751. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190724 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Comment #190718 by Quine

To follow on from Quine's excellent post, I think it is becoming increasingly clear that there are serious problems even with the term "supernatural". We have discovered physical phenomena that are way beyond anything we imagined possible centuries ago. An example is the time dilation effect of relativity. It seems, therefore, highly problematic for us to label anything we see that is beyond our comprehension as "supernatural".

The concept of the supernatural is as flawed as that of intelligent design. It is a "gap filler" that can never be shown to be correct, as it would be impossible to exclude the range even of conceivable potential natural explanations, let alone those we don't know of yet.

Intelligent Design is understandably held in contempt even by theologists and popes. Unfortunately precisely the same arguments apply to supernaturalism as a whole.

A debate which even involved mention of God is question-begging. Debates should start with the science and philosophy of naturalism, and only if and when the supernatural has been established as a viable concept should discussions about theism proceed, in my view.

752. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190696 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Comment #190692 by al-rawandi

I feel that it's like setting a date to play golf with a friend, I come to the course dressed and carrying my golf clubs, and my friend shows up wearing a kilt, naked from the waist up and wielding a large axe. How does one proceed?

Doesn't that depend on the sex of the friend in that case?

753. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190680 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 11:21 am

Comment #190672 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

I am highly suspicious about this new, more overt creationism from David Robertson. In hindsight, it has always been there, but I do wonder what political motive there is for revealing it now. Perhaps it makes Robertson more visible, or gives him allies from the more fundamentalist factions of various religions.

One thing is for sure; I would never debate him publically. As we have seen on this site, he would always be responding to things never said, to his own ideas of what he wants people to believe "atheists" think.

754. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190665 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 10:54 am

The main reason for this is that atheists (most often) seek to disprove God from the Darwinian rationale (as seems to be the case for Dawkins). So what is being suggested is just an attempt to "mirror" these perspectives on each side of the question.

No. You are confusing the issue of creationism with that of theism. The main refutation of creationism is evidence for evolution. The main refutation of theism is the argument regarding the appearance of design of the universe.

If you wished to have a debate regarding the appearance of fine tuning of the universe, that would not be too unreasonable, however arguing about evolution would present an extreme position (creationism) as if it had any merit or standing in mainstream science or religion. It doesn't. Creationism is roughly equal the the idea of the flat earth in terms of rational credibility.

755. Complex Synapses Drove Brain Evolution

Comment #190568 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 8:59 am

Comment #190510 by irate_atheist

It was amazing enough watching nephews and neices. I can remember the strong desire to learn, not just the capacity. The attempts to stand, to walk, to talk...

756. Complex Synapses Drove Brain Evolution

Comment #190494 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 7:46 am

Comment #190491 by DamnDirtyApe

Our brains are insane, complex things.

Probably not initially. They end up that way as we learn.

There can't be that much initial complexity in the brain, as there are only around 20-30,000 genes in our genome. Not enough for much software :)

757. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190475 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 7:04 am

Comment #190448 by Peacebeuponme

Also, why did god choose Banda Aceh, Sichuan and the Irrawady Delta? Are they more sinful than elaewhere?

I don't know. But what is interesting is how geological features millions of years old were laid down in preparation to give that quake.

Because I am a generally nice person, I have tried to come up with a way to explain how human sinfulness can go backwards in time like that.

I think I have found an answer. I will call it the "Sodom" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

The "Copenhagen" interpretation suggests there is an observer effect, which forces quantum states - alternative realities - to settle into one true reality. The "Sodom" interpretation implies that which reality is actualised depends how wicked you are. If we are naughty, then a past history of the world in which natural disasters have always happened becomes the real history. "Sodom" is an appropriate label, as it fits with the occasionally expressed opinion of some religious leaders that gay sex causes floods etc.

758. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190436 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 5:19 am

Comment #190420 by scottishgeologist

What a useful link you post:

God did not create the world to have natural disasters, cancer and death.

The world has been corrupted by sin

http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2005/jan05.htm

So, there weren't natural disasters, cancer and death before sin.

David - perhaps you could please explain how sin caused the permian extinction? The Chicxulub impact that killed off the dinosaurs?

I don't honestly expect an answer, but I think it is useful to have this question in a public space, and associated with David Robertson's name, to make it clear that he is a creationist: one of that arrogant crowd who claim to know more than mainstream biologists. And here is me thinking that pride was a sin.

759. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190406 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 3:11 am

Comment #190404 by scottishgeologist

Hey... we can quote mine too!

From that page you linked:

"Whether or not the existence of God can be proved; and leaving aside the matter of creation, a relationship with God through a surrender to His son Jesus Christ has totally transformed countless millions of people's lives over the past 2000 years."

Perhaps a better name for "Christians Together" would be "Delusions R Us!".

Who cares if God exists - as long as people are happy.

This clearly illustrates the Brave New World thinking of some theists... just keep feeding the flock the soma of Christianity.

I wonder if David supports this view - after all his name and picture are on that site?

It would be good to get a confirmation that he believes that the existence of God is either unprovable or irrelevant.

760. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190398 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 2:46 am

Comment #190393 by JuxtaMonkey

It isn't worth getting worked up. One of clearthinker's tactics is to get people worked up so he can quote what they say. He can spin anything.

My suggestion is that responses to him have to be calm to avoid this. When he is right, we have to accept that; goodness knows there is enough he is wrong about.

761. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190381 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 2:10 am

clearthinker wrote-

I argue for justice (remember that strange concept that cannot exist in the athiest world of moral relativism?)

No come off it David. You know that atheism does not lead to moral relativism. I am sure, as an educated fellow, you know that there are hundreds of millions (at the very least of Buddhists) who don't believe in any supreme being watching over them, but who believe in transcendent absolute moral values.

This is proof that you don't need theism for a belief in absolute morality.

I will note this. Any future statement from you that atheism means moral relativism will be pointed out as incorrect, and it will also be shown that this has been pointed out to you.

However, use of reason can lead to an understanding that there are no absolute morality. This does not lead to moral anarchy, as we all have to get along.

I am sure you must know of the serious philosophical work that has been done regarding ethics. If not, I am happy to point you at some references.

762. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190376 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 1:56 am

You are so desperate to make me out to be a liar that you just make stuff up.

Perhaps then, to help show what a truthful person you are, you could come up with a list of the tenets of atheism, the supposed doctrines of lack of belief. You have been mentioning them for months and months. I am sure you aren't making up this idea, but in any case some further information on this would deal with any idea that you have just made this up.

763. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190365 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 1:11 am

txpiper-

I see you haven't responded to my questions.

Let's try again.

Please explain why you have the incredible self-confidence to believe that you are in a position to judge who is right, and who is wrong in matters such as evolutionary theory and molecular biology. Are you some kind of equivalent of James Watson or Francis Crick, that you can say "the vast majority are wrong, and I, the great txpiper, know why"?

Also, if you are going to claim that you can introduce God because our scientific understanding of certain areas is not perfect, or because there is controversy, then we are going to have a field day discussing the imperfections and controversies about God!

Please do answer my questions. I am fascinated by the psychology of conspiracy theorists, and that is effectively what you are. Just because creationism is more widespread than 9/11 conspiracy nuts does not make it any less cranky: there is still this "almost everyone but me is wrong" position.

So, please, explain...

764. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190252 by Steve Zara on June 8, 2008 at 4:13 pm

The last thing that would occur to an establishment geologist/paleontologist would be the whole paradigm is wrong.

Nonsense. There have been major revisions in these subjects.

However, even assuming they were wrong, what makes you think you are in a position to judge? Are you an expert with decades of research and publishing in these areas? Are you some kind of Einstein-equivalent, who can shake up a whole area of science?

Well mostly because 2LTD is the norm consistently observable in every single detail of the tangible universe. Things decay from an organized state into a disorganized state.

Nonsense.

In systems far from equilibrium order and organisations can spontaneously arise. This happens all the time, both in the laboratory and in Nature. Self-organising systems are common.

Do you understand what this means? It means you are wrong about physics as well as about biology.

Well in the case of molecular level stuff, it isn't their work. Everyone should marvel at what they have done. It is their non-work I have a problem with. Nobody has ever coerced anything at that level into doing what it does starting from scratch. And, as I've pointed out, anything that they do in the way of mimicry will not be in accordance with what you believe, because they will have used their intelligence to cause the (re)design.

This is gibberish. There are hundreds of thousands of biologists working at the molecular level.

And your final sentence is absurd. You are stating that you will never believe evidence of biogenesis or biological evolution in the laboratory, as it will be in a laboratory.

So, basically, you have isolated yourself from any possible scientific proof that you are wrong.

You really should be ashamed of yourself. Your arrogance in dismissing the work of thousands of scientists who know far, far more than you is deeply shocking.

What you have said is that you believe what little you understand of thermodynamics because it suits your view of the world, and you dismiss virtually all experts in biology because it doesn't.

Honestly, I really do dispair of people sometimes. It is odd how people who claim they are religious can so blatantly go against the tenets of their own religions.

In how many other areas of knowledge do you consider yourself more qualified than virtually all in a field?

Yes, and they really should. That is a reasonable, rational conclusion to draw

No, not if you are educated, it certainly isn't.

There is a good example of how order can appear in the universe and be confused with design. It is called the Giant's Causeway:
http://www.northantrim.com/causeway_stones.htm

This amazing structure looks like it was built. But it wasn't, it was formed by crystallisation.

One of the things intelligent people are supposed to do is to learn from experience. Why are you stuck with a stone-age view of the world?

765. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190187 by Steve Zara on June 8, 2008 at 1:53 pm

There comes a point where the laws of thermodynamics cannot be ignored, and in this universe, disorganization is the norm.

Perhaps you could explain why you feel that thermodynamics is a science which meets with your personal approval, but evolution isn't? Could you perhaps let us know what your criteria are for judging the work of hundreds of thousands of scientists?

766. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #190021 by Steve Zara on June 8, 2008 at 7:51 am

Comment #189761 by BeyondBelief

I actually don't think any "organising" is generally necessary. Just persistent but polite questioning when someone puts forward a position based on religious authority.

What may be important in some circles is being "out" about being an atheist. There is another parallel with gay rights here: once friends, neighbours, members of families and prominent people start coming out as gay, then homosexuality can start to appear as it should be - normal. Simply being known as an atheist and carrying on with life as normal can reveal to people that we don't need God to be good.

There will be resistance to this message, as it removes part of the power base of religious authorities.

767. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189983 by Steve Zara on June 8, 2008 at 4:04 am

Comment #189972 by clearthinker

I wasn't going to reply, but one statement was so hilarious....

If atheism is simply the absence of belief with no philosophical or practical consequences, then it cannot be a motive for bad behaviour or good. Which then leaves us in a free for all.

Does your lack of belief in elves leave you in an ethical free for all?

I suspect you don't believe in fairies, or goblins either. I just go a bit further than you.

Incidentally, a firm statement of your disbelief in elves would be appreciated.

Unfortunately Steve " that one was wrong too. .... Just read what I have written. I have always made my position clear.

You have posted here that current biological thinking on evolution is questionable.

That is dirty creationist talk.

768. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

Comment #189823 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 10:32 am

Religion will come under the kind of scrutiny over the next month I wish it could be spared.

What an strange statement. Religions have attempted to put our lives under scrutiny for millenia. Surely this is only fair?

769. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189808 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 10:14 am

Comment #189798 by The Reverend Dark

If it helps you, think about it as church without the fairy tales, or need to feel guilty about what imaginary sky fairies say is naughty.

May I humbly suggest a correction: "we don't need to feel guilty because of what an imaginary sky fairies says." (That is not to say we won't feel guilty anyway).

Many of us probably feel guilty about the same things that sky-fairyists say we should feel guilty about, but for different reasons.

Sorry to nit pick, but your post seems to imply that we need not feel guilty about stealing, or coveting asses because the supposed sky fairy says they are wrong.

Yes, I am back and in full pedant mode!

770. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189802 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 9:58 am

Comment #189778 by txpiper

I am afraid your case completely fails. It fails because your hypocrisy is clear.

We aren't the ones claiming that those we disagree with are morons - you are.

We rationalists are humble. We don't assume we know what is going on in the world. In dealing with biology, I ask biologists what the situation is. When they disagree amongst themselves, I ask them what is the current consensus, and then I say "OK, that will do for me". It has to do, as being a person with less experience of the subject than them, how else am I to judge?

Now compare this with your position. First you make your mind up, and then you cherry pick the few who agree with you. What you are basically saying is that you, personally, are able to decide who, out of all the experts in a field, are correct.

I would love to know what other areas of knowledge you consider yourself such an expert in that you feel yourself qualified to pick views considered by the majority to be nuts? Do you support the Flat Earth theory?

You should honestly be ashamed of yourself. The Christian religion (I assume you are a Christian) teaches humility, yet you claim that you have special gift for sensing the truth that makes you superior to hundreds of thousands of scientists who have spend decades working hard to understand reality. If that isn't a "sin", I don't know what is.

Shame on you.

771. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189797 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 9:45 am

Comment #189793 by epeeist

Colour me cynical, but I wonder if he is looking for new material to quote mine.

He has then already heard of the Atheist Handbook, so I am afraid he may therefore be on to us.

It may be worthwhile having a look at your PMs Steve if you haven't done so for a while.

I did get the useful one regarding DR and his creationism outing.

I have to say it did not surprise me, although I always wonder how much of what he says is pure spin. This month, he is creationist....

772. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189789 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 9:24 am

Comment #189785 by thewhitepearl

That clearthinker feels the need to post here is a very hopeful sign. People him are now put in a defensive position.

773. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189753 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 6:51 am

Given that they no longer can rely on their base position or the automatic deference the religious are going to struggle to justify their position. As such the only things they can do are to give up many of the properties of their god and holy book or actively seek to undermine the position of reason and rationality.

Indeed! I have seen so many attempts to undermine that position, which is kind of ironic, considering how often it is claimed that science in Western countries was inspired by Christianity.

Of course, the undermining of reason and rationality has a problem now for Christians in societies like that in the UK, as there are competing forms of irrationality. So, who gets to decide which form of irrationality gets to say what is "right"?

774. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189738 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 5:56 am

Seen on another site : "One of the core atheist beliefs is that they do not have core atheist beliefs."

Yep.

Oh come off it. I have plenty of core beliefs, and so do, I am sure, most people here. They are the core beliefs of most decent people. Atheism has nothing to do with it.

The issue is whether or not those core beliefs can be, or are, derived from atheism.

They can't be. Atheism is a privative. One can however, have beliefs about atheism (such as that one should have the right to use the label without being oppressed).

Most people I know who don't believe don't even think much about their lack of belief.

One might have hoped that the time you were on this site would have revealed the absurdity of generalisations like this. Clearly not. I find that sad.

775. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189732 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 5:24 am

Comment #189730 by epeeist

To invert that, the thing I promote is lack of deference.

I don't think that is enough. One can say that people should have to justify claims, but one also, I feel, has to provide a foundation for how claims are justified. We need an equivalent of the Queensbury Rules for public disagreements and debates.

As far as I know, good legal systems are based on reason. They aren't just after fairness (as implied by lack of deference), they are after truth.

776. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189727 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 4:23 am

It's all about symmetry

I hope you don't mind me responding to this, but I believe you are confusing reversibility with the direction of time (as I feel the article does).

At micro scales, a time-reversed recording usually can't be distinguished from the non-reversed one. This obviously does not mean time itself reverses.

However, and very small scales, time itself is uncertain, and can indeed reverse.

I feel that the article is confusing about this. One can actually tell which direction time is running in when looking at some micro-scale situations, such as atomic decay, and there are some aspects of particle physics which aren't symmetrical with respect to time reversal.

777. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189722 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 3:56 am

Comment #189719 by Grumpy Max

I think you have a point.

I don't think the real battle should be about atheism anyway. It is the wrong label to apply for the general point of view I believe most people here support.

I don't promote "atheism". I promote "reason". What I am after is people to justify public statements about matters of importance with logic and evidence. I don't believe faith, tradition, or culture should be used as such justification simply because they are faith, tradition, or culture.

One finds considerable opposition to promoting "reason" in public discourse, I have found (someone in a thread actually called this "intellectual bullying"). But, when one thinks about it, how else are we to manage our societies fairly? The alternatives include listening to those who threaten, or shout the loudest, or just to go along with the majority because they are the majority.

An analogy I have used elsewhere is that we already use reason in places where we feel things really matter. In court cases we don't usually accept statements like "I have been vouchsafed a deep inner conviction of the accused's guilt" as evidence. It seems odd, therefore, that we should accept the religious views of Bishops and preachers when we discuss other matters of importance, such as gay rights.

778. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189721 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 3:46 am

What I mean is, my confusion is, how science can define the word 'time' so that it can move a negative amount. Can things also, then, move negative distances and have negative mass or negative volume (these latter two would revolutionize the fad diet industry)?

You are right: it's about direction. It means that something sitting at rest, would "see" other things apparently moving backwards in time.

779. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189714 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 3:22 am

I'm obviously discussing ideas above everyone's head.

All you have offered is circular arguments and rants.

However, from others we have had some simply superb examples of reason and clarity in posts from those opposing you, especially Comment #189462 by hungarianelephant and Comment #189403 by MaxD.

This is certainly the kind of clear thinking and reason that this site was set up to encourage.

EDIT: I'd also like to heap praise on...

[enter name here]

Apologies if I have not given praise where praise is due. I have been dipping in and out of this thread.

780. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189691 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 1:54 am

Comment #189686 by clearthinker

Hello David.

And why feel the need to organise, evangelise and behave like a religion? And why set up a website espousing atheist beliefs if there are no atheist beliefs?

Last time I read the description of this site it was about "clear thinking" and "rationality". Didn't see any requirement for atheism.

However, perhaps, being of queer orientation, I can explain to you why someone with, in principle, no creed, and no belief would want to organise.

I have no "gay creed". I have no "gay belief". I am not anti-straight. All I want to do is to live my life unharrassed, and my empathy for others means I want to ensure that anyone who is gay can share that freedom.

In societies where religion is dominant and dominating, it is common that homosexuality is considered terribly naughty and preachers and bishops attempt to limit the rights of people like me. The disappointing thing is that governments sometimes listen, even though the only justifications given to support such views are "it's wrong because it's wrong" and "a little God whispered that it is wrong in my ear".

So, you see, people without a creed or dogma can have enough reason to organise against mainstream religion even if they don't consider themselves atheists.

Atheism isn't the only view some of us have, you see. Some of us don't want religious busybodies interfering with government, preaching morality based on nothing more than gut feeling and old books. We want societies to be based on reason and rationality, where people have to not keep saying "it's what God wants" as justification for anything (unless they can demonstrate the existence of that God first - surely a reasonable request?).

As for claiming that "atheists" behave like a religion. Well, some do. They are called Buddhists.

Still, the atheist religion is going to have problems. Unlike you we can't get guidance from invisible beings, as our non-gods clearly don't think us special enough to non-talk to us.

(The difference between an atheist and a believer is that the absence of God doesn't talk to atheists).

781. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189681 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 1:16 am

Comment #189630 by Quine

Steve, I would not advocate censorship. I do advocate taking more effort to choose our words so as to better add to the public understanding of science.

But words need not be chosen, I think. The public may not understand the type of order involved in your example of a car engine, but it is the same kind of order as in an unbroken egg. What seemed to me to be implied in Comment #189614 was that there was a different kind of "order" at the start of the universe, and not one that theists would attempt to explain by a creator.

That is wrong. Just because it may not be understood, does not mean it is a different type of order. It isn't. It is described by the same thermodynamics, by the same Second Law.

We can't sidestep that the order of origin of the universe is something that needs to be explained.

Comment #189646 by Luis_Cayetano

Stenger's ideas aren't shared by many.

782. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189624 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 6:08 pm

So as to not confuse the general public, physicists need to stop using the word "ordered" and start using another word like homogeneous or the likes. The universe didn't start out "ordered" in the sense that the general public thinks about it

But it did. The universe started of in a low entropy state. That is the whole foundation of the second law of physics. The broken egg point that Carroll uses is correct. This is the kind of "order" that the public things of. The universe was more ordered that it could have been in just the everyday sense that an intact egg is more ordered than a broken one.

The universe may not have had that much order, as the expansion allows much more possible entropy, but ordered it certainly was, and in the "common sense" way.

What matters is that it was astronomically less ordered than the mind of any creator.

We really shouldn't be censoring scientific discussion because of the religious.

783. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189599 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 3:35 pm

That is, I understand that all distant objects are expanding away from the Earth at more or less equal speeds. Since it would be silly to assume the Earth is at the center of the universe, there is a model that says the universe is expanding like a 3 dimension "surface" on a 4 (multi?) dimensional "balloon."

Not quite. You don't need the 4th dimension. All you need to think of is the substance of space is expanding. A better analogy is to imagine an infinite load of bread rising - everything separates, even though there is no centre.

Does this mean if one was able to take off on a spacecraft moving at near the speed of light in one direction they would then shortly (due to space-time compression) find themselves back at thier original location (in the far future) having "circumnavigated" the universe?

It is possible if the universe is finite.

Or would the universe expand beyond them? Or would it collaspe around them? Or are all these things possibilities considering what we don't know?

They are all possibilities.

784. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189591 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Comment #189583 by thewhitepearl

The bubbles I was referring to are represented as seperate universes in the space time.

In a model called "eternal inflation", this is the case.

I believe it's thought that each universe is a bubble with it's own space time though.

This is true of other models.

I thought eddies was the term used for different turbulances within the space time.

This was a pun from The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

"Eddies in the space time continum!"
"Who is Eddy?"

I heard that if you fell into a black hole you would be stretched as thin as a spaghetti noodle.

In the black holes we encounter in nature, that is what happens at some point before you hit the centre,

What also interests me is the concept of the white hole.

There are the mathematical opposite of black holes, but very unlikely. After all, where does all the mass and energy the emit come from?

Black holes eventually radiate all the mass back out into space again, as Hawking radiation, so it can't come from them (there once was an idea that black holes are white holes could be linked).

785. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189580 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Steve, you've been hanging around alot lately. Just can't stay away, can you?

If you think this is hanging around a lot, you should have seen me months ago!

Basically, I have done what I planned. In a day or two I should have finished a major project, which is a formal debate (which is now close to the length of a short novel). I have started a blog, and I have built up a store of responses and rebuttals with which to save myself a huge amount of time if I decide to deal with IDers. (I don't think I have any patience left for interacting with pure creationists).

I am going to work hard, however, to try and avoid this syndrome again:
http://xkcd.com/386/

786. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189574 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 2:24 pm

According to Neil deGrasse Tyson ("Death by Black Hole"- an enjoyable read), a person crossing the event horizon (assuming such existed, per Dr. Zara) would be ripped apart by tidal forces.

Only with small black holes. One could fall into a very large one (such as those suspected to be at galactic cores) and feel nothing at all, until you came close to the centre.

787. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189569 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 2:08 pm

So, an observer is falling into a black hole, he looks away from the hole as he approaches the event horizon. He sees a more and more time-speeded, blue-shifted universe and then, right as he crosses the event horizon, he almost gets a glimpse of infinity, but then everything goes to invisible gamma rays and, utter darkness?

Yes, that is what I understand happens. You wouldn't get a glimpse of infinity... things would blue shift to invisibility pretty fast.

Sorry if I am being a bother, I don't think I've ever really got a chance to ask someone knowledgable about this subject in the recent past.

You aren't a bother at all. This has been an interest of mine for decades, ever since I realised the implications of the event horizon when I read about it in a popular science book in the 70s. It can be hard to get a clear answer!

It is worth pointing out that current models of black holes have a lot of "holes" in. Some people think the event horizon is a special place, others don't. There have even been suggestions that spacetime simply can't form black holes, and changes its nature (gravastars).

It is still an open question if event horizons can actually form.

788. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189557 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 1:31 pm

I see. But then, at what point would the observer's time-speeded perception become such that it nears infinity? That is, isn't space-time distorted to infinity at the event horizon?

Wouldn't an observer outside the black hole see the spacecraft falling into the blackhole "freeze" at the event horizon? Would the observer inside observe the blue-shifted, time-speeded outside universe speed to near-infinite speeds?

Models of black holes are shifting. A recent suggestion by Lawrence Krauss is that they don't exist in the form we have thought.

However, assuming they do, it is likely that quantum effects come into play. You can't see the infinite future of the universe for two reasons: first you would have to be able to hover exactly at the position of the event horizon. Second, everything would be blurred and consist of invisible gamma rays. So, because you are falling in, it is sort of like the future light of the universe falls in after you, but can't catch up.

People outside the hole would not see you freeze permanently at the event horizon, as light from you would be red shifted further and further. Eventually they would see one last very, very red-shifted photon and then your image would fade.

789. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189547 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 1:01 pm

What would an observer falling into a black hole see as they crossed the event horizon? That is, I understand once you cross the event horizon all paths lead to the center, so would they see utter blackness around them?

Things would look pretty normal, just distorted. It isn't that all paths only lead to the centre. It is that to avoid moving ever-faster to the centre, one would have to exceed the speed of light. It is still possible to see other things around you.

What you would see looking towards the outside the hole would be ever-more blue-shifted and time-speeded views of the outside universe.

790. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189517 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 11:53 am

Comment #189511 by zeroangel

Good question. Things would only get that uncertain if the universe got down to Planck-scale sizes. It might not have. It could have "bounced" from something bigger.

The point I was making in my blog is that the universe, however it started, almost certainly didn't come from a singularity.

791. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189510 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 11:34 am

Comment #189384 by Cartomancer
(and others)...
'WWSZWD'

I like it.

Sort of like the FSM, but presumably more human.

792. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189493 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 11:06 am

Comment #189480 by zeroangel

My understanding was the singularity at the Big Bang is basically the beginning of space-time.

I hope this helps:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/129811.html

(Please don't take offense at the title - it is about journalists who still mention the topic)

793. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189337 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 4:18 am

Comment #189333 by Appleby

Sorry mate, but that doesn't sound like an answer to my question.

Congratulations! You have passed my "troll test".

794. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189327 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 3:39 am

Appleby-

Why do you find gay sex repulsive?

Just curious.

795. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #189293 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 1:04 am

Comment #189198 by GordonYKWong

No, not that one...

There is far more substantial formal debate. Everything apart from closing statements has been posted here:

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/122838.html

796. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #189191 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 5:38 pm

I worry a little that PZ's use of the story in this way will dull the rather subtle and clever message it originally had.

As I posted here that I thought PZ was mistaken, it is only right that I post that I have had my mind changed by reasoned argument.

797. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189187 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 5:06 pm

P.S. to Steve Zara: "You'll be back."

I am sure :)

I do feel an increasing need to get away from the same old arguments.

It reminds me of when I was teaching.. there was only so many years I could mark the same essays...

798. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189182 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Comment #189176 by Pathfinder

You seem to think I have some kind of divinely-inspired (Christian pathology, in your view) plan to deliberately confound and frustrate you.

It isn't all about you.

I do NOT make any claims about reality that has gone on "uncorroborated... in my own mind".

Of course you do. You are proposing that there is a God, based on no evidence apart from what you think.

Personally, I distrust your adamatine certainty there IS NO GOD.

I have no certainty that there is no God. I have close to certainty that all the supposed evidence and arguments used to justify claims of his existence are nonsense. If there were any such evidence, you would put it forward, rather than admitting it's absense.

I have just grown so tired of seeing the same old views. I have been researching and thinking about this matter a lot since cutting back on posting here.

I find myself impatient with the usually unrealised arrogance of theism, especially the Abrahamic religions. That humans are special, that we are able to discern the nature of reality to an extent that we can fill gaps in our knowledge with God, that our inner feelings, our "revelations" are a direct line to cosmic truth. I find the lack of humility really unsettling, especially when people don't realise the implications of what they are saying.

I also find the ignorance of logic annoying - the same old "you can't disprove it, so there" arguments, each time with the person making it thinking they are being clever and somehow witty.

Oh dear. I'll shut up for a while.

799. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189169 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Of course the existence of God cannot be proved! I am aware this is insufficient evidence from a scientific standpoint: no falsifiability, no control experiments, no peer-reviewed papers, no (or not much) competing hypotheses apart from the blindingly obvious...

I knew I shouldn't have come back from a break.

Already I am finding dealing with things here frustrating again.

What I don't understand is why it should then be sufficient evidence from any standpoint.

You are making the biggest possible claims about the nature of reality, yet you make them based purely on what has gone on, uncorroborated, in your own mind. You consider yourself some kind of personal expert regarding reality!

However, as you have more to contribute to this discussion than I have, I shall take another break and leave you to it.... your views regarding ID and creationism are admirable. I hope you get the discussions you want here.

800. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189165 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Comment #189157 by Pathfinder

Provide me with a single falsifiable prediction that remains from the God Hypothesis, and then we can talk how Popper applies.

Forgive me for being so harsh - I am getting less patient in middle age. Your support for evolution is welcome, but my view is that it is inconsistent to complain about people looking for gaps in evolution to put God in when Christianity does precisely that in terms of biology, physics, philosophy and so on.