Comments by Steve Zara

Comment #266063 by Steve Zara on October 17, 2008 at 10:23 pm

Comment #266056 by Laurie Fraser

It is also the most tension-producing sport.

Sorry mate, but you have to be kidding! There is no way you can compare the tension in cricket to watching a Lance Armstrong uphill sprint to the finish line in the Tour de France. Those cyclists don't stop for tea.

1852. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #266059 by Steve Zara on October 17, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Comment #266052 by root2squared

Unfortunately, it was not my words. I don't know the original source.

1853. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #266054 by Steve Zara on October 17, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Comment #266051 by DarwinsPitbull

Cricket can't be explained. The rules make as much sense as Sarah Palin's ethics. There is more inning and outing than at the men's restroom at a Republican convention.

1854. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #266048 by Steve Zara on October 17, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Comment #266046 by DarwinsPitbull

The aim of cricket is to get to "Mornington Crescent". The rules are as follows:

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side thats been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.

1855. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #266045 by Steve Zara on October 17, 2008 at 10:06 pm

Comment #266044 by Laurie Fraser

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxoMhIGKqB0

1856. From Science Fiction to Science Fact

Comment #265890 by Steve Zara on October 17, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Comment #265883 by ggab7768

I disagree. I think Kaku does harm to popularising science because he doesn't popularise facts, but wild ideas that bear no relation to real science, and the limits of our current understanding.

As I have posted before, New Scientist magazine has published an article which implies that the kind of books that Kaku writes as "Science Porn". I think that is accurate.

I think Kaku goes against the tradition of writers like Dawkins, who try and educate people about the wonders of the real world, not their own personal fantasies.

1857. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #265843 by Steve Zara on October 17, 2008 at 11:18 am

Comment #265842 by decius

Get a flat-mate or find someone willing to share the burden, first.

The burden of dealing with a young labrador was one of the motivations for my now husband to ask me to live with him. As soon as I moved in, I understood why.

1858. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #265836 by Steve Zara on October 17, 2008 at 11:00 am

Comment #265811 by Gregg Townsend

My sympathies.

1859. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #265835 by Steve Zara on October 17, 2008 at 10:56 am

Comment #265778 by J.C. Samuelson

I agree with you. It is necessary to understand the Framer's intentions in order to correctly interpret the Constitution, but I would suggest that is primarily so we know what we are currently dealing with. You can't appropriately amend something unless you know what you are amending.

I think the Constitution is an amazing document, and one of the most important in history.

1860. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #265706 by Steve Zara on October 17, 2008 at 8:16 am

Comment #265700 by epeeist

I think what we are seeing is bluster fuelled by terror, or at least fear.

The following post was my "ah ah!" moment:

Comment #265656 by daabbah

I cannot make my peace with the randomness doctrine; I cannot abide the notion of purposelessness and blind chance in nature. And yet I do not know what to put in its place for the quieting of my mind.

No matter if this was wrongly quote mined - the fear of evolution being presented in the post is pretty clear.

You may be right, this may require something like de-programming or therapy to overcome in these indviduals - we may be seeing a "science phobia".

I am just thinking that "what are you afraid of?" may be an interesting addition to our armoury. We may even get an honest answer sometime!

1861. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #265699 by Steve Zara on October 17, 2008 at 8:08 am

Comment #265377 by Shane McKee

The laws of thermodynamics are scrupulously obeyed.

People like Lennox often forget a vital fact about the state of the universe. It isn't at equilibrium, and its expansion means it probably never will be. In systems far from equilibrium, information (related to complexity) can be spontaneously created, and is probably inevitable. There is no breach of the laws of thermodynamics at all.

Lennox, like many other theologians, is trivially wrong.

1862. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #265695 by Steve Zara on October 17, 2008 at 8:02 am

Comment #265689 by J.C. Samuelson

I am not quite sure what they are afraid of. Citizens of nations which have welfare systems seem pretty happy, usually. There is much that is present in modern America that is beyond the intent of the Framers of the Constitution. I don't see why the opinion of the Framers is a rational argument for or against a particular policy. Constitutions have to serve the needs of the current population - their historical purpose should not be that relevant.

1863. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #265690 by Steve Zara on October 17, 2008 at 7:54 am

I think there is something quite revealing in the reactions of the recent Yahya supporters. Perhaps it explains the passion with which they hold their positions. It is based on fear. They seem to have a terror that if evolution is shown to have happened, their whole worldview will crumble to nothing. I think that fear is understandable. I wonder how we can deal with it?

1864. The Joke's on Him: Bill Maher could use a lesson in civility from Michael Moore

Comment #265686 by Steve Zara on October 17, 2008 at 7:49 am

I am not Maher's greatest fan, but I am now very keen to see the film. This is a pretty compelling review.

If Maher is boorish to individuals who publically spout religious nonsense, then good for him!

If this embarasses people like Podhoretz, because he is apparently dealing with abstractions rather than reality, then it is valuable, because perhaps it might encourage Podhoretz and others to tell us exactly which bits of their religion aren't abstract, and why they believe it. A rational defense of a faith position would be fascinating to read.

1865. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #265665 by Steve Zara on October 17, 2008 at 7:16 am

Comment #265664 by daabbah

You are a coward. You can't defend your position other than to say you are scared of evolution.

1866. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #265662 by Steve Zara on October 17, 2008 at 7:14 am

Comment #265651 by daabbah

How do you define evolution, in your own words?

I cannot make my peace with the randomness doctrine; I cannot abide the notion of purposelessness and blind chance in nature. And yet I do not know what to put in its place for the quieting of my mind.

Well hard luck. Deal with it. Reality does not change just because you find it uncomfortable.

1867. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #265652 by Steve Zara on October 17, 2008 at 7:08 am

J.C.-

I don't think anyone rejects the idea of a "safety net," or the idea of helping people succeed.

I have come across people who identify as libertarians who do reject that.

However, I agree that very few people do reject that idea. What I find both odd, and amusing is the way DP wishes to distance himself from the term "Social Security", when what you have described is .... Social Security (at least as I understand the term).

1868. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #265530 by Steve Zara on October 17, 2008 at 1:18 am

Comment #265426 by DarwinsPitbull

I have to apologise. I am using tools called "dictionaries" and "encyclopaedias" to determine the meaning of phrases, so you can see how I have a problem with the term "Social Security". You see, I seem to be under the mistaken impression it is giving support to people who are unable to support themselves, you know, like people who would otherwise starve because they can't find work. But as you support that, but not Social Security, I am clearly wrong.

Please do tell me what your Palin-land definition of it is, so I can understand why you reject it.

By the way, if you really want Obama defeated, the way to do it is with Kryptonite:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/3213768/US-elections-Barack-Obama-jokes-he-is-Superman.html

1869. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #265516 by Steve Zara on October 17, 2008 at 12:31 am

Comment #265509 by epeeist

The guy is a fucking nutter - I really can't see why anyone believes what he is saying.

And he is given credibility by being interviewed by Andrew Marr.

1870. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #265419 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Comment #265398 by DarwinsPitbull

No I have stay consistent. Read all my posts and you will see that.

You have not been consistent at all. In one post you say that you reject Social Security because it isn't in the consitution, but in later posts you not only accept that we need a government-funded fire service (a form of welfare which is not in the constition), but you explicitly state that you support government funds for people who, because of circumstances, can't work. That is Social Security.

The only thing you have been consistent about is the use of alternate-reality Sarah Palin anti-logic.

1871. The Retirement of Richard Dawkins: Reflections on a Stewardship

Comment #265409 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Comment #265378 by RainDear

But for example, nobody has managed to, or even shown any willingness to explain anything about the difficult world of particle physics to the general public.

I think you are wrong about this. There have been many recent documentaries about the LHC, and what it is about, some hosted by the excellent Brian Cox.

Because too many scientists think the rest of the society should just fund their research and fuck off.

Perhaps, but I think they may be justified. Getting research funding is extremely hard, and takes up much of the time of skilled and experienced scientists. They spend so much time attempting to defend their research projects to the funding bodies, that they have little time or enthusiasm for attempting to explain their work to the general public. They spend all their time defending their jobs to their peers.

Some people criticise Richard Dawkins because he has not spent much time recently in research, so he isn't a "real" scientist. But, what he does is extremely valuable. He has raised the public profile of science and scientists to the point where it is now a public issue like it has not been for a very long time. I think there was little hope of significantly raising public understanding of science, but Richard has raised the public profile of science, and the public appreciation and respect for science. Richard has helped make science "cool", and a regular part of religious and political debate. If you look at the most active news sites in the world (such as Digg and Reddit), "atheism" and its links with science are major topics. By pitching science as a weapon against the oppression of religion, Richard has changed so much.

1872. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #265293 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 11:30 am

Comment #265283 by DarwinsPitbull

Hey... let them die horribly, I say. What do we care? I mean, people who starve to death because they insist on not working are clearly sane and can make free choices.

1873. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #265279 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 11:00 am

Comment #265277 by DarwinsPitbull

Its their choice in this country if they starve to death.

Indeed. Suicide is everyone's right. Suicide by starving is a pretty nasty way to go, but I guess that is up to the individual.

And, after all, allowing those who wish to die horribly to do so will reduce the burden of mental heath care, don't you think?

1874. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #265269 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 10:36 am

Comment #265177 by scottishgeologist

Thanks for the "fundie nutter" link. It is unintentionally truly hilarious, and includes:

For example, the peacock's tail did not evolve to please hen birds; hens don't notice them much.

1875. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #265264 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 10:20 am

Comment #265258 by TurkishAtheist

I agree. I think it is indeed beyond stupidity. As Richard Dawkins pointed out, preparing the picture for publication would not be trivial. The fish hook would not have been missed.

I think Yahya must be some kind of comedian. He is doing a sort of Borat - acting absurd to see if he can draw out the nutters. Or perhaps he has forgotten it is only an act.

1876. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #265261 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 10:16 am

Comment #265255 by DarwinsPitbull

You are trying to get out of the shame of being a Social Security supporter by trying to claim it is about supporting people who are able to work, and has the opportunity to work, but refuse to.

It isn't.

Sorry, but you have made your position clear. You now support the dreaded Social Security, that isn't in the consititution, and that you previously said no-one should be entitled to.

1877. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #265252 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 9:50 am

Comment #265247 by DarwinsPitbull

So you DO believe in welfare. You DO think that the government can do stuff to help people that isn't in the constitution.

You know what giving people protection against falling on hard time is called?

Social Security.

I am glad to see you are a convert to its use.

1878. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #265240 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 9:33 am

Comment #265238 by al-rawandi

[whisper]I know, I know. I am attempting a Swiftian "Modest Proposal" technique of debate[/whisper]

1879. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #265237 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 9:30 am

Comment #265233 by DarwinsPitbull

But does it serve a purpose to protect the public?

Why should anyone want to do that? There is no "public" - just individuals, who should be able to keep their own money and protect or not protect themselves as they wish.

If we aren't going to protect the poor from starvation and disease through welfare, why the heck should we protect them against fire, or even against crime? If someone hasn't bothered to work to earn money, and it is therefore fine for them to starve, why shouldn't it be fine for them to burn?

1880. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #265229 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 9:19 am

Comment #265225 by al-rawandi

I am not intending to land any punches. Just having a bit of fun. I see no hope of getting anywhere. I am exploring the strange reality of Palin supporters.

Great posts from you, by the way.

1881. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #265227 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 9:17 am

Comment #265222 by DarwinsPitbull

What is so hard to understand that the constitution says that the government has the obligation to protect us and our rights from foreign aggression?

Does it? OK, if you say so. But I would like you to please explain where the constitution explicitly mentions funding of fire departments.

1882. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #265219 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 9:08 am

Defence and general Welfare of the United States

So what do we need things like police for? I am sure the Rockies can look after themselves, and the Mississippi will keep on flowing no matter what crimes are committed. Now, I can see how it might need defence against nuclear weapons though.

1883. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #265217 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 9:04 am

Comment #265212 by Quetzalcoatl

Fires, like disease, are surely normal and natural. Why should governments defend against one and not the other? People should pay for their own defense against both, I say! Actually, human agression is probably natural as well. Why spend tax money on defense? Let the rich pay for their own nukes.

1884. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #265210 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 8:57 am

Comment #265207 by DarwinsPitbull

Police and fire dept: Again, government has to protect its citizens and uphold the law. But every person is on there own when it comes to the pursuit of happiness.

Excuse me. Could you please point out where it mentions protection from fire in the constitution?

1885. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #265198 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 8:32 am

DP-

But can you answer a simple question: What makes another person, who pays little or no taxes at all, be entitled to Joe's money that he works 12 hours a day for?

It's to do with hygiene. All those rotting corpses of the poor would make a real mess.

1886. The Retirement of Richard Dawkins: Reflections on a Stewardship

Comment #265185 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 8:23 am

RainDear-

I felt you were willing to exclude most of humanity from this fascinating and wonderful journey towards understanding our universe. To me, it was as though a non-scientist shouldn't even bother to read up on evolutionary biology, cosmology or particle physics, a layman should just go to the zoo to admire all the pretty animals and forget about books like the Selfish Gene... since he is not equipped to understand its ideas anyway.

Well, I'm sure you didn't mean that.

This may shock you, but to an extent that is what I meant. Really understanding a particular field of science is hard - it can take years if not decades, and almost all popularisations of science simplify it to the point where it is incorrect. Richard Dawkins is one of the few who can explain quite difficult ideas in clear language.

So, talking about "understanding science", I admit the public can't be expected to understand the rigorous demands or the methodology. But to a layman, "understanding science" means understanding certain basic logic behind, say, how evolution works or how stars are born. This kind of understanding is not beyond the general public.

Are you sure? Stephen Hawking said that he kept a lot of maths out of "A Brief History of Time" because people just won't read stuff with equations in. Well, that is a problem, because almost all understanding of science requires maths - calculus, statistics and so on.

(There is was popular "joke" going around for a while - trying to find anyone who had actually got to the end of "A Brief History of Time" - which kind of makes my point)

I am not apologetic if I sound elitist. I think a general appreciation of what science can achieve is possible, but a true understanding of science takes years. This is possible for the general puplic to have, providing people are willing to take those years to study.

1887. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #265147 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 6:32 am

Comment #265143 by maxamillion

It is easy to tell when Yahya is lying. His mouth moves.

1888. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #265146 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 6:30 am

DP-

How republicans are looked at as the anti-gay party when many democrats support the same view, but no one says anything about them. But if a republican comes out and say "I am against gay marriage" then he is looked at as homophobic hater, while no one says that of democrats.

Let me try and explain this simply.....

No, I just can't. We are entering Palin Alternate Reality here, where reason, logic and meaning cease to apply.

We are entering a reality where someone is cleared of acting unethically by a Troopergate report that states that they acted unethically.

1889. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #265133 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 5:47 am

Comment #265127 by alabasterocean

Lane Craig uses philosophical arguments that are either valid or invalid. It turns out that some of his arguments are certainly invalid. They are invalid in a logical sense.

It's sort of equivalent to someone using a mathematical proof that has shown to be flawed. It is rather suspect, to say the least.

It seems to be an example of the "Sarah Palin technique" for defending a position - just keep saying the same thing even though you know it is a lie (her response to the "Troopergate" report)

1890. How can the Earth be so perfectly suited for life by coincidence?

Comment #265126 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 5:36 am

Comment #265122 by L-Young

I'm dealing with the prerequisite nessasary for life: a planet in the goldilocks zone. It must be there in order for the basics of life to form.

The "goldilocks zone" is a concept that should have been abandoned long ago. The idea is that a planet needs to orbit at a certain distance from a star in order for there to be liquid water. However, direct heating of a planet's surface is only one of many ways of getting water. Another is tidal heating, such as when icy moons orbit close to large planets. We are pretty sure that there is liquid water on Jupiter's moon Europa, and on Saturn's moon Enceladus. It may well be that most of the liquid water in the solar system is extra-terrestrial.

1891. The Retirement of Richard Dawkins: Reflections on a Stewardship

Comment #265124 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 5:31 am

Comment #264715 by RainDear

Although I'm sure you're not arrogant yourself, I find it arrogant to expect the public to appreciate anything they don't understand. That's exactly what religion demands people to do: thou shalt admire, respect and obey blindly. I fear your attitude is dangerously close to turning science into a modern-day religion and scientists into clergymen.

Someone can appreciate great architecture without having an understanding of how to design a building.

Someone can appreciate modern medicine without being a biologist.

It is possible to understand what science has achieved without having any knowledge of the scientific process.

I am not talking in any way about blind worship of science.

1892. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #265118 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 4:46 am

Comment #265077 by alabasterocean

I don't have much respect for Lane Craig. As Victor Stenger has said, Lane Craig has come across clear refutations of his arguments many times. The only possible conclusions are that Lane Craig has a very bad memory, or is just playing word games and does not believe what he says.

1893. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #265085 by Steve Zara on October 16, 2008 at 1:48 am

Comment #265055 by stevenb40

Having seen 100 million fossils they no longer find any of the theory of evolution's accounts credible.

I am quite impressed. Could you point me at the museum where these 100 million fossils are held?

1894. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #264730 by Steve Zara on October 15, 2008 at 5:50 am

Comment #264724 by mmurray

Some great writer (I forget, it may have been Dawkins or Sagan) pointed out that a full transitional fossil record is impossible, as the crust would have to be hundreds of miles thicker in order to hold the fossils intact, and preserve the time sequence.

1895. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #264721 by Steve Zara on October 15, 2008 at 5:27 am

Comment #264716 by a cappella

Whatever.

I am interested in the following questions:

1. If there are ethical implications for creatures changing, please explain the ethical implications for statis. As you seem to believe in statis, does that mean you support attempts to prevent change? I assume that you would like to impose dynastic rulers rather like the ancient Egyptians, that involved incest in an attempt to keep pure blood?

2. Seriously now - why does evolution scare you?

So, is there a single piece of evidence for such transition?

No, not a single piece, sorry. Tens of thousands, but not just one.

1896. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #264701 by Steve Zara on October 15, 2008 at 4:32 am

Comment #264698 by phatbat

Just had an amusing thought (well, it is to me). If these people believe that the fossil record has ethical implications, then their insistence on stasis surely means that they must be strongly in support of cloning as a form of social engineering... variation is evil!

1897. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #264697 by Steve Zara on October 15, 2008 at 4:28 am

Comment #264694 by a cappella

Why should the fact that animals have changed over millions of years have anything whatsoever to do with politics (such as social engineering).

Gravity means that things in nature have a tendency to change position downwards.

That does not mean we need to impose ethical constraints on flying.

So this objection to accepting evolution is nuts.

If you do, you should be ready to be removed from your post or not allowed to raise in your academic career.

No. That is both silly and false. The well-respected biologist Lynn Margulis has major disagreements about the nature of evolution. She has not been kicked out.

So that point is nonsense.

So come on, you can do better than that.

Why does the fact of evolution worry you? Try this thought experiment - assume you believed that evolution happened. How do you feel?

1898. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #264690 by Steve Zara on October 15, 2008 at 4:10 am

a capella-

Why is the fact of evolution a problem for you?

1899. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #264687 by Steve Zara on October 15, 2008 at 4:06 am

Comment #264681 by a cappella

And now we see why debate is futile. You will see only what you want to see. You don't accept standards of reason and argument. Debating people like Yahya is like hitting one's head against a brick wall. Pointless and painful.

1900. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #264683 by Steve Zara on October 15, 2008 at 4:04 am

Comment #264673 by a cappella

Statis in some species does not mean non-evolution. That is terrible logic.

The use of the fossil record to show non-statis in some species is a self-defeating argument, as there are clear examples of major change as well.

Evolution means that organisms can adapt to changing environments. It does not mean that they must continually change. An organism can be very well suited to an environment such that any significant change would be harmful. So, the mechanism of natural selection keeps the organism pretty much the same. We see this with sharks, for example. Other creatures have changed rapidly, such as sunfish. The fossil record shows both near-stasis and rapid change. That is just what would be expected if natural selection was at work.