Theistic Evolution (page 19)

cofty

binadub - Let me try to illustrate how obtuse your position is in the context of this thread.

me - I would like to discuss the merits of the Episcopal Church. Let me first say that I am not interested in discussing what it means to be Catholic with its allegance to a pope and belief in trasubstantiation.

binadub - You are wrong to define catholic in that way. Catholic does not have to mean a religious system based in Rome.

me - That is how everybody understands Catholicism in a religious context

binadub - No you are wrong. I don't know anything about the Church of Rome but I think there is some merit in being catholic.

me - what are you on about, can you please explain your point?

binadub - I found this definition on the internet.

cath·o·lic

[ kath - uh -lik , kath -lik ]

"broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests,or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal."

So not everbody thinks catholic is a religious movement

me - So are you a Roman Catholic, do you want to defend the Church of Rome or did you just join in the discussion to derail the thread and give us a lesson in semantics?

binadub - I am not telling you, but you can't deny what it says in a dictionary

me - I'm not talking about a dictionary definition. I explained specifically how I was using Catholic in the OP of this thread. What's your point?

binadub - I am a famous scientist and talking to you is like having a discussion with a JW

Congratulations on dragging an interesting thread into a pointless discussion on semantics. You are officially the most boring person I have ever had a conversation with.

jamesmahon

Now Cofty is that 'boring' under the definition "the act or process of making or enlarging a hole"?. Perhaps either definition would apply.

cofty

I see your point James.

I guess I am behaving like a JW when I use "boring" in a negative way without recognising there can be merit in "boring" in another context.

I should add that when I say "negative" I mean in a pejorative sense not in an electrical context and by "merit" I mean .......

jamesmahon

I find threads that degenerate into dictionary definitions as painful as having your eyeballs pulled back through your arse. I find hyperbole even more painful.

bohm

I have never met a proponent of Dembskis ideas who was willing to explain or discuss them. never.

Wonder why .

jamesmahon

Bohm

Never heard of Dembski. Just googled him. Seems there are lots of people arguing against what he is saying (such as http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/02/bill-dembski-an.html)

Maybe you have not been looking hard enough. It could also be that most real scientists are too busy, well, doing real science and are tired of having to argue with people have made their mind up and ignore or misrepresent evidence. I don't know whether Dembski falls into this latter category so apologies if I have misrepresented him. I know that I don't waste my time reading silly pseudo science to understand how the world works anymore than a Christian reads the Quran to better understand god.

simon17

Simon17: He used the illustration that in a lottery, the odds of winning are seemingly insurmountable, one in millions. Yet there is one winner, for whom those odds were against, but nevertheless the winner beat the odds.

My response was that yes, in infinity there is a chance that insurmountable odds may eventually occur--once.

But if the lottery winner won once, and then won a second time, beating the same kind of odds, is that possible? Mathematically, yes.
And if the same lottery winner won the lottery a third time, and then a fourth time, and then a fifth time, . . . .
I don't know about you, but I would start thinking the lottery was "designed" (i.e., fixed).
Possible? I suppose, but I wouldn't believe it. Would you? ;-)

* First off why, in infinity, can something highly unlikely only occur once? When you look at the winning of consecutive lotteries as a single compound event, you can look at THAT as your new event. So I disagree with your reply.

* Second you are looking at a closed system, like was described in a later post, and also a discrete probability curve. Even the probability of winning the lottery 5x in a row has a measurable (i.e. non-zero) probability. So theoretically, even this, is more likely than the common events that I described when choosing an entity from a continuous probability distribution with an uncountable number of outcomes.

* But anyway, I understand what you are saying. We can construct things that have seemingly ridiculously low odds (for example, maybe < 1/(total # of possible particle interactions in the history of the universe). But you are taking a great leap and then applying such things to a very unknown system like abiogenesis and/or early cellular evolution. Obviously there are events along the way in this development curve that are unlikely. Just how unlikely I do not think you or I (or anyone yet) is qualified to definitively answer! But certainly there were countless failed attempts in between the successes. Countless planets no doubt failed to develop life. Countless times interactions on earth failed to produce anything useful. Countless mutation fell by the way side because they were useless or problematic. So I disagree with your analogy to winning the lottery over and over and over again. Evolution is a myriad of small steps, building on one another, separated by millions upon millions of failures. After all, if your lottery were played for 4 billion years, everyone would be a winner hundreds of times over :)

By mathematical theory, that is remotely possible, but in reality I don't think so. (And math is not considered a science by a lot of scientists--it's theory.) Not me saying it--numerous scientists with credentials agree.

I have no idea what this means. Mathematical theory is not a science? Maybe in the sense that it transcends science. It is the certainty behind which science relies upon.

bohm

One cant make justified true statements about a physical system without taking the laws the system operate under into account

No matter how much one talk about probabilities, lotteries, infinities, continious stochastic variables etc., and no matter if the system happends to be the one abiogenesis supposedly occured in.

Its simply bad science, but people do it all the time

jamesmahon

Bohm

Can you try rewording your last post? I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Not being arsey - just genuinely not sure what you are saying. Perhaps you can explain what you mean by a 'justified true statement'?

botchtowersociety

One cant make justified true statements about a physical system without taking the laws the system operate under into account

No matter how much one talk about probabilities, lotteries, infinities, continious stochastic variables etc., and no matter if the system happends to be the one abiogenesis supposedly occured in.

Its simply bad science, but people do it all the time

Indeed.

By mixing viral proteins (and the

DNA they serve) in a test tube, molecular biologists have

assembled working T4 viruses. This ability is surprising:

imagine putting automotive parts in a large box, shaking

it, and finding an assembled car when you look inside!

Yet the T4 virus is but one of many self-assembling

structures [6]. Molecular biologists have taken the

machinery of the ribosome apart into over fifty separate

protein and RNA molecules, and then combined them in

test tubes to form working ribosomes again.

To see how this happens, imagine different T4

protein chains floating around in water. Each kind folds

up to form a lump with distinctive bumps and hollows,

covered by distinctive patterns of oiliness, wetness, and

electric charge. Picture them wandering and tumbling,

jostled by the thermal vibrations of the surrounding

water molecules. From time to time two bounce together,

then bounce apart. Sometimes, though, two bounce

together and fit, bumps in hollows, with sticky patches

matching; they then pull together and stick. In this way

protein adds to protein to make sections of the virus,

and sections assemble to form the whole.

http://www.wowio.com/users/product.asp?BookId=503

Theistic Evolution

cath·o·lic

Share this