801. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194729 by Steve Zara on June 17, 2008 at 8:07 am

Remember, knowledge without wisdom makes you a fool.

Right. So God just didn't give you knowledge about how to detect truth, he also gave you wisdom about how to use this power. Probably a good idea. With great power comes great responsibility and all that. By the way, any chance that this power would turn up on a CAT scan? It would be of benefit to humanity to know how it operates.

Perhaps you could let us know how you "sense" truth? It would be useful to know how this is different from normal "gut feeling".

802. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #194699 by Steve Zara on June 17, 2008 at 7:42 am

Comment #194694 by epeeist

Agreed, although I was a bit confused by it for a while, after all for a long time in history, the idea of a creator was thought more reasonable that the spontaneous appearance of species. The appearance of species by itself was considered sufficient evidence. It took evolution to show that it was not sufficient evidence. So, I didn't get the point of conceding no evolution for the sake of argument, as that surely gets you back to Paley's argument from design.

803. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #194697 by Steve Zara on June 17, 2008 at 7:40 am

Comment #194666 by Shmeezers

And concerning Nietzsche, what he understood is that without God, there could be no binding, objective morality. That was my point. And objective morality makes complete sense.

Oh for goodness sake.

Why should anyone care in the slightest what "makes complete sense" to you?

It makes as much sense to a significant part of the world that women are inferior. Many, many people think that it makes sense to call black people inferior.

I am getting seriously tired of this kind of "projection". Because of what makes "complete sense" to me, I claim the right to declare that my views are the ones that are hard-coded into the fabric of reality. It is like people consider themselves mini-Gods, able to define truth.

804. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #194674 by Steve Zara on June 17, 2008 at 7:06 am

Comment #194670 by Quetzalcoatl

I think there is even more work to be done than that!

One has to not only show that some absolute standard of morals exists, but that we can know what that standard is.

Otherwise, this is just a "Magic Map" scenario:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/134308.html

(Incidentally, I think this is David Robertson's position - there are absolute morals, honestly, but it is just a bit hard to know what they are).

805. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #194669 by Steve Zara on June 17, 2008 at 6:57 am

And as to the arrogance debate, I still think you guys are talking nonsense. Your desire to explain life using strictly materialistic theories is premised on arrogance. It is not so much that God' existence is not manifest (which it most certianly is), but you choose to rule it out from the beginning - by assuming a strict materialism. YOU ARE THE ARROGANT ONES. But this falls on deaf ears, because criticism is shunned by atheists.

Please explain how you demonstrate to someone that something that isn't materialistic exists.

It isn't arrogance to ask people to provide decent evidence for their claims, especially when their claims look like sock-puppetry (I want special treatment because my invisible friend says so).

Yeah, no one should question you, because you have all the answers.

Excuse me, but you claim to have the answers.

You claim to have special knowledge about what is and isn't materialistic.

Supernaturalism is a truly bizarre claim. It states that one can know with certainty that a phenomenon can't, and can never under any circumstances be explained in terms of an understanding of Nature, by anyone, human or otherwise.

I think that people who put forward supernatural statements should be asked to provide an explanation for how they have this ability.

Suppose I claimed to have an ability to fly. Would it be arrogant of people to be sceptical and ask for some evidence? I rate your claim of ability to discern the supernatural roughly equivalent to that.

806. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194664 by Steve Zara on June 17, 2008 at 6:40 am

Comment #194662 by Quetzalcoatl

As for the hydrothermal vent problem, the solution could be this: life could easily have got started within the mineral-laden rocks around the vents, and gradually worked its way to the surface.

That has actually been suggested as a mechanism for the origin of life. The rocks concentrate the organic compounds.

807. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194642 by Steve Zara on June 17, 2008 at 6:00 am

I'll try and explain this to RtG at a level he might understand.

If a very small cell appeared out of nowhere, we would say "wow! That is strange. That was very unlikely".

If a bigger cell (an amoeba, say) appeared out of nowhere, we would say "Gosh! That is exceedingly strange; very, very unlikely".

If a mouse appeared out of nowhere, we would be truly shocked and the simply mind-numbing unlikeliness of it all.

Let's keep going.

If a blue whale appeared out of nowhere, we would simply freak out at the way-beyond-astronomical unlikeliness.

Imagine someone came up to you and said: "I have this blue whale at home." You would surely ask "where did it come from?". If they replied: "nowhere - it just appeared", you would think that not much of an explanation. You might think they were joking.

Gods are even bigger than whales.

808. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194619 by Steve Zara on June 17, 2008 at 4:38 am

Oh dear. I have to confess RtG, ketch22 and clearmind are all running together in my mind.

When it comes down to it, it is the same level of argument....

"I haven't a clue about what complexity means so I will use it to justify God even though, of course, God needs no justification, so I am right. Really I am".

809. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194607 by Steve Zara on June 17, 2008 at 3:55 am

Brian -

Superb job. Apologies for not realising your tactic earlier.

810. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #194604 by Steve Zara on June 17, 2008 at 3:52 am

Comment #194123 by mixmastergaz

There can, of course, be diplomatic relations between Christians and atheists, and between Christans and those who believe in evolution.

However, this debate will give ammo to those who don't want such relations. This debate is with those who want to threaten science, and who consider atheism evil.

As we have discussed, there is no mechanism for useful communication.

Ask yourself - how would giving a platform to such people help "diplomatic relations"?

Let me give an example. I am gay. I don't think attempting to discuss the biological origins of homosexuality with some fundamentalists who think that I am evil and everything I do is wicked, would help relations with believers generally.

Particularly when whatever I said would be spun as "the general opinion of evil gay men everywhere".

811. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194526 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 10:52 pm

Comment #194522 by Brian English

I wonder if it is David Robertson in disguise? It has the same offensive tone.

812. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194517 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 10:40 pm

Comment #194514 by ReceivedTheGift

Sorry, you haven't met my requirements. No questions answered by me. I have better things to do. Any time you choose to back off from your narcissistic self-glorification, and admit you are merely human, just let me know.

813. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194511 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Comment #194509 by ReceivedTheGift

I am so nice, I'll help you out here.

A third option (there are many more) is that species arose spontaneously out of nothing.

EDIT: Great minds link alike, Brian!

Now. Logical proof of a designer please. Premises, and reasoning.

814. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194506 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 10:19 pm

I can't and will not accept that Macroevolution is a result of what you define as Evolution.

I don't think it is going to work, Brian. He won't relinquish his claim to have super science powers.

815. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194499 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 10:13 pm

RtG, we've agreed to reject evolution.

Oops! Sorry.

Did not realise. I'll support your excellent strategy.

816. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194497 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 10:09 pm

Comment #194495 by ReceivedTheGift

I already gave you a logical answer. What science has shown in the microbiology field, the complexity of life, in addition to seeing the wonders of the world, enables me to logically accept a designer.

No, that isn't "logic". That is just opinion. The opposing lawyer has Dawkins as a witness, and he says "no need for a designer", and he has described natural selection. The court was hushed as he gave his excellent presentation. Now it is up to you to convince the court otherwise.

Try again.

817. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194496 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 10:08 pm

Comment #194492 by ReceivedTheGift

Now now. I said you needed to be nice. Bad manners like that isn't going to impress the judge, is it?

818. 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.

819. 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.

820. 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?

821. 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.

822. 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.

823. 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.

824. 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.

825. 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.

826. 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.

827. 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?

828. 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.

829. 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.

830. 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.

831. 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 :)

832. 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.

833. 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.

834. 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

835. 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.

836. 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.

837. 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.

838. 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.

839. 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.

840. 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.

841. Lying for Jesus?

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

Comment #194093 by Kardashovel

So there is!

842. 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? :)

843. 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.

844. Saving Us from Darwin

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

MPhil - PM for you

845. 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.

846. 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.

847. 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.

848. 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.

849. 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.

850. 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.