solitaire, creation pseudoscience, and wikipedia

How irritating. This has never happened to me before (click to enlarge):
Even those of you who are unfamiliar with Spider Solitaire may still see the problem. You must have a card in each free slot in order to deal another batch of cards (in order to progress). Until now I thought the program had a built-in device to ensure that you always have at least ten cards left (before this I never had fewer than a dozen, usually about two dozen). The program has failed me though, and allowed me to complete a set of cards that leaves me with insufficient cards to place one in each free slot. Thus the game cannot allow me to continue. I thought, when I noticed this, that the game would allow me to deal more cards anyway, but it doesn't. Infuriating because it spoilt my (until this point) perfect 15 for 15 wins on easiest. On medium (two suits) I'm 12 and 5, and I've never been able to do it on hardest (four suits).

On a related note, my thrilling Friday night includes listening to Radiohead and various classical stuff while playing Spider Solitaire, Hearts, Freecell, and Minesweeper; and listening to very heavy metal while playing Critical Mass. I'm borrowing the idea of the US military that playing heavy/loud music while in combat is good for encouraging the troops. I'm doing better than I've ever done before in this game.

- four hours pass -

Wow. I just got totally sidetracked and spend four hours cruising Wikipedia. I do this regularly. Today I was reading and following links related to "Creation Science", and in particular "Flood Geology", a fascinating attempt to ascribe all observable geological features to the Great Flood. Marine fossils at mountaintops were first dealt with by Flood Geology. This was one of the very first geological theories, postulated in the early 1800s, but rejected by its own staunchest proponents (notably Adam Sedgwick, in 1833) when they found the overwhelming body of evidence does not support a cataclysmic flood, but rather time (on the order of millions of years) to form the features we can see. However, Flood Geology has seen recent revival among creationists, particularly the "young-Earth creationists", who try desperately to get everything to fit into accordance with an Earth history of 6000 years or so.

I'm sure I'll post again someday on the futility of debating creationists on their philosophy, I run into their work every now and again when searching the web for geological papers and stuff. Heated arguments between creationists and mainstream scientists are ongoing in forums the web over, and I was strongly tempted to post on a couple of them myself. However, it would be pointless. The standpoints from which the sides approach the debate are too different for any argument by one group to sway or convince any member of the other, instead strong arguments frequently generate anger and/or derision, and flaming.

I feel no hostility to creationists, they pose little threat to society and certainly none to science, although sometimes their tactics are irritating (selectively choosing data, even falsifying it, but only a few creationists actually do such things), and the possibility of teaching creationism in schools in the states is worrying. However, I found examining their rebuttals to commonly accepted geological theories quite inspiring! I like how they're questioning the norm, and I enjoy using the knowledge I have (still very limited) to try and challenge their interpretations. But only for myself. To actually argue with them, or collaborate with other mainstream geologists to do so, would be like trying to convince an anvil it is in fact a windchime: an impossible waste of time. You cannot ever successfully debate against faith.

Who am I to talk about wasting time...

Recent (within last month) Wikipedia research has included:

• A lot of metallurgy, especially early methods of mining, refining, and alloying metals,
• Histories of small and/or remote islands (eg. Kergeluen, Easter),
• The war in Iraq,
• More World War II history (the Brits in Africa),
• Aircraft Engine technology,
• Internal Combustion Engine technology,
• More interstellar travel technology (inspired by watching tons of Voyager),
• The plausibility of Star Trek and/or Star Wars type technologies in the future,
• The waning "Trek vs Wars" debates about physics, weapons output, and scientific viability of technology, and
  
• A fascinating look at how the most basic concepts and emotions are described by this encyclopedia (eg beauty, love, truth etc.).

Future topics for study include some of the physics I gave up when I switched into pure geology (gravitation, string theory) as well as some computer-related stuff to deepen my understanding of how this black plastic rectangle actually works. Also I want to learn more about "space tethers", since all that stands in the way of building one is the development of a strong enough fibre for the cable (carbon nanotubules present the most promising area for development).

This has been a long post, and it's a little thin on the amusing stuff I usually try to throw in to keep you motivated to read and return. If you got this far well done. Here's a quote from an angered scientist on a science v creationism forum: "Creationism is related to science in much the same way a meat grinder is related to a cow." I probably won't have cause to post again until I return from the three day scouting trip on Wednesday (things are boring as hell here right now, and I should have insisted more strongly on leaving 10 days ago).

Cheers.