Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Steve Zara


901. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171610 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 3:59 pm

That is what atheism is supposed to mean but the way Dawkins and many others treat is that religion is evil, god CANNOT exist and all theists are deluded and less intelligent than atheists.


An omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God can't exist. An infinite God is removed from any possible explanation of phenomena in the world because he is infinitely complex, so any alternative explanation is simpler.

Most theists believe that everyone else in the world is deluded, as no religion is in the majority. Most atheists believe the same, but don't bother about believing in god themselves.

902. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #171594 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Comment #171587 by al-rawandi

In all honesty, I have said some nasty stuff here, stuff I didn't really mean and shouldn't have said. I simply said, when confronted "That was stupid, shouldn't have said it." People can respect that, I can respect that.


I have done that too. I have even had a major bust-up with Al, but people admit that they were wrong, and over-reacted, and things can then go on. I overreacted to something only a few hours ago (to do with "respect for flags"), and Al pointed it out, and I admitted what I had done.

Honesty is best. People say "fair enough" and we move on.

903. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171441 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Comment #171433 by Podaar

I've never understood this whole orientation discomfort stuff.


I am going to be honest here. Before I realised I was gay, I had such discomfort. Not that I was against gay rights in any way, but I found the whole business of men or women together rather creepy and strange, perhaps because I actually found it rather enticing, but didn't want to accept that. This is apparently pretty common for those who are repressed homosexuals.

904. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171423 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Comment #171418 by al-rawandi

Al - Kirk kissed anything of the female gender, species being largely irrelevant. Frankly, I was embarassed. That is not what a 11-year old expects from science fiction.

Then I discovered Time Tunnel, and James Darren (*sigh*)

905. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171415 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 1:30 pm

I don't bash all homosexuals, just that I'm not comfortable with them acting the way they do either at work or at social events.


Such lack of comfort is common. When Kirk first kissed Uhura in Star Trek in the 60s, there were floods of complaints because of people being uncomfortable about the inter-racial kiss.

Prejudices pass with time, hopefully.

906. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171401 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Comment #171393 by Frankus1122

They are sweet, aren't they? ;)

907. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171389 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Comment #171377 by annabanana

I have calmed down. Had a nice Indian meal and a couple of games of chess.

908. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171373 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Comment #171324 by phatbat

Excellent. I like it.

909. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171368 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 1:06 pm

I can't understand why anyone would deface a symbol that stands for Freedom, Justice, Equality, etc. For the life of me I can't get it.


But, you see, I certainly don't see Cartomancer's icon as defacing a symbol. I find it very appealing. To me, it says that the USA can produce very fine, strong, sexy gay men who are proud to be who they are. To me, it seems to be a celebration.

What astonished me was that you considered it defacing a symbol because of what seemed me to be arcane rules about the use of the flag (On the ground, or as clothing).

EDIT: Reading back, Elli made kind of the same points.

910. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171303 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 12:20 pm

When I read this I didn't know whether to laugh or tell you to shove both strikes 1 & 2 up your ass. I'll laugh for now.


Fascinating. It has been our experience that when attempts are made to pin people down to actually answering specific questions, they resort to such language.

Does it not predict that all species in existence today are a result of micro-evolution? Once all extant fossils and living things have their respective genome mapped, we should know beyond the shadow of a doubt if this is true or false. Is this testable, albeit still off in the future a ways?


No, because you are being evasive. You have been shown macro-evolution, but won't accept it. Again, typical ID evasiveness - goalpost moving. How unoriginal.

I have asked you to explain how irreducibility (a foundation of ID) can be proven.

You won't.

Strike three.

No more responses from me. Good luck with the others.

911. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171293 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Comment #171284 by al-rawandi

You probably have a point.

What I am (perhaps over) reacting to is the use of terms like "insulting the flag".

I would have far less objection to someone saying
"treating the flag like that shows disrespect for my country and the people in it".

Do you see what I am getting at?

912. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171286 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 12:10 pm

No, it isn't. There's nothing superstitious or supernatural about it. It's not my fault if you can't appreciate what the American Flag stands for.


It clearly is superstitious. You are attributing real properties to an abstract - a symbol.

913. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171276 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Comment #171271 by FightingFalcon

Honouring symbols is superstition.

914. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171270 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 11:59 am

Comment #171262 by FightingFalcon

I have nothing against homosexuality but that picture enrages me.


Then you need to serious consider your priorities, I would suggest.

915. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171261 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 11:54 am

Comment #171138 by seeker_of_truth

What creationists and IDers claim is that micromutation (within species adapatation) occurs, but macromutation (generation new species) can't happen. I have shown it can, and within a single generation

And you still haven't answered my question about why ID should be considered science when it provides no predictions and so is not testable.

You don't get to define the kind of answers you can give, at least not to me.

Strike two.

One more chance to respond.

916. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171249 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 11:49 am

I wander away for a few hours...

Nice one Carto, by the way. Very nice.

917. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171064 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 9:34 am

I see nothing simple about this hybrid grass to throw it out as strong evidence for either camp in an off-handed manner.


It's not a hybrid. It is a new polyploid species derived from a hybrid.

It is a clear example of what some people call "macromutation". It is a new species, with structural differences, arising in a single generation.

We have been over this.

Interestingly enough, polyploidy is pervasive in plants and some estimates suggest that 30-80% of living plant species are polyploidy so Spartina x townsendii is nothing unique to this study.


It's not Spartina x townsendii

I have told you before. It is Spartina anglica, the polyploid version.

The fact that this is unique is even more evidence that what you consider "macromutation" is very common.

Now, I refer you again to the question I asked:

As I have discussed before, ID is not a theory. An apparently irreducible design can never be shown to irreducible.

If you don't respond to this point, I will have to suggest that we follow Dr Benway's rule. I personally consider the definition of ID and its validity as a scientific theory to be the main point here. I hope others agree.


I hope no-one minds if I call "Strike one". This means you get two more chances, and if you don't respond to this point, you will get no further responses (if everyone follows this plan).

918. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171056 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 9:26 am

But actually, even with the errors and omissions, the bible provides good textual support for what I have said about the afterlife.


Of course it does, as that is surely where you are looking for your information.

It's like saying that Tolkien's "The Hobbit" is a good reference for finding out about Hobbits.

919. Interview with Dan Dennett

Comment #171053 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 9:19 am

Comment #171047 by clearmind

I would seriously like your opinion. Do you really think I should believe you, or hundreds of thousands of scientists? Come on, if you were me, which would you bet on?

920. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171043 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 9:10 am

Comment #171037 by Kardashovel

Some pretty definite statements about god there....

921. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171018 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 8:38 am

Comment #171011 by blackhawk089

Science is supposed to ask questions!


Please explain how Intelligent Design is a scientific approach to understanding evolution.

How is it testable? How is it falsifiable? What predictions does it make?

922. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170991 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 8:10 am

Burn in heck Satanists!11!


No, Philists, not Satanists.

Everyone knows that Phil is ruler of Heck:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil,_the_Prince_of_Insufficient_Light

923. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170985 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 8:05 am

Comment #170981 by MPhil

I am so sorry for your loss. My best wishes to you and your family.

924. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170972 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 7:43 am

Did we determine that this hybrid can reproduce with both source 'parents?'


It is not a hybrid. It is the result of hybridization followed by polyploidy. It cannot reproduce with "parent" species.

Conversely, waiting for macro-evolutionary mutations to keep up environmental demands would doom most species if the new demands were sudden.


If demands are sudden enough (asteroid strikes), this is what happens. If not, species can adapt very fast (as with Darwin's finches) as they have sufficient variability.

As I have discussed before, ID is not a theory. An apparently irreducible design can never be shown to irreducible.

If you don't respond to this point, I will have to suggest that we follow Dr Benway's rule. I personally consider the definition of ID and its validity as a scientific theory to be the main point here. I hope others agree.

925. Gunk in T. Rex Fossil Confirms Dino-Bird Lineage

Comment #170968 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 7:38 am

Comment #169882 by Christopher Davis

Does anyone have a good, simple answer to this question?


Population growth. As organisms grow in number, they spread over an ever wider range in order to acquire resources (food, space etc.). This can leads to a lack of full mixing of genes, and if part of the range experiences environmental change, organisms in that part of the range may adapt. However, part of the range over which the organisms are spread may not change, and so there is no pressure to adapt.

926. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170949 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 7:05 am

Comment #170946 by irate_atheist

And there is less chance it will be stolen from your galley.

927. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170935 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 6:43 am

One should be prepared to give up a theory if it is falsified by a critical experiment


Good point. Having no idea is better than having one shown to be wrong.

928. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170933 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 6:39 am

Comment #170930 by Tyler Durden

I have no idea, sorry!

929. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170927 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 6:33 am

There seem to be two leaps here, the cycles leading to synthesis, and self-catalysing.
Can we reproduce these steps?


Not in detail, no, not yet. We can reproduce the self-catalysing and evolution of RNA.

930. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170918 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 6:27 am

Comment #170913 by riandouglas

Imagine you are a huge party. Loads of people. You aren't even sure who the host is. Someone causes trouble. Maybe it is just my personal manners, but I would not feel right in asking that person to leave. Or even saying I would do so. Not my party. I might try and find the host and complain.

931. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170915 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 6:23 am

Comment #170914 by el Heffe

Much of it, yes. We can set up simple metabolic cyles. We can generate RNA and see it not only catalyse things, but also evolve in the test-tube.

This is all based on reasonable chemistry.

932. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170911 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 6:17 am

Comment #170907 by riandouglas

I am a fan of pedantry :)

My point is... who are you (or I) to tell anyone else to leave this site? It isn't yours (or mine).

933. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170906 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 6:13 am

Comment #170902 by el Heffe

There are many theories. My favourite is that metabolic cycles build up in complexity and were encapsulated in lipid membranes. We see such membrane formation all the time in nature. Such cycles could have led to the synthesis of nucleotides as support structures and/or catalysts. Eventually, the nucleotides started self-catalysing and took over.

934. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170903 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 6:10 am

Comment #170896 by riandouglas

Fair enough. I do sympathise with you :)

935. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170899 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 6:09 am

Comment #170898 by el Heff

Answers to what?

Ask some reasonable questions, and you might get some.

936. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170897 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 6:08 am

Comment #170893 by riandouglas

Surely I can ask him to leave


No. I think this is inappropriate. I don't know how many lurkers read this site, but who are you to judge what they should or should not read? You could say "I wish you would go away", but that is it. You can use the "troll/spam/offensive" controls, but I think we have to respect the open nature of the site.

937. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170890 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 6:01 am

Comment #170877 by riandouglas

The question goes to you too, shinewithjoy. If you're simply here to post foolish statements which you think make you look clever, then I'll politely ask you to leave.


With respect, you shouldn't really ask this. It isn't your website.

The most you should threaten is for you to ignore or troll the person.

938. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #170876 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 5:46 am

Comment #170868 by shinewithjoy

Sorry, that is not the way things work with science. You can come here and ask "why do we believe fish became birds", but if you are going to come here and tell us what you believe, as against what hundreds of thousands of experienced scientists believe, you won't find much sympathy.

So, how about you start again?

939. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170850 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 5:14 am

This does seem rather hypocritical.

Ben Stein is against gun control. Presumably because he believes that guns don't kill people, people do. But, he is for science control - because people don't kill people, science does.

940. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170831 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 4:46 am

Comment #170823 by Quetzalcoatl

Of course how an all-loving, perfect being can truly be called such if he allows things such as natural disasters to occur, is a different point, and may be stretching the definitions somewhat.


As far as I can tell, the only justification for believing that God is good is that we are really screwed if he isn't.

941. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170782 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 1:57 am

Bizarro-

If God's nature is all-loving and He must be consistent with His nature to be defined as God, then any action perpetrated by God is a loving action.


If God's nature is green, and he must be consistent with his nature to be defined as God, then any action perpretrated by God is a green action.

It's all just word-play, innit?

942. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170774 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 1:47 am

Melissa-

I'm not some made-up person here to strive with you. In fact, I will probably leave this discussion, because I don't think I am doing much good here.


It depends what you mean by "good".

This is a site that tries to promote reason and clear thinking. Why does it do that? Because it is unhealthy to be gullible, and dangerous to be fooled.

How do we try and avoid being fooled? It really isn't that hard. We use the principles of science. Science isn't some cold institutionalised process, it is really pretty simple. It is something like this:

1. Ask for good evidence for what people tell you.
2. Don't trust feelings alone.
3. Discuss things with others.
4. Pick the simplest explanation when you have several alternatives.
5. Rumour isn't fact.
6. Be prepared to give up a belief when a simpler one comes along, and there is evidence for it.

I could go on, but I think you get the message.

Now, put yourself in the place of someone with a scientific approach who had never heard of Jesus, or the Bible. Do you really, deep down, honestly, expect them to believe any of it? I mean, seriously? I am not mocking - this is a serious question. How would they react when you said that "faith" was required? I think they would walk away, thinking you were gullible.

So why aren't you walking away?

943. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170280 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Comment #170279 by Bonzai

1985

944. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170278 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Steve, do you mind a personal question? How did you end up coding software notwithstanding your preeminent scholarship in biology?


I started coding software first, in my teens, as a hobby. My biological studies have always been associated with software. My Ph.D. has 68000 assembler code as an Appendix.

945. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170256 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Comment #170232 by MPhil

So far, those papers have not convinced me. Just try replacing "God" with "Kiwi" and see how they sound :)

946. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170233 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Apart from that, since they all wear figure hugging lycra it is tough to tell them apart.


Indeed.

947. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170227 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Comment #170224 by Diacanu

Because they assume that their minds are supernatural.

948. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170221 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Comment #170217 by Kardashovel

Whatever humans can do to this planet, at least within the next century, even total nuclear war, it is not going to be an apocalypse.

949. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170210 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Comment #170206 by riandouglas

I am warming to Stenger, even though I am not his greatest fan.

950. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170202 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Comment #170183 by riandouglas

Didn't he respond saying the super intelligent robots destroy enough barryons to take the state of the higgs field to a minimum energy level, therefore reducing the effect of dark energy and causing the universe to collapse?


Yes, yes, he did, OK! Just don't quote Tipler anymore I can't take it

(Knowing Tipler, I would not be surprised if he said that the universe could be closed by sufficient "Barrys")

More Pages: Previous | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 | Next