Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
It makes no difference how complex something appears to be. Biological systems and structures are not specified in advance. You cannot calculate the probability of any given structure, because there are an astronomical number of equally complex structures that are functionally equivalent.
Creationists seem to think there is only one route to a given function, or only one structure that can enable a given function. I would like to see you try to demonstrate that, particularly since there are several billion different living embodiments of the human genome, each quite different and each quite human.
I gave the example of a bridge hand. Creationist math would calculate the probability of a specified set of cards being dealt, whereas the relevant critera is the probability that any given hand will produce game. The set of different deals that will result in game points being scored is astronomical, even though it is a fraction of the number of possible different deals.
Hey, you're talking to two of the Ten-Most-Wanted, according to the Conservaboobs ;)
Sorry, I mean Hamster Brain of the week. Let's see, we have PH (2 X), Vade, jennyp, Ich, Dales....I'm truly disappointed that apparently I never won, even after being number 3 on the ALS enemies list.
I actually think a formal equation is not necessary as we can logically infer the differences between an arrowhead and a snowflake.
What gives?
Certainly not, that would put me on your side of the argument. I think I've been pretty clear about my view that evolution is simply a mechanism that God uses.
Ichneumon, you entered the tete a tete defending WT. That was your choice, not mine. I learned my lesson a long time ago about jumping in between two adversaries, GeneralRe can attest to that.
Was metacognative "your pal" when he falsely accused Daniel Dennett of wanting to put Christians in concentration camps, when actually Dennett was saying that radical Islam may have to be contained in some way?
:-} Did I enter that fray on metacognitives side? No, but if I did I wouldn't be upset at you characterizing he or she as my pal for puposes of that tete a tete. I didn't so your argument and your analogy both fail.
You're not innocent in this foodfight either. Go hug some puppies or something and then please resume when you're less in the mood to lash out and more in the mood to discuss issues. And yes, others on this thread would do well to take the same advice.
LOL, you'll understand if we agree to disagree here.
One side requires them to be dogmatic in their beliefs; the other side realizeds that the one side is an organized attack. As long as FR is an open board allowing the fanatics to post inciting articles there will be no middle ground. But then, we are not a science forum so I guess that is to be.
You haven't posted a relevant response to my questions.
You aren't inferring anything. You know the history of each.
The post I referenced showed the dogmatism…
You ask questions and I answer… That’s how it works now and how it has worked in the past.
I've got style. Deal with it.
No, what you do is make assertions, and I ask probing questions. My questions are neither arbitrary nor unresponsive.
I am saying that arithmetic is not relevant unless the calculation is relevant to the problem under discussion.
The fact that you try to turn the argument away for verifiable evidence means you have no adequate response.
My original question was whether natural selection operates randomly, eliminating individuals at random. You know the answer to this question is dangerous, so you turn it aside with philosophical/theological responses. The question has a verifiable answer.
What can ‘purely natural science’ tell me about my computer? Well, it can tell me many things that are interesting and might one day lead to a reproduction due to reverse engineering, but can and should it tell you that no intelligent design was involved? The obvious answer is a resounding “No!” But this answer comes from a brain that is far more complex than a computer and is ‘currently’ attributed to ‘purely natural science’, i.e. mindlessness.
Please note, the filename is not a reliable clue. I control the filename.
Designed. It's too perfect.
How do you know it's a natural snowflake. I copied it from a site that has a mixture of snowflakes an artwork.
Show me your reasoning.
Look, I answered your questions as I have in the past and I even threw out an olive branch. You have not answered any of my questions or addressed my points and quite frankly I am not questioning your integrity due to this… Yet I am the ‘bad guy’?
What, are you now going to say that this was designed in photoshop and I’m wrong? What would that prove – that we never will know if anything was ever designed if we infer design?
I don't really know the answer. I browsed through a list of graphic art and photographs and picked one that was clear and sharp. I haven't looked to see which it really is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.