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


1401. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164044 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 1:02 pm

It makes the thread look untidy.


Peripatus is untidy too. It ejects sticky threads to trap its prey (how appropriate).

1402. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164040 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Comment #164035 by Remnant

This was done intentionally to exclude a Creator and is intellectual dishonesty.


Piffle. All we are after is evidence for a creator. Perhaps you could suggest what such evidence might look like, and how it could be scientifically tested.

1403. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164030 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Comment #164027 by The Reverend Dark

It is a lovely creature, and has been known about for some time, but (as I understand) its evolutionary significance has only recently been realised.

1404. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164026 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Comment #164022 by Remnant

No, wikipedia is not the source of that. There was a recent review of evolutionary theory in New Scientist, a highly reputable publication. Peripatus was mentioned there. However, that publication isn't free, so for convenience I pointed to wikipedia. You can look up the archives of New Scientist and research Peripatus any time you like.

Strange how you have to run when having asked for clear evidence that contradicts your beliefs, it is supplied.

1405. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164020 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Asking for a modern 'transitional' akin to Tikktaalik is ignorance writ large, as there is not pre-determined destination form.


Erm.... I did actually show one a few posts ago. There are some very rare examples where a species has hardly changed in hundreds of millions of years, and so the intermediate form can still be seen. Sorry for being awkward :)

1406. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164007 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Comment #164005 by Remnant

Rather that discuss you adult fairy tales which are nothing more than speculations, why don't you show me just one living transitional creature.


Certainly. Here is Peripatus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripatus

It is transitional between annelid worms and arthropods.

Education is fun, isn't it? You can discover something new when you least expect it.

1407. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164000 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Comment #163988 by Remnant

Such wilful ignorance is troublesome. We have seen the power of selection from random variation not just in nature, but in the laboratory, and even in computer explorations of evolution.

1408. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #163997 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 12:15 pm

1. Complexity and cohesiveness of life suggests a creator.
2. Intelligence suggests a creator. DNA, Language, logic and reason.
3. The universe is known to have a beginning and everything that has a beginning needs a cause.


Such ignorance is sad. To not know of the acausality of quantum mechanics, and the strangeness of time, and the power of evolution.

1409. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163982 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 11:54 am

Comment #163978 by Remnant

You can quote all you like, but we could quote in return a thousand papers for every one of yours. I suggest you answer Epeeist's question.

1410. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #163979 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 11:49 am

Again that is the point.


No, it isn't.

Evolutionary theory is an explanation, and provides testable mechanisms. "The bible does say that he made man from the dust of the earth and then breathed the breath of life within him" is not an explanation and is not testable.

If you want to procide an alternative to evolutionary theory, you had better come up with something better than that. Because, if you don't, I can just as easily claim that Thor did it on one of his days off, he "hit" life into things with his hammer. It makes just as much sense as your "explanation".

So, you have to provide a mechanism. I am still waiting. If not, you are being a hypocrite, and not applying to your own ideas the standard you require of others.

1411. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163973 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 11:44 am

Comment #163970 by Remnant

They aren't generated by accident, but by natural selection.

1412. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #163958 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 11:11 am

Comment #163948 by wiley16350

We need proof of new classes of animals that come from existing species.


We have it, in the evolutionary record and in the genomes of living organisms. We have all the intermediate species any reasonable rational person could require. Quite why people like you want to believe otherwise is beyond me.

Anyway, I am still waiting for answers:

I want to know how God made life, and made new species, and I want hard proof.

1413. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #163943 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 10:26 am

Comment #163930 by wiley16350

But the point is you can't actually reproduce the event or observe it to happen so it is not completely scientific according to your scientific standards.


We can reproduce just about all of if in the laboratory. That is why we are so confident of our models. Have you heard of CERN?

Yes and they are all ideas without any hard proof.


Of course they are without hard proof. We don't know how it happened yet!

Here is a link that refutes all the ones on the talkorigins.com site including your idea.


No links please, I want your explanation.

We see speciation which is true. In the respect that there are breeds that no longer can mate with the original population. But we don't see new kinds of classes of animals coming from the current animal types.


You are being very naughty here. First creationists say that there is no evolution. Then we show them. Then they say there is no "macroevolution" (formation of new species). Then we show them. Then they say there are no new types. What is a "type"? Simple: whatever we haven't seen happen yet. This is just garbage reasoning.

Time to hold you up to your own standards. I want to know how God made life, and made new species, and I want hard proof.

1414. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163910 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 9:15 am

Comment #163900 by pacman71192

Following Epeeist's "Go on the attack" approach....

So, how did God do the life and evolution thing then? If you claim he did, then you need to give specifics. Testable specifics. Evidence.

1415. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #163887 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 8:51 am

Comment #163877 by wiley16350

It is your opinion that evolution explains the evidence better, but that is not true to everyone. What tests has the big bang withstood? How would you even test the big bang?


The Big Bang is tested by observations. One of the most important is the ratio of light elements (Hydrogen, Helium, Deuterium), which comes out just as predicted from the period of nucleosynthesis specifc by Big Bang Theory.

Abiogenesis has clearly failed all tests and is proven to be impossible.


On the contrary, we have some very good ideas about how life could have got started. My personal favourite is the "Iron Sulphur" world idea.

Macro-evolution likewise cannot be tested, I mean evolutionists consistently tell us that it takes much too long to observe this type of evolution and there is no actual evidence to support this type of evolution.


We see "macro-evolution" (the formation of new species) in the wild. It does not take that long. Some mutations (polyploidy) can result in the formation of a new species in a single generation. We have seen this happen.

As for your contradictions in the description of God that is your based on your understanding of God and not what he truly is.


It is up to you to come up with convincing evidence for what God truly is. If you don't want to use the term "omnipotence", fine. Others do.

Specify your God in detail, and then we here can discuss your God Hypothesis.

1416. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #163871 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 8:25 am

Just because the religious person raises a question it doesn't automatically makes it invalid.


Does the term "Church's position" fill you with enthusiasm for anything that is going to follow? Or does it give you the same sinking feeling I get?

1417. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163832 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 6:06 am

Comment #163825 by Remnant

The documentary is discredited because it promotes intelligent design as if it was a scientific theory. If you feel this view has merit, please supply some testable hypothesis based on ID.

1418. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163830 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 6:04 am

Comment #163822 by Tyler Durden

I want details: which angels were assigned to the task, and how long they took.

1419. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163820 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 5:46 am

pacman71192

Could you please answer my previous question about bacteria dealing with man-made antibiotics, and if you are going to say that there is design, could you please say how the design is implemented.

1420. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163814 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 5:20 am

Comment #163811 by pacman71192

i.e change witin its own kind


Oh dear. "Kind". Creationist talk.

Existing information may modified, lost or even exchanged between bacteria, but never created.


Please explain then how bacteria evolve resistance to man-made antibiotics. That is new information.

1421. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #163802 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 4:31 am

As for me I believe in the christian God, but ID does not limit belief to any certain deity.


If you are going to put forward intelligent design as an explanation for anything, it would seem to me to be a good first step to at least come up with a suggestion about who or what the intelligence is, otherwise it is nothing more than an argument from incredulity.

So, who do you think the intelligence is, and why?

1422. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163797 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 3:51 am

Comment #163418 by cordura5

I was going to respond to this post relatively nicely and at length, but there is no point. All the answers are available. This is just one of those "scientists must be wrong because they keep changing their minds" arguments.

If you are going to say that science can't answer questions of evolution, you had better come up with some good alternatives. God wishing things into existence isn't good enough.

1423. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163776 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 2:47 am

Perhaps, though, some arguments (such as the "if we evolved from apes why are there still apes" brilliance) could be safely ignored in favour of more productive conversations.


You know what puzzles me? If we came from the sea... why are there still fish? And, are the current attempts by fishermen to wipe out cod and other tasty species part of nature's plan to fix this evolutionary mistake?

1424. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163769 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 2:26 am

"Well, I don't think they're right because of [insert argument which is shot down by mine - ...to which this is the reply]"


You have basically summed up here the entire contents of "The Dawkins Letters" by David Robertson :)
e.g.
Dawkins: Allow me to give the Ultimate 747 argument.
Robertson: The unverse is so complex it needs a creator.

1425. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163764 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 2:15 am

Comment #163760 by MPhil

I am following epeeists advice and going on the attack....

Your arguments are, of course, solid. It doesn't matter what you personally believe - the arguments have to be addressed!

1426. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163761 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 2:13 am

I am going to disagree with one statement that Richard made:

The difficulty of getting here from even our nearest neighbor, the red dwarf star Proxima Centauri, constitutes a filter through which only beings with a technology so advanced as to be god-like (from our point of view) could pass.


I think this is exaggerating the difficulties of interstellar travel. A least a couple of methods have been suggested that are quite feasible in the near future. One is nuclear pulse propulsion, and the other is solar sail propulsion combined with the use of big lasers, so I doubt they really would appear to be god-like.

1427. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163759 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 2:03 am

When arguing an antecedent to the universe that created everything, are the intelligent designers not ignoring that astrophysicists agree that at the singularity that preceded the Big Bang, all physical laws break down and no longer apply?


Singularities don't exist. They are problems with models of the universe, not actual physical objects.

1428. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163758 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 1:57 am

Comment #163749 by thisisme

I hope he doesn't mind me commenting, but MPhil (and others) isn't commenting as an atheist, but as a philosopher. You can't just make up philosophy and fiddle about with words in order to back up the concept of God.

1429. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163437 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 11:01 am

Comment #163432 by cordura5

I have a suggestion. Rather than being bombarded by answers here, I'll draft a long response and send it to you by private message, and then if anything still doesn't sound reasonable, we can discuss it, and then post our final positions on this thread.

This is not to discourage anyone else doing this, or from posting here. I thought this way, matters could be discussed (and made public later) in way that might not be too overwhelming.

Just an idea.

1430. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163431 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 10:52 am

Comment #163418 by cordura5

It raised too many unanswered questions about Darwin's theory that I couldn't find any refute for. I'm an instructer in the public school system, so I have access to resources that others may not. That is where I tried to do my OWN research into this. I spoke with college professors, too. If you can change me back with some hard scientific proof, like what swayed me in the first place, I would love to hear it.


I love a challenge. What are these questions?

1431. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163430 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 10:50 am

thisisme said...

I said that the laws of logic are God's nature, and that's my basis for them.
If you can come up with another justification for logic then do so, that's fine with me.


Al-rawandi and I have had a long conversation about this. The answer is clearly

Kiwis

I define the laws of logic as part of Kiwi-nature.
If you can come up with another justification for logic, then that is fine by me.

1432. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163371 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 8:47 am

Comment #163366 by thisisme

I never said God's nature was needed to support the laws of logic.


Comment #163353 by thisisme
this would be a problem if his nature did not also support logic

1433. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163360 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 8:38 am

Comment #163353 by thisisme

As for the laws of logic, they don't follow on from God's nature, they are God's nature. God's nature is necessary - this would be a problem if his nature did not also support logic as his nature would be internally inconsistent - as it is it's not. That's my argument.


(I hope you don't mind if I have a go, MPhil. I need to practice more philosophy)

This is logically inconsistent. If God's nature is needed to support the laws of logic, then the laws of logic aren't immutable (if they were, there would be no need for support). If they aren't immutable, then either God defines them arbitrarily, or he already has attributes that allow him to define them.

So, you either have arbitrariness, or pre-existing attributes. I am not sure you would consider God arbitrary!

However, as MPhil says, an entity defining its own attributes does not make any sense.

1434. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163342 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 8:14 am

Comment #163339 by phatbat

simply holding up belief without evidence as a virtue is also setting up your child for a possible fall later in life.


Absolutely.

Gullibility is bad. Saying Gullibility is good is worse.

1435. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163320 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 7:41 am

Religion, as it is practiced in the real world, is not only a set of metaphysical beliefs and truth claims. People who genuinely think that the FSM is a good caricature of real religion is missing something in their understanding.


True, but that was never the intention of the FSM.

1436. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163315 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 7:32 am

Comment #163313 by Bonzai

I think that is simplistic. Many "home grown" jihadists go radical to rebel against their parents who are only cultural Muslims.


That is a good point.

I find this whole thing about childhood indoctrination rather poorly supported by data. Children do have their own minds and agency


This does suggests religions are wasting their time with the young then.

1437. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163297 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 6:49 am

Comment #163292 by Greyman

How can a meaning be real if it is not true


It's called delusion :) I can really feel that a letter to Santa has meaning.

The impression I'm getting from these posts is that you don't seem to have any idea what the purpose of our existance might actually be, you just hope that we have one.


It's called "faith".

1438. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163286 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 6:22 am

Comment #163273 by Philip1978

I wish I had not asked now.

1439. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163277 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 6:07 am

Comment #163271 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

Surely they should have seen that coming?

1440. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163272 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 5:55 am

Comment #163269 by Sargeist

I had heard of that too. From wikipedia:

"Einstein and Morgenstern coached Gödel for his U.S. citizenship exam, concerned that their friend's unpredictable behavior might jeopardize his chances. When the Nazi regime was briefly mentioned, Gödel informed the presiding judge that he had discovered a way in which a dictatorship could be legally installed in the United States, through a logical contradiction in the U.S. Constitution. Neither judge, nor Einstein or Morgenstern allowed Gödel to finish his line of thought and he was awarded citizenship."

More details:
http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9802/hyp.html

1441. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163268 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 5:49 am

Why pray when you can just get your husband to wear the right lack of trousers? ;)


There is a wrong lack of trousers for a husband?

1442. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163267 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 5:46 am

Comment #161960 by Brian English

Sorry for the delay.

Godel did indeed come up with a formulation of General Relativity - a rotating universe - that allowed for time travel. I have not heard of the argument that the lack of consistent time can be extended to all universes. One thing to bear in mind is that general relativity is an incomplete theory. I don't know if Hawking's "chronological protection conjecture" would apply in this case - that is a very interesting point indeed. It was originally raised to deal with localised time machines like wormholes. Quite how it work work with an entire universe is difficult to think about, but it surely must apply somehow.

A particular issue I have with some areas of physics (and this was mentioned in a recent New Scientist article) is the tendency to confuse what theoretical models say with what is reality. An example of this is when physicists get carried away about the supposed extra dimensions of String Theory or with singularities.

By the way Steve, I hope you still feel welcome at my blog.


I certainly do. I just have a decreasing amount of patience with some people who won't actually respond to points, and resort to simplistic statements (such as "you are just being dogmatic") or vague insults about my intelligence :) (I think I know which posters I am referring to :)

1443. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163242 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 5:04 am

Comment #163236 by Brian English

I humbly acknowledge Brian's prior art in this matter.

1444. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163231 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 4:51 am

Comment #163208 by Egomaniac

I'll give you an explanation for how God created matter out of nothing as soon as you give me an explanation for how matter created itself. It's a paradox, and it gets us nowhere.


Matter creates and destroys itself all the time. This is a result of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. To put things simply, the net energy of the universe looks like it is zero. The entire universe could be the consequence of a quantum fluctuation, simply transferring one form of nothingness into another. No God needed. Perhaps you might say that God is needed to define the Uncertainty Principle, but then you would again need to provide the mechanism by which he does that.

You see, if you can't provide a mechanism, you have no justification for saying God did it.

1445. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163166 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 3:33 am

Comment #163164 by Egomaniac

Perhaps we exist because a higher power wills it.


And how is that supposed to work then?

1446. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163155 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 3:14 am

Comment #163150 by Egomaniac

If you allow the theoretical existence of a being that could create matter out of nothing, and could create a soul (which is a necessary component of an afterlife), I think you have to concede that this being would also likely be able to create and manage an afterlife, correct?


No, I am afraid not. What you are claiming here is that a belief in God justifies a belief in the afterlife. All you are saying here is "God can do anything". That is no kind of argument. It is certainly no argument for an afterlife requiring God. Even assuming the existence of God (something you would have to prove first), each "power" would have be to independently justified.

But perhaps we can make a start. I'll skip over the "God exists" step for now. Give me the mechanism through which God creates matter out of nothing, then we can discuss the nature of souls, and how God manufactures them.

1447. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163139 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 3:00 am

I'm aware of the Buddhist position on God, and I find it illogical.


This is no argument. You linked belief in God with belief in an afterlife, but provided no mechanism for God to provide an afterlife, so how are you in a position to reject a belief in survival of death without God? You can't, unless you can describe the process by which God supplies the afterlife.

Many Buddhists do too, and there is no general agreement on the involvement of a higher power (or lack thereof).


Yes, there is. The general opinion is that there may or may not be higher powers, but there is no creator, and their existence is largely irrelevant.

You're mistaken about Hinduism holding that higher powers have no bearing on the process.


Hinduism can be like Buddhism - it can consider the existence of higher powers irrelevant.

1448. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163132 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 2:54 am

Comment #163120 by Egomaniac

What I don't understand is why people can't be mature enough to find their own personal meanings for life. I use the analogy of a prison. People in prison are given "meaning" to their lives: they are told what to do and when to do it, and someome watches over them all the time. But wouldn't you rather be free to choose what to do?

Eternal life, if you believe in it, is nothing to do with with meaning. It gives people hope. The idea of having eternal life does not help people answer the question of what they should be trying to achieve during their mortal lifespan.

1449. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163126 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 2:50 am

OK, I'm getting no Goedel love.


?

1450. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163101 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 1:57 am

Comment #163096 by Quetzalcoatl

I think it is more like this: What appears in many cases to be macroevolution - a sudden appearence of a new species out of nothing - is actually considerable microevolution happening very fast. The ID'ers claim is that microevolution is not the kind of mechanism that can lead to new species, no matter how much of it occurs. This is clearly nonsense, even without mechanisms such as polyploidy.

More Pages: Previous | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 | Next