The Religion Of Evolution And Infinite Typing Monkeys , , ,

If you throw 2 dice in the air will it eventually come up all sixes? 3 dice? 4 dice? If you throw 5 dice in the air will they eventually come up all sixes? Get what I am saying here?

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-typing-monkeys.578368/page-7#post-1072095462

 

I've summoned you here (through your post) not to argue about evolution, which I believe in, to a point-- if you'd care to discuss my qualified acceptance, we can do so afterwards-- but because it appeared you might have the mathematical acumen I've sought, in the light of my smartphone, as a modern Diogenes (I'm making it seem grander than it really is; If you're used to looking at things from a mathematical perspective, I'm pretty sure you can handle it).

So let's say you're 1/6th convinced you want to end your life, & you decide to leave it to Fate in one turn of Russian Roulette. 5 empty chambers, 1 bullet. The odds of your not getting shot are 5-to-1 in your favor; pretty straight forward.

Let's say, though, that Russian-Rouletters from around the world have been lined up, each with his own gun, & you are #60 in that line (for those who read my previous post: in this case, a biased pronoun is warranted because men are far more likely to choose a gun for suicide than are women). As the game begins, you feel a tension building-up to the pulling of each trigger. The 1st person spins his cylinder, then puts the muzzle against his temple. When he squeezes, it's an empty chamber; and so it goes with the 2nd. With each new survivor, your expectation of the next turn being deadly goes up, since you realize that the odds say that 1 out of 6 of you should eat lead.

But 10 survive, then 20; then, miraculously, 30. Eventually, it gets to your turn. There should be, according to probability, approximately 10 dead people at this point, but no one, yet, has had a loaded chamber. One might reason, since chance would have predicted 10 bullets to've been fired by the end of your turn, that the odds you won't get a bullet are now 10 to 1 AGAINST you. But there are still 5 empty chambers in your gun, and only one loaded one.

Before all of you were gathered, there was no reason to believe anyone else's result affected your own. So how, now, could what occurred w/ anyone else change what's going to happen to you?

Granted, putting a loaded weapon to your head, under any circumstances, is going to be nerve-racking, but do you think your mathematical understanding would keep you from feeling any less confident in your favoring 5 to 1 odds, despite being in the midst of such a defying of probability. Or, perhaps I should ask, at what point would you just think, "this can't be happening," & start freaking out?

I understand that the way the odds go from positive for one person, to negative for many people in sequence, is due to a stacking effect. But if this can cause an individual's good chances to turn to a group's tragedy, why couldn't the reverse dynamic have any potency? Namely, why couldn't a mass's good luck not find its equilibrium through an enhancing of tragic consequences for an individual? Think of it in a similar way as you argue that a human, "selection," process could greatly shorten the time needed for the proverbial typing monkeys.

And, sorry-- I promise this wasn't my intent when I started this-- that leads us to a consideration of potentially any any process governed by, "random," occurrence. Is it not possible that there is some, unseen selection process taking place of which we are simply unaware? One that augments the visible, "natural," selection. And could not this have played some role in the creation of a universe where natural selection exists? It's not an, "unscientific," perspective to consider the limitations upon the things of which we are aware. And I'm not saying that means you need concede that speculation is fact, only that you are unable, due to failing to possess all the knowledge of existence, to say definitively that certain things are not possible.

That you might consider this is all I can hope for. If you wish to continue along this tack, may I suggest that Jung's theory of Synchronicity might be a good place to pick things up.

 

You know, I just read what I'd written & I can see how you seemingly mistook my point. But I wasn't saying there was no place for a, "Divine," force in the universe; consider my words as you might've had I not begun, "There is one word in there that trips you up...'probability'." For example:

It is interesting, to me at any rate, that such different interpretations can be drawn from the same words, based not just on one's perspective/bias but also on one's expectations. And, my post's coup de grace, the single chimp typing War and Peace on his first day, I would certainly not take as mere, "coincidence," (though there are those who could take it that way). And while it would seem clear to me that this was the result of their lack of understanding, I would have to admit that I had no proof of the reality which I believed them to be unwilling to consider. In short, we are all of us lacking in our knowledge & understanding, & so all rely on our personal insights which, are personal.

It is very true that my ideas don't identically match yours, but if that's what you're looking for it would seem that your time would be better spent at a church than in this forum. You did seem to appreciate my ideas when I initially posted here (post #17), which I saw you repost twice (see top of pg. 2).

In summation, even though I'd be sorry that I had unwittingly antagonized you or put a bee in your bonnet, I hope that was all that happened & not that you began the day in the mood for unnecessary confrontation. Make the rest of your day a good one JAG, not just for you, but for those with whom you interact. Peace be with you.

 

Thank you for the clarification and for your comments.

I agree.
Everything would go much better over coffee.
Text-only communication is not the ideal way to communicate.

Noted.

Noted

Agreed.

I am always glad to read what you write.

I am not looking for that.
I am more than willing to read your ideas that are different than
my ideas -- and thank you for posting your ideas.
The juice is in the controversy.
Nothing is more boring than this:
Red is a great color
Yeah I love red.
Oh boy red is really great.
Yeah I love red.
Yep
Yep
Red is one super great color.
Yeah that! I love red.
Nothing beats red.
Yep
Yep
I think red is just a really cool color
Yep
Yep

, , , lol , , ,

The juice is in the controversy.

I DO appreciate your ideas.

You did not antagonize me at all -- not any.

I am in a good mood and I appreciate your posts.

Thank you and the same back to you.

And with you.

May the Lord Bless you always.
May the Lord always Keep you safe.
May the Lord always make His Face to shine upon you.
May the Lord always be Gracious unto you.
May the Lord always turn His Face towards you.
May the Lord always give you His Peace.
May the Lord always Protect you.
May the Lord always Protect all those you love.
{Based on Numbers 6:22-26}

JAG


`

 

I believe I understand the example. I'm not sure I understand the questions in the last paragraph, or how this relates to the question at hand. I don't see any "group's tragedy" in your example (since you've specified that I 1/6 want to die, I'm not sure if you consider death to be a tragedy, or perhaps just the deviation from 1/6 deaths). Your "reasoning" that it's "10 against 1 that you won't get a bullet" is simply wrong (unless there is a chance that someone had messed with the gun, and in that case, that probability should have been taken into account when you decided on a six-shooter for a 1/6 chance to die).

That's true, it is not unscientific to be aware of the limitations of our conclusions. However, you would have to be careful with what conclusions to draw from that.

For instance, it is unscientific to place any trust in an unfalsifiable claim. Russell's teapot is an example of something that has evidence neither for it or against it, and that analogy shows that by default, such a proposition does not warrant a belief (and any other statement you can make about it, like "it's possible" is meaningless and possibly misleading).

There are other issues here (such as comparing two interpretations of possible: "a process by which this is possible exists"/"we can't rule it out given what we know", and what we might actually be able to say about any unseen force) but I reckon those are not super important for this post.

I'm aware of the concept. I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say about it though. It seems to me the human brain is very good at pattern recognition, to a fault. Human brains process an insane amount of information, and it is quite likely that we see coincidences in that information. However, when our brains then attribute meaning to it, it gives us the illusion that we found that coincidence in a much smaller pond than we actually did.

 

Sayeth Bertrand Russell regarding his Teapot analogy , ,

"I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes,
I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God
any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or
Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there
is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an
elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken
into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as
unlikely.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

And Russell's followers then came up with such as his:

"The concept of Russell's teapot has influenced more explicitly
religion-parodying concepts such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn[7]
and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.[16]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot#Influence_in_religious_parodies

________________


The very best "answer" to the atheist Bertrand Russel and to his Teapot Analogy
is for Christendom to go out there and build ANOTHER mega-church.

________________


"A megachurch is a church with an unusually large membership, who also
offer a variety of educational and social activities, usually Protestant or
Evangelical.[1] The Hartford Institute for Religion Research defines a
megachurch as any Protestant Christian church having 2,000 or more
people in average weekend attendance.[2][3][4][5]"

In 2010, the Hartford Institute's database listed more than 1,300 such
Protestant churches in the United States; according to that data,
approximately 50 churches on the list had average attendance
exceeding 10,000, with the highest recorded at 47,000 in average
attendance.[10] On one weekend in November 2015, around one
in ten Protestant churchgoers in the US, or about 5 million people,
attended service in a megachurch.[11] 3,000 individual Catholic
parishes have 2,000 or more attendants for an average Sunday
Mass, but they are not called megachurches as that is a
specifically Protestant term.[5]

Globally, these large congregations are a significant development
in Protestant Christianity.[12] In the United States, the phenomenon
has more than quadrupled in the past two decades.[13] It has since
spread worldwide. In 2007, five of the ten largest Protestant churches
were in South Korea.[14] The largest megachurch in the United States
is Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas, with more than 40,000
members every weekend, and the largest megachurch in the world
is South Korea's Yoido Full Gospel Church, an Assemblies of God
church, with more than 830,000 members as of 2007.[14][15]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megachurch

________________

The most important propositions that effect human
beings are not testable and not falsifiable:
{1} God created you.
[2} God created you for a purpose.
{3} God loves you.
{4} God has provided a way for you to live forever.
{5} God sent His Son the Lord Jesus to be your Savior.

Regarding Bertrand Russel's Teapot, this:

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and
deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and
the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ."
__Colossians 2:8

Best

JAG

 

I will begin by stipulating that my analogy was not very good (the scenario, I'd actually re-purposed, when I was tired)--thank you for responding, nonetheless. Hopefully, then, any particular details in it (like me calling your theoretical death, tragic) won't hinder us (like your questioning whether death would be tragic if one was 1/6th convinced to kill themself; I could argue that point, but it should really be irrelevant in advancing the conversation) from proceeding now that we're here.

Your reckoning, however, did not serve you well in thinking the concept quoted, above, was not consequential in this post (unlike distinguishing between a, "tragic," and, "non-tragic," suicide-- sorry, that's the last time I'll mention it).
It was, actually, my main point.

And it was all I asked that you consider doing: only acknowledging the possible; not just when it comes from a theoretical physicist but from anyone, despite that it might contradict the prevailing view of the scientific community, so long as it is not a fact proven beyond all doubt.

And THAT's wherein the problem lies: the tendency of science to do the same thing as those branded as anti-science are charged with: having an over-abundance of trust in some outside force; the only difference is that the entity in which its devotees place their faith, beyond what is uncontestably known, is "Science."

So let me quickly reframe. Science looks at things as they are & tries to understand how and why they came to be. Now there are a couple of categories of things, here. For example, when we're looking at human events, physical sciences generally step aside & leave their analyses to the social sciences, like history, which necessarily canNOT usually EMPLOY the same sort of controlled, reproducible experiments & studies. They are, by definition, speculative by nature, yet are treated as if that were not the case. The, "evidence," that, e.g., archeologists rely on, can often fall into the same category as your suggestion about Synchronicity:

Some examples of this would be the long-held contention, by Archeology, taken up by History, and believed by any, "reasonable," person who only accepts, "science-based," information, that the city of TROY never existed, that it was merely a myth. That does not mean that, "evidence," was not put forth to dispute that accepted belief. But it was, "properly," disregarded by archaeologists because, besides challenging the status quo, it was coming from someone w/o a degree in Archaeology, i.e., an obvious crackpot. All this could be assessed without need of investigation, by these, "scientists," because Heinrich Schliemann's theory was so patently
w/o substance-- he was using descriptive passages of Troy's surrounding landscape, from Homer's Illiad.

And that tale of science made a nice story, about a myth, until that unprofessional crank Schliemann used his bogus evidence to find & excavate the site of ancient Troy, proving his ridiculously unscientific theory. Please don't make the argument, here, that this is how science works: the reasonable, accepted theory is not overthrown by speculation, but only with sufficiently compelling evidence. The scientific community's belief was not, "we have too little evidence to determine whether Troy actually existed or if it was only a myth--" that would have been factual. No, it had turned a speculation, an assumption, into the orthodox belief, so that it required someone from outside of that branch of science, who'd not been indoctrinated into it's accepted view (& who's livelihood did not depend upon remaining true to that view) to actually correct it.

Schliemann was not a 1-trick pony, by the way. He later found the ancient Mycenaean sites of Mycenae & Tiryns. And there have been numerous other ancient places that were once accepted to be mere myths(without compelling evidence), that were later discovered to be real.

I could also talk about the dating of the Great Pyramid in Egypt being accepted w/ no proof. It is orthodox belief that it was built by Khufu, to be his tomb, though his sarcophagus has never been found. No mummy, no official inscriptions w/in, announcing Khufu as the builder/resident. The only supporting evidence was when an archaeologist-advocate of Khufu as the builder & entombant did a thorough exploration & yet found nothing until he got to the last room, one that was never intended to be opened, & then supposedly found, not a bold, official inscription, but the name if Khufu graffiti-scratched into a wall, by a worker, supposedly. This fortuitous find brought much acclaim, as you can imagine, "proving," the thing that science already assumed to be true; though it's been suggested that the archaeologist himself, was the true graffitier. It's another case in which, if the fact lived up to the claims, the scientific verdict should always have been: "it's unclear." But science generally doesn't like to admit that, if they don't have to. Usually it's not until they've made progress on whatever theory is going to fill that gap of uncertainty.

You are probably wondering what that has to do w/ evolution or the creation of the universe. I need to lay a foundation in other sciences first, because I don't possess (& it would be surprising if you did) the technical expertise to really debate those topics: it comes down to you trust what the scientists say, or you have reservations.

But here's a case w/ more practical importance. Gaspar de Carvajal, the Dominican priest & chronicler for Spain's Francisco de Orellana, recorded huge numbers of people living in the Amazon basin, when they accomplished its 1st successful European navigation in 1541. When that account finally came to light in the 1800's, scientists ignored it because they assumed it to be a fiction. It was well-known that the Amazon's soil was too acidic to grow enough to support large populations. Hence, there was no attendant investigation of this.

Just recently, the truth behind that original account was verified by the discovery of TERRA PRETA, a dark, rich soil that the Amazonians had CREATED, and which is still fertile all these centuries later! Despite the obvious interest in discovering the way they accomplished this, none of our attempts to reproduce it have succeeded. The method 's secrets have also been long-lost to the current inhabitants.

I'm going to need a break, so I hope you'll excuse me, for now. I'll try to shepherd my arguments to a speedy conclusion in my next installment.

 

@Swensson
Continuing from post #183, I will let suffice for those just joining this conversation that I am offering a criticism NOT of the scientific method, but of its method of employment, overall, in practice. That is to say, my question could be rephrased as: "Is Science, "scientific," enough? The evidence, I feel, suggests that, oftentimes, it is not.

The Ideal of science is to act, in its judgements, like a jury: unbiased, open-minded, impartial. However, scientists are also human beings &, as such, are subject to the same tunnel-vision of which they (& their acolytes) accuse others, who look to different sources (e.g., religion) for guidance.

In an effort to avoid either misapprehension by the reader, or mis-characterization by other posters, I hope you all will forgive my redundancy in pointing out things like : I did NOT just equate science w/ religion. The careful reader would understand that I merely pointed out that people adhering to a strictly, "science-based," view, can be prone to treating its dictates much the way that a religious adherent may think of the pronouncements of their own particular, "faith." For any devotees of science whose claws are now out, in preparation for an attack, I can only say, "just like a goodly-aggressive, Christian soldier."

These comments I would, typically, place in my summation. However, to make any credible indictment against such a pillar of society as our system of science, requires fulsome helpings of evidence, which I began providing in the first, fairly lengthy installment. But, realizing that it might well take 3 installments, it seemed unrealistic to expect to keep anyone's attention that long, just to get to some statement of my intent. Therefore, I am putting forth part of my thesis now, to be followed by more supporting evidence & then abridged concluding remarks.

I am NOT a Denier of scientific fact, I am a Skeptic of Scientific Speculation (which is, all too often, presented as proven fact). I, myself, was once a person you could expect to tow the party line, just like the true believers we might hear telling anyone w/in earshot that, "vaccines are perfectly safe!"-- again, be careful not to leap to the unscientific conclusion that I am an 'anti-vaccer'." The above statement of safety, not unlike others presented from the perspective of scientists (esp. in the medical field)-- but not from a scientifically accurate perspective-- is basically true. But not completely. Yet those non-scientists who parrot it are, I believe for most, completely unaware that their unfettered faith in the medical profession is making them purveyors of what is, literally speaking, a lie.

I can prove that it is not true, absolutely-- as it is stated-- that, "vaccinations are perfectly safe." Now, if there were some conditions placed on the assertion, like, "FOR MOST PEOPLE, vaccinations are VERY safe," I would agree, in the case of either adult-, or single-dose children's vaccinations. And what proof can I offer that they are not completely safe for young kids? I'm glad you asked (this is the summary for the NIH-- Nat'l Inst. of Health [an agency of the Fed. Govt.] article on immune thrombocytopenia, or low blood-platelet count; the link, for the full report, is below [but don't think the site would be easy to find, on your own]):

Vaccine administration and the development of immune thrombocytopenic purpura in children

Valerio Cecinati, Nicola Principi, [...], and Susanna Esposito

Additional article information

Abstract
The most important reasons cited by the opponents of vaccines are concerns about vaccine safety. Unlike issues such as autism for which no indisputable documentation of direct relationship with vaccine use is available, immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) is an adverse event that can really follow vaccine administration, and may limit vaccine use because little is known about which vaccines it may follow, its real incidence and severity, the risk of chronic disease, or the possibility of recurrences after new doses of the same vaccine. The main aim of this review is to clarify the real importance of thrombocytopenia as an adverse event and discuss how it may interfere with recommended vaccination schedules. The available data clearly indicate that ITP is very rare and the only vaccine for which there is a demonstrated cause-effect relationship is the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine that can occur in 1 to 3 children every 100,000 vaccine doses. However, also in this case, the incidence of ITP is significantly lower than that observed during the natural diseases that the vaccine prevents. Consequently, ITP cannot be considered a problem limiting vaccine use except in the case of children suffering from chronic ITP who have to receive MMR vaccine. In these subjects, the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine should be weighed against the risk of measles in the community.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3899154/

How do I know about this condition? Through both my niece, & my nephew, children of my 2 different sisters, contracting this condition, around the time of receiving their MMR (measels, mumps, & rubella) immunization. The niece was still an infant, the nephew was a pre- (or new) teen. Both had their platelet counts drop so low, on numerous occasions, that they were rushed to the hospital, given I.V.s, & kept for days until their counts were high enough to not be considered in grave danger of bleeding to death, internally.

Both sisters also quickly became aware of numerous others amongst their acquaintances whose children likewise had this condition develop after a vaccine. At that time, the govt. was not officially admitting that vaccines were definitely the cause, but nevertheless had instituted a program which, if any child met the criteria for developing this condition w/in near enough proximity to that particular immunization, the child was automatically awarded a sizeable liability payment-- not because the govt. was necessarily admitting it was due to the immunization, just because the U.S. gov't is so accomodating in handing out checks on the mere possibility of liability, like w/ the problems Viet Nam vets believed were due to their exposure to Agent Orange or with later complaints dubbed, "Gulf War Syndrome." (For those who are unfamiliar w/ this history, I am being sarcastic: the govt. fought tooth-&-nail to deny there was significant proof that there was a definitive connection, & so that the military was culpable, in both cases).

Now, I see from the abstract, they are openly admitting that vaccines are a cause-- but before anyone goes parroting back the scientific, "rationale," for why this should be disregarded, I think it is important, if a scieci-phile reading this is going to make even one step towards intellectual self- honesty, that he or she concede the REAL FACT that, whenever someone says, whether they're a medical expert or only a lay-person pretending to be, that, " Vaccines are perfectly-safe," or, "There is no scientific evidence to support a wariness of vaccines," or the like, that person is DEMONSTRABLY not being truthful about the science.

I've got more to say on this topic but I have to go, & my phone is not worthy of trusting not to lose all of this post, so far, if I were to wait to post everything at once (ahhh, our virtually infallible technology!). So when I return, I'll quote from the NIH report abstract & continue from here.

 

It felt a bit nitpicky, but ok, if you want to get into that bit, I can do that.

"Possible" can mean (at least) two different things. For instance, "it is possible for many birds to fly" or "it is possible that this bird flew a minute ago". The former is a statement about the world, it claims that there is some possibility that really exists. The latter is an expression of something that may or may not have been (in a way, it is a statement about what we know or can know). While neither of these are wrong, it is not uncommon for people to conflate the two, or to lend credence to one that has been deserved by the other. The former is very powerful, the second is in itself next to meaningless. "Isn't it possible that Hitler faked his death, moved to Cyprus and taught yodelling professionally?". You're right in that that sort of possibility exists for, well, for almost anything. I don't want to declare it as unscientific, but I wouldn't expect that within science, other than illustratively.

Whether there exists a process by which it would be possible for God to intervene with evolution is unknown to me (this is me really struggling to not mix the two usages up, I kind of wanted to say "it is possible that it is in fact impossible for God to interfere"). Given that that is unknown to me, it feels weird to declare that that possibility exists.

I really don't want to be the one who nit-picks every word, but is it "science" who is doing this, or is it "some scientists", or perhaps even more likely "some people who like the idea of science"? And the entity in which they place undue faith, is it science or is it some information compiled by educators or journalists?

Of course no person, scientist or otherwise, are without their biases and paradigms. My best understanding of science is compatible with that. Most science as I perceive it is well aware of the paradigms and frameworks of thought they work within. That's not to say there aren't people who are worse than others, or that mistakes are impossible in practice.

Certainly, I agree that there are people who thump science.net in the same way as others thump the Bible, and I don't endorse that as a concept. That being said, at least they have some idea of how information can be verified and propagate, whereas I'm struggling to find the same in religion.

Treated by whom? It seems to me historians and laypeople are pretty aware of the limitations of history and the like. I don't know how everyone sees it, of course.

Keep your examples few and sweet, I don't want to have to do a lot of digging to investigate points that could be done more quickly.

Again, where do you get your information about what is accepted and to what extent? Surprisingly, even Wikipedia has a note on this:

George Grote in particular affirmed that it was "... in the eyes of modern inquiry essentially a legend and nothing more.... If we are asked whether it be not a legend embodying portions of historical matter ... our answer must be, that as the possibility of it cannot be denied, so neither can the reality of it be affirmed." Grote, George (1869). A History of Greece from the Earliest Period to the Close of the Generation Contemporary with Alexander the Great. 1. London: J. Murray. p. 312. (source)​

It seems to me that people have always been aware of the angle that you mention, it just doesn't mean very much by itself. In fact, my guess would be that most people are well aware of the angle, but don't see much point in harping on about it.

I'm skipping the Egypt example due to time constraints.

This section doesn't seem to have anything direct on whether people were so sure that it couldn't be another way. The decision of what to investigate is not a testament that they thought it couldn't be another way than it was, that is also at the whims of funding, etc.. And even so, yes, it makes sense to use our best guesses to figure out what is the best thing to investigate.

What exactly is the criticism here? Obviously our knowledge of the world has gaps in it, but science doesn't postulate that we should know before investigating what is worth investigating in.

 

I don't think it takes three posts to make the point that there are people who are sloppy with their wordings, or their understanding of all the assumptions that go in to scientific and adjacent fields. My guess, although I could be wrong, is that most people who say vaccines are safe are not trying to convey that there is a literal zero chance that you have an allergic reaction or the like. My guess, again, is that the scientific literature is full of standard phrases that cover what you're talking about.

 

Well I would say that your guess IS wrong, and that's giving you the benefit of the assumption that you watch NO television news/commentary. Anyone who does, should be able to appreciate the veracity of my contention. If it requires me linking my post to a clip, I'll see what I can do. But in any interview w/ a doctor, about vaccinations, on MSNBC, CNN, or the like, the host will lump all those who have any concerns over government vaccine recommendations in together as ignorant, ill-informed, panicked for no good reason, acting illogically, irresponsibly endangering others, etc. The host will state (their understanding of) the FDA's & CDC's view, which will generally leave out the fine print, to be that vaccinations are completely safe, & then a medical doctor, sometimes from the CDC or some other gov't agency, will be interviewed to underscore the same idea, i.e., that vaccines are beneficial. But this is false argument because, besides some members of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, most people already understand that the concept of vaccination is a wonderful thing. But that's not the same as never meeting an inoculation you didn't like.

The thing is, for me to continue w/ my rebuttal, I would now have to make the argument I plan on making in my next installment; I do try to keep my arguments flowing in a cogent manner, grouping related ideas together & not darting back & forth between disconnected subjects.

I'm explaining this because I'd like to know where you stand on how we should proceed. While I don't know your usual tone & so can't judge from that better-informed perspective, I've picked up on what feels to me like your being at a party that you'd rather not be at. In your answers, I'm sensing a bit of impatience, maybe that you find my argument tedious & your answering, somewhat of a chore
that you're not enjoining whole-heartedly, kind of like balancing your checkbook (unless you enjoy that more). This impression-- which, of course, in any interaction between people, especially when facial cues of expression are removed, could be completely imagined-- nevertheless cannot help but affect how I word my answers (see the preceding disclaimer about misjudgement in interpersonal communication).

If I'm going to make the argument I've begun, I would honestly prefer
to get through the whole thing w/o diverting into answering points made against my only partially unfurled case, as I would think you might be able to understand. By the same token, I could understand your not wanting to have to wait & then be expected to address some sprawling treatise. So I'll suggest something, but remain open to alternate suggestions from you.

The main reason I chose you for my initial post was your seeming facility translating things into numeric equations. That really only applied to the argument specifically concerning probability. Though that argument led to this one (which is why I linked the first installment of this second, but much more comprehensive attempt to your name), there is no longer any need for it to be addressed specifically to you. Therefore, if I just carry on w/ my argument w/o making it a, "reply," to you (or anyone else), you would still have the option of replying, in an a la carte manner to anything in that argument you wish, w/o feeling compelled to go through it point by point. And I, then, would not feel obliged to reply, to
comments directed at my argument, in consideration of anyone else's time schedule but my own. What do you think?

 

Yeah, I think I might need a clip for reference. I did some light googling, and found only instances where they talked about a very narrow aspect.

Yes, I don't watch a lot of TV, and certainly not a lot of American TV, which again raises the question I asked before, who it is you're referring to? Your started out talking about matters arising directly from the thought examples, then you shifted into "science" as a blanket concept and then into "the scientific community" and scientists, and then into people who place too much trust in current best guesses and then into CNN. All of the above will have different approaches to the topic you bring up, and I have a suspicion that you have mixed them up somewhere.

Certainly, I have no particular interest in answering a bunch of stuff that doesn't have to do with the topic. I'd prefer if you state where you're going first, and then respond to the criticisms brought up. Otherwise, I can't tell whether I'm just nit-picking irrelevant stuff, or whether I care about the conclusion/topic at all.

If your conclusion relies on a certain argument, expect that argument to be examined thoroughly. If your conclusion does not rely on that argument, don't make it.

I would expect your final "instalment" to rely on your previous ones, so I would expect you to have to deal with the comments I have brought up. It seems to me, using the quote function would be a sensible way of doing that, but of course I can't stop you.

 

Yes, in Jag’s post, two misunderstandings are exhibited. The first being, a misunderstanding of statistics and the second, a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. That Shakespeare produced Hamlet was the result of chance and time is not an argument with any logical basis, nor is the proposition that given the variables of time and chance that evolution will produce an intelligent (as measured by some subjective level technological standard of complexity) species with, again, some level of subjective measure social technical organization resembling an advanced civilization inevitably result. Evolutionary theory, and it’s underlying process, Natural Selection, provides no prediction for future results, no prediction for a vector of increased complexity, and does not rely on chance; these ideas are Victorian age innocent misunderstandings, and purposeful mischaracterizations of Evolutionary theory, that still persist today. One of the largest misunderstandings is that Evolutionary Theory, obvious from Darwin’s work, Wallace’s contribution as well as all related research over the last 150 years, does not provide prediction, but is retrodiction based, something easily deduced from the title of Darwin’s iconic work, ‘the Origin of Species’. If there is any prediction, it is based on characterizing the nature of corroborative evidence that would be found in other fields of scientific research and not in charting the result of future changes in any life species.
In understanding chance, statistical probability, say in something as simple as calculating the odds of rolling 5 dice and turning 5 sixes as having a probability of occurring once in every x roles does not mean, the dice have to be rolled x times to get that result; a result of 5 sixes could happen on the first roll. I once owned a pub in Wisconsin where the playing of bar dice is nearly considered an unassailable right, one exempted from ‘chance game law’ despite the calls from some to outlaw the game. I have seen 5 sixes thrown in a roll... I have seen it...wouldn’t bet on it.
As for evolution, despite all the proponents of chance mutation by whatever agent, the concept of chance doesn’t need to be applied in any explanation; the mechanism of the genetic signature of any offspring being inherited from the combination of the parent’s genetic signature’s which then are subjected to natural selection provides the simple basis for introducing variation in any species... it’s a fundamental design feature of all life and whether a divine design feature or of natural origin, it is what it is, and underlies and helps explain the variation of life we observe today. Our understanding of the biological processes has made significant progress since Mendel’s time https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_genetics . And, with the advent of developing the CRISPR technology is rapidly evolving to the point where Man is developing the ability to customize DNA and to intervene in shaping our species. And, further, we are at the dawn of the technology for engineering synthetic life, something an entirely new industry is beginning to emerge.
There is Natural Selection, and now rapidly developing there is Human custom designer selection. What do the scriptures say about that which hasn’t already been warned of by Mary Shelly?

 

I think all of that up there has already been covered by posts in this thread.
However, I am prepared to stand on this below until the end of days,

JAG Writes:
Some Evolutionists have said that "If it is possible, given enough tries, it is inevitable."
My view is the absurd is NOT possible and that if you believe the following
then you believe the absurd and nonsensical.

The subject here is Dice thrown into the air , , , ,

Some Evolutionists say that if you throw any number of Dice into the air
"enough times, then at some point all the Dice will come up 6's -- they
say it does NOT matter HOW MANY Dice you throw into the air , , ,

My view is this claim is absurd nonsense and here is WHY I say that , , ,

You have to produce absolute Empirical proof that , ,,
999,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999, trillion
to the power of
999,999,999,999, 999, 999,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,, 999.999.999.999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999, trillion Dice
if thrown in the air, enough times, will inevitably, all come up all 6's
``
Then add this , , ,
For all you know for a fact, it might take 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,999,999,999, trillion times MORE than that up there , ,
to equal the complexity of the total Earth and every single thing on the Earth.
You simply can NOT , , KNOW , , what the actual level of complexity is.
And if you say you DO know, then you are speaking as a Man Of Faith.

"If it is possible, then given enough tries, it is inevitable" is
a Faith Belief. And it does not matter how high the numbers go
on the "Enough Tries Principle" ALL the dice at some point MUST
come up all 6's And THAT is absurd. It is absurd to believe that is
even a remote possibility. I am not going to believe the absurd in
the name of Logic.

"If it is possible, then given enough tries, it is inevitable, but the absurd is not possible."___JAG

JAG

PS
It takes much MORE Faith to believe that up there, than it takes to believe
"That God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever
believes in Him shall not perish but have Eternal Life."

"Have Faith in God."___The Lord Jesus {Mark 11:22}

``

 

You are too hung up in your bias to understand what I posted; repeating your post simply continues to underscore that point. OK, nothing of value to be gained in a dialog with you, you neither understand statistics nor have any grasp of evolutionary theory. In the latter case, an analogy is doing a review and commentary of the works of Shakespeare without ever having read his work. Your characterization and rejection of Evolutionary theory is based in a rejection of a theory you don’t understand, making the same leap of a misunderstanding as those Victorian age detractors criticizing Darwin by suggesting Darwin was making a claim that man evolved from the great apps; something Darwin never suggested. So, defend your position all you want, just don’t have expectations your arguments have relevance beyond your frame of reference; you have lots of company. But for me, I can but smile; seems strange that those that might believe in Intelligent Design would reject Evolution and the concept of Natural Selections as an elegant mechanism that is still a progressing element of that design.
Rejecting Science and the knowledge it fosters, IMO, is tantamount to a rejection of the works of God. As Isaac Newton, one of the father’s of Science, who probably wrote vastly more of his views on Christianity than science once opined, " God is known by His works ". Even Einstien was quoted as saying, “that “I want to know how God created this world. I’m not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts, the rest are details.”
So, relax, learn. Understanding Evolution and how it resulted in us, is not a denial of God, rather, the rejection of the Theory of Evolution and it’s corroboration of related scientific work is a rejection of those that reject the idea of divinity as causal citing the Theory as supporting evidence, but the Theory could just as easily support a belief in God in the role of an intelligent designer and creator. It’s an amazing reality, an amazing world however it came to be; for me, I want to understand how it works and trust in the scientific method to help in that understanding, not in the scripture that is a product of myth and legend perpetuated by imperfect humans with all of the attending questions of subjective interpretations, conflicting motives, generations of translations and transcription error, various histories of social and political influences, and other corrupting sources that ‘evolved’ and shaped what many subjectively and without rational critical thinking believe is ‘the Word’.
So, reject what you don’t understand to support your narrative. It’s ok if that is what gives you comfort.

 

You don't know or understand what you are talking about.
You do not know and do not understand what has already
been posted in this thread -- yet you continue to "hold forth"
on the subject anyway. You keep right on rumbling on
even though I have CLEARLY said, in this thread, the
following:

JAG wrote:
I do NOT say that Evolution is not true.

Theistic Evolution may be the way it happened.
My view is that it has NOT been scientifically proved
that the one-celled speck in the Primordial Slime eventually
became "Oprah Winfrey" and "Joe Biden" , ,

, , but, , ,

, , Evolution is not a crucial issue for the Christian anyway.

Millions of us say Evolutionists have NOT scientifically proved
that "George W. Bush" started off as a single-celled speck that
"came up out of the Slime" -- but even if they do, one day, prove
that it happened that way, So what? Who cares?

We Christians will forever believe in the God that created the highly
complex Human Person, the highly complex Human Brain, the highly
complex Human Eye, the highly complex Earth, the highly complex
Universe, and all that exists --- how He did it, is interesting but it has
zero to do with our Faith in God , ,,

, , , repeat , , ,

how He did it, is interesting but it has zero to do with
our Faith in God , ,,

"Have Faith in God."___The Lord Jesus {Mark 11:22}

JAG
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-typing-monkeys.578368/page-6#post-1072066682
End quote

_____________


You keep right on rumbling on even though I have said that the following
may be the way it all happened.

Modernpalidin Wrote:
"[.....] , , . I think evolution is the most likely and most accurate
(though not definitive or entirely accurate) depiction of the process
as it occurred in our reality. But I am ultimately a creationist.
It seems most likely to me that the Creation Story
depicted in The Bible is from the spiritual perspective and
attempting to describe the process in those terms. From our
perspective (had we been conscious to witness it) we would
have seen days 5 and 6 of the creation story take place
over hundreds of millions of years. God is timeless. If
Evolution is viewed through extreme 'fast forward', its
not meaningfully different from Creation by the 'unseen
hand' guiding the mutations and adaptations toward a
specific design.

So I am one example of a believer in Evolution but not
abiogenesis (at least not on its fundamental level that
it occurred by chance).:_______Modernpalidin
{in this thread}
Link:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-typing-monkeys.578368/page-4#post-1072052847


Best Regards.


JAG

 

"We Christians will forever believe..."
You are not the spokesperson for all Christians.

 

True.
You scored a point.

Best.

JAG

``

 

This one doesn't yet understand accumulation, as that term is use in the context of biological evolution.