Archive for July 30th, 2009

This started out as a reply to a recent comment on an older post of mine, but the commenting system told me it was too long, so I figured I’d address it out here.

In the original post, I was mocking an article the WorldNutDaily had published where they tried to prove “scientifically” that the jews were ruining the world. From the original article:

University of Wisconsin geologists analyzed the chemical composition of individual rings that formed the stalagmite growing up from the floor of the Soreq Cave near Jerusalem between 200 B.C. and 1100 A.D. Geologists John Valley and Ian Orland concluded the climate was drier in the eastern Mediterranean between 100 A.D. and 700 A.D., with steep drops in rainfall around 100 A.D. and 400 A.D. – a period of waning Roman and Byzantine power in the region.

WND used these studies as confirmation of a jewish rabbi’s claims that this was the fulfillment of a biblical prophecy.

Now, to address Mike’s comments…

You sure get excited/angry about this stuff. Here’s a couple thoughts.

Thanks for noticing!

You’re mocking and saying how stupid the report is, yet you aren’t refuting any of the scientific studies involved. Your argument basically sums up to, “That’s true, but they’re stupid.”

My intention was not to refute any of the scientific studies involved. I have not read them and have no beef with trying to figure out, scientifically, what the changes in the climate have been in a particular region of the world. What I’m mocking is the completely unsubstantiated claim that the rainfall patterns in the middle east have anything to do with the supposed “prophecy” of a book written by a bronze-age group of men.

If you’re going to argue or debate against something, at least have evidences available to debunk the evidence coming from the other side.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It’s not my job to un-prove something, it’s the job of the person making the claim that there is something supernatural going on. And, no, I don’t accept “the bible said so” as extraordinary evidence. Try again.

You’re mocking the fact that some people are pointing out that the land of Israel/Palestine dried up right around the same time that the Jews were dispersed and almost entirely destroyed by the Roman Empire. You’re mocking the idea that there is any sort of link. There is no giant sign saying, “God removed the rain when the Jews left.” But these are two events that took place at the same time, the drought lasting many centuries. So when you’re attacking the report, I find myself a little confused. Are you saying that the science that says the rain stopped at that point in time is false? Are you also saying that the Jews were not dispersed or nearly wiped out by the Roman Empire around the same time? See, you’re ridiculing the idea that there is a link, yet the facts remain. Whether or not there is any link at all, nothing changes the fact that these two events occurred at about the same time.

correlation != causation (“!=” means “does not equal”, for all you non-computery folks)

Let’s try this one: at the same time I picked my nose, a cat died. The facts remain, these two events happened at the same time. Therefore my nose-picking caused the death of a cat. They must be related. See what I did there? I could write for the WorldNutDaily!

No doubt there is a perfectly scientific and natural explanation for the rain drying up when it did, but that simple fact doesn’t change the fact that God could have arranged it that way on purpose through subtle or not so subtle nudges. [emphasis mine]

Shyeah, and monkeys could fly out of my butt! (to paraphrase one of the great philosophers). Just because something could happen doesn’t mean that it did happen. You have to provide evidence that what happened wasn’t the result of observable, testable, repeatable natural phenomena, otherwise my claim about monkeys is just as likely as your claim about the intervention of a god. See Russell’s teapot.

Another example is a person trying to stay warm. He might add wood to a small fire and bundle up in warm clothing in order to warm up. He gets warmer, that’s the result, but it didn’t just happen by itself. He made it happen through the use of natural processes (he put on warm clothes and added wood to the small fire).

I’m not sure what this has to do with anything. Are you saying that god makes us want to get warm? I don’t get it.

I’m not defending the beliefs put forward in the article, however to undermine something from the standpoint of, “It’s not possible because I don’t want to believe it” sets yourself up for a serious knock down.

If I did try to “undermine something from the standpoint of, “It’s not possible because I don’t want to believe it” “, I would, indeed, be set up for a serious knock down. However, I did nothing of the sort. Reading comprehension much?

Coming from the core of, “God doesn’t exist,” is fine, but you’ve gotta backup an argument with a lot more than something as intangible as the existence of God (true or not).

Um, yeah, that was kinda my whole point. The entire WND article was conclusions based on nothing more than “something as intangible as the existence of God “. I was just pointing out how ridiculous such “logic” is. I like to share the lulz!

In the end, the rain stopped, the Jews left at that time, and it’s an interesting coincidence if nothing more.

And it will appropriately be regarded as nothing more than an (un)interesting coincidence until more substantial evidence than, “IT’S IN THE BIBLE!!!11!!” is provided.

Attacking a belief with a different belief is like two ghosts trying to have a boxing match, each punch completely incapable of connecting or causing any harm to the other.

Nice strawman, but I never attacked “belief with a different belief”.

Thanks for playing! Come again!