Why can I grow new toenails, but not a new leg?

Writing a kids book and need a good resource on this question. Any suggestions...?

Go to Amnesty website...

This does seem important and worth a minute of your time...

Spread the word about Troy's case

This is Troy Davis's last chance.

Remember:

- 0 physical evidence
- 6 witnesses have recanted their testimonies
- 7 out of 9 witnesses say another committed the murder

There are so many additional doubts around Troy's case. Executing him would be a horrendous and irreversable act of injustice.

We need as many people as possible to let the Georgia state board of pardons and parole know that the world is watching.

Please take a minute to encourage others to take action by emailing them via this page.

Thank you for your support. Go here.

Playing drums with Heavy Dexters...

on 24th Sept straight after Conspiracy Theory Day.

We are also playing at the Bullingdon Pub in East Oxford on Tuesday, September 20 at 10:00pm - 12:00.

Conspiracy theory day - is part of a conspiracy! Come and join...

Just to remind you of this upcoming event I've organized as Provost of CFI UK. One speaker may be unavailable, but should know shortly. I note that some on the internet have this event down as part of a conspiracy. Of which I must be the evil mastermind, mwahahahaha!!!

Example: "So... 'Conspiracy Theory Day'...an innocent get-together of like-minded folk, or something far darker?..."

"The more I think about this, the more unsettled I become. Look at the backgrounds of those appearing at the event..."

Am anticipating possible disruption from those seeking to tell us The Truth. Not sure whether this will prove entertaining or irritating. Advice welcome. Of course there's opportunity for all and sundry to ask questions.

CFI UK and SPES present

CONSPIRACY THEORY DAY

Sunday 25th September 2011

9/11, alien visitation, Jewish cabals and global warming - why are people drawn to conspiracy theories, and what holds them captive? What are the warning signs of a dodgy conspiracy theory? What conspiracy theories are actually credible, and why? Spend an entertaining and informative day with some if the world's leading experts.

PROGRAMME

10.30 Registration

10.45-11.55 Chris French and Robert Brotherton
“Conspiracy Minded: The Psychology of Belief in Conspiracy Theories”

12.00- 1.10 Karen Douglas
"A Social Psychological Perspective On Conspiracy Theories"

2.00-3.10 David Aaronovitch
"Do Conspiracy Theories Have Common Characteristics Over Time And Space?"

3.10-4.10 Jamie Bartlett and Carl Miller
“Truth And The Net”

4.10 End

EVENT DETAILS

Venue: Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, Holborn, London WC1R 4RL.

Cost £10. £8 BHA, etc. £5 students. Booking in advance available at the BHA website HERE. Remaining tickets will be for sale on the door. Please publicize!

Organized by Stephen Law, Provost CFI UK. Media can contact Stephen on think AT royalinstitutephilosophy.org

UPDATE

CONSPIRACY THEORY DAY – update

Unfortunately David Aaronavitch appears unlikely to be available after all (through no fault of his) and so we have arranged a slightly revised programme (that can still be further amended should David prove available).

The new addition is Ian R Crane, a former oilfield executive who is a described as a “Researcher, Writer and Presenter in Deep Geopolitics” where "geographic, economic, social, political and spiritual issues conjoin". Crane’s website notes of his presentations that "once you understand the eventual goal for the global society, then actions in the present, which seem irrational or bizarre, become far easier to comprehend". He will be responding to the other speakers, bringing a different outlook on conspiracy theories. We hope this will produce an interesting exchange of views at the end of the day.

Stephen Law
Provost CFI UK

10.30 Registration

10.45-11.55 Chris French and Robert Brotherton
“Conspiracy Minded: The Psychology of Belief in Conspiracy Theories”

12.00- 1.10 Karen Douglas
"A Social Psychological Perspective On Conspiracy Theories"

2.00-3.10 Jamie Bartlett and Carl Miller
“Truth And The Net”

3.10-4.10 Ian R Crane.
"Conspiracy Theory versus Deep Geopolitics - A Matter of Perception"

4.10 End

Telescopes offer evidence of Bible's creation story

At Christian Post.

NASA Telescopes Offer Evidence of Bible's Creation Story, Says Author

By Jeff Schapiro, Christian Post Reporter

Several thousand years ago, long before spaceflight and advanced telescopic technology, a description of how God formed and created the Earth was penned in the Book of Genesis. Today, author Paul Hutchins says that the discoveries of NASA's Hubble and Spitzer telescopes provide convincing scientific evidence that supports that biblical description.

Paul Hutchins is the author of the book, 'Hubble Reveals Creation by an Awe-Inspiring Power,' which offers scientific evidence that the Genesis account of creation is true.

Paul Hutchins is the author of the book, 'Hubble Reveals Creation by an Awe-Inspiring Power,' which offers scientific evidence that the Genesis account of creation is true.

While doing research for a book about the imagination of man, Hutchins came across images of the Sombrero Galaxy. It is about half the size of our Milky Way galaxy and contains about 800 billion stars.

Hutchins told The Christian Post on Tuesday that it was around that time that he asked himself, “If man's imagination is responsible for everything on the earth, then whose imagination is responsible for this galaxy and the whole universe.”

At that time he decided to change the direction of his research, leading him to write his second book, Hubble Reveals Creation by an Awe-Inspiring Power .

He spent two years studying all aspects of the Hubble and Spitzer telescopes, during which time he came across in 2004 some discoveries that showed stars at different levels of maturity.

The younger stars, he found, had a “protoplanetary dust cloud” around them, while more mature stars had little to no dust around them.

The cloud left behind by newly formed stars is made up of fine dust particles, which gravity's pull condenses into small rocks, which then crash into each other and “form like snowballs,” increasing in size until they grow into new planets. As this happens, the dust that is floating in space is absorbed by the new planet, clearing the space around it and making the nearby star more visible.

Hutchins' conclusion was that Earth was formed, by God, in a similar way.

The Genesis account in the New International Version 1984 describes the Earth as being “formless and empty” at first, and says that “darkness was over the surface of the deep.” Hutchins believes that if a person examines the Bible in the original Hebrew, they will see that the sun and the stars were already present at this time, before the Earth was totally formed.

The Earth had no form, he says, because the dust cloud had not yet condensed into a planet, and there was no light because dust particles shaded our planet as it formed. As the planet matured, and gathered the dust that had been shading it, though, the Sun became visible and “there was light.”

"It made perfect sense...even though we don't have the details of it, He gave us a brief overview of how the earth was formed,” Hutchins said.

"If He didn't exist then how could these writers of the Bible write this information, thousands of years in advance, and it exactly matches up with what the Hubble and Spitzer telescopes are finding? So my goal is, for people that their faith may be weak...or they're questioning the existence of God, this book will inspire them and reaffirm their beliefs."

“YOU CAN’T PROVE A NEGATIVE”

[From my new book "Believing Bullshit".]

Let’s now turn to a variant of “it’s beyond science/reason to decide.” One reason why some suppose science and reason are incapable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that certain supernatural claims—for example, that fairies or angels or spirit beings exist—are false, is that they assume you can’t prove a negative. Indeed this is widely supposed to be some sort of “law of logic.”

For example, Georgia minister Dr. Nelson L. Price asserts on his website that “one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative.” If Price is correct and this is indeed a law of logic, then of course it immediately follows that we can’t prove that there are no fairies, angels, or spirit beings, or, indeed, that there is no god. We will have established that the nonexistence of God is indeed beyond the ability of reason and/or science to establish!

The fact is, however, that this supposed “law of logic” is no such thing. As Steven D. Hales points in his paper “You Can Prove a Negative,” “You can’t prove a negative” is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic.

Notice, for a start, that “You cannot prove a negative” is itself a negative. So, if it were true, it would itself be unprovable. Notice that any claim can be transformed into a negative by a little rephrasing—most obviously, by negating the claim and then negating it again. “I exist” is logically equivalent to “I do not not exist,” which is a negative. Yet here is a negative it seems I might perhaps be able to prove (in the style of Descartes—I think, therefore I do not not exist!)

Of course, those who say “You can’t prove a negative” will insist that I have misunderstood their point. As Hales notes, when people say, “You can’t prove a negative,” what they really mean is that you cannot prove that something does not exist. If this point were correct, it would apply not just to supernatural beings lying beyond the cosmic veil but also to things that might be supposed to exist on this side of the veil, such as unicorns, Martians, rabbits with twenty heads, and so on. We would not be able to prove the nonexistence of any of these things either.

But is the point correct? Is it true that we can never prove that something does not exist? Again, it depends. If John claims there’s a unicorn in the tool shed, I can quickly establish he is mistaken by going and taking a look. We could similarly establish there’s no Loch Ness monster by draining the loch. But what of the claim that unicorns once existed? We can’t travel back in time and directly observe all of the past as we can every corner of the tool shed or Loch Ness. Does it follow that we can’t prove unicorns never existed?

It depends in part on what you mean by “prove.” The word has a variety of meanings. By saying something is “proved,” I might mean that it is established beyond all possible doubt. Or I might mean it has been established beyond reasonable doubt (this is the kind of proof required in a court of law). Can we establish beyond reasonable doubt that unicorns have never inhabited the earth? True, the history of our planet has been and gone, so we can no longer directly inspect it. But surely, if unicorns did roam the earth, we would expect to find some evidence of their presence, such as fossils of unicorns or at least of closely related animals from which unicorns might plausibly have evolved. There is none. We also have plenty of evidence that unicorns are a fictional creation, in which case, it’s surely reasonable for us to conclude that there never were any unicorns. Indeed, I’d suggest we can prove this beyond reasonable doubt.

In response, it might be said “But you can’t prove conclusively, beyond all possible doubt, that unicorns never roamed the earth.” This is undeniably true. However, this point is not peculiar to negatives. It can be made about any claim about the unobserved, and thus any scientific theory at all, including scientific theories about what does exist. We can prove beyond reasonable doubt that dinosaurs existed, but not beyond all possible doubt.

Despite the mountain of evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth, it’s still possible that, say, all those dinosaur fossils are fakes placed there by alien pranksters long ago.

Let’s sum up. If “you can’t prove a negative” means you can’t prove beyond reasonable doubt that certain things don’t exist, then the claim is just false.We prove the nonexistence of things on a regular basis. If, on the other hand, “you can’t prove a negative” means you cannot prove beyond all possible doubt that something does not exist, well, that may, arguably, be true. But so what? That point is irrelevant so far as defending beliefs in supernatural entities against the charge that science and/or reason have established beyond reasonable doubt that they don’t exist.

Scientists who reject evolution?

This is an excellent video by someone who has put time and effort into exposing a typical bit of Discovery Institute propaganda.