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


1101. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167165 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 5:20 pm

Comment #167161 by TheTruthID

I am not a resident guru.

But if you want to get formal, it is Dr Zara. Many here you have spoken to have similar titles.

What are your qualifications?

1102. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167154 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 5:06 pm

God created gravity


How?

I think it is only fair to point out that this is a very widely read forum. The number of people who comment here is a mere fraction of the number who read it. Your continued lack of response to questions does not just make you look like an idiot, it is a very public demonstration of the total lack of rational foundation of your religious and creationist views.

1103. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167148 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Comment #167144 by TheTruthID

There are millions of scientists. My contribution is modest. If you go to the University of London library, you will find my Ph.D.

What is your contribution to our understanding of reality?

Perhaps, like me, you could be open about who you are and give us your name?

1104. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167134 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Comment #167132 by MPhil

Perhaps we could set up a private blog? Should not be too difficult to arrange. Invitations put out on fleabytes....

1105. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167133 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Please don't stop responding to nutters who post here. My browsing of other sites reveals that we have a large audience.

My concern is that people with huge intellects and a considerable amount to contribute to a wider debate are having to spend time responding to individual trollers. This is like using intellectual sledgehammers to crack nutcases.

1106. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167127 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Comment #167120 by MaxD

What is done here is valuable. Comments elsewhere on the net show that people watch debates here.

I have to say, that the analogy of young love was not mine! The credit lies elsewhere, but your point is valid. Some people never grow up. It is too painful.

I have just been concerned in recent days by what epeeist has said. We can act as a defence of scientific views, or we can go on the attack. I am trying to think of ways to attack. Not just on this site, but in other forums as well, and using other methods of communciation.

1107. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167117 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 4:24 pm

I am afraid I am feeling tired of these battles. A few idiotic creationist nutters come here, and it distracts us all. These are not the battles that need to be fought, I feel. Expelled has not been that much success as a film, but hundreds of thousands have seen it, and millions believe its message. Sparring with a few deluded individuals here achieves nothing. We need to think about how to spread the message further; how to collaborate to ensure that religion does not stifle education.

1108. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167100 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Comment #167096 by TheTruthID

So just ignore Cricks statements that disturb you or don't go with your thinking? Interesting.

Crick looked at the same evidence as you, and remained a militant atheist.

So who should I believe - you or him? Perhaps you are quoting him because you are an atheist too?

1109. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167090 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 3:50 pm

I realise we have been too nice to you, TheTruthID. We need to follow Epeeist's advice.

Why are you here?

What are your views?

What evidence do you have for them?

1110. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167088 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Comment #167081 by TheTruthID

Crick was prepared to even discuss in detail how the mind worked purely as a physical mechanism.

He was a rock-solid naturalist.

You really don't want to start quoting him in support of ID.

1111. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167074 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 3:34 pm

What about Crick? He stated "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."


Being a militant atheist, he realised it was not a miracle. Hence the word appeared, and not the word was.

1112. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167072 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 3:32 pm

As soon as someone bring up ID it is attacked by assumptions and turned into a religious Judeo-Christian vs. science arguement. Why?


Because, at the Dover trial, it was established that ID was a strategy used by certain Christian groups to introduce a certain Christian viewpoint of the origin and evolution of life into the science classes of state schools.

1113. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167068 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Anyone have an opinion on the many highly regarded Nobel Peace Prize winners in science who claim to, based soley on their years of education, research, study and experience, accept a designer as the origins of life.


Yes. Nobel Prize winners who, based on their years of education, research, study and experience in the area of life and how it works. I give you Francis Crick, discover of the structure of DNA, and Nobel Prize winner. Militant atheist.

Tell you what, mate. Next time you need dentistry, I suggest you ask an award winning builder to do it with his sledgehammer.

If you want to find out expert opinions in a subject, it is worth consulting those who are actually experts in a subject.

1114. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167025 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Why are so many evolutionists so quick to degrade and ridicule a beliver,whom believes in a higher power when in fact they themselves separate evolution from the origin of life.


Because so many believers don't just say they think there is a higher power, but claim to have spoken to this higher power (or its representatives), and this higher power has a view on the treatment of women, gay men, and stem cells.

1115. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167022 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Comment #167019 by Corylus

Perhaps, in return, we should threaten them with Scott Adam's watered down version:

A reasonable amount of existence in Heck, overseen by Phil, prince of insufficient light.

1116. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166998 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Comment #166986 by Remnant

I assume you are typing this using a computer.

That computer would not work if the quantum theory I described was false.

This means that every single character you post in response here shows that your "something from nothing" argument fails.

Perhaps you should stop posting, to reduce the evidence for your ignorance.

1117. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166982 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Im finding all of you so amusing. All you do is double talk. You admit that you belive in evolution, due to whatever science you think has proven it, but are you are you willing to stste that the origin of life might be from ID.


I am.

But you need to provide us with not only evidence of that, but a theory of how it could happen, mechanisms of how it could happen, and ways your theory could actually be tested.

Whenever any supporter of ID has put forward "evidence", it has been shown to be false. This happened to Michael Behe, with his irreducible design of the flagellum motor.

You can't just say "consider this". You need to show what it is we are considering, and provide evidence.

1118. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166965 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 2:11 pm

The problem you atheists have is not that you cannot see evidence for a Creator in nature.


The problem with theists like you (I am not going to generalise). Is that you will always see "evidence" for a Creator, no matter what is explained to you.

I will take the time to refute one of your arguments, to illustrate that there is no foundation for the rest:

As I have told you time and time again that the evidence from cosmology supports the origin of all space, time, energy, and matter from an event that produce something from nothing. This violates the first principle that from nothing, nothing comes. In order to support your naturalistic theory you must violate this principle.


No. Quantum theory - specifically Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - states that something can come from nothing. We see the effects of this in physical experiment. There is a specific effect called the Casimir force that shows that the temporary appearance of something from nothing in the vacuum can be measured experimentally. The less energy that needs to be "borrowed", the longer the fluctuation containing that energy can last.

The universe as we understand it has zero energy. The energy of the mass within the universe is balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational potential of that mass. The universe could therefore have been a particularly unlikely quantum fluctuation, but one that has possibily infinite lifetime.

The moral here is don't post about science unless you understand it.

1119. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166943 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 1:58 pm

I thought only I have a childish mind for watching too much South Park.


You should note that I made the same comment about it myself - nothing wrong with a childish mind.

It will be changed back very soon.

1120. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166929 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Comment #166923 by MPhil

My friend - a post of yours that did not require wikipedia - you are slacking :)

1121. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166922 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Comment #166904 by TheTruthID

Conversation is supposed to be two way. We have provided substantial backing for our views. You are challenging centuries of scientific understanding. You need to convince us, I am afraid.

There really is no need to be so shy. Just give us a little peek at the theoretical basis of ID...

1122. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166910 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Comment #166882 by TheTruthID

"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?... I think, however, that we must...admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."


Centuries ago a chemist called Wohler manufactured urea - an organic compound, from chemicals in a laboratory. That was a shock to biologists, as urea was a product of living creatures, and so should have contain some essence of life. But, there was no essence. Since then, we know what life is made of. Atoms. We have taken life apart in the laboratory and put it back together - viruses can be assembled in test tubes.

There is no such thing as "living matter". The term is meaningless. Life is a series of complex chemical and physical reactions. There is no added "essence of life".

1123. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166891 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Comment #166884 by Diacanu

I really wish I could post like you. It is like poetry. A few selected words and phrases where I would have typed paragraphs.

1124. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166888 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Comment #166881 by MaxD

This tendency in the theistic argument, the one where they assume any hole, or gap in current knowledge immediately, post haste, implies their pet theory is deeply annoying.


This is perhaps explained by an analogy posted on this site on another thread. Religion should be compared to teenage love. You look desperately for any sign that the love isn't futile. Any gap in the overwhelming evidence of you being ignored is taken as a positive sign. Any ambiguous word or gesture is taken a reinforcement.

I agree it is annoying. But, viewed in that way, it is understandable.

1125. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166844 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 1:00 pm

omment #166839 by TheTruthID

Then tell us what your ideas are.

1126. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166805 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Like I have said, feel free to use your God given free will to believe what ever you want, but be willing to accept the consequences of that decision.


How does free will come from God? I would like a step-by-step explanation, please. Otherwise, we are entitled to believe you are just making stuff up.

1127. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166802 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Comment #166797 by TheTruthID

That's the biggest problem with evolution THEORY, the fact that how it all began is so relevant that evolutionists need to ignore it to remain sane and try to sound intelligent.


They don't ignore it. There are plenty of nice ideas, including my favourite, the Iron/Sulphur World.

What I am really interested in is how God made life. I want details, please.

1128. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166796 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 12:36 pm

The ironic thing is that without God, there is no free will.


You are so wrong, mate. We have had an in-depth discussion here, and have figured out that free will, ultimate standards of goodness, and the laws of logic all come from Kiwis.

Let me explain.

If you say X comes from Y.

But you give no actual causal mechanism by which X comes from Y, then anyone is free either to deny the link, or substitute their own Y.

Logic would dictate that we deny the link, but we know that logic comes from Kiwis, so we are forced into the above conclusion.

(There was a break-away group who insists it comes from penguins, but we don't talk to them anymore)

1129. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166533 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:39 am

Comment #166529 by Remnant

1. scientific confirmation the origin of the universe coming into existence from a singularity, from nothing as the Bible details.


Oh dear. How touchingly relevant to the discussion elsewhere about ignorant people discussing science.

1130. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166530 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:37 am

Comment #166520 by hungarianelephant

Aye, but by then, so might I.


Thank you for a stimulating and very thought-provoking discussion.

Yes you can, as long as you accept the science as a given, which he has. Even if he's not actually convinced of it.


Hmm.. sounds a bit too much like compartmentalisation to me :)

1131. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166524 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:35 am

Comment #166507 by Remnant

So now different family members are transitional creatures between species.


Don't be a twit. It was only to illustrate that because you have different lines of inheritance, it does not mean that intermediates between those lines can't exist also.

Boy, and we wonder why our public indoctrination centers have become the intellectual cesspools that they have become.


People like you are the ones trying to wreck education. You are part of a serious problem.

1132. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166509 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:30 am

Comment #166504 by Epinephrine

I think this needs to be addressed, possibly more than any other issue of science education, as it applies to nearly every aspect of science (not saying that evolution is unimportant!).


I wholeheartedly agree.

The problem with the global warming situation is that we may not have the time to address this through improving education over the next few generations. This may need to be done on a timescale of years, not decades.

1133. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166506 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:26 am

Comment #166501 by seeker_of_truth

But this can't be accomplished, can it?


It is basically what most decent people actually do. They rely on their consciences and on discussion. When they see bits of holy books that disagree with these methods, they tend to reject them.

1134. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166502 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:24 am

What exactly is wrong with that? Why the need for extra spin? Is that really the best way of counteracting the stupidity of the Daily Mail?


Maybe it is just the mood I am in after the awful situation with Expelled. Maybe I am being a cynic.

But yes. You don't fight dangerous nonsense with "um, er, perhaps, who knows". I may change my mind about this when I am in a less cynical mood.

Call him out on the scientific inaccuracies if you want, but that doesn't have any bearing on the economic argument.


Of course it does, as without the science, you can't make any estimate of the economic consequences.

1135. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166497 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:20 am

Comment #166493 by TheTruthID

Science has proven that the intricate and complexity of life, down to the cell, would be impossible without a creator/designer.


No. Science has shown precisely how it happens. Natural Selection. A testable theory which has made successful predictions.

Any sane, intelligent person with common sense will easily understand and see the truth of ID.


What is the truth of ID? Please specify the evidence of design, how it can be tested or falsified, and who the designer is, and how he did the designing.

1136. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166492 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:17 am

That suggests that the best approach to take is to treat a believer like a friend who is besotted with an unsuitable partner:


A very good way of looking at this, I feel.

1137. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166490 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:16 am

Get back to me when the transition is complete.
hahahaha


Oh it is (for now). See insects. However, some environments favoured the survival of the intermediates.

I assume you, or people you know, have cousins who are still alive? Or don't you mention these transitional forms between families?

1138. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166486 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:13 am

Comment #166482 by hungarianelephant

The problem is when the political debate includes statements, such as those made by Lawson, which are clearly ignorant of the science involved.

1139. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166480 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:10 am

Comment #166476 by hungarianelephant

If they had restricted themselves to saying that they saw no statistically significant incidence of autism in the clinical studies, that would have been fine. But to a man, they insisted that there was no such link.


How exactly do you expect the general public to react to discussions of statistical significance?

1140. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166477 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:07 am

Comment #166428 by seeker_of_truth

However, for argument's sake, suppose I felt good about Mr. X's proposition. What then?


Then you discuss this with other people, and see how they feel, and see if this changes your mind.

What else would you do?

1141. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166469 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:04 am

Scientists were shoved in front of the camera to state, on the basis of no evidence because they hadn't studied it, that there was absolutely nothing to worry about.


This just isn't true. Scientists who were experts in the subject and who had studied it made statements about safety, but with little or no effect.

That may be a valid point of view, but my point is that it is not a scientific one.


If there was a god, I would say God help us if it is left to politicians like Lawson.

1142. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166457 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 8:57 am

Comment #166450 by Remnant

He seems to have resorted to mere burbling.

Sorry but man's finite understanding is not capable of "judging" God.


So why are you blabbing on about him then?

EDIT: I am afraid that the evidence shows a rather significant degree of change in human DNA as a result of positive selection in the past few thousand years (such as the ability for adults to digest milk).

1143. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166435 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 8:45 am

Comment #166433 by Quetzalcoatl

It is a cute little velvet worm. It is a transitional form between worms and arthropods. Considering the amount of creationists we are dealing with these days, I thought it was appropriate.

1144. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166432 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 8:43 am

Hi Remnant.

See my new picture? It is a velvet worm. Largely unchanged in form for over 500 million years, it is a transitional form between worms and arthropods, showing that the idea of "kinds" is nonsense. I intent to leave it up so that creationists are faced with contrary evidence as soon as they see any post by me.

That it also looks like a turd with legs is a minor issue to me.

1145. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166417 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 8:31 am

Comment #166416 by Bonzai

Steve,


Yes?

But seriously, I simply wanted to emphasise that I was not trying to shut people up; an impression I probably made in an earlier post.

1146. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166415 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 8:29 am

Comment #166408 by fides_et_ratio

So, you pick some jokey comments as evidence of mass Winston-bashing?

Actually, I am prepared to join in that bashing just a little. The problem with Lord Winston's arguments is that they are boring. They are so easy to dismiss in a few words (as many have done here) that it is probably tedious for someone like Dennett to go up against him.

Of course religion is a threat to rationality and science. We see the evidence for that across the world on a daily basis. Religion, in most flavours, is based on faith, and on belief without evidence, and on the suppression of reason.

This is like arguing about whether or not water is wet.

1147. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166403 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 8:14 am

If Mr. X was to say that eliminating all professionally diagnosed borderlines off the face of the earth was a 'good' thing for [remaining] mankind and the basis for Mr. X's opinion of 'goodness to our fellow man' were these non-communicative, natural/elemental reactions making conscience and conversation possible - how is Mr. X 'wrong' in his thinking?


How does Mr. X's suggestion make you feel?

1148. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166394 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 8:05 am

Comment #166390 by al-rawandi

I shall make a point of covering that in my blog post :)

Thanks for mentioning.

1149. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166391 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 8:04 am

Comment #166385 by fides_et_ratio

I must say that the Winston-bashing is uninformed and unappealing.


Which bits in particular?

1150. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166384 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 7:59 am

If you're serious, we could discuss it on mine.


I am serious - I think this links in to the public understanding of science.

Perhaps I should put something on my blog, as it has had nothing for days and days of any consequence?

More Pages: Previous | 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 34 35 36 37 | Next