Replies

The billions timeline or the millions timeline?

Regardless, 3.5 M or 3.5 B there JUST ISN'T ENOUGH TIME GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY INVOLVED.

You're having a hard time with probabilities.

No. YOU have a hard time with probabilities. Mathematicians like David Berlinski, Granville Sewell ( not to mention William Dembski ) and even Astrophycisists like Sir Fred Hoyle have expressed their doubts about all of these happening by chance. You want to call these men probability-challenged too ?

Because we are here, and because the Bible tells you so, you seem to think that we are the end desired result.

Hmmm... why did you mention the Bible ? I never even brought it up.

With that thinking, a priori probabilities calculations are valid in theory

Yep, they are valid in YOUR MIND. No wonder the vast majority of Americans aren't buying it.

it is almost impossible.

If by that you mean Random mutation alone producing what we have today without intelligent input, ABSOLUTELY.

But you still try to argue science (now statistics) with your theological view.

Which theological view ? I never even mentioned God at all. You seem to think that only theists doubt Darwinism. David Berlinski and Michael Denton aren't even believers, yet they have openly expressed their doubts.

The scientific view does not require us as the intended outcome,

But since we are the outcome, and since by everyday observation ( a basic tenet of science ), we do not see complex things happen without intelligent input, I don't see why postulating intelligent agents as the better explanation to what we have is invalid.

and with no intended outcome all a priori probabilities calculations of us existing go completely out the window.

As I said, this is not based on observation but an ASSERTION. You have faith that it happened that way, good for you. I don't have that much faith.

IOW, I care that the cards are shuffled,

Shuffled is a verb. WHO DID THE SHUFFLING ?

not that are shuffled in a particular order.

Sure, and you got the card that you want. The question I have is this --- does the card have sentience ? Can It reason ?

This is the guy whose definition of a scientific theory includes astrology, right?

Ahh yes, the same canard that keeps circulating.

See here :

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3157

And here :

http://idintheuk.blogspot.com/2006/11/michael-behe-and-astrology-what-did-he_8368.html

For those who are interested in what Michael Behe actually meant.

After the discussion resulting from the previous post on this subject I thought I would ask him....

Q1. At the deposition for the Dover trial when you were asked the question about astrology where you answered "It could be...Yes" were you thinking of "astrology" as it is practiced in terms of the present day...horoscopes etc or were you thinking in terms of astrology related to astronomy in the history of science... or something else?

(deposition statement)

17 Q. Using your definition of theory, is Creationism -- using

18 your definition of scientific theory, is Creationism a

19 scientific theory?

20 Behe. No.

21 Q. What about creation science?

22 Behe. No.

23 Q. Is astrology a theory under that definition?

24 Behe. Is astrology? It could be, yes.

Michael Behe:

I was not thinking of the modern superstition of astrology, but of the idea of astrology in the middle ages, when people were trying to discern what forces actually were in play in nature. After all, if planetary bodies such as the moon and sun could affect the tides on earth, perhaps they could affect other things as well, such as people's behavior. We now know that to be wrong, but at the time it was a reasonable idea, based on physical evidence. I am told by some historians of science that the educated classes of Europe thought astrology to be quite scientific.

Q2. At the time of your deposition statement did you believe that astrology (as it is understood and practiced today) was included within your broader definition of "scientific theory?"

Michael Behe:

No, not modern astrology, as practiced by card readers with bandanas on their heads and such. I had in mind astrology of centuries ago, when educated people thought it might really have explanatory power.

Q3. Do you currently believe that astrology (as it is understood and practiced today) is included now within your broader definition of "scientific theory?"

Michael Behe:

No, of course not. Best wishes. Mike Behe

This was what I had surmised from reading the transcript of Behe from the trial. It is good to know that I had understood his position correctly.

Regardless, 3.5 M or 3.5 B there JUST ISN'T ENOUGH TIME GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY INVOLVED.

In your opinion. Given the state of the universe, maybe life tends to appear and evolve just as the orderly crystals in ice form.

No. YOU have a hard time with probabilities.

You keep missing the point. If there is one possible form of life, the odds that life as we know it happening are still low. But the odds of some form of life, especially when the test is made possibly trillions of times (or more) under different conditions, are good.

I'll make it really simple, something you've probably done before: You have a coin. Bet on heads. Flip it. You have about a .5 probability of achieving heads. It is only your desire for heads that gives you a .5 probability. Tails was desirable to another person, and he also has a .5 probability.

But looking from the outside there was a probability of 1 that someone would win.

Also, you flipping the coin a few hundred times also gives you a probability of heads approaching 1.

Mathematicians like David Berlinski, Granville Sewell ( not to mention William Dembski )

BTW, you would do well to not mention Dembski. His "Law of Conservation of Information" has been repeatedly shot down, even on a purely mathematical basis. He's a moving target to scientists, as he always changes the argument when his math gets blown out of the water.

I do have to hand it to you, you've gotten better. You used to trot out a very ignorant, warped interpretation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to say essentially the same thing, but even the DI has abandoned it, asked people not to use it, because it made ID proponents look stupid.

Yep, they are valid in YOUR MIND. No wonder the vast majority of Americans aren't buying it.

Valid in your mind. I was talking about the supposed low probability of life evolving.

You seem to think that only theists doubt Darwinism. David Berlinski and Michael Denton aren't even believers, yet they have openly expressed their doubts.

Doubts are fine. Darwin himself had doubts. The Theory of Evolution couldn't have advanced as far as it did without doubts. But generally to displace a scientific theory you have to provide a better one. Until then we go with the one we have, flaws and all, and keep working on the flaws.

But since we are the outcome, and since by everyday observation ( a basic tenet of science ), we do not see complex things happen without intelligent input

Weather is an extremely complex, interconnected system.

Shuffled is a verb. WHO DID THE SHUFFLING ?

When a metaphor refutes a person's point, he often tries to take it literally as a distraction.

Ahh yes, the same canard that keeps circulating.

And for good reason. Astrology had as part of it components of astronomy. He could have said astrology wasn't science, but the astronomy component was (you know, the part that was actually based on observation, not "The alignment of Mars will cause your baby to be a boy.").

The state of science back then also was not rigorous, yet he would allow that lax standard to be used today. "God of the gaps" isn't acceptable today, especially with the central tenet of the hypothesis being one big gap.

Newton knew this was right, as contrary to popular belief he refused to assign holes in his gravitational theory to God. Of course, he didn't think anybody could figure it out scientifically either, but Einstein did.