Mr. Fosi's drilled 20H

[MGDMIRAGE]

Oh yeah, i was going to ask if you had any pics of the sump before you put it into the stand? I would love to see your baffle system!

 

I love the large growing area you have for the macro algae i'm interested in baffling a 10 gallon here very soon and your's looks like my favorite setup so far.

[Mr. Fosi]

The best initial pics I have are buried in my 20L thread

 

I can whip up a drawing if this pic doesn't do it.

 

[MGDMIRAGE]

Thank you Fosi sir! I can understand it now, i definitely say this is probably the baffle setup i will use. Are you pretty happy with it? Anything you would change?

 

about how tall is each baffle?

[Mr. Fosi]

I've been happy with it so far. The only think I would change (and I'm not sure how i'd do it without using a bigger tank for the sump), would be to increase the space between the anti-bubble baffles.

 

It's hard to clean out the sand and such that gets trapped in there. I flush it each time I do a waterchange and that removes a lot of the organic gunk but the heavier stuff stays put. I suppose I could do a stronger flush with a pump instead of simple siphon pressure but it doesn't bother me that much.

 

I don't recall the height of the baffles but I have a drawing at home that should have the original measurements on it. I make a retain design drawings of all my projects, even the failures. I'll make set a reminder in my PDA and look it up when I get home.

 

It'll be a bit late as Dr. Richard Dawkins is speaking here this evening and I plan to attend.

[yardboy]

Don't let him brainwash you Isaac! Like he could.

[MGDMIRAGE]

Np, thanks Fosi I look forward to it.

[Mr. Fosi]

Rog, brainwashing isn't something I'm afraid of.

 

I disagree with his politics and his philosophy but I am interested to see what he has to say about science.

[yardboy]

If he'd just stick to science.....

I prefer E.O. Wilson.

[Mr. Fosi]

The talk was really disappointing.

 

My drawing indicates that the baffles are 8.5" tall. The last baffle (the one that partitions off the area for the return pump) is ~8" if I recall correctly, to allow for a larger water storage capacity in the event of a power failure.

 

Make sure the empty part of the sump will accommodate the water that will back-drain out of the display.

[MGDMIRAGE]

Cool, thank you Mr.Fosi

[yardboy]

The talk was really disappointing.

 

How so?

I've always felt that Dawkins, as an ethologist tutored by Tinbergen, realized that he was destined to "squat in the bushes" observing animals. While useful and fascinating for some to read about, that wouldn't make him a star, so he hit on using the conflict between science and religion to sell books and make a fortune.

I'm assuming he and Ayn Rand would get along real well together! The meme! "It's all about me baby, it's all about me."

[Mr. Fosi]

Funny you should mention memes because he was asked two meme questions last night and said before answering the first, "I always dread the meme question."

 

It was disappointing, I think, because I went with higher expectations than I should have. Had I considered more carefully, I would have known a priori that it would be a pep rally for atheists, most of which appeared to be humanities majors.

 

The talk was just a few readings from select parts of his new book "The Greatest Show on Earth", which were admittedly well-written and well-read, then there was a long period of Q&A. As Dr. Dawkins said before he started, the real action is generally in the Q&A, which is why he got right to it.

 

The main disappointment came not from the fact that he read from his book but from the, frankly, retarded questions people asked. Had I been paying more attention, I might have been able to get in line at one of the microphones. By the time I realized the mics had been posted, the lines were far too long.

 

Virtually without exception, questions were asked by non-science people and as such, they were really uninteresting. Like the girl who asked about whether Dr. Dawkins believed there was an evolutionary basis for the "marginalization of women" and "fixed gender roles". Please. About the most interesting question was from a guy asking about chirality in biochemistry and why life on this planet uses L amino acids. While it was the most interesting of the lot, that question was still boring to me since it seems intuitive that if we are all descended from a common ancestor organism that the chirality would be uniformly fixed since L and D amino acids are functionally incompatible.

 

I suppose I was hoping for something a bit more philosophical since I don't have any large doubts regarding the validity of evolutionary theory or biogeography. Not one person asked the question burning in my mind which was: If there is indeed no inherent purpose or worth to this universe or the life in it, then who cares whether people ascribe to evolutionary theory or not? Obviously Dawkins, since he makes a lot of money talking about it, but if all things are to be assessed in the light of evolution, then the value of all things is based only upon survival and reproduction.

 

As such, the notion of "truth" or "falsehood" as we currently understand them (and have understood them for all of recorded history!) are meaningless since such concepts are a product of monkey brains and have little bearing on reality (whatever that may be). In Dawkin's world, the meaning that we perceive in things like art, love, friendship or truth don't truly exist as we perceive them because they are based not on their apparent underlaying concepts, but upon some strange emergent property of consciousness brought on by our ancestors' ability to survive and reproduce. Of course, there is a glaring hole in this sort of philosophy since we also perceive things like light & gravity, which most materialists would argue actually do exist outside our perception.

 

There is utterly no point whatsoever to any of the questions that people ask or books that they write if Dawkins's philosophy is to be believed. As such, I was flabbergasted by the lack of interest in the deeper implications of the claims he makes.

 

" The words of the Teacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem:

 

"Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher.

 

"Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless... I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

 

~ Ecclesiastes 1:1-2, 14

[MGDMIRAGE]

Eww Atheism!

[Mr. Fosi]

I hate it when I drop something interesting out there and no one picks it up. I guess I'll just assume that you all agree with me regarding Dawkins's philosophy.

 

Anyway, here is an up-to-date update...

 

I did a waterchange tonight and decided to clean the glass and take pics as well. The last time I did a waterchange was 08.30.09. I'll get back on a proper schedule though 'cause some of the coralz aren't looking as good as they used to.

 

You'll also note that my frag racks are missing. That's b/c my son got his hands on my magfloat when my wife wasn't looking and manged to destroy them. I need to come up with a better design. All of the magnets were corroded when I removed them.

 

ON TO THE PICS.

 

FTS. I just realized how big the kenya and toadstool have gotten compared to when I added them... They are now dominating the front right corner of the tank.

 

 

 

 

 

Various zoas and palys. Everyone is reproducing but not at the rate they were. Likely due to my cutback in feeding and waterchanges.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The gorgonians. Both doing fine and encrusting the larger rocks that they have been resting on. I can't wait till the green-only frag finally coats that blashed bubble algae.

 

 

 

 

Finally, the baby frog frags. They aren't so baby-like anymore. They are both extending flesh as large as the main colony that you see behind the toad and kenya. I think it is time to sell them off or give them away.

 

 

[Arkayology]

Just a quick question. Do you run a chiller with the 150w Sunpod? I am getting a 20H soon and am considering light options. Does that thing heat up your tank a lot?

 

 

BTW, I didn't catch it before, but are you referencing The Selfish Gene or another one of Dawkins's works?

[yardboy]

I hate it when I drop something interesting out there and no one picks it up. I guess I'll just assume that you all agree with me regarding Dawkins's philosophy.

 

Sorry Isaac, I read your post but I'm afraid I won the viral lottery and am getting the flu; fever and sore throat so far. Sitting here trying to compose a response with a thermometer sticking out of my mouth. I was able to avoid the basal body thermo for now.

I suppose Dawkin feels that to win the evolution/creationism war he has to go back and attack the "supply lines" of creationism itself, religion. What he doesn't seem to realize, or care about, is that there are many more people who are religious, and believe in evolution also. I, and others, do not feel that they are mutually exclusive. And even a casual reading of Joseph Campbell would indicate that even if there wasn't a god, it would be necessary to invent one just so people would know how to behave in the environment we live in as humans. Odd fact is that those "Humanities majors", who likely merely skim Dawkins writings (which are written for laypersons anyway) and are smugly accepting on "faith" that what he says is true; that there is nothing to accept on faith and that it is perfectly alright to be selfish in your behavior. Amazing considering that those very same people are living off the "sweat of the brow" of others, and couldn't function self-sufficiently if they had to.

Sorry if this seems scattered, my temp is 100.3

[Mr. Fosi]

Do you run a chiller with the 150w Sunpod? Does that thing heat up your tank a lot?

 

No and no. During the summer my tank hits ~86F at the end of each day but that is more a function of the MJ1200 and the temperature in my apt than my lighting (generally 80F). It only drops 2F when the sunpod goes out.

 

BTW, I didn't catch it before, but are you referencing The Selfish Gene or another one of Dawkins's works?

 

None of the above. I am referencing a talk that he just gave here and USC. He was just here promoting his new book "The Greatest Show on Earth" and making half-thought attacks on what he calls "religion" but specifically the Bible.

 

What he doesn't seem to realize, or care about, is that there are many more people who are religious, and believe in evolution also. I, and others, do not feel that they are mutually exclusive.

 

^ This, except that he does care because he makes the claim that people who believe or live their life as though there is more than merely survival and reproduction are irrational, stupid people. It doesn't matter whether they ascribe to evolutionary theory or not.

 

And even a casual reading of Joseph Campbell would indicate that even if there wasn't a god, it would be necessary to invent one just so people would know how to behave in the environment we live in as humans.

 

Dunno that author... I will be looking him up here directly.

 

Odd fact is that those "Humanities majors", who likely merely skim Dawkins writings (which are written for laypersons anyway) and are smugly accepting on "faith" that what he says is true; that there is nothing to accept on faith and that it is perfectly alright to be selfish in your behavior. Amazing considering that those very same people are living off the "sweat of the brow" of others, and couldn't function self-sufficiently if they had to.

 

I see where you're going here but I think the issue is a great deal deeper than that. Such people are engaged in something that their own philosophy says is a completely meaningless, useless and illusionary exercise. They care so much about their own little issues but the philosophy that they pretend to believe damns all those issues (and more!) to nothing. The apparant basis for their thoughts and feelings don't exist because their thoughts and feelings are actually based in some peripheral, unintended way on survival and reproduction.

 

Since that is the case, if they make any claims at all or in any way behave as though anything in life actually means anything or is based on anything substantive, they show that they do not actually believe the things they say. It is impossible to live a human life and truly believe the thins that Dawkins says regarding the value of life or anything in it. Even a sociopath, empathetically isolated from others and any objective morality wouldn't be able to do it.

 

Dawkins's philosophy doesn't pass the "real life test" I'm afraid.

[BumbleBeeJBG]

My biggest problem with Dawkins is the same problem I have with fundamentalists. If you shove your atheism in my face I'm going to get pissed off the same as if you're shoving your God down my throat. Your beliefs should be your beliefs and I'll respect them and defend your right to have them, but the second you tell me I have to think your way or I'm irrational is when we part ways.

 

I'll stand with any man of science when they ##### about the way religion has impacted their practice but there is no more evidence disproving the existence of a higher authority than there is proving one.

 

It's a shame, very few brilliant men have the gift of articulating their science to layman and Dawkins has it, it's too bad he wants to be the Pat Robertson of the atheist world instead of an educator.

[Mr. Fosi]

... very few brilliant men have the gift of articulating their science to layman and Dawkins has it, it's too bad he wants to be the Pat Robertson of the atheist world instead of an educator.

 

I think this is a good quote. Of course, I probably have more in common with Robertson than I do with Dawkins, but in terms of presentation, I think I differ from both of them to a significant degree.

 

What is interesting is that I had the opportunity to ask a couple of my fellow grad students if they liked Tuesday's "pep rally" (yes, I used that term). They said they did and asked what I thought and I told them the truth: that I found it very disappointing.

 

They asked me why, so I told them essentially the same thing that I've written here. Both being supposedly "rational" people, they are both self-proclaimed atheists but they reacted in a strikingly similar way to the so-called "fundamentalist religious" people that Dawkins and others complain about. They became scared and began to sputter about how that couldn't be the case. They were unable (or refused) to follow the same reductionist logic that they praise in Dawkins.

 

I'm interested to see how this plays out in the coming weeks. We (the three of us) are part of a group project that is due in 2-3 weeks and as such, we will be meeting together outside of class. I'm interested to see if they let the dog lay or not. Something tells me they won't bring it up.

[BumbleBeeJBG]

I'll admit I didn't read everything in this thread cause I'm at work and such hehe, I assume you're an evangelical? How do you resolve Genesis and evolution?

[Mr. Fosi]

First I'd say evangelical what? I know plenty of evangelical mac users and a heck of a lot of evangelical skeptics.

 

Seriously though, the creation story is somewhat easy since the idea of a literal 6-day creation goes out the window as soon as you move from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2.

 

There are two stories there and they each recount a different order of creation. If you ascribe to the logical axiom that A cannot equal both A and non-A, then the idea that God perpetrated a single creation event, done in a fixed order and he did it in 6x24hr days is immediately dashed. He could not have simultaneously created the same thing for the first time on different sequential days. Of course, you might have some strange philosophy where A can be both A and non-A at once, but that's another philosophy that doesn't work out in real life.

 

This is an interesting observation and one that I think is easily explained when you consider that it is a recounting of a creation event perpetrated by a God that stands outside time. Trying to express something such as creation ex nihilo in chronological time that occurs in eternity must be something like (but much more difficult than) trying to show a 3D image on a 2D medium. You can have different aspects of the object that look very different but instead of confusing the issue, the different aspects serve to show more accurately what the whole looks like.

 

Or perhaps you might imagine depicting a portrait of yourself in 4 dimensions (the 4th being time) and being constrained to do so in 2 or 3 dimensions. It's mind-blowing, but in a decidedly non-mystical way. There are four easily perceived dimensions to this universe and if you are going to represent 3 of them (x, y, z), it is reasonable to consider including the 4th.

 

As such, it is difficult to assign some fixed chronological order or time-frame to something that occurred before time actually existed. The important aspects of the story are that creation was perpetrated by a powerful God who used some sort of controlled order. The creation of the universe was one born of purpose and order. How life was ultimately formed is another question, but we know that the whole of creation has purpose or order though the niceties of life may be messy and seemly stochastic.

 

It's also interesting that Genesis records the creation of man as distinctly separate from the creation of the concept of man. First the concept was created, then man was formed. I always thought that was an interesting distinction to be made, especially when you consider that God chose to make that distinction while he was recounting how he made the world to a tiny, apparently insignificant tribe of nomadic people at the very dawn of recorded history.

 

The recounting of Adam & Eve would need to be interpreted allegorically unless you have some sensible explanation of where Mrs. Cain came from and how the land of Nod was populated either: 1) apart of Adam & Eve or 2) through Adam & Eve and a whole lot of incest. Of course, the Lord had not laid down any law regarding incest as of that time and as such, it would not have been a sin... Distasteful though. *barf*

 

The next problem is the issue of Noah and the Ark (or even the supernatural beings that were said to have been mating with humans at that time). While a lot of cultures around the world share a "great flood" story, the precise telling of Noah doesn't match up with what we see biogeographically in the distribution patterns of organisms. As such, either biogeography is in error or the story of Noah is also not something that can be taken word-for-word literal.

 

These issues pose several problems for the conscientious Christian who wants to hold on to an absolutely literal interpretation of the whole of Genesis. However, I'm not sure that we need to hold on to that absolutely literal interpretation as a means to support the idea that the Bible is true or that God is a god of justice who is also personal. We also don't need it to support the idea that man is inherently sinful and deserving of the punishment that is required if justice is to be served.

 

Certainly none of this makes any difference outside of the end of Genesis since much of the rest of the Bible can be (and generally is) looked at from a purely historical context. A context which has been time-and-again verified by real-world discoveries. That includes the New Testament and the life of Christ. He was a historical person who said did things that were recorded by witnesses who clearly placed them in a historical context. These claims are easily assessed with tools typically applied to other historical documents. Textual criticism is one such tool. The clear finding all reputable (not just "religious") scholars is that the documents that make up the New Testament are the best vetted and most reliable documents we have recording any bit of ancient history.

 

So in summary: The only real places in the Bible that "science-based" skeptics can have any firm beef is with what is contained in the beginning parts of Genesis. Any such beef evaporates as soon as these "difficult" stories are taken in a less-literal way. At the same time, claims about whether the Bible is "true" are not, don't take much damage at all. If you want an explanation of why humans are the way they are, there's a pretty good one between the index and the maps at the end. It also comes with a very clear explanation of how they can be rescued from their imperfect and decidedly ugly nature and be transformed into something all together different.

[BumbleBeeJBG]

By admitting all you've just admitted you open up a slew of cans with worms not the least of which is the evolution of man as it relates to both the existence of his soul & bearing the image of God. There is then no adequate explanation of the guilt of man as a reflection of original sin. Genealogical issues become numerous and irresolvable. At what point do you start taking Genesis as a historical piece of literature?

[Mr. Fosi]

By admitting all you've just admitted you open up a slew of cans with worms not the least of which is the evolution of man as it relates to both the existence of his soul & bearing the image of God.

 

You'll need to outline how you think that these are issues that are "cans of worms".

 

There is then no adequate explanation of the guilt of man as a reflection of original sin. Genealogical issues become numerous and irresolvable.

 

Again, you really need to outline your thinking here.

 

At what point do you start taking Genesis as a historical piece of literature?

 

So you do agree that the problems you see are all in Genesis?

[MGDMIRAGE]

I'm seeing a possible war in the future here hehe.

 

Way too touchy of a subject

[BumbleBeeJBG]

I'm seeing a possible war in the future here hehe.

 

Way too touchy of a subject

 

No war here, I am not hostile to Fosi in any way and am genuinely looking forward to his replies as a means of learning and forming my own opinions. Constructive dialog is possible believe it or not