were sent the 503 status page. I tested the function using an online testing service that let me choose the user agent. Testing was also done using a user agent switcher in Firefox. The script seemed to function properly, and the results in the log file were as expected.

When I checked the log file, I also checked the IP addresses from the command line on my local computer, just to verify that things were working properly. I noticed some strange results. A request from a user agent claiming to be MSNbot came from the IP address 65.55.233.40 on 15 September. The reverse DNS result from that address pointed to the name bl1sch2041711.phx.gbl. For those of you familiar with official TLDs, you will notice that .gbl is not a recognized name.

Just what is going on here? It appears that Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, have the inverse-address settings of one or more blocks of IP addresses set to point to a domain name that does not exist for the outside world. Wait a minute, didn’t MSN just say, "Once you have the host name (in this case, livebot-207-46-98-149.search.live.com), you can check that it really is coming from Live Search. The name of all live search crawlers will end with ‘search.live.com’. If the name doesn’t end with ‘search.live.com’, you know it’s not really our crawler."? It seems that this isn’t correct in the real world.

Microsoft, however, is not the only group that does not live up to their own published standards.

The following day, a hit from 202.160.178.78 is entered in the log file. It comes from Yahoo! Slurp China, and is on the domain name inktomisearch.com, a domain which Yahoo! claims to have stopped using for Slurp.

A few days later, a bot claiming to be Ask Jeeves/Teoma comes from 65.214.36.73. This address resolved to a host in the directhit.com domain. This domain is owned by Ask Jeeves, but their bot is not supposed to be coming from that domain. As far as I know, they don’t even use it at all. I used the ask.com contact form to let them know about this one, and it has now been changed to the ask.com domain. They did, however, neglect to respond to my query in any other way, like maybe a note to say “Thanks, we missed that one.”

Another hit from Ask Jeeves came from 206.80.1.253, which resolves to g2spf.jeeves.ask.info. This is a legitimate domain owned by Ask Jeeves, but it still isn’t the domain they said Teoma would be coming from.

A hit from 65.55.241.213 claimed to be MSNbot. This IP address has no inverse address set at all. The IP block, however, is owned by Microsoft. The address 72.14.193.166 also has no inverse address set. This IP block belongs to Google. Once again, they just aren’t playing fair.

No, we don\’t live in a perfect world. It would be nice, though, if people would go just that extra step further to make sure that mistakes which are pointed out to them are resolved (as Ask Jeeves apparently did). The phx.gbl issue has been around for years, and Microsoft (as far as I know) has no intention of making any changes in this regard.

So, what do I do now? I’ve made some changes in my script as I see more results in my log files. It’s getting better, and one of these days I will publish the PHP code here for the benefit of others. It would all be so much easier if the bot owners would keep their DNS practices up to par.

Get rid of those YouTube EMBED tags — Repost

Dan J — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 05:30:28 +0000

This article originally appeared on my web site in October of 2008, before I had it set up as a blog. I keep seeing links to the original page pop up now and then, so I’m going to republish it here and redirect the original link structure to this posting. Keep in mind that this information is four years old now, and your mileage will definitely vary.

The Original Post

Unfortunately, there is not a good way to explain this problem without having this page generate an error in the W3C HTML validator. If you are a web standards advocate, as I am, you realize the distaste of purposefully creating a page that does not validate. Though this page is not valid XHTML, I present an evidence-based, cross-browser compatible method for embedding YouTube videos in this article.

I recently made a short video and uploaded it to YouTube for all to see. The video was made using GtkRecordMyDesktop on my PC, which is running Ubuntu Linux 8.04 with Compiz desktop effects enabled.

YouTube video with EMBED tag

The problem with YouTube is in the way that they have you embed the videos within a web page. This video is placed into the page using their default HTML code. The problem with this code is that it uses the EMBED tag. Why is this a bad thing? Well, I guess it\’s because that tag is not valid for XHTML. The OBJECT tag is used to place multimedia objects within a web page when you are using XHTML. The EMBED tag was used in HTML 4.01, but has been deprecated in later revisions to the standards.

YouTube does use the OBJECT tag, but contained within that tag is an EMBED tag, invalidating the XHTML. Here is the standard code given by YouTube:

lt;/param>

And here is the resulting video within the page:

YouTube video with OBJECT tag

The code which I have used below to put the video into the page is slightly different, in that it does not use the EMBED tag. It eliminates the EMBED by moving the required attributes to the OBJECT tag. One attribute, SRC, must be replaced by the DATA attribute containing the same information. The valid XHTML used on this page for the second embedded video is this:

And the result of using this code looks like this:

Attention! Keep in mind that the code which YouTube gives at the end of the video to use to embed the video into another page is their original, non-valid code.

Which works best? After testing in various browsers on differing operating systems, both are just as functional, but only the modified code validates as proper XHTML. As an added bonus, the valid XHTML uses fewer bytes of space in the file. Why not make your embedded YouTube videos valid too?

Danger sign image courtesy takomabibelot by Attribution License.

More Lightning with CHDK

Dan J — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:55:25 +0000

I recently downloaded a slightly different motion detection script for my camera that seems to do a great job catching lightning flashes. I had been hoping for some good lightning opportunities on several occasions, but the storms disappointed me. The morning of September 7th turned out to be just what I needed to check out the newer script.

Daytime Lightning

Photographing lightning in the daytime requires rather different settings than nighttime shots. At night, I can set the camera to leave the shutter open for two or three seconds after the beginning of a flash is detected. If I did that in the daylight, each shot would be hopelessly over-exposed, leaving me with nothing but a blank, white frame.

When photographing lightning in daylight with higher-quality cameras, photographers often use a neutral density filter. This allows for longer exposure times without overexposing the image. I’m not using a high-end camera. I use a Canon A590 IS: A “point & shoot” camera that debuted in January 2008.

The only thing special about this camera is that I’m using a “modified” operating system on it. CHDK allows my camera to do things that the original software will not allow. High-speed motion detection is one of those things, and that’s how I’m able to catch these lightning flashes.

For this sequence of shots I set the camera to aperture-priority mode. This allowed me to set the aperture to it’s smallest opening, f8.0, while the camera chose the optimal shutter speed. The “film speed” was set to ISO 80. The LCD view on the camera revealed enough contrast at that setting for the motion detection to work properly. I set the camera to manual focus (at infinity) so that it wouldn’t spend time trying to focus. For lightning, fast response time is the key.

The camera was positioned on a tripod and pointed to the northeast through my kitchen window. After adjusting the camera settings and loading the script, I simply pressed the shutter button and walked away. The thunderstorm lasted for about two hours. Having an AC adapter hooked up keeps me from having to change batteries while it’s running.

The eight decent shots that I got during that storm vary in exposure times from 1/8th of a second to 1/20th of a second. I’ve adjusted the contrast of the resulting photos to highlight the arcs of lightning against the clouds. These images show the stepped leader formation, which precedes the larger lightning flashes that arc between clouds or from cloud to ground.

We’re past the prime thunderstorm season here in central Illinois, but there’s always a slight chance we’ll have one any month of the year. I’ll be keeping my eye on the weather services so I can prepare for more lightning photos, day or night.

In Which I’m Not Convinced to Follow Islam, Part 1

Dan J — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 04:09:03 +0000

By way of a conversation on Twitter, I was introduced to a gentleman, Tariq, who proposes that The Quran is a miracle in itself which is “proven” by scientific evidence. Those who use logic and reason, he infers, have little choice but to accept these facts and to follow Islam.

Tariq was kind enough to send me a brief document explaining some of the details behind his reasoning. I’d like to spend some time here on my blog going through some of that document, and explaining my reactions to it. Block quotations below which are outlined in green indicate sections of Tariq’s document.

Allow me to preface this with the following: Tariq’s strategy doesn’t work the way it’s intended. Sure; it might convince some people who really don’t understand the scientific concepts he’s trying to use, but when examined in detail, it fails. This tactic has been attempted time and again by theologians of various flavors for many centuries. It doesn’t work because it isn’t based on reason. It isn’t logical. If it were, then Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman and many others certainly would have become followers of Islam (or whichever religion happened to be making the claim). The fact that theologians tout the logic and veracity of their religions and scientists do not, might be indicative of the failure of such tactics in the first place.

Is There A God?

The document starts off with a rather direct question:

Is There A God?

My own answer to this question is, as usual, “Probably not.” Tariq’s document takes us to the beginning of our own Universe to get his answer.

Well for this question we can go to the creation of the Universe. Science says the Universe was created by a Big Bang. This theory originates from the discovery that the Universe is expanding, and if it is expanding then if we go back in time far enough (about 13-14 billion years), then it must have been joined together, in one mass.

This isn’t really a very good explanation of currently understood cosmogony, but it isn’t as bad as some of the others I’ve seen.

Tariq’s use of the term “creation” to describe the origins of our Universe hints at his motive to find a “creator.” To say that our Universe was created by the Big Bang is simply wrong. The Big Bang wasn’t the cause of our Universe.

What is usually thought of as the Big Bang Theory is actually a description of the expansion and cooling of our Universe after the “bang” itself. The theory really doesn’t even describe the physics of the “explosion” that preceded that expansion. Alan Guth’s inflationary universe theory is a more apt model of that event.

Tariq goes on to present some information from the Qur’an:

The Qur’an says about the expansion of the Universe, ‘And the Heavens, We constructed with power and verily We are expanding it.’ (51:47 – Interpretation of the Meaning) (the word heavens in Arabic does not mean paradise). The Qur’an also says, ‘Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?…‘ (21:30 – Interpretation of the Meaning).

One phrase in particular stands out for me immediately: “Interpretation of the Meaning.” My first question is, “Who is doing the interpreting?” The first two English translations of Sura 51:47 that I found were these: ‘With power and skill Did We construct The Firmament: For it is We Who create The vastness of Space and ‘And We have built the heaven with Our own hands, and verily We have vast powers.’

One English translation I found (Sahih International) does use the term “expander.” Here it is in context with the preceding and two following suras:

^51-46 And [We destroyed] the people of Noah before; indeed, they were a people defiantly disobedient.
^51-47 And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.
^51-48 And the earth We have spread out, and excellent is the preparer.
^51-49 And of all things We created two mates; perhaps you will remember.

For some reason, I just don’t see that as a reference to the expansion of our Universe. Perhaps Tariq wanted to see such a reference in the first place, and that’s the only reason he seems to see it. This is sometimes called confirmation bias.

The phrase “the earth We have spread out” certainly isn’t a very accurate description of our planet’s coalescence from our sun’s accretion disk. Sura 51-49 seems to indicate that their god didn’t create things like liverwort that reproduce asexually. I guess I just don’t think the Qur’an is all that scientific.

I thought it odd that the second Sura referenced by Tariq was not presented in its entirety. The full text reads, ‘Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?‘ Now it makes more sense that Tariq left it unfinished. It wouldn’t be prudent to try to bolster the scientific validity of the literal content of your holy text by including a statement that your god created every living thing from water. Again; it doesn’t seem terribly scientific to me.

Tariq continues with this impressive statement:

So the Big Bang Theory does not disprove Islam or the existence of God.

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean? The Big Bang Theory has nothing at all to say about Islam, and nothing at all to say about the existence of a deity. That statement might as well have said, “The Theory of Gravity does not disprove The Lord of the Rings or the existence of Orcs.” The Big Bang Theory is a name used for the cosmological model that currently best explains the evidence we have about the early development of our Universe. It does not disprove anything, nor is it meant to.

That particular statement tells me something about the author: They’re either ignorant about what scientific theories are, or they really do understand and they’re simply being dishonest.

Tariq continues:

However, this Big Bang, if we say that it occurred without a God – then where did this mass of energy come from to begin with? If it is infinite, then that means that time is infinite also and thus there has been an infinite series of past events. But that is impossible; for example, if you are a soldier, and to fire your gun you need permission from another soldier who needs permission from another and so on… If this goes on infinitely, you will never fire your gun. If there was an infinite series of past events, nothing would ever happen – there has to be a first event. For 11pm to occur, 10pm must occur, for that to occur, 9pm must occur. If this goes on forever, then how will anything ever occur? So with an infinite series of past events, the Universe never comes into existence.

Contrary to what most of us have learned about the beginnings of our Universe, modern cosmogony does not require that our Universe came from a singularity. This means that the infinite mass and infinite energy that most people think are prerequisites for the Big Bang, are not. This doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen that way, but it’s not required.

Ethan Siegel has written a wonderful series of posts about the history of our Universe. Near the end of the first of those posts, “The Greatest Story Ever Told — 01 — Before the Big Bang“, he makes the following remarks:

And all of this happened before the big bang ever took place. Was it for the first 10^-35 seconds of the Universe? Possibly, but it’s also possible that the Universe existed for billions of years before inflation, or not at all. It’s also conceivable that time didn’t have the same meaning that it does now back then. Regardless of what happened, inflation prevents us from knowing right now; it wiped out any information about the Universe that existed before inflation! Siegel, Ethan R. “The Greatest Story Ever Told — 01 — Before the Big Bang.” Starts With A Bang. Science Blogs, 8 Jan. 2010. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. [http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/01/08/the-greatest-story-ever-told/].

The period of inflation that happened before the Big Bang wiped out information about its beginnings. We don’t know how long the Universe existed prior to that, or if it existed at all. Our ability to understand and collect the evidence relevant to the inflationary period is limited. It’s okay to say, “I don’t know,” when you really don’t know. The laws of physics are applied in very different ways at extremely high energy states like those which existed in the early stages of our Universe. The concept of time itself is almost without meaning at such a point, at least at our current stage of understanding.

So did it just come from nothing? Well, the Law of Conservation of Energy in Physics shows that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only morphed from one form to another. So in our Universe, by our laws of physics, energy cannot be created, and logic states that something cannot come from nothing. So, if it was not eternal, and it did not begin to exist by itself, then something must have created it. If that which created this energy was itself created, then we would have the same problem of an infinite series of past events, with an infinite series of creators. So that which created this energy must be uncreated and eternal.

Most people have a very limited understanding of nothing. Empty space isn’t completely empty. A quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of empty space. Conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for very brief periods of time.

The assertion that there must be a creator simply isn’t true. The evidence we have does not rule out the existence of a creator, but it does not require one, either. Such claims of the necessity of a deity for the existence of our Universe simply aren’t supported by the science.

If That Doesn’t Work, Try The Fine-Tuning Argument

Tariq later goes on to use the Fine-Tuning Argument:

Also, according to the Big Bang Theory, the chances of the Big Bang occurring the way it did, so perfectly and fine-tuned so that the Universe would occur in a way that would allow life, are 1/10^10^123 according to Sir Robert Penrose, British Mathematical Physicist at Oxford University, and friend of Stephen Hawking. To put that probability in perspective, 1/10^50 in mathematics is considered ‘zero probability’, and there are an estimated 10^78 atoms in the universe. That means there are more 0’s on the end of the denominator of this fraction than there are atoms in the Universe! So in fact it is more likely for you to win the lottery every single week of your entire life, than for the Universe to have come into existence by pure chance. The only logical explanation is that it was created by an Intelligent Creator, with an intended purpose.

Incorrect.

The figure quoted (1:10^10¹²³) comes from Roger (not Robert) Penrose’s “The Emperor’s New Mind“. This number does not have anything to do with whether or not our Universe is conducive to the existence of life. What it represents is Penrose’s calculation regarding the probability that all of our Universe’s constants (the speed of light, the Planck constant, the electric constant, etc.) would be the specific values which we observe.

This does not mean those values are the only ones which permit a Universe which could give rise to intelligent life. What it more accurately represents is our Universe’s position among the group of all possible Universes. Given that we (as yet) have no way of knowing the probability densities involved in the existence of other Universes, it is meaningless for us to make assumptions based on them.

It is quite likely that our Universe is not fine-tuned at all. In “Is The Universe Fine-Tuned For Us?” by Victor J. Stenger, University of Colorado, the author points out that variations in many of the physical constants we know of would not render our Universe incapable of supporting intelligent life.

I do not dispute that life as we know it would not exist if any one of several of the constants of physics were just slightly different. Additionally, I cannot prove that some other form of life is feasible with a different set of constants. But anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory. Stenger, Victor J. “Is The Universe Fine-Tuned For Us?” University of Colorado, n.d. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. [http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf].

Why does our Universe support life? If it didn’t, we wouldn’t be here to wonder about it. If there are multiple Universes in existence, it’s quite probable that a great number of them do not support life of any kind. Other than tiny pockets, our own Universe is extremely hostile to life as we know it. If it were truly fine-tuned for intelligent life, shouldn’t that life be flourishing everywhere we look? Until we have evidence to point us in the proper direction, such speculation is futile for anything other than providing fodder for science fiction novels.

Tariq continues:

Similar to the above point, why would we even think that the Universe would explode and create such an intricate and complicated design? Every species has a male and female in order to reproduce – why? We have the perfect conditions for us to live – why? Since when do explosions result in this kind of perfect order? If you were walking in the desert and found a mobile phone, you would not say that the sand and oil and materials here must have combusted over and over and eventually formed themselves into a mobile phone – it is completely illogical. You would assume the phone has a creator. The same way the Universe is so fine-tuned, that it is impossible for it to have been created by chance.

A shorter version of this paragraph could be, “This is too complicated for me to want to take the time to understand, therefore it’s not possible unless god did it.” Complexity does not imply design. A pile of tangled driftwood on a beach is a rather complex structure. Was it designed? No.

Tariq asks, “Every species has a male and female in order to reproduce – why?” As I mentioned above, not every species requires a male and female in order to reproduce. Asexual reproduction is a rather well-understood biological process.

Tariq asks, “We have the perfect conditions for us to live – why?” Why would anyone assume that we have “perfect conditions” in which to live? The overwhelming majority of the points on the surface of our planet are not naturally habitable for humans. Our planet, whose axis is tilted over twenty-three degrees from vertical, varies in distance from its star by over 3.1 million miles during its orbit. The bulk of our Universe is composed of environments that would almost instantly kill us. How does one conclude that these things add up to “perfect conditions?”

This is often called the teleological or design argument. The fine-tuning argument used above is simply another version of the teleological argument. Variations of the teleological argument have been used for centuries (at least as far back as Plato, 2400 years ago). Many theologians haven’t learned anything new over the intervening years, it seems.

Tariq says, “The same way the Universe is so fine-tuned, that it is impossible for it to have been created by chance.” Tariq seems to have a propensity for the word ‘impossible.’

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Therefore, God

Tariq completes the first section of his document with this:

If the Universe has a Creator, as I said earlier this Creator must be uncreated, or we would have an infinite series of creators. The Creator must be Intelligent, as to have created this Universe in such a perfect manner, would otherwise be impossible. The Creator must have a will, as They intended to create the Universe in such a manner. This Creator must be self-sustaining and independent of all needs since the Creator existed before the Universe, and before all Creation. This Creator must have the power to create the Universe. As this Creator created the Universe and the Laws of Physics that it lives by, this Creator is not bound by those same laws. So, the Universe has to have a beginning and a cause, by the Laws of Physics, but the Creator does not need a beginning nor a cause, as He is the Creator of those laws.

All these attributes and others put together in a single being, we call this being God, or ‘Allah’ as we call God in Islam.

I should make the first word of that quote show up in 200 point type, because that’s a mighty big “if.” In Tariq’s view, having an infinite series of creators is illogical and impossible, but having a complex, intelligent, powerful uncreated creator is logical? Again, Tariq uses the word ‘perfect’ to describe our Universe. Perhaps that’s another word meaning he’s not quite clear on.

Our Universe, Tariq states, has to have a beginning and a cause. Tariq’s “creator” is conveniently not bound by the laws of our Universe, and thus does not require these things.

To the list of things I have encountered in my lifetime which I would call illogical, I must now add Tariq’s ideas regarding our Universe’s necessity for a creator god.

What’s Next?

Tariq’s document continues. Having thoroughly explained the absolute necessity for a creator god (and all other options being impossible), Tariq intends to convince me that Islam is the only logical choice for a religion. Tune in later for my next post to find out if I’ve accepted that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet!

My Top 100 Audio Tracks Of The Moment

Dan J — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:10:03 +0000

A “Top 100 Songs” meme has been going around, this one on FaceBook. I find it very difficult to choose favorites from music that I enjoy from so many different genres and artists. I made up this list of one hundred tracks based on what I happen to have available for play on my computer at the moment. Restricting it like this is the only way I could ever come up with just one hundred.

Song title links will open in a new tab or window. Most links go to YouTube, but a few tracks were only available at certain places. Thanks to M for passing this along to me, and to anyone else who feels the desire to post their own list.

For The Love Of Life (End Theme) by David Sylvian from Monster (Anime OST)
Pepper by Butthole Surfers from Electriclarryland
Orpheus by David Sylvian from Secrets of the Beehive
Welcome To The Black Parade by My Chemical Romance from The Black Parade
Car Song by Elastica from Elastica
Question! by System of a Down from Mezmerize
The Journey by Dolores O’Riordan from No Baggage
Knights Of Cydonia by Muse from Black Holes And Revelations
Xig Xile by Hanggai from He Who Travels Far
The Sun Does Rise (feat. Dolores O’Riordan) by Jah Wobble’s Invaders Of The Heart from Take Me To God
Show Me Heaven by Maria McKee from Most Wanted – Best of 1990
Let It Be by The Beatles from Let It Be

Hate Me by Blue October from Foiled
Mouth by Merril Bainbridge from Garden
Doubled Up by Heather Nova from Oyster
Superstar by Sonic Youth from If I Were a Carpenter
Coming Up Close by ‘Til Tuesday from Welcome Home
Russian Roulette by Tomoyasu Hotei from Russian Roulette
Wandering Star by Portishead from Toy Box (Special Edition)
Carnivàle End Title (Ben’s Theme) by Jeff Beal from Carnivàle (OST)
Tear You Apart by She Wants Revenge from She Wants Revenge
Cool Change by Little River Band from Greatest Hits
People Are Strange by The Doors from Strange Days
Song Instead Of A Kiss by Alannah Myles from Rockinghorse
Guilty Pleasure by Becca from Alive!!
If You Could Only See by Tonic from Lemon Parade
The Man’s Too Strong by Dire Straits from Brothers in Arms
I’m Counting On You by Chris de Burgh from The Getaway
Peace Train by 10,000 Maniacs from In My Tribe
Längtan by Nordman from Djävul Eller Gud
Super Drive by CANTOY from MissMatch!?
Uninvited (From The City Of Angels Soundtrack) by Alanis Morissette from The Collection
Damn, I Wish I Was Your Lover by Sophie B. Hawkins from Tongues and Tails
While My Guitar Gently Weeps by The Beatles from The White Album
Heal by Heather Nova from Oyster
Something More Besides You by Cowboy Junkies from Lay It Down
I Will Remember You by Sarah McLachlan from Rarities, B-Sides, and Other Stuff
Wish You Were Here by Pink Floyd from Wish You Were Here
What I Am by Edie Brickell & New Bohemians from Shooting Rubberbands At The Stars
Anywhere by Evanescence from Origin
Mother Mother by Tracy Bonham from The Burdens Of Being Upright
88 Lines About 44 Women by The Nails from Hotel For Women
I Alone by Live from Throwing Copper
Walk This World by Heather Nova from Oyster
Tainted Love by Coil from Stevo Pay Us What You Owe Us Vol.2 Scatology
Colors/Dance by George Winston from Autumn
my bloody knee-high-socks by Tommy heavenly6 from Heavy Starry Heavenly
No One Is Watching You Now by ‘Til Tuesday from Welcome Home
Breaking Into Heaven by Stone Roses from Second Coming
Brothers In Arms by Dire Straits from Brothers in Arms
I Don’t Want To Wait by Paula Cole from This Fire
Nagai Aida by Kiroro from Kiroro no Ichiban Ii Uta Atsumemashita
Kiss Me [Album Edit] by Sixpence None The Richer from Kiss Me single
Thank You by Dido from No Angel
Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini (18th Variation) by Chet Swiatkowski from Somewhere in Time
Gloria by Kalafina from Kuroshitsuji ED2 Single – Lacrimosa
To Love Is to Bury by Cowboy Junkies from The Trinity Session
Dear God by XTC from Dear God
Veteran Of The Psychic Wars by Blue Öyster Cult from Fire Of Unknown Origin
A New England by Kirsty MacColl from The Best of Kirsty MacColl
Come Away With Me by Norah Jones from Come Away With Me
Silver by Echo & The Bunnymen from Ocean Rain
Something by The Beatles from Abbey Road
Don’t Give Up by Peter Gabriel from So
Letter – From the Lost Days by Akira Yamaoka from Silent Hill 3
The Wind That Shakes the Barley by Dead Can Dance from Into the Labyrinth
Thanksgiving by George Winston from December
Call to Heaven by Patty Smyth from Never Enough
Animal I Have Become by Three Days Grace from One X
Liebe ist by Nena from Willst du mit mir gehen?
Across the Universe by Fiona Apple from Pleasantville
Battle Of New Orleans by Nitty Gritty Dirt Band from Dirt, Silver & Gold
I Don’t Mind at All by Bourgeois Tagg from Yoyo
I Lågornas Sken by Nordman from Djävul Eller Gud
Crazy by Gnarls Barkley from St. Elsewhere
Old and Wise by Alan Parsons Project from Eye In The Sky
Moondance by Van Morrison from Moondance
It’s Been Awhile by Staind from Break the Cycle
All I Really Want by Alanis Morissette from Jagged Little Pill
Kayleigh by Marillion from Misplaced Childhood
Waiter, There’s A Yawn In My Ear by Manfred Mann’s Earth Band from The Roaring Silence
All The Pretty Little Horses by Current 93 from Calling For Vanished Faces CD1- Funeral Music To Us All
When Poets Dreamed of Angels by David Sylvian from Secrets of the Beehive
Hold On Tight by Electric Light Orchestra from Time
Little Silver Ring by The Samples from The Last Drag
Good Enough by Evanescence from The Open Door
Mambo [In Greek & English] by Elena Paparizou from Υπάρχει Λόγος [Also: Mambo in English only]
Solsbury Hill by Peter Gabriel from Peter Gabriel (1)
I Wonder What She’s Doing Tonight by Tommy Boyce & Bobby Hart from The Anthology
Answer by Sarah McLachlan from Afterglow
Three Wishes by The Pierces from Thirteen Tales of Love and Revenge
Everything by Alanis Morissette from So-Called Chaos
Why Worry by Dire Straits from Brothers in Arms
Room of Angel by Akira Yamaoka from Silent Hill 4: The Room
Those Were The Days by Leningrad Cowboys from Thank You Very Many – Greatest Hits & Rarities
This Beat Goes On/Switchin’ To Glide by The Kings from The Kings Are Here and More
The Story In Your Eyes by Moody Blues from Every Good Boy Deserves Favour
Angel Mine by Cowboy Junkies from Lay It Down
Suteki Da Ne by Rikki from Final Fantasy X (OST)
Everybody Knows by Leonard Cohen from I’m Your Man

Chris Rodda Debunks David Barton’s Jefferson Lies

Dan J — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:10:30 +0000

David Barton, the über-right-wing’s darling ‘historian’ is a liar. What’s worse is that he’s a liar for Jesus. He and his ilk will stop at nothing to rewrite the history of our nation to reflect their own ideas about the way things should have been. They long for a place and time that never existed. These Christian Reconstructionists are determined to repaint the United States of America as a Christian nation.

David Barton’s book, “The Jefferson Lies”, is aptly titled. It is filled with Barton’s lies and distortions about Thomas Jefferson. Chris Rodda has done historical research that debunks Barton’s deceit. She, and others, have been able to show evidence that Barton’s book is filled with lies and obfuscations, resulting in the book’s publisher cancelling the book and pulling its copies from bookstore shelves.

In the videos below, filmed shortly after Barton’s book’s first publication, Chris takes the air out of Barton’s sails as she easily points out his lies. Take time to watch all eight segments and you’ll see the depths that Liars for Jesus can stoop to in order to further their agenda. Be sure to subscribe to Chris Rodda’s Youtube channel, too!

Debunking David Barton’s Jefferson Lies

—

On Atheism: So Many, So Wrong, So Often

Dan J — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:01:39 +0000

I’m writing this post in response to a blog post that was published at two different places on 2012 July 10. That post was penned by Elad Nehorai, a writer who lives in Brooklyn, New York. The title of his post was “Atheism Is a Religion.” I find it frustrating that this issue comes up as frequently as it does.

Elad Nehorai’s Article

Mr. Nehorai’s article was published in the Religion section of The Huffington Post as well as at The Algemeiner. I would ordinarily link the title to the article itself, but the author had it removed from both of these sites the very next day.

The original URL for the article at HuffPo, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elad-nehorai/atheism-is-a-religion_b_1648136.html, now redirects to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/editors-note/removed.html. The text there states, “Editor’s Note: This post has been removed at the request of the blogger.”

The URL for the article at The Algemeiner, http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/07/11/atheism-is-a-religion/, now brings up a “file not found” response from their web server.

Some of my acquaintances on Twitter expressed their opinions there about the article to Mr. Nehorai. He responded to them saying, “I actually took down the piece. Too divisive.”

I find it both unfortunate and somewhat telling that Mr. Nehorai would attempt to flush his post down the memory hole. Thankfully, the Internet does not forget. The content of the original article is still available from several sources. For some reason I have doubts about the truth of Mr. Nehorai’s honesty when he said that his article was “too divisive.”

Elad Nehorai’s Big Mistake

Why would I doubt his word about the reason he withdrew his article? Quite simply, it’s because I read that article.

He started off well enough:

OK, atheists. Let’s have a talk. Pull up a chair, sit down, relax.

There’s so much I want to say to you in so little time, so let’s just get straight to it.

We’re not so different, you and I. Me, an Orthodox Jew. You, a non-believer. We both argue vehemently for our points of view, we both have a certain vision for the world, we both think we know the truth about life.

I wouldn’t say that I think I know “the truth about life.” Elad’s use of the word ‘know’ has a bearing on this issue that isn’t quite evident until later.

I know that it may be hard to hear, but the truth is that atheism, while supposedly based around logic and intelligence, is a religion just like any other.

I’m calling bullshit.

Yes, I certainly have to call bullshit right here. Atheism is a religion? We atheists hear this statement time and again, and it’s always the same old bullshit arguments that don’t stand up to scrutiny. Alright, Elad; let’s hear your reasoning.

Now, please, I told you to relax. Have some tea.

But let’s be honest, it’s true.

Let’s look at the arguments atheists make: they say there’s absolutely no evidence for the existence of G-d, and that the burden of proof is on the believers, etc., etc. Now, these are great arguments, and I will be the first to admit that my belief is beyond logic.

That’s right, Elad. Your belief is beyond logic.

But atheism is not agnosticism. It doesn’t claim to simply point out the fallacies of belief. Instead, it has created a belief system out of not believing. It takes a defiant stance, saying that there is absolutely 100 percent no chance there is a god in the world.

Yes, dear friends; bullshit has arrived. Take your penalty, Mr. Nehorai, and be grateful that it’s not in my power to expel you.

How many atheists did Elad Nehorai speak to when researching his post? Does he actually know anyone who self-identifies as an atheist? Has Elad ready any atheist literature from the past fifty years, or perused any atheist blogs or forums? Given his statement regarding what he thinks atheism is, I find it unlikely that Elad has ever had an actual discussion about atheism with an atheist.

Elad is correct: Atheism is not agnosticism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity of any kind. Agnosticism deals with whether or not we think we know there is a deity or not, or whether we can have such knowledge. Remember that first section of his post? Elad claims to know what he calls “the truth about life.” That is called gnosticism. I make no such claims. That is called agnosticism.

We’re not as much alike as you seem to think, Elad. Of the many hundreds of atheists I’m acquainted with, I recall only a single person who consistently makes the claim that there is no god. He’s certain. He’s a gnostic atheist, and there aren’t very many of them out there. For myself, I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t believe, and I’m willing to accept evidence, but I put my lack of belief at about the five sigma level. I find it safe to assume that gods do not exist. I’m certainly not alone in that regard.

There’s no need to read further in Mr. Nehorai’s article. He’s shown that he really has no idea what atheism is. I can’t even give him a “Nice try!”, because it really wasn’t even that.