501. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194493 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 10:07 pm

Comment #194489 by ReceivedTheGift

I support Brian's excellent request.

Imagine you are in a court case. A lawyer is demanding you provide proof to back your claim of design.

Go ahead... you have 12 sceptical jurers and a judge to convince. If you can't, or won't, it is quite in order for us to consider your testimony worthless.

502. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194490 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 10:03 pm

Comment #194487 by ReceivedTheGift

I am not here to act as an information-on-demand service for you.

First, you have to act nicely. This should consist of admitting you don't have superpowers which make you more able to distinguish the scientific truth of evolution than people such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen J Gould. Admit that, and I am prepared to consider discussing things with you.

503. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194480 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 9:50 pm

Comment #194477 by ReceivedTheGift

Seriously, are you posting for a joke?

504. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194472 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 9:31 pm

I have known about "Zara" for years, but any picture is welcome.

505. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194467 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Comment #194464 by Goldy

But not the same species.

506. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194466 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 9:17 pm

Incidentally, what is it with fundamentalist Christians and homosexuality? Why are they all so boringly predictable? They are seriously alienating a lot of potential supporters. When I have seen pictures of exhibits from creation museums, one of my first thoughts has been "how kitch!". Having gay-themed days at such places (get Pierre et Gilles to camp things up even more) and they would get some real money in.

507. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194462 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 9:08 pm

I only refer to destroying Earth to the point where human life is either so extremely difficult for us and many other animals to survive.

I have little doubt that humans will survive, in some form or other. No other animal species lives in the range of environments that we do, from mountains to deserts, from rain forests to ice.

What we could easily do is reduce the "carrying capacity" of the planet so that no more than a billion, or even fewer, could survive. Considering that a population of around 9 billion is forecast for a few decades time, that is going to "be a problem", and very soon.

508. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194444 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 7:59 pm

Comment #194441 by ReceivedTheGift

No.

I assume you have google.

509. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194442 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 7:58 pm

Comment #194420 by JDAM

I am deeply concerned by global warming. One of the proposed mechanisms of the Permian extinction is global warming resulting from continent-sized lava flows pumping out CO2, which then resulted in deoxygenation of seas, and release of methane and hydrogen sulphide into the atmosphere, as a consequence of a 5 or 6C temperature rise.

Our activities are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere faster than the Permian lava flows. If we continue, a temperature rise is expected of... 5 or 6C by within a century or two. We should expect the same effects - further temperature rise as a result of methane release. Acidification and deoxygenation of the seas (already happening), and release of hydrogen sulphide (already happening).

We don't stand a chance of wiping life of the planet, but we could easily make most of the land mass uninhabitable, and cause a mass exctinction of most land animal species.

510. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194325 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Comment #194302 by ReceivedTheGift

Ooh! Time for a long blog post tomorrow on the presence of homosexuality in nature, and how it can potentially be of benefit to inclusive fitness.

Like, it is so not unnatural...

You need help

Very kind of you to offer, but I seem to have figured out to be gay all by myself. No help needed.

I wonder what other fundamentalist buttons I press? I am a gay, atheist, evolutionist. I am also a bit left-wing, and don't much like meat. Do those count?

Come on, you have to be a troll, or a joke. Which is it?

511. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194297 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Comment #194292 by ReceivedTheGift

I think so. I seem to have ended up married to this guy, so I guess that qualifies.

512. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194289 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Comment #194281 by ReceivedTheGift

I married my husband. I don't think you will find many biblical links there.

Reasons: To help show that same-sex relationships are part of society, for tax reasons, for a great party and honeymoon.

513. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194284 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Comment #194269 by ReceivedTheGift

Don't stoop to the lows of these other uneducated forum players.

Oh dear. You really have to be a wind-up. Someone has to be having a joke.

There are a range of educational levels here, I am sure, but all of them (in my experience) can actually think for themselves. They don't come here and use sock-puppets - they don't claim to have an invisible super-friend who backs them up. They don't say they are "super science man" who can know more about evolution than Dawkins.

I think I am going to have to resort to my nicer persona soon, before I get stuck on "nasty". However, while I am in this mood, you really are a total twit.

514. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194261 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Comment #194252 by pobalob

Welcome.

I have built up a summary of ID, and why it isn't science, and why it threatens science, here:

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/128357.html

I hope it helps :)

515. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194246 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Comment #194224 by ReceivedTheGift

If Macroevolution is so scientifically factually proven, written in stone, why the debate amongst the scientific community? I am sorry, but there are just too many in your community that think otherwise for this to be so clear cut.

There is no debate about macroevolution in the scientific community. None at all. There are debates about when it happens, and how long in typically takes, but none about that it happens.

There are scientists who are religious, but virtually none who are creationists. They believe that evolution happened, at the level of species and higher.

Creationism isn't science. There is no evidence for it, and no scientific argument about it. It is nothing more than an rather pathetic attempt to label humans as something special in the universe. Every single scientific claim that creationism has made has been shown to be wrong. We have the just about the whole story of life on Earth. We even have pretty good explanations of when it began, and how (at least conceivable stories):

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/137122.html

There is no need for God in this anywhere.

516. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194204 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Comment #194197 by ReceivedTheGift

May I say I appreciate the effort you have put into posting here. It is important to refute the challenge that creationism poses to science and rationality. PZ Myers recently posted a commentary from Carl Sagan about the horrific burning of the Library of Alexandria, when science and reason were set back centuries, if not millenia.

In posting here you have presented a public reminder of the mindset of creationists - their refusal to deal with evidence. Their rejection of reason. You have allowed us to present to a wide audience yet again the reason why you are a danger to our civilization and rational discourse.

The more people like you post, the more we hone and refine our arguments in support of reason. Ironically, you help such arguments evolve.

517. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194196 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Comment #194185 by thewhitepearl

In any case..Well Done Zarbi!

Others have done the same. "Crocoduck" is dealt with brilliantly in this series of videos (which I did not realise existed when I wrote my blog post):
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2714,From-Big-Bang-to-Us---Made-Easy,potholer54

518. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194190 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Comment #194186 by ReceivedTheGift

Well said sir!

Would a science novice have the ability to determine what was art and what was nature?

You are a science novice. Your views have no credibility here. You are in no position to state what is and isn't designed.

519. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194184 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Comment #194182 by al-rawandi

ooooh someone has been stockpiling their aresenal!

I took a break from here for several reasons. One was to do just that. Anyone can use anything from any link I post from my site without attribution.

520. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194179 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Comment #194171 by ReceivedTheGift

This is goalpost-moving.

Initially creationism said there was no evolution at all. This was proved wrong. Then it said there was no evolution of new species. This was proved wrong. Now it says there is no evolution between "kinds", as in the hilarious challenge to find a "crocoduck".

Well, we have found it:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/132809.html

All challenges creationism has put forward have been met. It is a lie.

521. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194164 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Comment #194147 by ReceivedTheGift

The new species evolved by polyploidy from a hybrid. There was new information added by duplication of existing information. It was a new species because it could not mate with existing species, only with its own kind. It was a more successful species, and was naturally selected, and now dominates.

Everything creationists claim is impossible was observed in human history: new information added to the genome, the creation of a new species in a single mutation, and natural selection of the result.

All of creationism is shown to be wrong by a single biological event in the 19th century.

This needs no appeal to authority. It is a matter of historical record.

Creationism is a lie.

522. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194138 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Comment #194133 by ReceivedTheGift

I gave you a link showing macromutation.

I would suggest you provide some evidence for the position you hold. You are in no position to request any evidence from people here, until you respond to what we have asked.

523. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194116 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Comment #194109 by ReceivedTheGift

Epeeist has better links, but I keep my personal store of information.

You want macroevolution in one generation? no problem:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/118526.html

I realise it is futile to attempt to refute arguments founded on religion, but one can at least show to others that those who post such arguments are ignorant.

524. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194105 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Comment #194093 by Kardashovel

So there is!

525. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194089 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Comment #194086 by Kardashovel

I am nearly 50! How I am supposed to remember? Go back through a wormhole or something? :)

526. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194088 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Here is my new view, after much thought.

Knowing what this site is, and who set it up, if anyone comes here claiming special privileged knowledge of the universe, we point out to them that this is not acceptable.

What is particularly unacceptable is the viewpoint of someone I have been debating recently:
http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/?page_id=33

"It should be immediately obvious to any Christian that whatever status science has in the process of acquiring knowledge about reality must be defined by the foundation for all knowledge: Scripture. It cannot be superior to Scripture, nor equal with it: it must be entirely subordinate."

To be honest, I would not have engaged in the debate, putting weeks of effort in the process, if I had read this beforehand.

What we say is that we are open to honest debate and enquiry where changing a point of view and answering questions is possible. The rules of that debate are the acceptance of reason and evidence.

If they won't accept that, I see not the slightest point in discussing anything.

527. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194066 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 11:30 am

MPhil - PM for you

528. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194060 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 10:59 am

Comment #194045 by MPhil

Maybe I'm being too generous.

Perhaps I am being too harsh! I am happy to have that pointed out.

However, it has taken me a while for something significant to sink in - the context of posts here. This isn't usenet news, where anything is said. This isn't reddit or digg, where anyone comments on just about anything.

This is the site of one of the greatest scientists of the past century - someone who has had a major influence on evolutionary thinking, and who has won major awards not just for his science, but his public communication of that science.

People come here, and post that they have special abilities to detect scientific truth, and that Dawkins and thousands of others of the greatest minds in science are all wrong. That people actually address these posts shows what a great site this is. When asked to provide justification for this challenge to mainstream science, the challengers say, basically that they have a feeling about it.

I have been strongly influenced by epeeist on this. Sometimes, with the best intentions, we let such people run rings around us. We end up pandering to them, answering every question.

I think we need to ask why they feel qualified to discuss science at all - we don't let them put a foot in the door, as it where, unless they are polite and agree to rational discussion.

Anyway - perhaps we could convince you to join Steve, Brian, me and others on the "blogsphere" - and if you don't want your own, I (and I would say others as well) would love to get your input on our posts as a commentator. What do you think?

I honestly feel privileged to be part of a blogging community with people as smart and interesting as Quetz, Brian, Lee, MPhil and many others. To have carto (and others) join in with that would be wonderful.

529. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194035 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 9:58 am

Comment #194032 by entheogensmurf

Earth is dying, or I should say we are destroying (killing) the planet.

I think that is a bit strong. If millions of years of continent-sized lava flows in the Permian could not destroy life, and if an asteroid collision with a force of millions of nuclear weapons at the end of the Cretaceous could not do it, then we can't.

530. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194031 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 9:52 am

Comment #194027 by MPhil

We have to give him credit for at least attempting to confront rational criticisms and attempting to use real arguments.

I have to disagree my friend. Look at this:

Comment #193375 by ketch22

You may contribute, but this has all been argued before and alot better. You see, I have dealt with people such as you before. If you can't coceive the idea of a creator, then you will continue to use the razor arguement. However, because God created us, He is outside any man made logical prose and debate. Anything we can conceive as a way of disproving God or His attributes can only come from our limited minds that He actually created. Depravity and ignorance breed more depravity and ignorance.

531. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194020 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 9:39 am

Comment #194016 by Diacanu

Put it back!

I declined to comment because there was nothing I could add to its excellence! Anything else would have been superfluous.

532. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194008 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 9:24 am

Comment #194000 by Quetzalcoatl

Ah! I see what you mean.

It still probably isn't going to be likely. We would have a lot of problems living on Earth more than a hundred or so million years ago, as the oxygen varied so much.

533. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193999 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 9:15 am

Comment #193983 by steveroot

Naah, air pressure isn't going to work. Just think what would happen when it was released ... all life would explode with the change of pressure and the seas would boil.

Anyway, even if air pressure would work, it would be a fragile system. Just one crack in the ice, and all the air would rush out with a huge farting noise and the Earth would career around the solar system like a deflating balloon.

534. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #193993 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 9:11 am

Comment #193980 by Quetzalcoatl

well, let's face it, when we have the ability to, everyone will be looking in the Goldilocks zones anyway.

Yeah, that is inevitable :)

And they are at least the best place to look to find planets capable of supporting us, ie with liquid water and reasonable temperatures.

Actually, that probably isn't true. Earth was only what we consider "Earth-like" for about the past 600 million years - a tiny fraction of its existence.

There is most likely far more warm water in the underground seas of gas giant moons, the result of tidal heating.

535. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193989 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 9:08 am

How difficult can it be to debate with those who already believe the way you do?

I am prepared to debate with those who disagree with me. I am not prepared to engage in discussion with those who claim I must be wrong because God told him so.

I used to be rather mild and polite here, but I have gone past the limit of my patience. I am just fed up with people like you claiming you are some kind of superman. You have an ability to detect universal truth that is beyond that some of the greatest thinkers of our time.

It can be fun to imagine you are batman or spiderman when you are young (just don't try the climbing or flying bits), but we are supposed to grow out of that.

Claims of superpowers look ridiculous in an adult.

Cut those claims, admit that you could be wrong, and we could talk.

536. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193976 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 9:00 am

Comment #193974 by Quetzalcoatl

Actually, any orbit would do. The problem is how to avoid collisions of the crystals, which would de-orbit them. As you say, another problem is the energy required to bring them out of orbit. I guess it would be orders of magnitude more than an asteroid impact.

537. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #193973 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 8:58 am

Comment #193972 by Quetzalcoatl

Heh. Don't get me started on the subject of Goldilocks zones!

I can thoroughly recommend "Evolving the Alien" by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart. It puts to rest the idea of the Goldilocks zone.

Even an extra-solar planet with no warmth other than internal radioactive decay could be as full of (simple) life forms as the Earth. (Being extra-solar, it would have a thick atmosphere of insulating hydrogen, and the surface temperature would be nice and warm for billions of years)

538. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193971 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 8:53 am

I'd like to know how the ice was held aloft. The support structures would have had to be huge (and made of something more than ice). There should be geological consequences of such structures.

539. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #193967 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 8:51 am

Comment #193947 by Quetzalcoatl

as to the reason why the planets actually have such a short orbit, they could have formed that close in to the star, but it's more likely that they formed further out and their orbits were disturbed, perhaps by a rogue gas giant, sending them spiralling in towards the sun.

Absolutely.

There is another factor at work here too. These are simply the Earth-like planets we can detect. It might be more common for Earth-like planets to be at Earth-like distances.

540. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193961 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 8:46 am

Comment #193950 by phatbat

I am not sure how to respond.

Shall I just make something up? That seems to be acceptable in some circles.

OK, I'll say it is in the shape of rather wonderful ice sculptures of angels :)

541. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193943 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 8:26 am

Comment #193921 by phatbat

Yes.

I mean, honestly.

542. Only a Theory

Comment #193865 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 7:00 am

Comment #193859 by Cartomancer

Surely there must be some things about reality queerer than we are able to suppose?

Yes, that is it precisely, if you change it to "about natural reality".

Did you mean that the ID hacks are saying science should be limited based on what we understand about the universe now, or what we understood two millennia ago, or on what unimaginative people are capable conceiving without putting any effort into it, or something like that?

Yes. Basically, they are saying that if Behe or Dembski can't figure out what is going on, then it must be God. There is no waiting a decade or two, or even a millenium or two, to see if an explanation turns up.

You might almost think that ID was an "End Times" doctrine. We are the pinnacle of creation, and nothing beyond us will exist than can understand nature more than we do.

Incidentally, researching the claims of ID, I have noticed that there is another "bacterial flagellum". The archaea, a parallel group to the bacteria, have a flagellum of an entirely different construction, and of a different origin, that does the same job. Odd that a designer would have invented the same thing twice, when either one would have done the job?

543. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193857 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 6:39 am

Comment #193738 by Steve Zara

I am not a philosophy "expert" (if there can be such a thing), nor am I a neurology or science wonder. I am a hospice RN who I believe God gave enough intelligence to discern truth from lie.

See what I mean, people?

Translation: I am one of the special few. I have a supermind that exceeds what you inferior mere mortals can do. What do I need actual knowledge and understanding for?

I just hope he/she doesn't start thinking they can fly.

And I used to think wooter was scary....

544. Scientists confirm that parts of earliest genetic material may have come from the stars

Comment #193850 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 6:15 am

Remember that almost all the Earth's water was delivered by comets (dirty snowballs coated with oily organic muck) so early on, there were no oceans.

Icy environments would have helped. Freezing not only concentrates the nucleotides, but it looks like replication can occur naturally in ice.

545. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193846 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 6:10 am

Comment #193834 by phil rimmer

Are there any theories working from the basis of the appearance of information, perhaps in relation to the necessary energy transfer involved?

I really haven't the faintest idea :)

546. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193822 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 4:54 am

What if D is natural?

But then D can't be the source of objective morality etc., so it can't be Robertson's God.

547. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193821 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 4:53 am

Comment #193806 by steveroot

Actually, you have a point! It is not quite the same, but close.

The problem for a flood would be to melt the ice without incinerating the Earth with the heat. The problem is that the melt would take centuries, if not millenia. Noah must have been very patient.

548. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193818 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 4:46 am

Comment #193810 by Philip1978

David Robertson is interested in nothing more than (as epeeist has pointed out) "quarrel dialogue". He will take things out of context and insult and mock freely, simply to provoke. He has nothing else he can do. If you can stand it, read one or two of his Dawkins Letters. They are an intellectual joke. He addresses the arguments in TGD with nothing more than a combination of ignoring them and personal incredulity. (His response to Dawkins dealing with the argument from complexity was to repeat the argument from complexity). He is a poor intellect who is desperate for publicity. I suspect he is trying to establish a role for himself in what we know is a declining church. This could be why he is so fuzzy about evolution - mustn't shock the fundamentalists or the moderates. Trying to position himself as the "anti-Dawkins" is just not working. No-one really cares. He is just not up to it. He can't even bluster like McGrath. He can't rant like D'Souza. All he can do is come here and be obnoxious, and play games with posts on his own site.

549. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193807 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 4:23 am

Comment #193805 by hungarianelephant

It took me quite a while to understand the power of the argument that MPhil uses.

This isn't a matter of something being outside of 4D spacetime. It is about something being entirely "extra dimensional".

550. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193800 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 3:59 am

Comment #193788 by hungarianelephant

That still doesn't work, as it doesn't address the problem of causality. Something that influenced things at the quantum level would still have to influence them at a certain time and place. MPhil's argument is fully general.