Comments by Steve Zara

1051. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208790 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 8:55 am

Can I therefore suggest that people write a letter as well as an e-mail? I think PZ is worth the price of a stamp, after all!

That is an excellent idea.

1052. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #208766 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 8:20 am

I think there may be a useful strategy against creationism, which is to show the kind of minds that supposedly educated creationists must have. They must be a combination of conspiracy theorist and egomaniac - "the whole scientific world is wrong about reality - they have all been fooled, and I know better". I think most people are decent, and will find this worldview repulsive. I mean, whatever most people know about science (which typically isn't very much), they will find the idea that some relatively ordinary bloke considers himself better than Einstein deeply worrying. I think there is a chance we can make people ashamed to be creationists. Einstein is a good scientist to mention, as he is thought of affectionately in the public consciousness - a fluffy and eccentric wild-haired scientist who changed our view of the universe (or in most people's thoughts, did clever stuff with atoms and space).

I think txpiper, with his confession, has done us a favour.

1053. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208722 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 7:19 am

Comment #208717 by Styrer- on July 11, 2008 at 7:14 am

For I have learned
To look on nature, not as in the hour
Of thoughtless youth; but hearing oftentimes
The still, sad music of humanity,
Nor harsh nor grating, though of ample power
To chasten and subdue.

Beautiful

But sometimes you must simply ignore it and kick ass!

Just watch out where you are kicking :)

1054. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208702 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 6:53 am

Fuck it. Why do I expect e-people to be any more comprehensible than ones standing in front of me.

Exactly!

Why people claim to know the mind of God when we can't know each others minds - Hell, we can't even know our own, is beyond me!

1055. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208693 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 6:43 am

Comment #208689 by Styrer-

I think there is a major and vital cause here.

What I am saying should not be engaged with are your comments when you insult fellow posters who are basically on the same side as you. Clod was putting his case in a civilized and polite way. He was faced with abuse. There are people who actually deserve such rants...

That is all.

Honest best wishes

Steve

1056. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208684 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 6:28 am

Bear in mind that the Tribunal has not said that she was completely justified in her stance. The reason she won was that her objections were not dealt with by fair procedures.

Fair point.

1057. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208681 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 6:24 am

Comment #208658 by clodhopper

Styrer isn't worth engaging with. Honestly.

He seems to think anyone who doesn't follow his full-on foul-mouthed view is some kind of traitor to "the cause". Personally, I think ire is better focussed at idiots like Donohue than people who are generally supportive, but don't quite think like yourself.

1058. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208645 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 5:43 am

Comment #208637 by hungarianelephant

I think you make a good point about terms being changed. However, I feel very unhappy about this.

Suppose a white person had taken on the role of registrar assuming she would only be dealing with white couples, and then a racist law was changed...

1059. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #208544 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 3:01 am

Comment #208540 by Peacebeuponme

Good points. Deism leaves science alone.

Also, I did indeed mean to imply that deism is problematic in its own right. The idea of a supernatural creator is just not sensible, whether or not he interferes.

1060. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208541 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 2:59 am

Comment #208538 by Roland_F

But good that the mailbox of the University president had to shut down based on overload.

Providing it is due to appropriate e-mails, and not some twits attacking the server. However, I am sure it is a welcome sign of support for PZ.

1061. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #208533 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 2:36 am

Comment #208526 by fides_et_ratio

I find it difficult to understand how Richard Dawkins, Susan Blackmore and others are ok with Deism, Susan even labels it the scientist's faith, yet can't comprehend that a creator could influence nature in a way they don't understand.

I'd put it the other way.

Because the whole concept of the supernatural is incoherent, I find it a bit odd to see such support for deism.

I think it is a small jump from deism to theism, which is why I think deism is problematic.

1062. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208501 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 1:48 am

Comment #208497 by irate_atheist

I have the greatest respect for your opinions.

You are right. I have no objection to things like people campaigning loudly in the street, what this guy did was lift-farting. There are better ways.

1063. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208490 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 1:38 am

That deliberately not eating a communion wafer is so much further up the scale that you will, without thought nor hint of preview rush to support PZ Myers when he comes under threat but spend your time beating around several bushes and an ornamental pond when it comes to a student being threatened with physical violence?

I just don't understand this. Perhaps it was because I assumed that threats of physical violence were so clearly dreadful it made little sense to emphasise that. Yes, they are awful and totally unacceptable. But that does not mean I have to support what the guy did. I support his right not to be threatened.

I don't agree with some of what PZ Myers writes, and sometimes I say so. But I support his right not to be threatened too.

Nothing but consistency... as I hope you can see.

I am criticising the double standards on display.

Before assuming double standards are on display, it is worth asking someone what they mean.

1064. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #208486 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 1:31 am

Comment #208480 by Brian English

Your strategy seems to me to be the only one that has any real effect (as I discuss on my "blog")

I'm just going through a stage where I find arguing with people who don't hold my beliefs as though they did seems wasteful.

Yes, I know the feeling, although experiencing the views of txpiper has made me realised I still have the ability to be seriously astonished.

1065. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #208476 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 1:21 am

Comment #208474 by Brian English

You have shown more wisdom about this than me, so I'll go for your strategy from now on.

I have achieved what I wanted with my strategy - to reveal the frightening mindset of supposedly educated creationists.

1066. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208472 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 1:17 am

Comment #208468 by Dr Doctor

Whereas not eating a cracker, instead taking it home with you is sufficient excuse to be subject to massive harassment?

Of course it isn't! Can you quote anyone here saying it was?

The amount of distortion going on here baffles me.

Look, it is like this.

Supposing someone walked into a packed lift and deliberately farted. And as a result got death threats.

The death threats are clearly awful. But does that make lift-farting a wonderful and praiseworthy thing? Don't people have a right not to be assailed by foul odours, irrespective of the death threats that were issued by some maniacs?

Can't people just be left alone?

1067. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208464 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 12:58 am

Comment #208456 by hopeful

I think what this is now about is: should a highly respected professor be subject to massive harassment because of what he writes on a blog? PZ Myers was not threatening anyone. He was simply ridiculing people. I think right now this really is about free speech. I think it is a wider issue than just religion.

1068. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208446 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 12:30 am

Comment #208438 by Styrer-

So why you question?

I have explained, but you will note that the emphasis on what was posted was on writing letters. Indeed, that is stressed on PZ's site too. If I was a university administrator, I would consider a stack of letters far more effective than 10,000 e-mails. Indeed, it may even be possible e-mails from people not within the USA may be considered a nuisance rather than effective. I didn't know what was appropriate, and so I asked. It seemed only good manners.

1069. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208434 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 12:12 am

I happened to see this on the Catholic League website

http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459

"The Myers blog can be accessed from the university's website. The university has a policy statement on this issue which says that the 'Contents of all electronic pages must be consistent with University of Minnesota policies, local, state and federal laws.' One of the school's policies, 'Code of Conduct,' says that 'When dealing with others,' faculty et al. must be 'respectful, fair and civil.'

This is quite insane.

Of course the Myers blog can be accessed from the university's website. That is the way the internet works. His blog isn't badged as part of the university.

(I can remember when an institution where I worked in the early 90s attempted a "no links to the outside world on your pages, it will make us look bad" policy)

1070. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #208425 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 11:59 pm

Comment #208423 by Brian English

I think we are onto something a bit different and more interesting here. This isn't someone who says "science is wrong" - this is someone who says "science is an appropriate way of looking at the world, and I am better at it than Einstein".

I was kind of hoping I could get through on the basis of religious beliefs. After all, Christianity is supposed to preach humility, and txpiper is clearly anything but humble.

I have been trying for some time to get a creationist to admit their astonishing arrogance, so I could point out the inconsistency.

1071. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208421 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 11:55 pm

I cannot believe that you really needed to ask such a question.

I have worked and lectured at a university. It is possible that correspondence from outside the area served by the university would be ignored. It may even seem like interference.

On the 'Goddamned Cracker' thread, you were one of the first to express anxiety about the way we all were or were not showing courteous, civilized behaviour towards those very fucking Catholic Cult members who have, because of a fucking biscuit, tried to rip a young man's life to fucking pieces.

No. All I said was that what Cook did was rude. I in no way made any excuses for the apalling over-reactions.

I believe in appropriate freedoms. Those freedoms should be for everyone, not just the people we like and agree with.

1072. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #208415 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 11:46 pm

txpiper-

So to answer your question, I value my opinion on things like this above those of the gentlemen and crowds you list because, if they believe that things like this are really possible, it's apparent that they never really thought about it. And I have.

At last. We have the truth.

Txpiper has thought about things in a way that Einstein never did, that Dawkins never has, that Watson and Crick didn't. He has thought about things in a way that Stephen Hawking never has.

So, you truly rank yourself as one of the greatest geniuses in the history of humanity.

Now come on, be honest. Do you really think that is likely? What is more likely - that all those people are wrong, or that you are?

1073. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208408 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 11:39 pm

Comment #208405 by Dr Doctor

You seem to have a strange idea of what is hypocritical.

I don't like to see people bullied. The fellow messing about with the wafer was being unecessarily rude and insulting in my view. And now, PZ is being attacked.

I dislike simplistic views, such as that when there is a disagreement like this only one side must be right, and one side wrong.

What matters is allowing people to get on in a peaceful and civilized way. To me that means allowing people to mess about with bread without being insulted the way Cook did, and also it means allowing the awesome Myers to continue to post unharassed.

Not wanting to drag the argument onto here but firstly I displayed a general garment that you seem to think is cut to fit.

Indeed. I saved you the bother of having to tailor the garment.

1074. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208402 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 11:26 pm

Comment #208396 by Dr Doctor

Very strange that some who were commenting on the previous thread showing irrational reverence for Catholics, their customs and their crackers (and indeed, even making the same facile point that was made to Prof. Myers) and now rushing to PZ's rescue.

How is it strange?

I will admit I am not always comfortable with some things that PZ Myers says, but I will strongly defend his right to say them. Myers not only posts with great intelligence and wit, he is also a superb educator. It would be a very bad day for rationalism if Myers was to suffer in his career because of this post.

I think there is consistency in defending the rights of some weird people not to have their holy bread messed about with and defending the right of Myers to post on Pharyngula while being at the University of Minnesota. It is about allowing people to be left alone in a civilized society.

1075. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208380 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 10:57 pm

E-mail sent.

1076. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208077 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Comment #208060 by Richard Dawkins

Would contributions from those of us who aren't in the USA help?

1077. Susskind Quashes Hawking in Quarrel Over Quantum Quandary

Comment #208041 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Comment #207970 by mordacious1

I haven't read anything where he has come up with a new theory.

Penrose has been promoting his twistor idea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twistor_theory
for more than 40 years.

1078. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #208006 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Comment #208003 by SRWB

Precisely, but that doesn't change the fact that IT IS ONLY A CRACKER (Joe Morselli taught me to yell like that):-) No amount of faith/belief/delusion is going to change that fact!

Nice to see that Joe has contributed something.

All I am trying to say here is that to persuade many Catholics that they are wrong is to sit them down with a nice cup of tea and say "it is all a bit silly, isn't it?". I suspect a considerable number would say, in confidence, "yes".

What isn't going to work is to run around yelling "I have jesus in my mouth and I am not going to swallow".

On the other hand, as I type that, I realise I am probably moving rapidly into dangerous territory.

1079. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #208004 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Comment #208000 by decius

I think the analogy works if one substitutes "elephant" for "camel". I suspect there are few camels in hungary.

1080. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207999 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Comment #207983 by Teratornis

Nobody focuses on all the evidence. The human brain is too weak for that. Thus everyone approaches reality in a kind of blind men and an elephant way, forming our impressions based on which part of the elephant we happen to feel.

I like this analogy.

The key thing is to realise this. I deal with so many religious people who think that their own brains are reliable, and that what they think is some hot-line to the truth.

Scientific rationalism is so effective because it allows us to combine forces to explore the elephant, and compare notes.

1081. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207997 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Comment #207885 by J.C. Samuelson

I can speak for only myself, but I am horrified at the reaction to what Cook did. However, that does not mean that what he did was right. One does not have to be fully on one side or the other.

What you need to understand is that PZ's comment about it only being a "goddamed cracker" is a logical fallacy called "begging the question". To us rational people, it is only a cracker. But you can't use that argument against the reaction to what Cook did, because those who reacted have yet to be convinced that it is only a cracker.

1082. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207966 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 10:57 am

Comment #207932 by Fanusi Khiyal

As others have said...

I don't always agree with you, but superb post!

1083. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207963 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 10:54 am

Comment #207940 by Vaal

Also, if you believe your book has all the answers to the universe, as you have asserted earlier, then please answer Calilasseia's question.

It is a good question. I have been thinking along similar lines because of having to deal with so many claims that religion is superior to science. A short while ago, in a quiet way, I announced the "Higgs Challenge", to mark the imminent start-up of the Large Hadron Collider:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/146017.html
This nice thing about this is that there is hopefully only a few months until we have an answer!

No takers yet, I am afraid.

1084. Susskind Quashes Hawking in Quarrel Over Quantum Quandary

Comment #207958 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 10:46 am

Comment #207951 by mordacious1

Nope. If you can convince Hawking, Penrose, etc. into cutting back, we can talk about it.

Hawking at least has spoken about singularities being almost certainly non-physical for a very long time.

As for Penrose, I quote from "The Road to Reality":

"it seems unavoidable that the realm of quantum gravity (or whatever is the appropriate term) will be entered, so that these expectations of the classical theory will have to be modified in accordance with this."

So, they are (I am pleased to say) on my side (I think).

I get an uncomfortable feeling when anyone says "the laws of physics break down" (as at singularities). The appropriate phrase should be "our understanding of physics at this point is incomplete".

1085. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207939 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 10:27 am

Comment #207878 by mordacious1

Most of the Catholic priests my family encountered in our Diocese were very pleasant fellows, who I am sure didn't believe much of what their religion said. I know for sure they held a very dim view of much of the teachings of the Vatican.

There was one fellow who used to turn up at a local church who had stronger views... a certain Cormac Murphy-O'Connor.

1086. Susskind Quashes Hawking in Quarrel Over Quantum Quandary

Comment #207868 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 8:33 am

A particular hobby horse of mine- could we cut back on talk of singularities? There is no point assuming that general relativity is correct to infinitesimal scales when we have quantum theory.

Singularities are mathematical constructs that appear in our models. They are almost certainly not physical.

1087. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207863 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 8:27 am

Comment #207820 by decius

I was a bit puzzled by fide's comment, I admit.

The only recent conversion I have was away from physical dualism, thanks primarily to MPhil.

1088. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207860 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 8:25 am

It's like Richard responding to Liberty University students when he was at Randolph-Macon Women's College - he made them look ridiculous and the rest of us learnt something. To use a dubious analogy, I'm speaking on behalf of the people in the audience who applauded, but didn't ask a question.

That was a particularly impressive set of responses, but I think part of what mattered was the tone. Richard did not rant, and did not get angry.

There is also some difference here, in that the trolls aren't asking questions, unlike the Liberty students - they are simply proclaiming what they insist is true.

There are ways to respond that don't make you seem like you have been provoked.

Of course, anyone can obviously respond as they like, and if that works for the readers, fine. I am just trying out some new ideas about how to deal with these people. I have seen major steps forward, such as the strategies proposed by Dr Benway, Epeeist and Brian English.

1089. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207780 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 7:06 am

Comment #207768 by decius

I have not the slightest worry about discussing this here.

It was more of a drift. I was an awkward child regarding the local church - I was once politely thrown out of our equivalent of a sunday school for asking too many questions. I also found masses incredibly tedious. Gradually, through my teens, I drifted into a vague "must be something out there" feeling, and Catholicism was as good a way of recognising that as anything. From then on, belief just sort of decayed away. It is hard to put a date on it - probably close to 25 years ago though.

I can honestly say that if I heard someone like Lennox saying that belief in all the miracles was reasonable in my teens, I may have held my belief a bit longer. It all seemed a bit like a fairytale to me, but if someone like that said it was OK...

1090. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207772 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 7:02 am

Some posters feel this is a pointless exercise as said trolls never bother to read the long responses properly and carry on with their creationist rants, and to a large extent, I agree with them. However, for someone like me, the scientifically detailed posts are both fascinating and educational, and I would very much hope that they continue.

Welcome!

The long posts are fascinating, but, and this is just my opinion (learned from experience), if targetted directly at the troll, they can actually be counterproductive. It can flatter the troll with attention, and seem like a sort of "taking the bait".

This is a humble suggestion, which I will follow as well. I would like to see what people think.

If you are going to respond in some detail to what a troll has posted, don't address it to the troll - post it as a calm educational piece to the thread. We all get to learn (which is one of the delights of this site), and the troll is ignored.

This is just an idea. I am curious as to what people think of it.

1091. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207765 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 6:55 am

Comment #207760 by Dr Doctor

My point was that if there was a dichotomy, it was a false one. I have no doubt that there isn't a dichotomy.

1092. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207738 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 6:29 am

Comment #207724 by MyName

The whole point is that the resurrection cannot be explained medically and therefore either it never happened or it did and God was behind it.

This is a false dichotomy.

There is at least a third option - something happened for which we don't know the cause.

There are other options. These may sound absurd, but have to be considered before God:

A hidden secret human culture had amazing medicine.

Little green men did it.

Or even: His body just randomly came back to life ("it was all a result of quantum" to put things in Pratchett terms). Even this is far, far, far more likely than an infinitely complex God did it.

My favourite is that there was no resurrection, but Jesus had an identical twin (or a similar-looking cousin?) who was involved in a plot to "create a messiah".

Of course, the real answer is without doubt that the whole thing was just made up.

1093. Susskind Quashes Hawking in Quarrel Over Quantum Quandary

Comment #207723 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 6:13 am

Hope all's well, I had wondered if all this religious enquiry had led you back down the Via Appia.

All is well, thanks. If you mean "back to Rome", quite the contrary. I would now consider myself probably an even more definite atheist than Richard Dawkins. I now believe that the concepts of "supernatural" and "God" don't really make sense, let alone stand up as something that can be investigated.

1094. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207712 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 5:57 am

Given that we all arise from sexual intercourse, this hardly needs stating explicitly ...

Love it!

Comment #207693 by Joe Morreale

The Big Bang proves scientifically that a Creator is responsable for the Universe as explosions in all other known cases never bring about Design/Order.

The Big Bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion of spacetime. The source of the order that followed afterwards is well known - inflation (creating a very smooth distribution of matter with minor fluctuations) followed by gravity. In an expanding universe (allowing more space for more entropy) combined with a long-range attractive force (gravity) you can get the formation of ordered systems.

The advantage of posting on a site like this is that you can get answers.

I am not posting that because you will understand. I am posting it because what you have said in this case is wrong, and you would not want to be caught lying in future would you?

1095. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #207572 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 2:57 am

txpiper-

I have no idea.

I thought not.

There is no reasonable answer, just like you don't have one for how all the matter and energy in the universe was supposedly compacted to the size of a nucleus of an atom before the big bang.

It wasn't actually. It was FAR, FAR smaller than that.

Actually, you are completely right here. We don't know. Do you know what that means? It means we aren't in a position to say "God did it".

And, as you now, finally admit, neither are you.

Unless you can say how it happened, you can't make the connection to God.

Your saying that if it can last a million, then 68 million is not a problem. I shouldn't have to point out that the further out you go, the more unrealistic it gets, and vice-versa. In other words, lasting thousands of years is plausible and lasting millions of years is not.

You just don't get it. You are asking us to reject millions of pieces of evidence based on this one. For that to be the case, you would have to definitely limit the time organic material to within 6000 years or so.

As soon as it is allowed to extend past 6000 years or so, your entire justification for using it to back your idea fails completely. This isn't about evolution being right - it is about you being clearly wrong.

I am hardly alone in my opinion. There are lots of bright folks who do not accept the establishment paradigm.

No, you really are virtually alone. Even if hundreds agree with you, it barely registers against the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of scientists who don't.

And there are committed evolutionists whose assessment is much more candid than yours, like this guy in a recent article I posted the link to not long ago:

You aren't answering the question. You can't just cherry pick views to suit your theory, unless you are yourself a trained scientist with a good publication record.

So, please answer the question:

I want to know why you consider that your opinion should be rated above those of Einstein, Dawkins, Watson, Crick, Hawking and hundreds of thousands of others.

1096. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207561 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 2:47 am

Comment #207559 by decius

The author defines "concern trolling" as "offering a poisoned apple in the form of advice to political opponents that, if taken, would harm the recipient.

That is really interesting. I am probably showing my naivety, but I had never thought if it like that.

1097. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207541 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 2:21 am

J. Anderson

I am not sure what particular posts you are talking about, but something that has surely become apparent in recent years (certainly after 9/11) is that theistic views can be dangerous. This is not a debate about some abstract philosophical point, or a scientific theory. This really matters. Lennox is basically saying he supports a belief in magic and a personal God. That is a real problem, as it empowers people to pick particular moral and ethical views and claim, without what we would accept as evidence, that those views are what is intended by the creator.

We can see the nastiness that can result from that in the current on-going split in the Anglican church, where prejudice against women and homosexuals is being backed by religious views. The justification? When it comes down to it, nothing more than "no, what the Holy Spirit tells ME is right!"

1098. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207515 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 1:41 am

Comment #207397 by BillySands

That was one of the most interesting videos on evolution on YouTube (and similar sites) I have ever seen.

It is simply irrefutable.

The common genes between species could be dismissed as God "re-using the same parts", but having the same useless viral DNA is a different matter.

1099. Susskind Quashes Hawking in Quarrel Over Quantum Quandary

Comment #207513 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 1:38 am

Comment #207511 by mordacious1

I don't really consider it beautiful. It doesn't to me have the "feel" of what a truly fundamental theory should be like. I doesn't get right down to the ultimate questions of, for example, why is there uncertainty in the universe? A string, or brane, with properties such as tension does not have a truly fundamental "feel" to me.

The kind of theory that does have that feel (although it is almost certainly wrong) is that of Mark Hadley, in which particles are knots in spacetime. The looping of time is the thing that gives rise to quantum uncertainty.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg15721245.200-all-the-worlds-a-time-machine--imagine-that-there-are-loops-in-spacetime-and-that-the-future-caninfluence-the-past-marcus-chown-meets-a-physicist-who-is-convinced-thatthis-is-exactly-how-the-universe-works.html

That is the kind of theory that I would like to see: It gives some idea of why there is quantum mechanics at all.

1100. Susskind Quashes Hawking in Quarrel Over Quantum Quandary

Comment #207501 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 12:33 am

Comment #207496 by YssiBoo

The problem with string theory (as I understand it via Lee Smolin) is that it is a background dependent theory; the outcome of it depends on which background space you put it in.

I have read Roger Penrose make the same point.

Regarding the Smolin quote:

while others hope that M-theory, or a non-perturbative treatment of string theory (such as string field theory) will turn out to be background-independent,

That is another problem with String Theory - it is based on a lot of hope, rather than success.