Comments by Steve Zara

1301. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206074 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 4:41 am

The deer example is true for all species. In any population, natural selection only eliminates those weak, or unsuited individuals who are unable to adapt to the natural conditions in their habitat. It does not produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs. That is, it cannot cause anything to evolve.

Wrong. We not only know that new genetic information can be added, and new species appear, we have actually seen this happen:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/118526.html

Next point please...

1302. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206047 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 3:46 am

There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.

Yes there is. One such process is called natural selection. We can actually see that make information all the time.

1303. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #206010 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 2:57 am

Oh, and the other planets in the solar system have been warming up... I kinda don't think that our CO2 production has been screwing with them, so there is something else going on.

This statement alone shows that you have not researched this in any detail, and just aren't qualified to comment.

Both CO2 and temperature have been much higher in the past and didn't cause a catostrophic tipping point like the AGW believers would like you to think.

Oh yes it did. There were periods in the past when the Earth was much hotter. There was a recent article about this in New Scientist a few weeks ago.

1304. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205680 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Comment #205677 by Barry Pearson

That is a good point. I had taken Dr Benway's argument beyond it's appropriate use. I shall need to think more about what it applies to.

1305. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205668 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Comment #205659 by Dane

I was just quoting Brian Sussman.

Picking your favourite scientist is not an acceptable strategy:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/118625.html

Unless you happen to be a highly qualified scientist.

1306. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205666 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Comment #205649 by Dane

MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest moon
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html

You silly person. Do you understand anything about the outer solar system?

From the article you quote:
"The moon is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years. During this special time, the moon's southern hemisphere receives more direct sunlight."

We are seeing global warming changes on a timescale of decades, not centuries. There is no evidence that solar radiation has changed much if at all on that timescale.

1307. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205657 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Comment #205649 by Dane

Michael Chrichton is a science fiction writer. He isn't even a particularly good science fiction writer. To be honest, I reached the final chapter of his sci-fi thriller "Prey" and I found it so absurd I was splitting my sides with laughter as I read it.

I believe Delia Smith is quite good at cookery. That involves heat. Perhaps we should ask her views of global warming?

Patrick Stewart is a good actor. Perhaps we should ask his views?

Michael Schumacher is a good racing driver - why not ask him?

Tell you what - why don't we ask the scientists who actually work on the subject?

1308. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205641 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Comment #205617 by locri

There is a process for filtering out denialists that was described by Dr Benway on her excellect blog:
http://tuftedtitmouse.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-listen-to-experts-when-you-can.html

I put to you this challenge. Please could you summarise briefly all current ideas about global warming, and the theories behind them.

If you can't then we are permitted to label you a denialist crank.

1309. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205601 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Comment #205596 by Dane

Good point phil.

I am astonished at the number of people who are posting at this site and calling themselves sceptic and agnostic. This is robust and well-established science.

1310. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205594 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 1:47 pm

I have to say I'm very cynical about this climate change business...in the 1970s the same people were claiming that an ice age was being brought on by human activity.

This is nonsense. There was discussion of an ice age in the 70s, but not by reputable scientists, and no-one ever claimed it was being brought on by human activity.

1311. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205592 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Not to be a party pooper, but the levels of CO2 measured in the past (via ice core samples) have been determined to have an average of an 800 year lag after temperature at high resolutions of the timescale. Therefore, in the past CO2 has decidedly NOT caused warming.

No, that conclusion does not follow.

In the past, there have been solar cycles that have driven climate change. There have been temperature increases due to such things as the change of the Earth's inclinations. CO2 changes may have followed that as animal life has increased as a result of the temperature, and there is a lag before plant life deals with that CO2 increase.

That is not the situation we are dealing with now.

Therefore, in the past CO2 has decidedly NOT caused warming

There is no justification for this statement.

Also, if you look at the temperature trends of the last bit, there hasn't been a lot of warming despite the increases in CO2.

This is to misunderstand thermodynamics.

CO2 isn't about temperature increase. It is about heat capture. I have written about this here:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/131530.html

You only end up with major heat increase once the heat sinks have been saturated, and then you are in real trouble.

1312. Churches' secret talks to stop gay surge

Comment #205570 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 1:09 pm

The evidence of late seems to be that people are being increasingly drawn to the churches that offer the most certainty, the least tolerance.

I agree. I think this is why anything we can do to expose the extreme views and intolerance of these churches is important. One minor contribution I make is to confront the awful David Roberston and ask his views about evolution. I think people like him will increasingly rely on fundamentalists for their power and influence.

1313. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #205558 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Comment #205531 by Quine

Oh dear. You realise I am going to have to both link to you from my blog, because of the quality of your posts and comments, and also, I suspect, argue ferociously on your blog?

Comment #205378 by decius

Vaal, I am not sure what radiation you are talking about

Jupiter's magnetic field is very strong. It captures particles from the solar wind and accelerates them. Just about everything within the Jovian system experiences significant radiation.

1314. Churches' secret talks to stop gay surge

Comment #205542 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 12:36 pm

If there weren't any bigoted, homophobic, misogynistic churches out there as alternatives then people's prejudices in these directions would quickly melt away

This is what concerns me about splits in the Anglican church - it makes some of the nastier alternatives seem more respectable.

1315. Churches' secret talks to stop gay surge

Comment #205522 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Comment #205516 by Cartomancer

believers can pick and choose which church they think has got it right.

Precisely.

The church they think has got it right.

The church that feels most comfortable given their prejudices.

I find that actually pretty scary. It is like having a supermarket for beliefs. Pick whatever suits you, and then claim that these beliefs are eternal verities.

That is the real wickedness of religion. Whatever hangups or prejudices you have, you can find someone who will tell you that they aren't hangups or prejudices, but God's will. And these people, and you, can't be called cranks, because it is religion.

1316. Churches' secret talks to stop gay surge

Comment #205511 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 11:54 am

Comment #205507 by Paula Kirby and
Comment #205509 by Cartomancer

What I find even more astonishing than that so many women are against women priests and bishops is the reaction of some of them (such as the previously mentioned Anne Widdecombe) to such changes.

They effectively switch to another religion, by changing from Anglican to Catholic.

This is desperately tragi-comic. These people believe that God defines what is moral, but then when the instituion they have accepted as the route to God's word disagrees with them, they consider that the institution is wrong, not them! Their direct line to God puts them above any number of bishops and archbishops.

Honestly, I don't know whether to laugh at the absurdity of people or cry at their stupidity and arrogance.

1317. Churches' secret talks to stop gay surge

Comment #205504 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 11:38 am

Comment #205492 by Cartomancer

Sorry my dear fellow, but you are just so out of date. The new hot gay things are Sam Sparro:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/119849.html

and The Feeling:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/123076.html

I am sure the lead singer of The Feeling, Dan Gillespie Sells, will meet with your approval.

1318. Churches' secret talks to stop gay surge

Comment #205503 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 11:32 am

Paula-

The thing that is totally beyond me is the number of women who are against women bishops.

1319. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205500 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 11:29 am

Just as an additional note, drastically reducing emissions is not necessarily a less risky option, because it effectively means that billions of people will starve. Except to the extent that we can do it by a switch to alternative energy.

Or nuclear.

Btw, surprised to hear that it looks like natural phenomena aren't in play. Do you have any recommended reading on that?

If you look up the most recent findings on solar variation (the only significant natural effect), you'll see it has hardly changed in decades.

I consider myself a pretty moderate fellow, but I have been deeply worried about climate change, as a result of researching what has happened when CO2 has risen to similar levels in the past. If it rises too fast (as it is now), we could get massive ocean acidification (already happening) which could lead to areas of the sea becoming anoxic, and that would result in toxic hydrogen sulphide release. A fast rise in temperature could also result in rapid release of methane from hydrates, which would boost the rise even more. A mass release of methane could reduce much of the land mass to desert. I think we have at most a few decades to do something drastic (at least 80% reduction in CO2 production), otherwise we could be in for a disaster that could make the black death in the Middle Ages look trivial.

1320. Origin of the Novel Species Noodleous doubleous: Evidence for Intelligent Design

Comment #205461 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 9:55 am

What amazes me are pasta shells. What are they shells for?

1321. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205459 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 9:53 am

This makes even more sense when you factor in the notion that climate change may be partly attributable to natural phenomena.

I think it works the other way around. If the warming is partly due to natural phenomena (which looks like it isn't the case), then the vast amounts of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere have barely started to work, and we are in even more serious trouble.

1322. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205431 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 9:09 am

Comment #205428 by Quetzalcoatl

I agree. There is also a danger that if people believe we can fix things at some point in the future by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, they will not bother to do anything.

1323. Churches' secret talks to stop gay surge

Comment #205423 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 9:01 am

I wonder what a "surge" is? Perhaps it is the collective noun for a group of gay men at a concert and how they react when Take That come on stage...

Does that date me, or what?

1324. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205421 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 8:59 am

We haven't got the technology to correct what's already up in the atmosphere working away.

There have been suggestions... artificial "trees" that sequester CO2, or adding iron to certain areas of the oceans to increase growth of organisms that fix carbon.

1325. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205408 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 8:44 am

Comment #205391 by hungarianelephant

Good post.

Being skeptical about what action to take on climate change is quite a different matter. That seems to me to be reasonable. I haven't a clue what will work.

1326. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205371 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 7:42 am

Besides, what's wrong with being skeptical?

I am going to be provocative. But that is fun, so why not?

I see a similar kind of mindset with climate change deniers as with creationists. It is just a matter of degree. Both mindsets involve a denial of the opinion of the majority of those who have been researching this area. Creationists sometimes say "scientists are dogmatic and corrupt". Climate change deniers say "scientists are exaggerating".

I have just noticed that Buddha has made the same point, but I feel it is worth standing up to be counted about this.

I am happy for someone to say they are a climate change denier or sceptic if they can show me a substantial publication record in peer-reviewed journals on the subject. The same with those sceptical of natural selection.

But if not....

1327. Churches' secret talks to stop gay surge

Comment #205363 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 7:35 am

"Clearly the ordination of women as bishops would divide the Church of England even more fundamentally than the ordination of women as priests," the letter stated.

How repulsive. The ordination of women priests was about whether or not women had a tole in the church. The ordination of women as bishops is surely about whether or not women are fundamentally inferior.

1328. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #205352 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 6:59 am

Comment #205351 by Oystein Elgaroy

I find the "typical observer" argument interesting. After all, I'm not a typical observer - for one thing, I'm not Chinese (there are far more of them than English).

Even if I was Chinese, there is an argument that I'm not a typical observer, as I am not a beetle, or a bacterium....

I understand why this argument has to be used though.

1329. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #205349 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 6:34 am

Comment #205340 by Oystein Elgaroy

The cosmological constant does not affect "details" like the lifetime of stars and element abundances, but other parameters like the amplitude of primordial density perturbations should be allowed to vary at the same time.

I guess the question is whether or not the variation of the parameters is somehow linked in a way that will give a higher proportion of "inhabitable" universe?

Just having skimmed the discussion of that paper, I did find it a bit anthropic:

"the key feature of the anthropic selection effects is not what the rock-solid extreme limits are on a parameter, but which is the most favourable value for producing observers."

Perhaps its just me, but that seems just a touch question-begging, as what I am interested in is whether or not observers could actually exist for certain parameter values.

On the other hand, when I think about this too much, my brain feels like it is melting.

Comment #205344 by epeeist

Are we jut tiptoeing around the fact that the words "fine tuning" are almost like pheromones to theists? Are we expecting a whole cloud of them with their plaintive cries of "strong anthropic principle" and "teleology"?

I think the problem is that we tend to use words that sound like we imply intent, even when we don't.

1330. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #205339 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 6:03 am

Comment #205336 by decius

Not for me, at least not with my issues on fine tuning.

I think, as you say, we are dealing with different meanings of the term "fine tuning". My meaning implies that the universe may be an unlikely (or rare) combination of parameter values that allows for any physical complexity at all. My feeling is that the question of the unlikeliness of the values of the parameters is a real one, and there is a real answer - I suspect a multiverse answer, or at least a "multi regional" answer in which different areas of a very large (perhaps infinite) universe have different values of the parameters.

It would be nice if there was a more established model of how the parameter values arise, so at least we wouldn't have infinite variability. String Theory, from what I know, seems to suggest "only" 10^500 or so possible different universes. That is a start, if it is true!

1331. The Boundaries of Belief

Comment #205332 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 5:36 am

Comment #205331 by ghost9

I don't understand this well myself. The best I can do is point you here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Compatibilism

tho have read some quantum folks say if the overall equations could be worked out...they would allow only 1 choice ...so sort of like math/physics/cosmology presesdination....

I don't think that is true in general. There have been some ideas that underneath QM there is a deterministic mechanism, but that is not widely held at all as I understand things.

1332. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #205330 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 5:30 am

Comment #205320 by decius

I agree with you, PZ and Matzke on the continuity between abiogenesis and evolution, but I see it as a separate problem.

I think it is pretty close in the context I was mentioning it - an attempt, albeit sometimes unconsciously and in a well-meaning way, to render a question meaningless because it is a question asked by the religious.

My view is that until we know that the situations which allow complexity are common, it isn't sophistry. It is an interesting matter to investigate.

It has already been shown in computer simulations that huge tweaks of the physical constants would -in most cases - still originate population II stars and early galaxies.

Depends which constants. I am particularly interested in the cosmological constant. It makes little sense to say that it is fine to tweak 3 or 4 constants up and down a few orders of magnitude (even if they relate to each other, so the tweaking is restricted) if over 99.99999...% of a hypothetical range of another constant, no physical structures can exist.

(Of course, there is the question of what "hypothetical range" means, and if it makes any sense)

1333. The Boundaries of Belief

Comment #205309 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 3:41 am

Comment #205306 by ~manic-depressive

Hard to express that clearly.

It certainly is!

I understand what you are saying ... it is that the kind of free will that religions invoke... that some transcendent non-physical mind can somehow "choose" what to do, and change our brain states, is sheer nonsense.

Also, no need to apologise. We post here, and we debate, and we all learn things. I certainly have.

1334. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #205308 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 3:37 am

Comment #205302 by decius

We are probably differing on semantics, I fear.

Almost certainly.

My concern is that we can become cowed by the fear of encouraging the religious. PZ Myers has written occasionally about this. For example, we try and put what may be a false barrier between abiogenesis and evolution because we can't yet explain abiogenesis in detail, and so we don't want evolution to look flawed. (As Nick Matzke writes:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-critics-of.html
Evolution and abiogenesis are all part of the same process).

My opinion is that people (sorry, I don't have links to actual examples) sometimes attempt to try and convince ourselves that the universe is hostile to life because then there is nothing to explain, not even in terms of physics.

1335. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #205304 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 3:31 am

Comment #205300 by Roland_F

So this whole setting is a very strong argument against a designer

I agree. But that isn't what I am trying to say. What I am arguing against is the view that the universe is hostile to life or intelligence.

I think the universe looks like a pretty good place, not just for life to appear (I suspect we will find it turns up all over the place), but for intelligent life to act like scientists. There is much for us to see and explore.

I have not the slightest doubt that this has all arisen purely naturally, but while there is the possibility that the physical constants could have been different, with, say, different values of the charge on the electron or the strength of gravity, and knowing that it is likely that for some ranges of those values (the controversy is about whether it is just a proportion of the values, or virtually all values) there would have been no kind of complexity at all (such as either just some universal black hole, or expansion happening so fast that not even atoms can form), then there is at least an interesting question to be asked, which should not be waved away as anthropocentric.

1336. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205299 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 3:19 am

Comment #205247 by jonjermey

I don't want a balanced view on climate change. I want the correct one. Scientific truth isn't like politics. Some views are simply wrong.

1337. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #205296 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 3:14 am

Comment #205294 by decius

I disagree.

It is no more anthropocentric than to research how humans evolved.

It would not be appropriate for a biologist to pick up an interesting skull of a human ancestor and just say "no point worrying about where this came from, that is just anthropocentric - after all, we had to have evolved from something".

As you may be able to tell, I feel quite strongly about this. I think we may be being too defensive because of the views of the religious.

1338. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #205292 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 2:56 am

Comment #205291 by Roland_F

Favourable to life in some very small areas of space and 99.9999999999999% of the universe are very hostile to (human) life.

No. This is the kind of argument I am actually arguing against. It makes little sense, at least to me. It sounds like saying that the Earth is very hostile to human life because we can't live at the molten core.

One way I like to look at things is as if the universe is analogous to the Mandelbrot Set. Simple rules produce vast complexity, but only over a small area of the possible values of x and y. But, no-one would say that the Mandelbrot Set is "hostile to complexity".

1339. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #205285 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 2:37 am

Comment #205281 by Roland_F

That isn't the point I am trying to make. The general theme I was picking up from epeeist's post and others was that the the universe is generally hostile to life, and there is nothing much to explain. This may not be what they intended, but I think things could be read that way.

I think the universe as a whole looks very favourable to life, and even to intelligent life. I am not, of course, saying it was designed though.

1340. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #205273 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 2:15 am

The "perfect universe designed for humans" idea is a nonsense when we are restricted to a small set of areas in an almost two dimensional layer of a single small planet.

I don't think things are that simple. I am just a bit concerned that by trying to dismiss the fine-tuning argument for God, we miss the fact that there is probably some interesting stuff to explain about the nature of the universe.

The universe does not have to be 100% suitable for life in order to appear to be designed for life. Supernovae are hostile, but are necessary to produce heavy elements. Space is big and empty, but necessary to keep us distant from supernovae etc.

Clearly I am not suggesting design, but I am very cautious about trying to "define away" the questions about the constants of the universe. It seems to me to be like trying to avoid interesting questions of human evolution by saying that "evolution had to produce something".

Not that I think you are doing this.

1341. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #205260 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 1:19 am

Oystein-

This is why a blog from you would be valuable - so resources like links to papers could be easily accessed. (In other words, because people like me are lazy) Also, you explain things so clearly.

1342. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #205253 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 12:46 am

In addition, British physicist Paul Davies calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars-which are necessary for planets and therefore life- is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeroes.

I know of Paul Davies work, and I have never heard of that figure.

How about calculating the chance of initial conditions being suitable for the spontaneous appearance of a deity of infinite complexity and power?

Whatever figure you can mention, it is going to be more.

1343. The Boundaries of Belief

Comment #205131 by Steve Zara on July 6, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Comment #205129 by ~manic-depressive

(It rather amazes me that there are atheists that still believe in the fiction of freewill; I suppose we all have our delusions.)

I don't think that this is a helpful statement. It suggests that you personally feel that a deep philosophical question has finally been closed.

Incidentally, Dennett believes we do have free will, of a kind called "Compatibilism".

1344. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #205128 by Steve Zara on July 6, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Also this whole issue of negative energy and Steve Zara's story about Gamow, Einstein and the star popping out of nowhere has made the questions raised about the safety of the LHC seem much more vivid.

There is nothing to worry about. Just because the mass energy and gravitational energy of a star cancel out does not mean that stars are popping into existence out of empty space. You have to have a mechanism for this to happen, and there isn't one. There are various conservation laws for particles, which is why you can't create an electron by itself - you get a positron too.

1345. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #205103 by Steve Zara on July 6, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Comment #205101 by Oystein Elgaroy

The lack of a Big Crunch isn't a problem for Tipler. Apparently we can make it happen using baryon annihilation.

1346. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #205097 by Steve Zara on July 6, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Comment #205090 by decius

I can't remember where I read the criticism of the idea of the Omega Point that it would be a permanent battle to successfully use the energy resources at the time of the Big Crunch required by the idea. Just one slip, and the project fails. I thought this criticism was from Deutsch, but I could be wrong.

1347. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #205088 by Steve Zara on July 6, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Comment #205086 by decius

I thought that Deutsch was against Tipler's ideas. My understanding is that he has shown that Tiper's physics to do with the Omega Point are seriously flawed.

1348. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #205080 by Steve Zara on July 6, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Comment #205076 by Oystein Elgaroy

Noooo! I was really hoping no-one would mention Frank!

Comment #205072 by Quetzalcoatl

Time Lords aren't born - they are manufactured. They probably had the original data from which the Master was made - something like the records from the Star Trek transporter pattern buffer.

1349. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #205078 by Steve Zara on July 6, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Comment #205074 by decius

You know, there is a very simple alternative explanation even if reports of the apparent resurrection were true.

Jesus had a twin brother, who was kept hidden. On Jesus' death, the brother was injured just enough to make it seem like he had been through the same ordeal, and was told what to do and say.

There you go. That seems a lot more plausible than magic to me.

1350. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #205075 by Steve Zara on July 6, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Yes, of course, many Muslims don't know what it is they are advocating. At least, I don't think they do. That doesn't change the nature of the advocacy though. Even if they do not know it, they are, in fact and in reality, supporting murder.

You post useful information. I will need to research this much further before commenting again.