Posted on 06/27/2006 5:06:32 AM PDT by 7thson
Random doesn't mean unpredictable in the large. The outcome of casino games are completely non-deterministic (at least, the casino owners want them to be), yet the casinos can tell you how many winners and losers there will be. Randomness has it's own set of laws.
And that would be beneficial how? There are far better methods for religious conversion, and I can certainly share common political ground with non-Christians.
Sorry, Please accept my apologies. I misinterpreted the response. My fault.
I assumed that by know someone would have tried to support the theory by producing facts and not speculation or the common "All the 'REAL' scientist agree". That one really bugs me because I am a scientist, and a pretty good one. Not a biologist or Paleontologist but a scientist none the less. As a scientist, I take the track that unless it can be proven by experimentation it's nothing more than theory or faith. Faith is what I base my religion on and I am not ashamed to admit that. Evolutionist use all sorts of buzz words to disguise their faith but it's still faith because the theory simply can not be proven.
I agree with your statement, the silence is deafening.
We still can't agree on what it is exactly. Other than some kind of attractive force.
In physics, gravitation or gravity is the tendency of objects with mass to accelerate toward each other. Gravitation is one of the four fundamental interactions in nature, the other three being the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. Gravitation is the weakest of these interactions, but acts over great distances and is always attractive. In classical mechanics, gravitation arises out of the force of gravity (which is often used as a synonym for gravitation). In general relativity, gravitation arises out of spacetime being curved by the presence of mass, and is not a force. In quantum gravity theories, either the graviton is the postulated carrier of the gravitational force.[1], or time-space itself is envisioned as discrete in nature, or both.
..Wikpedia excerpt
Agreed.
She's quick with a turn of phrase, not to mention cute as can be. I just don't know that I trust her reasoning capacity.
Is information unnatural or "supernatural?"
The classroom was silent while he poured the parts into his desk, and a lot of parts spilled onto the floor!!!
Spellbinding. Absolutely spellbinding. And I take it your friend the wizard also explained to this awe-struck classroom of five-year-olds that watches don't reproduce or self-replicate, meaning that he was really just demonstrating the basics of vandalism.
Right.. What is supernatural?.. Is awareness supernatural?..
Indeed! And autonomy for another...
In the long run they are deterministic but not in the short run. That's why I always lose in Vegas when I stay longer than a weekend.:^(
Spellbinding. Absolutely spellbinding. And I take it your friend the wizard also explained to this awe-struck classroom of five-year-olds that watches don't reproduce or self-replicate, meaning that he was really just demonstrating the basics of vandalism.- atlaw
And, I take it your friend the anticreationist also explained the connection between satire and reality!
You are speaking of a mental construct, a thought, an insubstantive and unmeasurable quanta of "nothingness" ~ ergo, something that cannot really be differentiated (in an objective way) from the supernatural!
Look up ring species.
Check out PatrickHenry's List O' Links.
(Courtesy ping to PH)
You said, in part: "Random" probably doesn't really exist in our present Universe.
***
I am no scientist, and admit so on the front end, but I have questioned the concept of Randomness as well. Certainly much of what we call "random" is just an acknowledgment that we don't know all of the relevant information. For example, rolling dice is said to be random, but if one were to fully describe the position of the dice, the nature and quality of the force imparted upon rolling them, distance to the "landing area," coefficients of friction, etc., one could accurately predict the result of the rolling of dice without fail. That we cannot do so does not make the dice rolling random, except as an admission that we have too little data.
I am too slow to be able to state this as it might relate to evolutionary theory, but I bet someone could (and probably already has). If I have goofed up, please don't think I am somehow ill-intentioned as many have suggested of Coulter. One can be wrong and not of ill-will.
So far, the best they've got is a "pret'near" situation ~
I have !
No need to look them up! We deliver.
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 6/20/06]
No idea about the most time among the FRers, but I did six years of grad school, half in evolution, fossil man and related subjects.
How many words do I get? “The Origin of Species” runs to 544 pages, and “The Descent of Man” comes in at 698.
If you’re interested in objections to Coulter’s hash of the Theory of Evolution, try: here, (Sample quote):
... Coulter baldly makes the absurd claim that "There's no physical evidence for [evolution]", and insists in chapter 8 of her new book that there is "no proof in the scientist's laboratory or the fossil record." This is like standing outside in a drenching rainstorm and declaring that there is no evidence that you are getting wet,”
“The Coulter quote just above, from her last comments on the peppered moth saga, sums up the rest of her approach to evolution; where it is not irrelevant, it is wrong. Sloppy research, outright errors, gross misrepresentations, and false accusations of fraud, Behe, Berlinski and Dembski should be thoroughly ashamed of their association with this book. But are they? Dembski at least is happy with this farrago of nonsense. Happy, with a book that falsely accuses honest scientists with fraud? So much for intellectual honesty. ”.
How is it that a scientist, "and a pretty good one" isn't aware that there is never proof of a scientific theory?
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.