Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant (Religion bashing alert)

Times Online UK ^ | May 21, 2005 | Richard Dawkins

[Doctor Stochastic]

2 is a prime.

Yes, but it's the only even prime, and that's odd.

[Fester Chugabrew]

That is my point and I have achieved it many times.

It is something of a gamble to reward another individual for stating the obvious, namely that Fester Chugabrew is a dumbass, but I'll do it anyway:

Here's a cold one for you. And if you have some preference for a different elixer to imbibe, please make your wishes known. Your persistence and dedication toward those things you hold dearly as truth is noted. I only regret that the opportunity may never present itself to buy you a cold one in person.

You have always been an entertaining, if not slightly disruptive, presence in my life, and for that I owe you.

[donh]

Far be it from me to disallow human reason the capacity to observe, record, and interpret evidence of past events.

What? Than what in tarnation are you trying to communicate when you claim it's only science when directly observed by humans, while rattling on about the length of the longest human lifetime?

[Fester Chugabrew]

What is the mathematical theory at the heart of evolutionary biology?

You tell me. You're the one who thinks "laying eyes" on prime numbers is akin to observing a 4.5 billion year old earth.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Then what in tarnation are you trying to communicate when you claim it's only science when directly observed by humans, while rattling on about the length of the longest human lifetime?

Only that science by definition is limited to the first human observer(s). If science insists on hard evidence to make its conclusions, then it must insist that only the perceptions of human observers be admitted as evidence. Than means, quite frankly, that science is not as firm as it apparently believes itself to be.

[donh]

You tell me. You're the one who thinks "laying eyes" on prime numbers is akin to observing a 4.5 billion year old earth.

AKIN. Yes, both are "kin" because both are examples of theories confirmed by inductive reasoning about a large set of samples that have evinced insignificant countvervailing evidence on repeated samplings.

[donh]

Only that science by definition is limited to the first human observer(s). If science insists on hard evidence to make its conclusions, then it must insist that only the perceptions of human observers be admitted as evidence. Than means, quite frankly, that science is not as firm as it apparently believes itself to be.

So much for stellar astronomy.

[Reagan80]

"In the Beginning, God created..."

He set it all in motion...He does not centrally-plan each and every flap of butterfly wings on Earth. We, as imperfect Humans, fail repeatedly to live up to his expectations of us. Of course, all we need do is ask His forgiveness...

[edsheppa]

It goes through both slits simultaneously

Well, that's an interpretation of another theory altogether, although I think they say it that goes through one slit in half the multiverse and the other slit in the other half or that there's a probability amplitude whose shape is affected by the slits or that the particle goes through one slit but its pilot wave is affected by the slits or that it definitely goes through one slit or the other but we give up on free will for it to make sense.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Yes, both are "kin" because both are examples of theories confirmed by inductive reasoning about a large set of samples that have evinced insignificant countervailing evidence on repeated samplings.

Yes, but that is as far as it goes. Woe to the scientist who mingles numbers with the physical world, for he will soon discover that what is incapable of physical grasp must be applied to what the eyeballs see. This would be a great time to assert lack of intelligent design altogether, but why would an intelligent being want to do that?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Holy cats. I need to slug another one down and read that again.

[edsheppa]

What is the mathematical theory at the heart of evolutionary biology?

I'm not an expert on it, but I think it is referred to as the neo-Dawninian synthesis and was developed in the early 1900's. Fisher and Haldane are names that come to mind. It's a mathematics of inheritance, variation and natural selection on populations.

[Fester Chugabrew]

So much for stellar astronomy.

Not at all. It's just that so many assumptions ought be presented as such. It's that simple. Statements of absolute certainty are more limited than science typically admits. Did you not point out that the mathematical proposition of 1 + 1 = 2 required 80 pages to prove, and that even the proof was subject to correction?

The reputation of science does not suffer from admitting a lack of certitude, but it will suffer if it asserts certitude where there is none.

[donh]

Than means, quite frankly, that science is not as firm as it apparently believes itself to be.

It doesn't believe itself to be firm at all, as is self-evidence from its history. Takes pride in the lack, in fact--considers it essential.

[donh]

Well, that's an interpretation of another theory altogether, although I think they say it that goes through one slit in half the multiverse and the other slit in the other half or that there's a probability amplitude whose shape is affected by the slits or that the particle goes through one slit but its pilot wave is affected by the slits or that it definitely goes through one slit or the other but we give up on free will for it to make sense.

Oh, well, no philosophical implications here.

[donh]

It's that simple. Statements of absolute certainty are more limited than science typically admits.

Which is relevant to nothing, since science makes no claims with absolute certainty.

[donh]

I'm not an expert on it, but I think it is referred to as the neo-Dawninian synthesis and was developed in the early 1900's. Fisher and Haldane are names that come to mind. It's a mathematics of inheritance, variation and natural selection on populations.

So...there is a sensible, comprehensive mathematical statement of evolutionary theory, called, possibly Fisher-Haldane, but before Fisher-Haldane, there was no evolutionary biological science?

[donh]

Yes, both are "kin" because both are examples of theories confirmed by inductive reasoning about a large set of samples that have evinced insignificant countervailing evidence on repeated samplings.

Yes, but that is as far as it goes. Woe to the scientist who mingles numbers with the physical world, for he will soon discover that what is incapable of physical grasp must be applied to what the eyeballs see

What? Does what you just wrote here make sense even to you?

[betty boop]

...ignorance and a lack of vision.

Details please, balrog666.

IOW, of what does your "vision" consist?

BTW, if you're going to quote me in a post, i would appreciate being pinged.

[donh]

Only that science by definition is limited to the first human observer(s).

Science is not what YOU think it is. It is what scientists think it is. Amongst scientists there is no generally accepted definition of science that limits its concerns to things that have occured only in the lifespan of "the first human observer(s)".

But, if there were, it would most definitely eliminate nearly all of stellar astronomy. The light from no event that occured in the "lifespan of the first human observer(s)" in another galaxy will hit us before many millions of years have passed.