1151. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166239 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 3:19 am

The issue was education and the ability of those without the huge acumen that you have garnered along your way to think about and express - in public, if they wish, despite your desired delimitation - their own ideas of the origin of the universe.

I think I was wrong to express things in the way I did. It was far too harsh.

Let me try again.

What I am after is a greater respect for science and scientists. It is my impression that in some countries (the UK is a good example of this), there is actually an anti-intellectual attitude. If you state, truthfully, that you know far more about a science subject than the average person you are considered elitist and putting an inappropriate distance between you and them. This does not seem happen in other areas where skill is required.

I am not trying to stop anyone saying what they like, and if I implied otherwise, that was wrong of me. What I am after is more humility. Sam Harris says that people should feel embarrased to make claims based on religion in public. I feel the same way about science. If anyone says in an interview, or posts on a forum, or writes in an article that even though they are not scientifically trained, it is obvious to anyone that evolution can't work, they should be ridiculed. That isn't happening as much as it should. For some reason that eludes me people feel that they can all be scientists in a way that they don't feel they can be brain surgeons.

I am not trying to stop people talking, or exploring ideas. What I am against is people saying "With my two years of attending biology classes and half listening at school, along with what I have read in the Daily Mail, I know that Dawkins is wrong" and getting away with out looking a total ass.

1152. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166218 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 2:34 am

Bonzai-

I agree with Styrer that EVERYONE should have the right to speculate on scientific questions, it is a free country.

I guess I am just so damn tired of hearing for the thousandth time... "I am not a scientist, but surely..".

Comment #166189 by Tagred

Enough of this stuff about only certain people should question, it is exactly the opposite of what atheists are saying. We want free thinking, let people speculate, and let the scientists educate so that those questions can be answered but do it in a way that includes all people.

I am sorry, but I really disagree with this. It isn't practical or even honest to try and educate so that questions can be answered by all people. It is a nice idea, but there is no way it is possible. On what basis is the typical citizen going to answer questions about the use of nuclear power? On the safety of vaccinations? On stem cell research? On genetic engineering? In each of those fields, an adequate understanding of the issues takes years of study of basic science, and then specialist knowledge.

In almost all Western countries we live in representative democracies. We appoint people to make decisions for us, as we don't have the time or inclination to research every single issue ourselves. Science has to be the same.

We desperately need to educate people about science.

1153. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166213 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 2:24 am

The "lack of serious scholarship" rubbish again is it? And then he goes on to suggest that Dennett re-reads the "deeply mysterious and spiritual book" of Job. Lord Winstons response is worthy of nothing but ridicule.

Indeed. The matter of "lack of scholarship" is an often-used argument. Some may be tempted to see it is reasonable, but it isn't. The reason has been touched on by epeeist. When religion wants to be discussed in terms of rationality and science, it is on that "piste", and has to be subject to the rules of rationality and science. It is breaking the rules to ask anyone to assume that religions contain truth and should be discussed in terms of theology.

It may be relevant to study the history of religious thought, but even a brief look reveals examples of how theism can seriously damage your scientific health. I like to use the example of Kepler, who struggled for years to make his data fit models of the cosmos derived from the idea of God the Geometer, and in the end (being at heart an honest scientist) gave up and found that orbits were ellipses. Kepler was a great scientist, but part of that greatness was that he managed to struggle against the constraints of religion.

To see how religion can scramble a scientific mind, one need look no further than the physicist Frank Tipler, who has attempted to explain the resurrection of Jesus in terms of antimatter.

1154. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166202 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 1:59 am

I see Steve as a constructionist, in the same mould as L.E.J. Brouwer.

I have some sympathies for that approach, but basically here I am just applying the principle that extraordinary claims require... extraordinary explanations.

1155. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166198 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 1:49 am

Brian-

None: No man is sterblich

I don't know why, but when I read this, I immediately imagined this in Mel Brook's voice.

Goldy -

Not knowing anything about wormholes (I thought they were like a tube through space, but one hole being next to the other hole - a bit like a toilet roll that looks 2D when viewd outside but long when viewed inside), time travel or anything, I can't comment.

Wormholes have the same kind of structure as black holes, so each end is spherical, and so their portrayal in almost all sci-fi programs, and most documentaries, is mistaken.

Regarding the Karda discussions....

I think the problem I have with Karda's ideas is because the whole system is inconsistent. Hearing voices, no matter what they appear to say, can have a very simple explanation. To put that aside and go for the most far-fetched stretching of our modern understanding of physics and still not have sufficient to back a rather wild idea of a future God is to abse science. It is trying desperately to use science in one area (physics) while neglecting it in another (neuroscience).

It is as if someone was trying to study evolutionary theory and reptile physiology in an attempt to explain a hallucination of a dragon.

If you are going to use science, then use it properly, I say. This kind of selectivity is inappropriate.

1156. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166190 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 1:36 am

There has been a recent debate about this on Brian English's blog.

1157. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166185 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 1:33 am

Karda-

I would strongly dispute with anyone who claims you have been dishonest. You have admitted when you were wrong, which is the sign of an honest and mature debater.

You have been somewhat infuriating to debate with, but that can go with the territory. It sure has been fun.

1158. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166061 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Comment #166059 by Brian English

You realise your avatar gives me vertigo every time I look at it? :)

1159. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166056 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Comment #166052 by Remnant

Sorry, but you are in the minority. For centuries the overwhelming majority of the people that have lived have believed in a Creator God.

For centuries the overwhelming majority of the people that have lived believed that the Earth was at the centure of the universe, and that flies appeared by magic from cow dung.

The burden of proof is on you, the small minority.

Truth by majority voting. What a strange idea.

You don't make the rules for the debate or the majority.

Actually, he does. He is a philosopher. He is trained for that kind of thing.

1160. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166049 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Comment #166045 by Styrer-

Is this not correct?

No:

I was not clear. I meant it was inappropriate to put forward such speculation as any kind of argument in public. Being fascinated is one thing. Feeling you have any kind of authority to question those with decades of experience in a subject is quite another.

I have not the slightest problem with people getting involved in discussions. What I have a problem with is armchair scientists ranting about global warming "because we can't even predict next week's weather", or saying homophobia is acceptable "because queers aren't natural", or, in this case, saying that "it is obvious that the universe must have either been created or lasted forever".

1161. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166046 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 5:23 pm

That is an untrue statement and not a contradiction at all. You are making another common mistake. You are attempting to limit God who is outside of the natural world to the laws of the natural world.

Oh deary me. I'll have a quick go, and let MPhil finish you off.

If God is outside the natural world, then he might as well not exist. If he interacts with the natural world, then those interactions are subject to physical law and scientific investigation. The alternative is a belief in magic, and the lack of conservation of energy, and there is no evidence for either.

The laws of nature did not exist until God created them. He is not subject to them. God is eternal. God is not limited by time. At the creation event, space, time, matter, and energy were created. God created time, He caused time. He is outside of time.

HOW did God create the laws of nature? I want a precise description please. Also, if God is outside of time, the term "create" can make no sense, as there is no possibility of change or action. Also, if God is outside time, there is no meaning to the term "eternal".

1162. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166033 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 5:14 pm

The God of the Bible, the only God. Now you prove He didn't.

Oh dear. You aren't very good with logic.

I claim it was Zoltar the Magnificent who created the universe. Prove he didn't.

1163. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166029 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 5:12 pm

But the notion you insist on clinging to is a positive denial to those who do not understand the intricate mechanisms, by which maths, physics, biology etc. earn their findings, to even 'speculate' on the way this world and universe have come about.

I don't know why you are writing this when I clearly stated this was not what I was saying.

1164. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166028 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Comment #166023 by mordacious1

Yes, we would not want some lowly patent clerk questioning the great Isaac Newton's theory of gravity. Or would we?

Einstein was not a "lowly" patent clerk. He was thoroughly educated in the required subjects. And, contrary to urban myth, he did not do badly at school.

1165. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166024 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Comment #166019 by Remnant

Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.

No. See quantum mechanics.

The universe (all space, time, matter, and energy) began to exist.

The universe must therefore have a cause

No. This not just a matter of quantum mechanics, but your statement itself is a contradiction.

If time did not exist before the Big Bang, then there can't have been a cause, as cause and effect have no meaning without time.

1166. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166021 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Comment #166005 by Lucas

Yes, Steve, people with no science knowledge, or even those with some but not a lot like me, should not really be involved in serious discussions about objective reality.

I have not the slightest problem with people getting involved in discussions. What I have a problem with is armchair scientists ranting about global warming "because we can't even predict next week's weather", or saying homophobia is acceptable "because queers aren't natural", or, in this case, saying that "it is obvious that the universe must have either been created or lasted forever".

I apologise if I sound harsh, but I think there is a real problem with uninformed debate when it attempts to set policies. I also have a problem with people demanding that they be spoon-fed science in easily digestable portions, implying that everyone can understand some of the most complex issues.

We are very fortunate to have Richard Dawkins around, as he is one of those very rare writers who can make even complex ideas crystal clear to the average reader, but that is probably not possible in many areas of science.

I am a strong believer in science education. But, the first thing that has to be taught is what science actually is, and how hard and unintuitive much of it is. Almost everyone can understand what science is and how it is done, but not everyone can be a scientist and understand particular areas of scientific knowledge.

1167. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166006 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Comment #166004 by Brian English

Bloody virgin births again!

Which must surely imply that Mary was a mutant, and Jesus was a girl.

1168. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166003 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Comment #165997 by Brian English

Species being a synonym for fixed kind no doubt?

When debating creationists, I find that the term "kind" has a very specific and precise meaning:

Whatever level of change we haven't directly seen happen yet.

1169. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166000 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Comment #165993 by Remnant

Macro-evolution refers to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species.

Excellent. I assume you accept a common definition of species, meaning a group that breeds only within itself.

Then let me refer you Spartina anglica, the Common Cordgrass. A new species, physically different, and only able to reproduce with others of its kind, appeared in Southern England in about 1870. It was the result of a single genome copying error common in plants - polyploidy. It has four copies of genes, and is a very robust species. So robust, that it out-competes other species and is quite a weed.

So, here we have macro-mutation, by increase of information in the genome, followed by the consequences of Natural Selection - the species taking over.

A nice example, I feel. Incidentally, polyploidy happens in animals too, such as in flatworms and shrimps. It can result in infertility, so the new species may resort to parthenogenesis to reproduce.

1170. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165991 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Comment #165989 by Brian English

Naah - that is hybridization :)

1171. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165988 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Comment #165986 by Remnant

How do you define "macro-evolution"?

1172. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165985 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Comment #165981 by Brian English

Sounds like a Rowley Birkin anecdote:

"Of course, I was very, very drunk"

1173. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #165983 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 4:34 pm

As such, your elite injunction that those without sufficient qualification be silent in this matter is a single and real manifestation of a perennial problem in the public education of science.

I am afraid I don't care about seeming elitist. There is much debate about the "framing" of science, that it needs to be pitched in the right way so as not to offend or discourage the public. I am on the side of PZ Myers and others who consider this a poor strategy.

Science is hard, and some of it is very tricky to understand. And yet, we hear people with little or no qualifications attempting to influence scientific discussions. This is a problem.

If people feel excluded, the answer is to get educated and to ask questions. Someone untrained would not seriously try and tell a pilot how to fly, or a surgeon how to operate. They feel no injustice about being excluded from those areas, yet somehow everyone is entitled to push their opinions on cosmology and biology.

1174. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165975 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Comment #165973 by MPhil

"You weren't really hearing the Holy Spirit... just your own mind" :)

1175. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165971 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Oh please - you doubt the existence of black holes?

Actually, black holes as commonly described may not exist. There are certainly very dense objects, but models of black holes have problems - specifically with the nature of the event horizon and what happens there. Lawrence Krauss has revived an old "frozen star" idea (that an event horizon never actually forms, and what appears to be a black hole is actually a super-dense collection of matter frozen in time), and there are other ideas that the nature of space-time changes, so instead of an event horizon, you get a new kind of space.

All fun stuff.

1176. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165966 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Sure you do, the big bang (something from nothing),

We see something from nothing all the time. It is a feature of quantum mechanics. Without it, your computer wouldn't work.

life from no life

Life is just complex chemistry.

black holes

We have seen direct evidence for black holes by following the orbits of stars close to the centre of the galaxy.

multiple parallel universes, ten dimensions

These are purely speculations, but there is nothing weird about them.

self-replicating molecules on the backs of crystals

We can get self-replicating molecules in test tubes, so there is no reason why it should not have happened in Nature.

anti-matter

Anti-matter is made routinely these days. It is the foundation of most high-energy physics.

dark engry, dark matter,
wormholes.

Wormholes are pure speculation, but entirely within the laws of physics. Dark energy and dark matter have not been directly observed, but are very simple phenomena.

Let's focus on a single point you made here. How would you explain the motions of the core stars in our galaxy, if they aren't due to a black hole?

1177. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #165957 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Comment #165945 by Styrer-

We all are, I think, similarly fascinated, regardless of our expertise in cosmology and physics.

I was not clear. I meant it was inappropriate to put forward such speculation as any kind of argument in public. Being fascinated is one thing. Feeling you have any kind of authority to question those with decades of experience in a subject is quite another. Someone writing to a newspaper to question Einstein's understanding of gravity would be considered a nutcase, yet for some reason people feel qualified to discuss the origin of the universe, or matters of evolution, or global warming, or stem cell research.

1178. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #165913 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Either the universe has always existed, or it was created by someone who has always existed.

I do wish people would leave speculation about the origin of the universe to those who have an understanding of cosmology and physics. "Folk wisdom" is totally inappropriate here.

1179. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165903 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 2:48 pm

I also believe that God has set about creation through the laws of physics, through natural selection, through DNA replication and mutation.

That doesn't work. The laws of physics are based on simple symmetries, the idea that things don't change based on where you are and how fast you are moving (among other things). The laws are basically almost as simple as they could be while still having anything exist. Also, it looks almost certain that the universe is, on many scales, non-determinstic. Even if a creator started things going there would be no predicting what resulted. DNA mutation is also random.

No only is there no sign of the creator, but the universe looks just as it would if there was no design behind it.

1180. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165892 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 2:19 pm

But I choose something that engenders respect for my fellow man and for the creation, an awe for the wonders of science and for our ingenious scientific method, which is leading us every so slowly to God.

I don't think it respectful to creation or man to consider them artefacts, and subject to the whim of some hidden superbeing. It surely is far more respectful to realise that creation happened by itself, and that mankind can live free.

1181. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #165868 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 1:45 pm

If evolution favored a species with individuals who did not procreate so they could devote their efforts to the offspring of others (who did), then I don't see how them craving same-sex intimacy would be any more advantageous than if they simply were heterosexual and bore no children

Homosexual love can be a very bonding thing. It could also be very hard to evolve a "no sex drive" situation.

I have to say I profoundly disagree with Bonzai about the genetic basis.

We are dealing here with something that directly affects reproductive potential. It is seen in very many species, and varies between species. It also occurs in a consistent and significant proportion of the population. If something like that isn't to a significant degree influenced by DNA, I would be astonished.

1182. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165854 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Comment #165848 by Styrer-

My personal preference is for discussion about facts, not degrees of kudos.

1183. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165847 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Comment #165839 by Remnant

How can macro-evolution be implausible when we have actually seen it happen?

1184. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165842 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Rather it was pointing out that in the scientific community, where all options and opinions should be able to be voiced and researched no matter how ridiculous, ID is constantly being suppressed.

No, it isn't, and the film misleads about the evidence for this, as in the case of the employee of the Smithsonian.

As for the title of this interview, Jesus was NEVER mentioned in the film nor in this article.

In the Dover case, it was ruled that ID is a tactic that is intended to introduce the teaching of a specific version of Christianity in science classes of state schools.

1185. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165835 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 12:53 pm

We should not be too harsh on Kardashovel. He has argued robustly, but has admitted that he was mistaken about one point. That is to be respected, especially considering the general quality of debate from believers we get here.

1186. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165831 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Darwinism is not a sufficient intellectual explanation for Naziism, but it is a necessary one. Without Darwinism, there might not have been Naziism.

This is a very strange link to make. Darwin focussed on Natural Selection - how Nature can, unaided, produce the complexity of living organisms. Darwin did not invent racism, or the idea of evolution, or eugenics, or even the term "survival of the fittest", or the idea of inheritance of characteristics. In fact, the thing that marked Darwin out from almost every other "evolutionist" - his ideas of Natural Selection - was something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with anything with Naziism. Naziism was not about allowing Nature to determine the future of humanity, it was about taking charge through artificial means. No-one educated about the history of evolutionary ideas could possibly link Darwin to Hitler.

1187. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165805 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 11:40 am

A brief summary of a certain discussion, for those who may not have been following, by means of analogy...

Karda: A voice told me pigs can fly
Steve: it was wrong. It's not physically possible.
Karda: But if a pig ran fast enough...
Steve: wouldn't work
Karda: But they have ears, which, if flapped hard enough...
Steve: wouldn't work
Karda: A pig could, by chance, be airborne...
Steve: Come off it!
Karda: Hawking likes bacon!
Steve: So what?
Karda: Do you deny that a pig could somehow be present at altitude?
Steve: No
Karda: Busted! They fly! They fly!

1188. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165800 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 11:25 am

Thank you, Steve, for finally backing off from your statement that our current understanding of physics forbids the possibility that future beings could travel back to affect our time

No, they can't. No more than a man could jump into space.

There is all the difference in the world between physical law not forbidding something, and being able to do it.

There is nothing in physical law to prevent motion of objects into space. But that does not mean that if you look up in the sky, and wish very hard, and jump, you will get there.

It seems there is nothing in physical law to prevent motion of objects back in time. But you need to build a time machine, and you can't go back to before that time machine was turned on.

Busted.

Not at all. I really don't know how many times I have to repeat this.

Hawking is not taking about arbitary time travel. He was only talking about whether or not a time machine would destroy itself when switched on.

You seem to be deliberately confusing the two issues.

I admit I find this rather infuriating. I can't tell if it is out of ignorance or malice.

1189. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165789 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 10:26 am

Comment #165783 by Bonzai

You are right. Now that the wormhole idea has been shown to be wrong, he is basically desperately hunting for any extreme physics idea that may support his beliefs.

I am going to quote from Michio Kaku on this. I don't much like his writing, as he tends to produce what was recently termed "physics porn" in New Scientist - wild extrapolations of current theories that are fun to ponder, and can mislead the general public into thinking they are realistic.

But here goes:

From "Parallel Worlds"

"And perhaps the reason why we are not flooded by tourists from the future is that the earliest time they can go back to is when the time machine was created, and perhaps time machines haven't been created yet."

If Kaku isn't prepared to "talk dirty" about unlimited time travel, then I would be very surprised if any other respectable physicist would.

Further discussion is pointless.

1190. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165777 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 9:52 am

Steve, let's not forget what we are discussing here. You have made the statement that the current laws of physics specifically preclude time travel to a time prior to the invention of time machines. I am flatly rejecting that notion, though I have now conceded that wormholes can't be the mechanism. I have never stated that I know how God will time travel, or that I have the blueprints to a Tardis.

If you flatly reject a notion, you have to show why. Otherwise, it's just faith.

I am just arguing that GR does not restrict CTC's to situations where the beginning of the loop occurs later then the invention of a first time machine.

It doesn't. Physics doesn't say that you can't get up into space. But you need to build a spaceship to do it. Your ideas are sort of like saying that you can kind of get into space first, then build the spaceship.

Gott's "machine" and the refined Ori-Soen machine are descriptions of valid solutions to the field equations,and the latter could conceivably describe an artifact that occurred naturally at the big bang.

You can't just say "here is a solution of General Relativity. It could have happened naturally". You need to explain how it happened.

Kerr Rings could occur naturally, and the solution to the field equations would permit arbitrarily retrograde time loops.

Even if they did, they would not last. Roger Penrose showed that they are unstable.

In summary, GR is agnostic about arbitrarily retrograde time travel. As far as we can tell, it is permitted. Physicists that work in this field (like Hawking), have made various attempts to "save" GR from this "flaw", but the consensus is that future physics will need to resolve the issue.

That was not what Hawking was addressing. He was addressing the issue of whether or not a time machine of any kind could be built, not how far back you could go.

Meanwhile GR stands as one of the most respected theories of modern science and it contradicts your assertion.

Nonsense. I am not questioning GR, simply your attempts to use it to justify God.

I note that you have retreated from accusing me of misrepresenting Dr. Hawking, whom you errantly used to support your assertion... why is that Steve?

You still are misrepresenting Hawking. You are confusing two fundamentally separate issues:

1. Whether a time machine would destroy itself when turned on.
2. Whether or not you can travel back before the machine is created.

Gott can demonstrate that your assertion is flatly wrong.

I know of Gott and Li's work. It is nothing to do with what is possible within our cosmos. It is to do with a universe-generation mechanism.

What you are doing here is linking to articles which have nothing to do with your claims at all. A universe-generation time loop is nothing to do with what happens in our cosmos. Hawking's chronology protection idea is nothing to do with how far back in time you can go.

As for your statement that Kerr Rings are unstable, that would depend on "Quantum Gravity" a theory that does not exist yet. So you are happy to allow yourself to speculate based on future physics, but you would forbid anyone else to do so. We have a word for this technique of argumentation: hypocrisy.

In other words, the appearance of such a "machine" would mean that the CTC's would exist prior to its "creation".

No, that is not what it means. This would be an extremely unlikely naturally occurring situation. It would be like having the time-machine pre-constructed. But, this just isn't going to happen in the cosmos we observe. We see no evidence of cosmic strings, and as they tend to move about at the speed of light, the arrangement of strings you need for time travel aren't going to last very long, unless maintained artificially.

If you read on to section IV.B.2., you'll see a discussion of what can happen if the "absurdly advanced civilization" can generate exotic matter and locally violate the energy condition. A localized "Gott-like" solution that permits arbitrary CTC's, in theory.

I just can't find this. Perhaps you could give me the page number.

So, instead of happening upon the CTC's that occur at a Gott string passing, God could actually provoke this to happen, given access to galaxy-levels of energy and tha ability to manipulate matter in ways that are currenly beyond our understanding. Meh. Maybe that's how he did it... I don't know. We're just babies.

Ah, so we are back to faith again.

What have I said? I said that he put his ignorance on parade... ignorance of GR is hardly a source of shame or 99.999% of the population should hang their heads in shame. Now if those that are ignorant of GR insist on telling me that GR forbids arbitrary time travel, and carry on like that because one particular mechanism (the Morris-Thorne machine) is limited, then I'd call that a parade.

General Relativity does not forbid arbitrary time travel. The problem is that the solutions we know of of General Relativity that permit time travel either don't correspond to our cosmos (such as Godel's rotating universe) or require astronomical amounts of energy (including negative energy, something we have no substantial source of) or are extremely unstable.

So, these situations require construction and maintenance. You could say that they may arise spontaneously in nature, but that would be vastly improbable. Relying on this would be ironic, considering you would be using such an occurrence to overcome apparent fine tuning.

1191. A Conversation with Expelled's Associate Producer Mark Mathis

Comment #165736 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 7:34 am

What a revealing interview.

I wish, just once, that I would hear someone like Mathis say:

"I am not a scientist, so instead of just making stuff up, I am going to ask you scientists about this..."

1192. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165720 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 5:49 am

But the other terms for non-theist are equally cold and science-y; except "Bright" which does sound conceited to me; if you are not a "Bright" then you must be "non-bright". It may be true in a way, but that doesn't sound very nice to me.

Daniel Dennett has suggested that if one isn't "Bright", then one could be called "Super"! (from "supernatural" believer)

1193. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165703 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 4:19 am

Artful-

"Reason" is wonderful as a servant, but pretty vacuuous as an object of "worship".

I asked my servant, Reason, to go find me some God to worship. He came back with nothing.

1194. Gods and earthlings

Comment #165693 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 3:46 am

Comment #165689 by clearmind

It is more important to ask WHY RATHER THAN HOW?

No.

It is part of the way the human mind has developed that it tends to see agency where there is none. It is safer to be slightly paranoid about Nature. But, this is a mental illusion.

If you watch an unborn baby's phases to happen, you see the miracle of God openly.

Tell that to my friend who has had three miscarriages you moron.

1195. Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary

Comment #165651 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 1:32 am

Comment #165648 by babrock

I realise I am probably having a Lynne Truss moment here, but if you could please add a 'he' to your 't's, it would make your posts somewhat less irritating to read. In fact, they may well be a pleasure to read because of the content.

1196. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165645 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 1:15 am

Comment #165643 by Quetzalcoatl

Your post looks fine to me. As you say, there are other huge problems, such as why should one end of a wormhole have been buzzing around in space relativistically since the big bang?

1197. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165639 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 1:05 am

Comment #165636 by Quetzalcoatl

Don't know if you've read it, but is this why, in "Timelike Infinity" by Stephen Baxter, they could only travel into the past to the point the wormhole had been created PLUS the travel time for the second end attached to the GUTship?

Yes, that is it exactly. I have read the book - it isn't too bad, I thought.

1198. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165635 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 1:00 am

1) Humans can think and the natural selection of one human over another (gets to live and breed) will often depend on their capacity to think. As a species, thought (=>intention=>purpose) is a factor in our survival, and in the destruction of our adversaries.

2) You have acknowledged that humans have continued to evolve up until the present day.

1) and 2) => Some evolution has served a purpose.

This is clearly wrong, as we have only retrospectively discovered the degree of our evolution over the past 10,000 years or so. Therefore, it was not purposeful.

1199. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165633 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 12:58 am

As I have repeatedly stated, primordial wormholes provide the possibility of access to the initial space time conditions at the big bang. A worm hole that formed during the time of inflation that has one end inside of our visible universe, and the other outside of it, will connect us to that time because the other end is effectively moving at c, compared to us

This is total crap, sorry. Both ends of the wormhole will have aged the same, so even if you could travel through it, it would take you to a part of the universe 13.7 billion years old.

So, all that needs doing is for the conscious observer to drop into our end of that worm hole and whamo, they're looking at one of the highly improbably universes that could have spawned their existence.

No, they will be looking at another part of the universe at the same age.

a solution to the GR field equations that permits retrograde time travel to an arbitrary time and a reasonably convenient location.

You finally get it!

The candidates for such a time machine that I have already mentioned are Kerr Rings (annular black holes) and Gott Strings (which are discussed in some detail in the article linked above).

No, they won't work because they can't take you back to before their formation. Kerr Rings are unstable, and Cosmic Strings aren't practical. To travel back just one year, you would need a cosmic string arrangement the mass of half a galaxy, and you still could not get back to before you set the arrangement up.

but hey, that's future physics, right

No, it's called "making stuff up", or "science fiction".

Let me close with a quote from the article that I found amusing, as well as a nice summary about how I feel

You need to read what you post. It is says nothing about travel before a time machine was made. You might just as well have copied something off the side of a cereal packet.

I have said nothing about the impossibility of closed timelike curves.

All I am after from you is how you construct those curves so you can get back to before you have constructed the curve. You talk about all this wonderful future physics. Let's see some!

1200. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165450 by Steve Zara on April 21, 2008 at 1:37 pm

I have yet to find one shred of evidence which clearly proves that MACRO-evolution occurred. I accept MICRO-evolution, which is soley the adaptation or modification within a species.

We have lots of that. But it isn't fair for us to give it to you. You need to prove your "God did it" theory first. I would like you to review the history of the Spartina grass species over the last two centuries and come up with evidence of divine intervention, please. Any evidence of God doing things would be appreciated.