Comments by Steve Zara

1901. Only a Theory

Comment #193743 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 1:41 am

Modernity is less threatened by the intelligent design theorists, who try to prove their case in terms of evidence and observation, than by those who challenge the process of science itself.

I disagree. The agenda of ID is clear, and they are not after evidence and observation, indeed as Behe's attitude has shown, they reject it. I believe they do directly challenge the process of science, with their idea that we can define a point at which science has to stop, and allow in God.

1902. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193738 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 1:31 am

Comment #193588 by ketch22

Honestly people, I think even responding to this fellow is a waste. He has already declared that his beliefs are beyond any ability to challenge, and that any lack of belief on our part is a result of our flawed minds.

His understanding of modern science and philosophy is basically zero, yet he hand-waves away MPhil's explanations, for example.

This is definitely an irate-atheist situation, and I suspect responding will only boost an aready vast ego. It is, as epeeist so wisely says regarding another poster "allowing him to define the discourse".

Unless he concedes that he is prepared to change his mind on any point, then he is doing nothing more than trolling.

But that's just my view :)

1903. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193728 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 12:56 am

RtG wrote-

No. I have the ability for disernment in recognizing, what science has proven.

I know I am late to this, but honestly. It has taken me most of my life to recognise this, but the arrogance of theistic religions is simply mind-blowing. RtG literally thinks he has some kind of super-power. He can sense what is true about science, in a way that makes him superior to Newton, Einstein, Feynman, Hawking... he thinks they, and us are some kind of inferior species.

This is a general theme of Abrahamic religions - the inferiority of other. We see it in Jewish cultures that don't want out-group marriage, we see it in the Muslim attitude to apostates, we see it in Christian groups that label the heads of other groups Satanists.

We can't carry on in a world where twits like RtG think they are supermen, able to hand-wave away the work and ideas of centuries of experts because of their magic super-brains. It is too dangerous.

This is why I am focussing on this point, and on ridicule. I suspect at least some who may know RtG, if they are reading, may find rating him/her above Einstein may be a bit absurd.

1904. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193490 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Comment #193484 by Corylus

You write so well, though.

I am undecided what the best approach is. I like the emotion in your version, but I wonder if it isn't just a bit idealistic; it sort of makes scientist sound rather too good. Some scientists do come to things with pre-conceived notions. Some do try and make the data fit their ideas. The thing is, that science protects against that....

1905. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193482 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 5:15 pm

A re-write, using some of Corylus' excellent ideas..

We humans are imperfect creatures. Recognizing that, scientists seek to learn about the world by testing what we believe to be true against what might instead be. Science is self-correcting and forces us to deal with what evidence reveals and not our expectations or pre-conceived answers.

Creationism assumes that scientific knowledge can be ignored if it does not tally with ancient texts and doctrines.

There could be no useful debate, as the two sides disagree about the justification for making statements about reality.

1906. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193479 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Comment #193477 by phil rimmer

Even with Corylus' excellent summary, I now have gone back to preferring my version (perhaps if worded better).

I think what is appropriate is a description of why debate is futile, and not so much a description of why we think science is right.

1907. Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion

Comment #193475 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Comment #193471 by Jed Rothwell

It is fascinating how other belief systems can seem much like religion. People disagree with you because just about everyone is corrupt, but if you follow the right prophet, you will get to the truth.

And so the "religion" of "cold fusionism" reveals itself.

1908. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193474 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Comment #193470 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

Put like that doesn't it just want to make you scream. STOP BEING SO ARROGANT.

Yes. That is why I have stopped being so nice. It has got to me.

1909. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193472 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Comment #193468 by phil rimmer

We've got out of the debate, but we still want to stick it to them that they (however well intentioned) have nothing, don't we?

That is where philosophy comes in. We need to discuss the nature of knowledge, of evidence and so on.

1910. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193458 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Should we not (however falsely) assume that all parties are well intentioned?

Ah. Good point. That was why I emphasised lack of ability to communicate as against any particular intention.

For a debate to work, either creationists would have to accept scientific evidence in this area to be worth discussing, or the scientist would have to accept the bible as a useful source of information about the origin of species.

1911. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193450 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Comment #193444 by Corylus

Perfect, especially the last sentence.

1912. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #193425 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Comment #193418 by

Codes that give detailed instructions on how to build nanotech machines are always the product of intelligence, this is the evidence we have - yet to be falsified because it is capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny.

Rubbish. It was falsified by Darwin, who showed that complexity could arise by Natural Selection.

Your assertion does not apply to faulty replicators, which is what life is.

Furthermore, we can also advance the hypothesis that the genetic code arose by intelligence - which can be falsified if it is ever produced by natural phenomena. Or we can advance the hypothesis that life arose by natural phenomena . . . which can never be falsified.

This is wrong in many ways.

The hypothesis that life on Earth arose by natural phenomena can obviously be falsified. Suppose we discovered the remains of a spacecraft in 4-billion year old rocks, with a sign that we decoded as "Panspermia Ltd of Alpha Centaurii".

Invoking intelligence is never a good idea as a default position. Intelligence is extremely complex. One has to work through less complex alternatives first.

1913. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193401 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Comment #193393 by Standing

Creationism isn't a scientific disagreement. It rejects science, and wishes to hinder its acceptance.

1914. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193397 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Comment #193389 by phil rimmer

I have been waiting for an excuse to use "epistemological" for ages. You make a good point about appeal to majority.

I have a slight problem with your text, in that the exclusion of all other explanations does not equal a test for intervention. It simply means we just don't know what happened.

Just my personal view, but I prefer the "not speaking the same language" point.

The debate ends up like this:

Evolutionist: "Evolution happened"
Creationist: "No it didn't"
Evolutionist: "Yes it did, here is my evidence"
Creationist: "I don't accept your evidence. I know God made everything, and quite recently too. Here is my evidence"
Evolutionist: "I don't accept your evidence. We might as well just go home"
Creationist: "I guess you are right. Could you give me some money for my bus fare? God wants you to."

1915. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193378 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 1:31 pm

However, because God created us, He is outside any man made logical prose and debate. Anything we can conceive as a way of disproving God or His attributes can only come from our limited minds that He actually created. Depravity and ignorance breed more depravity and ignorance.

Someone shows you are in no position to argue for God on any rational basis, and you simply define yourself as correct.

So, you aren't prepared to discuss it, because you are right, because you are right.

Bit of a waste of time posting here then.

I have forgotten Al-Rawandi's "discussion over" list...

Which was the one where the theist gives up debate and starts preaching?

1916. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193376 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Comment #193369 by ketch22

1. God makes sense of the universe's origin: both philosophically and scientifically it can be argued that the universe had a beginning.

No, this is nonsense.

Those who have had an experience with God, know that this is an experience with God and nobody from the outside can tell us otherwise. It is appropriately grounded in our own experience.

Rubbish. You clearly have no idea of psychology and neurology, or logic. If you are going state that your personal subjective experiences have unquestionable truth on this basis, you have to accept everyone else's personal beliefs about Gods. You have to accept Poseidon and Thor.

1917. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #193372 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Comment #193367 by Theo

Also, present evidence points to a designer thus this conclusion is more likely than an imagination that so happens to be natural.

Evidence does not point to a designer. Lack of understanding of how something happened does not point to any specific cause for that event.

Zara, I cannot prove that a phenomenon will never be explained naturally just as you cannot prove the non-existence of God. In fact, I could be just as preposterous by stating that atheism is nonsense until someone comes up with a method for demonstrating that God will never be discovered.

No. God is excess to requirements, and is infinitely complex. The "God exists" and "God does not exist" statements are not of equal weight in terms of the burden of proof.

As said before I have no ontological predisposition, if you want to call that supernaturalism, that is your choice; I however seek to fill gaps with evidence rather than "precedent".

Please explain what would be the nature of evidence for the supernatural, and it could be proved that it was not some unknown natural phenomenon. "Supernatural" is a positive claim - that some phenomena are permanently beyond natural description.

1918. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193364 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Comment #193361 by Steve Zara

However, I trust science as well and never implied I didn't.

I don't believe you are qualified to make this statement, as you appear to have no understanding how it works, as shown by this statement:

My problem with the theory of evolution as a stand alone theory without a creator, is that it has never shown me that a creator is not involved.

Your opinion on the involvement of Thor in weather would be appreciated. After all, it has never been shown that he was not involved.

1919. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193361 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Comment #193356 by ketch22

If I may contribute...

"A Reasonable Deity"
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/123642.html

"The God Razor"
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/114429.html

I have dealt with people like you before.

1920. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193357 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Comment #193349 by phil rimmer

I think this approach deserves much wider application. We should not engage in any such events in future, where a science V. Creationism format exists.

Absolutely.

Regarding a summary of why a debate is pointless, I think it can be brief:

There is no point having someone who accepts evolution based on a scientific understanding of the evidence debate this with someone who not only does not accept the evidence, but questions the entire process of science by taking a position on a scientific issue that is at odds with the overwhelming majority of scientists, and justifies that position based on religious ideas. There could be no useful debate, as the two sides disagree about the justification for making epistemological statements. Such an event would only act as publicity for creationism, a view that is considered seriously flawed and problematic by the majority of educated people.

1921. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193345 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Comment #193344 by thewhitepearl

THAT is by far the coolest nickname ever.

I didn't think so at age 6! :)

1922. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193340 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 11:53 am

Comment #193339 by mordacious1

It was a nickname I had in primary school. With a name like Zara, such things are to be expected.

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/109099.html

1923. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193325 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 10:26 am

Comment #193323 by Lil_Xunzian

If you say that it exists at the level of emotion, then you're committed to saying it's something we just feel, not something we think. You remove anything rational or intellectual from ethics. I think we fall right into the hands of the religionists by saying that ethics is just something I feel (and is, therefore, subjective).

Firstly, I am afraid I have little patience with arguments that we play into the hands of religionists. We should be concerned with what is true, not what is convenient.

Anyway, you are setting up false dichotomies. Morality exists both in terms of emotion and cognition.

We don't abstain from gratuitous lying because it feels wrong (the yuck factor) or, as is the case with dimmer wits, because we're commanded not to, but because we wouldn't want to live in a society where nobody could be trusted, where nobody could be trusted as a credible source of information.

That is rationalising as intellectual something that can clearly be seen to have evolved.

Mass lying is not an evolutionarily stable strategy. That is why we feel lying is immoral.

1924. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193321 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 10:06 am

And being stuck in that loop, they seem to think we reason the same way, that we merely "picked", disbelief in god or gods out of a barrel of possible worldviews.

Very good point. As we all see the same "evidence", they are puzzled as to why we "choose" atheism.

1925. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193291 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 8:04 am

Isn't the "little world view" really belong to those who can't conceive of a creator and that this is all there is? Isn't that limiting mankind?

Theism has been limiting mankind for millenia. The idea that God must have done something prevents rational investigation. One need only look at the struggles of scientists in the past, like Gallileo and Kepler, when their ideas clashed with religion.

Theism gets in the way, it says "look no further". It is a danger to science.

1926. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193289 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 7:59 am

Comment #193284 by ketch22

You can't fully trust an idea or theory when the organizers of that idea have an agenda against another theory or idea.

Sure. We can't trust geologists when they have an agenda against flat-Earthism.

My problem with the theory of evolution as a stand alone theory without a creator, is that it has never shown me that a creator is not involved.

I have the same problem with my understanding of meteorology. The existence of Thor behind the scenes has never been disproved.

Tell me, do you believe in Thor?

Also, I find it interesting that when a person, such as I, has had an experience with God

Are you some kind of expert on psychology? Why on Earth should you expect us to believe you had an experience with God?

How does one know that our view of the universe isn't so flawed... based on human observations... that exponential growth of knowledge is based on some flawed ideas from the past which have just cascaded?

Because those ideas are tested against Nature.

Do you honestly expect us to believe that you have a greater understanding of how to investigate reality than minds like Newton and Einstein? Do you really think you have come up with some amazing new perspective on things?

1927. Behe's Empty Box

Comment #193268 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 5:43 am

Was Behe telling the truth about Richard Dawkins here, when he claimed that Dawkins would not consider a waving statue a supernatural event?

I wouldn't. It is at least conceivable that such a move is possible using something like a Star Trek transporter. Or, someone could be influencing my mind. Or, Paul Daniels could be around somewhere.

1928. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193266 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 5:18 am

Thus far (as I'm sure any objective reader would agree) all that my bona fide request has brought (with possibly one exception from someone who is "miles away from Scotland") are body-swerves, side-tracking, objections, spurious alternatives etc. etc.

Perhaps you could explain why you wish to have someone who is an atheist, from this site, debating in public with people who are not just religious but question evolution. What are you hoping to achieve? How would the differing claims to reality even be discussed? What would be debated? The truth of evolution?

1929. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193254 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 4:32 am

Comment #193252 by irate_atheist

I suspect it is a combination of the following:

1. He really doesn't understand things and is trying to force the bible and evolution together in his mind and we are seeing the result - a sort of festering chimera of ideas.

2. He is trying to please a range of audiences at once, after all he doesn't want yet another split in the Scottish churches.

3. He is lying. He is either a raving creationist or an evil evolutionist, but won't tell the truth.

I suspect it is mostly 1, but I would love to hear David's opinion on this.

1930. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193248 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 4:09 am

He has said he believes in evolution - although I saw he was trying to diss it elsewhere.

Indeed, which is why I am confused.

1931. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193240 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 3:39 am

This is not compatible with evolution fanny baws.

Indeed. Has David posted a statement that evolution happened and there was death and natural disasters and disease before people existed?

I mean, this should not be hard to do, if you aren't a creationist.

1932. Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion

Comment #193238 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 3:31 am

Or, as cold fusion researcher Stan Szpak puts it, scientists will believe whatever you pay them to believe.

That is both absurd and outrageous.

1933. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193237 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 3:28 am

clearthinker-

Steve - decisions are made by then. The nastiness is all in hell.

Ah. So no-one can decide anything in Heaven. No free will there. How boring.

Your definition that something can only be an answer to prayer if it does not involve natural agencies is wrong.

So, if we understand how planes fly, down to the finest detail, it is acceptable to say that is miraculous?

Neat! I am going to say it involves fairies too.

1934. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193021 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Comment #192961 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

I can't think of anything I have seen by Carl Sagan that isn't awe-inspiring. He isn't always right, but he was one of the most successful and important promoters of science we have ever had.

1935. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192969 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 11:06 am

Comment #192964 by the great teapot

There is all the difference between something being about me, and something being about us

Religion says things like "We are the chosen people", not "I am the only chosen one".

Religion is a human invention. It flatters prejudices and beliefs. Most people are decent. They care about family and friends. They use religion in that way, which is why, in some religions they want them saved too. Parents can be desperate to baptise children.

For goodness sake, religion is bad enough. We don't need to exaggerate.

Buddhism, for all its many faults, is about relieving suffering. It isn't about relieving just my suffering and (excuse my language) everyone else can just bugger off.

1936. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192958 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 10:35 am

Comment #192957 by Lil_Xunzian

You have forgotten something.

"Well, why are you doing what God wants?

So he will save the eternal soul of my parent/sibling/lover/child."

There is enough to criticise about religion. We don't need the straw man argument that it is entirely narcissistic and selfish.

1937. Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion

Comment #192956 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 10:33 am

Comment #192642 by Jed Rothwell

Sorry, but your post sounds like something from a conspiracy theorist ("it is true, but no-one believes it!")

You are wrong anyway, science IS a popularity contest. If your research can be replicated and is useful, it will become popular. That is the way science works.

I suspect we may be confusing things. Cold fusion is probably possible, but what matters is the production of excess energy - more than you put in.

1938. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192951 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 10:27 am

Comment #192949 by Lil_Xunzian

Religion is, I think, an incredibly narcissistic exercise, period. You make the whole of existence about YOURSELF.

That is an unwarranted generalisation that ignores human nature.

Religious parents have been know to worry about getting their children baptised so that they will not suffer in hell.

Theistic religions are narcissistic because they make the universe about us. I think that claiming people think it is about only themselves is wrong.

1939. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192948 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 10:23 am

Comment #192946 by Quetzalcoatl

It all makes sense now.

Incidentally-

Do you realise that if this thread keeps going, it will exceed the "Fleabytes" thread in length, and so push David Robertson into further insignificance? He claims "biggest thread on this site" as some kind of victory.

Not that this thread's size should any way detract from Paula's achievements.

1940. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192947 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 10:19 am

Comment #192944 by Lil_Xunzian

You would have to be a total narcissist to want to organize your entire life around the alleviation of YOUR OWN suffering.

I don't think any one claims that Buddhism is only about relieving personal suffering.

Pain sucks, but we just have to deal with it.

Buddhism is about how to deal with it, without any "God will help you" solutions.

The satisfaction of knowing that you live an ethical life and pursue and speak the truth, perhaps even at the cost of your own happiness, more than makes up for the pain.

Sounds like a miserable life to me. I want to be able to speak the truth and be happy. I see nothing in Buddhism that would prevent that.

1941. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #192945 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 10:15 am

Comment #192927 by Eclectic

I agree with you.

If we are to live together in this world, it is important to understand others cultures and beliefs, if even to know how best to refute arguments.

There are many battles to be won; against creationism, and against those who use religion to promote hatred and violence.

I see nothing wrong with allying with religious people to fight against those. Dawkins himself has done this, working with the Bishop of Oxford.

I believe that Blair's initiative, if it works, will work against faith. Finding out about other religions can be a good way to start to doubt about your own.

1942. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192942 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 9:58 am

Comment #192940 by Lil_Xunzian

I find it difficult to defend Buddhism.

Let's put things this way. If all theists converted to Buddhism, I think the world would be a far better place. Buddhism has no objection to rational investigation of reality. It does not believe in a soul (there is barely any notion of self). Some schools don't believe in re-incarnation or karma as we think of it.

What is the first noble truth: all life is suffering (dukkha). I see no rational reason to accept THAT.

That doesn't mean we all go around in tears! It means we have desires and fears that make us miserable to some extent. I think that is pretty usual.

Buddhism, stripped of the supernatural rubbish, seems a pretty good way to live a happy life, to me.

1943. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192938 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 9:49 am

Comment #192935 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

5. Sceptical doubt

Having been investigating Buddhism for a while, I don't think that is what is intended. For example, wikipedia gives that as

"Lack of conviction or trust."

It is certainly not intended as "faith".

It is a negative thought. If you go around filled with cynicism and trusting nobody, you aren't going to be very happy, which is, after all, what Buddhism is supposed to be about.

1944. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192928 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 9:18 am

txpiper wrote-

It's good to see your spirits back up though. Good gosh, I thought you were going to collapse into a puddle of indignation there for a while, with the appeals to shame, etc.. I was surprised that an atheist would even do that inasmuch as shame would just be another human construct, probably the result of a really rank mutation of some sort.

I am extremely indignant. I honestly don't know how you live with yourself.

You must ether believe you have the brain of an Einstein, and are able to see something entire fields of experts can't, or you must believe that they are all somehow deluded and you are special.

The amount of hubris that reveals is, frankly, astonishing. It is acceptable to be deluded and ignorant. You are now no longer ignorant.

I would say that I think people should ignore you, but your views are a danger to society.

PZ Myers posted a wonderful talk that shows what a danger you are:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/remember_this_guy.php

You are exactly equivalent to those who burned the library of Alexandria. I honestly think your views are wicked.

Perhaps that link should also be posted here, to help show what a danger to civilization creationists and those who fight against science are.

1945. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192913 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 8:03 am

Comment #192878 by njwong

Buddhism usually contains a lot of nonsense, but it useful to understand it, I think. It shows that religion need not be theistic. That one can be an atheist and believe all kinds of things. Atheism isn't linked to a belief in evolution, or a lack of belief in absolute morality. Most of us here have those views, I suspect, because we aren't supernaturalists, not because we are atheists.

1946. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192912 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 7:59 am

Comment #192908 by Quetzalcoatl

But you are a God, so how does praying for someone work? Are there other Gods? Can't you just phone them up or something?

1947. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192906 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 7:45 am

I have posted more on this RNA/ice thing on my blog, but I'll reproduce a bit here. This may be inaccurate, but I think it shows we can tell a conceivable and simple story of how life originated. Note how quickly evolution gets involved!

Nucleotides, which form naturally, were concentrated and polymerized in ice. Uncountable random strands of RNA were formed, entirely naturally, until some that could help catalyze their own replication appeared. These would have out-competed the pure ice process. Replication would have not been perfect, and as nucleotides were used up, forms of RNA which were ever more effective at catalyzing their replication would have been naturally selected. Forms which helped protect their structures with proteins (RNA still catalyzes protein formation in our cells) and membranes would also have been selected, as would those which coupled their reproduction to chemical cycles which provided energy to speed up the process. At some point DNA got involved. RNA "genes" which transcribed themselves to DNA would be more stable, so a reversible RNA <==> DNA step would be favoured.

There is not a single step in that which isn't conceivable, and reasonable. It may not be the true story of how life arose (there are others), but it works.

1948. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192901 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 7:17 am

Comment #192895 by Paula Kirby

There will also be the increasingly common, but hilariously silly response:

"If you have shown this in the laboratory, it proves that an intelligence was necessary for it to happen in the first place"

1949. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192886 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 6:20 am

Comment #192875 by epeeist

You will note as well that Paula did not threaten me with physical harm or everlasting damnation for disagreeing with her.

1950. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #192862 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 4:56 am

Comment #192861 by Cartomancer

Indeed. He should listen to speeches by Obama in which he said that faith can't be used as a justification for public statements on matters of significance - reason has to prevail in a democratic society.

Oh, and a late happy birthday!