Response to 'prove evolution true'

Originally posted by King Tiger
He had the audacity to call Freemon Dyson mad for speaking of God.

Can you post a link to this? I would be interested in seeing the context. Couldn't find anything through Google.

I don’t deny his right to be an atheist, but I think he does a great deal of harm when he publicly says that in order to be a scientist, you have to be an atheist.

Freemon Dyson on Richard Dawkins

Again, can anyone post a link to where Dawkins said this?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Laws. The universe operates by the laws of physics. The laws of physics allow for some chance, but they also result in patterns.
Take a system of particles under Newtonian mechanics. Firstly, they are not moving about purely randomly, the follow the laws of Newtonian mechanics. Secondly, if we then apply gravity, their motion ceases to be what initially ...[text shortened]... ed in water and gas - all because of density and gravity. Its not by design, and its not random.

So you and I all humans, life etc exist because of a law (laws) of physics?

Therefore no matter what universe occurs, you etc etc will always occur, is that what you are saying?

Originally posted by divegeester
Therefore no matter what universe occurs, you etc etc will always occur, is that what you are saying?

No, I am not. I am saying that the laws of physics, or any system that has laws results in patterns rather than the random distribution that results from pure randomness.
"Pattern therefore design", is bad logic because it is too specific. The correct logic is "Pattern therefore law" (or rule/function depending on what terminology you prefer).
Design is a law/rule/function that has been made by an intelligent entity with intent. You may have reason to think that a given law/rule/function is of intelligent origin (ie by design) but it is wrong to conclude that it is simply because of the existence of a pattern.

Originally posted by King Tiger
continuing reading here.

chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

This was a huge tipping of the weight to me.

4) lastly for now. A philosopher once said, ...[text shortened]... happier. So that is a short bit of my testimony. Hope you find it intriguing and perhaps useful.

How come you chose Christianity and not Islam, or Hinduism or Sikhism or any other religion? What led you to the Christian God?

Originally posted by King Tiger
I noticed thread Thread 156175 and thought perhaps it would be good to share my own personal experience in a new thread (would likely receive more attention), yet without giving away too many personal details.

I have a bachelors, masters, and med degree and currently am working on a PhD. My academic background is Chemistry, Philosophy, tr ...[text shortened]... 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one cha...

I would rather have told your friend that Russell’s stance is both mathematical and scientific: for example, I would propose him to consider the simplest element of reality (any exchangeable and finite packet of physical information), a bit, which takes solely two values: 0 and 1. When its value is known to us coherently, the bit is definitely 0 or 1; when its value is unknown, we remain with the indefinite state 0/1 (superposition). I would go on telling him that methinks Russell merely said that, whatever is in a superposition, its state cannot be definite -and I evaluate that this thesis holds due to the fact that the finiteness of the elements of reality imposes a restricted precision in the process of continuous quantities, which is indefinite beyond a scale that depends on the amount of accessible information. And, since it is indefinite, the speculation as regards its factual value 0 or 1 a speculation remains, and as such any comment about its factual value can be tossed, for all we have is just the superposition.

Now my friend, since you are a Christian, a side question as regards the necessity of a “creator” external to the “created universe”. Since the evidence does indicate that something akin to intelligence internal to the Kosmos must be implicated, how can it prove or even indicate the forced necessity for a G-d as the one defined in the Christian theology?

Finally, as regards your thesis about objective and subjective truths, where exactly do you notice objectivity other than a collective subjectivity -and thus pure subjectivity? To me, it 's crystal clear that the root of the phenomena a sentient being perceives is no other than its mind; methinks there is no objectively preferred basis for the appearances of the differ phenomena we perceive, but a purely subjectively preferred basis that is a projection onto the perceived world of the consciousness basis of our mind. We human beings choose our specific reality simply because we are hard wired to choose this one instead of the one chosen, say, by an ant –and both of them purely subjective realities are different aspects of the same hologram that our mutual brains decode differently
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I would rather have told your friend that Russell’s stance is both mathematical and scientific: for example, I would propose him to consider the simplest element of reality (any exchangeable and finite packet of physical information), a bit, which takes solely two values: 0 and 1. When its value is known to us coherently, the bit is definitely 0 or 1; w ...[text shortened]... alities are different aspects of the same hologram that our mutual brains decode differently
😵

Do you believe that "the mind" and "spirit" are two different things?
I suppose I should ask you if you believe in a "spirit" before I give you
the first question.
Kelly

Originally posted by King Tiger
And destiny...well, atheism gives no hope there. Ever heard of Pascal's Wager? Well, look it up if you like.

I think everyone here has heard of Pascal's Wager and probably everyone has heard of its shortcomings. But in case not, here's one simple flowchart that demonstrates one of the problems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logic_of_Religion.jpg

And your probability calculations are seriously out of wack!

Oh and evolution can and has been observed in real-time, in several different ways. Ever heard of antibiotic resistance?

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you believe that "the mind" and "spirit" are two different things?
I suppose I should ask you if you believe in a "spirit" before I give you
the first question.
Kelly

Hey Kelly,
I see the connection I maintain with my spiritual teacher as auspicious and supportive on an essence-to-essence basis instead in the sense of a higher power I happen “to be in touch with”, therefore I see it as an experiential realization that my essence, nature and energy constitute the context, source and character of all my experiences. Any “spirit” “I” happen to “encounter” is to me merely a projection of my own mind, and as such I reject all kind of theistic thoughts and doctrines as regards this matter😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Hey Kelly,
I see the connection I maintain with my spiritual teacher as auspicious and supportive on an essence-to-essence basis instead in the sense of a higher power I happen “to be in touch with”, therefore I see it as an experiential realization that my essence, nature and energy constitute the context, source and character of all my experiences. A ...[text shortened]... mind, and as such I reject all kind of theistic thoughts and doctrines as regards this matter😵

May I ask why you reject all theistic thoughts and doctrines with respect to
'spirits'? Seems like you cut yourself off from something that could be very
important, and you put up blinders that would shield you from the ability
to even acknowledge any truth that may be there.
Kelly

Originally posted by King Tiger
twhitehead.

I understand probability just fine, and your approach is very reminiscent of Dawkins, who is losing credibility in the academic realm from creationists and evolutionists alike. You assume I misunderstand, meaning you somehow assume a doctoral student and M.D. is incapable of understanding rudimentary statistics.

There are many scientif ...[text shortened]... s right.

That is the basic argument. Again, not a logical treatise-so don't treat it as one.

You disagree with him, therefore you must misunderstand.

That's pretty much the sum total of his argument.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
How come you chose Christianity and not Islam, or Hinduism or Sikhism or any other religion? What led you to the Christian God?

I do not mean to speak for him, so I won't. I'll only give you a measure of my own thinking on the subject. It's the same concept that leads us to regard science as 'correct'. It's an onboard preference towards a concept that it is the way towards 'what is most likely to be true'. Edit: I realize upon re-reading that that is not entirely clearly stated, but it is the best attempt I have at jamming my ideas down to one sentence.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I do not mean to speak for him, so I won't. I'll only give you a measure of my own thinking on the subject. It's the same concept that leads us to regard science as 'correct'. It's an onboard preference towards a concept that it is the way towards 'what is most likely to be true'. Edit: I realize upon re-reading that that is not entirely clearly stated, but it is the best attempt I have at jamming my ideas down to one sentence.

Clear as mud that Suzianne. 🙂

Originally posted by King Tiger
This was a huge tipping of the weight to me.

I am still hoping you will tell us whether or not the weight is tipping back now that you know that the probability argument was all wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I am not. I am saying that the laws of physics, or any system that has laws results in patterns rather than the random distribution that results from pure randomness.
"Pattern therefore design", is bad logic because it is too specific. The correct logic is "Pattern therefore law" (or rule/function depending on what terminology you prefer).
Design i ...[text shortened]... by design) but it is wrong to conclude that it is simply because of the existence of a pattern.

So you've never heard of "chaos theory" or do you dismiss it? I don't profess to understand it, but I do recognise that what you are claiming is simply not universally accepted. I've read about and seen science tv programmes where scientists talk convincingly about the "randomness" of the universe despite the physical laws. In fact the laws didn't exist until after a certain randomness within the Big Bang had settled, isn't that correct. I do see you as being well educated in science, but if I'm honest I think you take liberties with your level of knowledge.