Comments by Steve Zara

2351. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229014 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 2:44 am

Even Dawkins asked dear josh to delete my challenging.

We would love something challenging. Honestly. Someone with a different point of view, backed by interesting hypotheses and new evidence.

But if you are going to go on a site and write hundreds of posts which say nothing but:

"I don't believe it"

You are going to get justifiably marked as a troll.

If you want to be challenging, you need to do the following:

Explain the mechanism by which God produces order in the world, and new species.

Show how this mechanism can be tested for under reproducible conditions.

Show how the evidence of this mechanism links back to your particular idea of God.

Saying "evolution is wrong" is NOT evidence for any other mechanism. If you have any other ideas, you need to start from scratch, and provide actual explanations that can be researched.

If you refuse to do that, as I suspect you will, you will justifiably be marked as a troll, and hopefully soon.

I suspect you won't have a clue what I am talking about, but at least it may help point out to the casual reader what is going on here.

2352. Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Comment #228999 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 2:10 am

Styrer-

Ignorant as I am, I wonder if this idea, which evidently has at least some pedigree, could possibly throw some light on abiogenesis? If the above quote is true, then could 'energy transduction mechanisms' include non-biological entities?

I hope it starts to blur the boundaries between evolution and abiogenesis. We will see a continuum between complex chemistry and physics and replicators containing information-encoding molecules (such as RNA and DNA). There may even be some kind of principle that information-encoding structures inevitably arise because they lead to such efficient transduction of energy.

2353. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #228974 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Comment #228964 by Fanusi Khiyal

theantitheist, what I have been saying for a long time is that unless we are able to demonstrate that we are wable to take on this ancient evil

"ancient evil"? Sounds a bit too much like something from Buffy to me.

without reservations and without hesitation, it is groups like the BNP who will rush to fill that gap.

If you do it without reservations, then you will end up using the same methods as the BNP, and should be equally condemned.

2354. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228973 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 11:27 pm

Comment #228931 by Layla Nasreddin

From that letter:

Let evolution be taught in the way that Darwin intended: as a great theory to explain the origins of biological diversity -- without the ideological baggage.

That is sheer hypocrisy, as religions put the ideological baggage there in the first place, with their claims of a designer God.

Let's translate this kind of argument to another set of beliefs and see how it sounds:

"Sir, I am complaining because of your recent documentary on astronomy, with it's explanation that the lights in the sky are fusing balls of gas and not the glittering wings of fairies. Hawkings is so shrill when he says that this was a reason he no longer believes in The Fair Folk. Let astronomy be taught as it should be - a great theory to explain what we see in the night sky -- without the ideological baggage"

2355. Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Comment #228843 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Comment #228819 by the great teapot

physics has no detailed explanation for the specifics of evolution. Any credit here is surely unwarranted.

This isn't about specifics. It is about driving forces. Much of nature is chaotic, but we still look for general explanations even though we can't predict the behaviour of every particle.

I think you are missing the point. This isn't saying that thermodynamics explains everything about evolution, but that evolution seems to be a natural consequence of thermodynamics.

It is a bit like, for example, the formation of our solar system. It was chaotic, and you could not have started out with a gas cloud and predicted the formation of the Earth, but you can understand that gravity was a driving force.

2356. Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Comment #228814 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 3:03 pm

I am thrilled that the principle of evolution may be our old friend, the least action principle, in yet another disguise.

Absolutely. It means that evolution isn't really that special, and it isn't improbable. It is likely to be a fundamental part of nature.

2357. Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Comment #228794 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Comment #228781 by TuftedPuffin

Attaching some grand "evening out energy" purpose to it seems vacuous at best and misleading at worst.

It isn't any kind of purpose. It is basic thermodynamics. Life can arise and maintain its structure and complexity because it "feeds off" order provided primarily by the sun.

To put things simply, the Sun provides a source of order because it is highly directed energy within relatively narrow wavelengths. Life can use that order to keep itself going because it increases overall entropy by radiating off energy in a far less ordered state (this is the energy transference that is mentioned).

I think this is a very useful way of looking at things. I think it is a misunderstanding to consider this superfluous to fossil studies etc. Fossils show what happens when evolution is driven by thermodynamics, at least in a sense.

This helps to show that natural selection is a more fundamental part of nature than many might have thought.

2358. Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Comment #228779 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Comment #228772 by Bruno

Did anybody else understand it that way?

Not me. I read that evolution operates because of thermodynamics. It isn't just similar, it is a consequence. This is clear from the following sentence:

Then, the scientists showed how natural selection and the principle of least action can be connected by expressing natural selection in terms of chemical thermodynamics.

2359. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228757 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Quetz-

I devour divine beings like you for breakfast, and wash them down with a cup of tea.

Let me put it this way. If you try to ambush me, there'll be lots of whacking, but you'll be on the receiving end.

I hope you realise that this can all be read as double-entendres?

2360. Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Comment #228754 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Comment #228752 by Simonw

If you want to prove evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics one can show order created by the energy of the sun by looking at any plant growing. It is a lot easier than reading this article, and a lot more "obvious".

I think this is saying a bit more than just "evolution doesn't violate the second law", but that given the laws of thermodynamics, combined with a supply of order (such the directional energy of the sun), then evolution of life is inevitable.

2361. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #228606 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 9:21 am

Comment #228603 by nightwatchman

yes, this is exactly what is expected from the lower mind, people like this that do not have a clue, so instead of showing some sign of intelligence by engaging in argument, these people always resort to name calling, because the content of their minds is very shallow indeed.

You didn't attempt to initiate argument.

2362. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228558 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 7:46 am

Comment #228534 by irate_atheist

Countless scientists have worked for centuries, and devoted their entire careers to understand the universe. This usually involves much hard and boring work, often with low pay and job insecurity.

Then, this hard work is quoted mined to corruption by self-satisfied preachers who have the sheer arrogance to think that they have a clue about science.

I detest it.

2363. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228531 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 7:08 am

Comment #228529 by Quetzalcoatl

It's the same kind of poison as creationism - corrupt science and philosophy to allow God to still remain.

2364. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228527 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 6:58 am

I am pretty annoyed. How dare he misquote Roger Penrose?

Penrose says that the origin of the universe as we seem to understand it is very, very unlikely if he is right about his ideas of gravity and the laws of the universe are time-symmetric. Penrose is using this to imply that the universe has time-asymmetric laws, not a creator.

I am really quite irate! This is shameful.

2365. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228520 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 6:45 am

It seems Dawkins has quite a bit of persuading to do. I have been browsing the FCOS site, and came across this sermon:

http://www.freechurch.org/resources/sermons/atheist.htm

"and then we are left with evolution, even though we have no coherent system of proof of it - and we cannot have, because we cannot put the whole universe back into the laboratory to test it."

"Although at the popular level evolution is seen as explaining away any need for a God, there are many scientists, who are entertaining serious doubts on various areas of evolutionary theory."

It turns out that Robertson is merely spouting the same creationist nonsense that others are ranting at their parishioners.

I think this is actually pretty scandalous - preachers are attempting to promote their half-witted understanding of science in their churches. They aren't sticking to religion. I think I would have been reduced to fury if I had heard such a sermon "live".

Oh, and they also lie blatantly:

"The Holocaust was caused by Nazis holding a particular philosophy and outlook on life that was atheistic."

2366. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228485 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 5:26 am

Comment #228477 by decius

Yeah, rub in how dense I have been :)

He is posing as an atheist, who would not capitalise "god", yet he can't bring himself to offend the imaginary friend. Hence the asterisk, which is a rather uncommon character to be used.

That is quite an interesting one.

2367. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228470 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 4:41 am

Comment #228466 by decius

Clues clear to you, Sherlock :)

I seem to be more of a Watson.

2368. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228465 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 4:39 am

Comment #228460 by decius

I don't think it is that simple, as it isn't a "tu quoque", as we don't claim to be nice.

It is quite in order for, say, a smoker to point out the problem when someone who claims they are vice free is spotted having quick ciggie behind the bike shed.

Logical arguments aren't going to work with Robertson. My view is that we have to keep pointing out the clear evidence of hypocrisy in the way he behaves and inconsistency, especially on matters such as evolution/creationism.

2369. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228454 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 4:24 am

Comment #228453 by phil rimmer

Equally strange is that French music lover and "atheist", ddjango, has not posted anything either.

Boy, am I slow on the uptake.

2370. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228444 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 3:59 am

Comment #228435 by decius

I am not sure I found that post actually offensive. I found it in poor taste to use a private tragedy to make such a point.

I have no objection to anyone posting in an unpleasant way, or even trying to provoke others. That is the way largely unmoderated forums can be.

What I think stinks is to do that and to then claim to be "holier than thou", and use the responses to your provocations (from a few) on an open site to make a point about how nasty everyone is on that site.

Robertson has had it pointed out to him repeatedly the problem with generalising about attitudes on an open site, yet he persists with this tactic. It is fair to find that a problem.

2371. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228427 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 3:39 am

Comment #228426 by Laurie Fraser

ALL of you. You are all sneering and sarcastic. Oh, and militant and fundamentalist. And followers of Dawkins. And I had better mention "tenets of atheism", just to complete the set.

2372. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228419 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 3:24 am

Comment #228415 by decius

That is my point really. I am not saying that there aren't sneering and sarcastic people on these threads (and many of them do it well). It is Robertson's pretense to be above all that that is the problem. Remember, he has been banned several times. That takes a lot of effort (persistent, off-topic sneering).

2373. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228409 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 3:07 am

Comment #228408 by irate_atheist

I have no objection.

2374. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228406 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 3:03 am

Checking back through David Robertson's posts as "The Wee Flea", we can discover some real gems, illustrating his typical tone:

Comment #51807 by The Wee Flea on June 25, 2007 at 4:58 am

Billy,

Obviously you're having difficulty with the English language.

....
Comment #51560 by The Wee Flea on June 23, 2007 at 11:51 am

The great teapot - thanks for that incisive, intelligent and devasting bit of logic. I assume you think that your post represents the maturity of human thought?! I think I'll end for Mars....
....
Comment #48436 by The Wee Flea on June 8, 2007 at 1:12 am
Steve,

As I say it is impossible to discuss the homosexuality issue rationally. You have no intention of doing so. You know what is right and the question is only asked to establish my irrational and stupid bigotry.

....
Comment #47290 by The Wee Flea on June 4, 2007 at 2:02 am

Stan, if that is what keeps you up then can I suggest that you get a good therapist or a life!
....

(And here is part of a discussion which shows David Robertson's "delightful" attitude to homosexuality)

Comment #46649 by The Wee Flea on June 1, 2007 at 2:32 am
Yet again you give an extremely simplistic answer. What if the paedophilia was consenting? What if other forms of sexuality, even though consenting, lead to feelings of worthlessness and increase sexual diseases?

.....
The equating of homosexuality with paedophilia set the tone for me early on. He really is a nasty, sarcastic, sneering piece of work.

2375. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228399 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 2:38 am

Comment #228398 by Tyler Durden

He seems quite shameless. I am going to dig out some of his trolling posts from the past, so next time he tries to act like the innocent victim...

2376. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228396 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 2:33 am

Comment #228390 by Vaal

Now, is that true David received a death threat on RD net?

No, it is not true. It was a joke in very poor taste, that was retracted.

David has frequently received abuse because he was trolling for it quite explicitly. The reason why he trolls for abuse is precisely so he can make comments like that you quote.

There have also been creationists on this site posting the most awful abusive stuff (Checkout Joe M. in the "Venomous Snakes" thread).

David Robertson is lying.

2377. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #228177 by Steve Zara on August 11, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Do you also feel poverty isn't a problem, since you presumably have a decent income? If you hear someone advocating for the poor, do you accuse him of not having much money?

I am a believer in equality, but I don't believe in your approach. You think everyone should be happy with vouchers for MacDonalds.

You may be happy living off of Mac-Sex-Burgers, but I want real, warm, living, moody, temperamental, affectionate, intellectually challenging partners who are prepared to grow old with me. I am very lucky to be married to such a man.

(And, no, he is not available from downloads on a wiki)

2378. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #228170 by Steve Zara on August 11, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Comment #228167 by decius

do you actually mean women when you say "aliens"?

Terat doesn't say "women" - he says "ladies".

Somehow, I feel that is deeply revealing.

2379. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #228165 by Steve Zara on August 11, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Comment #228159 by Teratornis

I always invite correction and criticism. If someone actually does correct me, the result is that I become yet more perfect.

I also invite criticism. I think the result may be that I may be a little less ignorant. Personally, I am wary of anyone who claims to be anything close to perfect. (Actually, that isn't true - I would run a mile from anyone who claims to be anything close to perfect).

2380. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #228146 by Steve Zara on August 11, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Comment #228137 by Teratornis

If the gay porn industry is large and profitable, then it may be that some gay men are not completely satisfied with what's on offer to them in this wonderful real world you inhabit.

My real world, that I "inhabit", is pretty wonderful. I have a real, live husband who I love. I don't need or want robots.

When was the last time you held a lover in your arms, Tetra?

2381. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228105 by Steve Zara on August 11, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Comment #228102 by al-rawandi

I had the same suspicion, I posted it and I got slammed as an asshole. I suppose that was a little 'confirmation bias' coming back at me.

I have little doubt that Tera is Aspergers (I have a relative who has the same condition). It is the lack of engaging with the normal emotional responses that is pretty much the key symptom.

2382. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228096 by Steve Zara on August 11, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Comment #228087 by thewhitepearl

Hold on, I just fell out of my chair from shock. Al, if I give you the bat-just for a minute- Do you think you could whack that nutcase for me?

It was far worse than Al describes. Tera was actually suggesting that all information should be placed on public wikis, and we should abandon all ideas of privacy.

My suspicion, and I don't mean this in a bad way (as such people can give us insights) is that Tera is not psychologically normal (but then who is?). He is probably neurotic (something I can identify with) or Aspergers/Autistic. I think his posts should be viewed through that kind of filter. I think we should welcome such views, as long as we understand were they are coming from.

2383. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #228074 by Steve Zara on August 11, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Comment #228068 by Teratornis

Only the sex robot can sell you on the idea of herself.

I suddenly feel deeply relieved. Us gay men will be free to actually relate to real people, and deal with real emotions. We will have to chat up real men, and deal with their flaws and imperfections.

I am happy to know that some fraction of society will not be assimilated by the robot sex borg collective.

Maybe because of that we will also be able to occasionally not use bicycles, and post things privately and not on wikis.....

2384. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228070 by Steve Zara on August 11, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Comment #228058 by thewhitepearl

You may need to occasionally view my posts through an "irony" filter.

2385. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228067 by Steve Zara on August 11, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Comment #228066 by Mitchell Gilks

What a wonderful post!

2386. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228065 by Steve Zara on August 11, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Comment #228060 by Bonzai

That reminds me of something from The Daily Show - the Middle East can easily switch to a source of renewable energy - burning American flags, as America has said it will replace all those burnt. Get angry enough at America, and the Middle East can become self-sufficient in energy, without oil, in a few years.

2387. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228055 by Steve Zara on August 11, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Alcohol is far more destructive than religion in modern societies. Just count the bodies.

You know what the real destructive thing is in modern societies? Over-eating. It is pretty clear that dietary restriction extends life, and over-eating causes heart disease and diabetes.

I would go even further than you, and get governments to restrict our food. We should all be on a government-enforced diet. Also, to avoid peak oil, it could also force us to cycle everywhere (although how we lubricate the bearings could be a problem - whale oil perhaps?)

2388. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #228047 by Steve Zara on August 11, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Comment #228045 by Raiko

In that case, I entirely agree with you.

2389. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227993 by Steve Zara on August 11, 2008 at 7:50 am

If religion left science alone, I am sure that science would leave religion alone and Dawkins would have no recourse to mention religion or atheism when talking about evolution.

I don't see how science can leave religion alone. There isn't a single aspect of theistic religion that doesn't overlap with science in some way - the origin and nature of the universe, the function of the mind (and why we have certain experiences), how life arose, how we got a sense of morality. Theists should be justifiably concerned about science. It challenges everything they believe in.

2390. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227960 by Steve Zara on August 11, 2008 at 5:06 am

Comment #227959 by Bonzai

You could well be right.

2391. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227953 by Steve Zara on August 11, 2008 at 4:47 am

My amateur psychology understanding leads me to suspect that part of the conversion was being accused of pestering some women on this site. There is no better way to clear the conscience than to label those who you pestered, and those who accused you, of being "nasty and deluded". It is a way of feeling holier-than-thou when you have a feeling that you have been less than "holy".

2392. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227946 by Steve Zara on August 11, 2008 at 4:36 am

Comment #227942 by irate_atheist

That would not surprise me. However, I thought it might have been wiser not to burn your bridges with those who were at least civil with you in the past.

If Richard M had simply walked away and said "I am now religious, give me some time to get my head together - I still want to engage in conversations" I would have had no problems, but there was something Stockholm-Syndrome like about the way he ran to Robertson, and something pretty unpleasant about the way he comes back to sneer.

2393. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227939 by Steve Zara on August 11, 2008 at 4:29 am

Comment #227933 by irate_atheist

It is like Richard Morgan had a brain-wipe. Any philosophy or science or reason that may have been picked up from this site, or reading books by Harris or Dawkins have been lost. It is like seeing someone who understood about cults and their dangers ending up brainwashed.

2394. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227912 by Steve Zara on August 11, 2008 at 3:40 am

Comment #227907 by Richard Morgan

Atheists disagree with each other shock horror.

But hey, at least we argue over facts, and not imaginary friends.

What's truly priceless is someone who said how much they understood about psychology and feelings having the arrogance to claim personal connections with the divine.

2395. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227894 by Steve Zara on August 11, 2008 at 2:45 am

Comment #227864 by Raiko

In our society we have the weird conviction that even when you are right, you're not allowed to be blunt about it.

I don't think it is weird at all. It is how democratic societies are supposed to work. Part of living in a democracy should involve negotiation and discussion. This does not mean one has to compromise in any way about what one believes is true, but it means that persuading others about that truth has to be done by argument and not by simply declaring "I am right".

Part of living in democracy means that if the majority want to declare PI as exactly 3, then we have to accept their right to do so, and then work hard to show they are wrong.

2396. Novel on prophet's wife pulled for fear of backlash

Comment #227766 by Steve Zara on August 10, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Comment #227757 by Goldy

If that is true, it is a positive step!

2397. Novel on prophet's wife pulled for fear of backlash

Comment #227763 by Steve Zara on August 10, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Comment #227759 by John Locke

i think some people are irredeemable.

I am sure you are right. The question for me is do we have any legal system accurate enough to be sure of identifying such people?

i respect your positive view on humanity, wish i could have it, but dont believe in giving limitless chances to people.

You don't need to. All that matters is not to impose truly ireversable punishments. A prison sentence can always be reduced. Deportation would be much harder.

i think its going a bit far comparing deportation to the death penalty though.

I did not mean to imply it was equivalent, just that some of the assumptions implied by its use are the same.

2398. Novel on prophet's wife pulled for fear of backlash

Comment #227750 by Steve Zara on August 10, 2008 at 2:54 pm

I don't understand why everyone is in an uproar over this. I think that is perfectly reasonable.

As I explained before, I have an objection to deportation in principle, even if there was a country it was reasonable to send people to. It is the same objection I have to the death penalty. It treats people as irredeemable. I mentioned a while back that there are many respectable people in our societies who used to be members of pretty awful organisations in their youth, yet no-one doubts their current reasonableness. Expulsion of a citizen is a once-for-all-time action that allows for no change in a person, and no mistake in the legal system,

2399. Novel on prophet's wife pulled for fear of backlash

Comment #227738 by Steve Zara on August 10, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Comment #227734 by decius

I have assumed that sufficient laws on inciting hatred already exist, and what matters is to stop being concerned about religious and cultural sensitivity and actually enforce these laws.

2400. Novel on prophet's wife pulled for fear of backlash

Comment #227729 by Steve Zara on August 10, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Comment #227725 by John Locke

I think the answer is good education, and teaching about liberal and democratic ideas. I think it is reasonable to be intolerant of those who won't allow children to be educated in such matters.