|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability? Take those elements out of science categorically and you will have no reliable building blocks from which to draw any scientific conclusions. Removing them from the origins model simply means that the model is no longer scientific and that the conclusions being drawn from such a selective model are not scientific. So until someone comes up with a mathematical and statistical case of probability that is demonstrated in a repeatedly sustainable model to show life spontaneously generating from random materialistic processes that start with nothing; we should not even consider it intelligently viable. Science does not exclude logic, math, or statistical probability. These are the very tools of science. It is the theist who misrepresents science in an attempt to justify creation by Magic. Once again: Introduction''Both traditional creationists and intelligent design writers have invoked probability arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, "random" process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. They often equate the hypothesis of evolution to the absurd suggestion that monkeys randomly typing at a typewriter could compose a selection from the works of Shakespeare, or that an explosion in an aerospace equipment yard could produce a working 747 airliner [Dembski1998; Foster1991; Hoyle1981; Lennox2009]. More recent studies of this genre, in an attempt to promote an "intelligent design" worldview, argue that functional biology operates on an exceedingly small subset of the space of all possible DNA sequences, and that any changes to the "computer program" of biology are, like changes to human computer programs, almost certain to make the organism non-functional [Axe2017; Marks2017].''
Fallacies in the creationist probability arguments
One major fallacy in the alpha-globin argument mentioned above, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a enormous figure but incomparably smaller than 10183. A calculation such as this can be refined further, taking into account other features of alpha-globin and its related biochemistry. Some of these calculations produce probability values even more extreme than the above. But do any of these calculations really matter? The main problem is that all such calculations, whether done accurately or not, suffer from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event. But generating a molecule "at random" in a single shot is decidedly not the scientific hypothesis in question -- this is a creationist theory, not a scientific theory. Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic has demonstrated that alpha-globin arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. See, for example, the survey article [Hardison2001], which cites 144 papers on the topic of hemoglobin evolution (note: this reference is now 17 years out of date -- many more have been published since then). In short, the creationist-intelligent design argument claiming that scientists assert an all-at-once "at random" creation of various biomolecules, and then asserting that this is probabilistically impossible, is a classic "straw man" fallacy. Scientists do not believe this, so this line of argumentation is completely invalid. In other words, it does not matter how good or how bad the mathematics used in the analysis is, if the underlying model is a fundamentally invalid description of the phenomenon in question. Any simplistic probability calculation of evolution that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is almost certainly fallacious and can easily mislead [Musgrave1998; Rosenhouse2018]. What's more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of "random" assemblage. Yet this process occurs many times every day in the human body and in every other plant and animal species.''
I have to chuckle when I read this nonsensical mumbo-jumbo because it is essentially saying that if we can exclude the logic and mathematics required by the big cosmic picture from the equation we might have a case of statistical probability for one minuscule factor. And we should exclude the big picture, because the scientific model that we arbitrarily created does not need to consider all the properties in the universe that need to align, in order for this one proposition in our model to prove itself on the basis of our selective criteria whereby we eliminated all other relevant factors.
The people that write such nonsense are either motivated by pure prejudice or they are educated beyond their intelligence--or both.
You are merely offering your opinion. An opinion that is the expression of your faith. Faith being a belief held without evidence. Sorry to be blunt.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,036
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,036 |
How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability? Take those elements out of science categorically and you will have no reliable building blocks from which to draw any scientific conclusions. Removing them from the origins model simply means that the model is no longer scientific and that the conclusions being drawn from such a selective model are not scientific. So until someone comes up with a mathematical and statistical case of probability that is demonstrated in a repeatedly sustainable model to show life spontaneously generating from random materialistic processes that start with nothing; we should not even consider it intelligently viable. Science does not exclude logic, math, or statistical probability. These are the very tools of science. It is the theist who misrepresents science in an attempt to justify creation by Magic. Once again: Introduction''Both traditional creationists and intelligent design writers have invoked probability arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, "random" process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. They often equate the hypothesis of evolution to the absurd suggestion that monkeys randomly typing at a typewriter could compose a selection from the works of Shakespeare, or that an explosion in an aerospace equipment yard could produce a working 747 airliner [Dembski1998; Foster1991; Hoyle1981; Lennox2009]. More recent studies of this genre, in an attempt to promote an "intelligent design" worldview, argue that functional biology operates on an exceedingly small subset of the space of all possible DNA sequences, and that any changes to the "computer program" of biology are, like changes to human computer programs, almost certain to make the organism non-functional [Axe2017; Marks2017].''
Fallacies in the creationist probability arguments
One major fallacy in the alpha-globin argument mentioned above, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a enormous figure but incomparably smaller than 10183. A calculation such as this can be refined further, taking into account other features of alpha-globin and its related biochemistry. Some of these calculations produce probability values even more extreme than the above. But do any of these calculations really matter? The main problem is that all such calculations, whether done accurately or not, suffer from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event. But generating a molecule "at random" in a single shot is decidedly not the scientific hypothesis in question -- this is a creationist theory, not a scientific theory. Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic has demonstrated that alpha-globin arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. See, for example, the survey article [Hardison2001], which cites 144 papers on the topic of hemoglobin evolution (note: this reference is now 17 years out of date -- many more have been published since then). In short, the creationist-intelligent design argument claiming that scientists assert an all-at-once "at random" creation of various biomolecules, and then asserting that this is probabilistically impossible, is a classic "straw man" fallacy. Scientists do not believe this, so this line of argumentation is completely invalid. In other words, it does not matter how good or how bad the mathematics used in the analysis is, if the underlying model is a fundamentally invalid description of the phenomenon in question. Any simplistic probability calculation of evolution that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is almost certainly fallacious and can easily mislead [Musgrave1998; Rosenhouse2018]. What's more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of "random" assemblage. Yet this process occurs many times every day in the human body and in every other plant and animal species.''
I have to chuckle when I read this nonsensical mumbo-jumbo because it is essentially saying that if we can exclude the logic and mathematics required by the big cosmic picture from the equation we might have a case of statistical probability for one minuscule factor. And we should exclude the big picture, because the scientific model that we arbitrarily created does not need to consider all the properties in the universe that need to align, in order for this one proposition in our model to prove itself on the basis of our selective criteria whereby we eliminated all other relevant factors.
The people that write such nonsense are either motivated by pure prejudice or they are educated beyond their intelligence--or both.
You are merely offering your opinion. An opinion that is the expression of your faith. Faith being a belief held without evidence. Sorry to be blunt. Jesus, you are one stupid man DBT. Of course Thunderstick is offering his opinion (analysis actually). The issue is whether this analysis is correct. Merely because it is "his" however does make it incorrect. Therefore, responding to his analysis by saying "you are merely offering your opinion" is to essentially to respond with unintelligible nonsense. Your statement that his opinion is "the expression of his faith" is equally vapid, nonsensical and and utterly false. In the first place, are all opinions mere expressions of faith, or just the ones you don't like? But Thunderstick pointed out quite cogently that the article you "cut and pasted" in response to the statistical problem is really nothing more than hand-waving. It is therefore not much of a response at all. He did not offer a belief held without evidence, he offered a logical deconstruction of the article you pasted. If you want to refute him, knock yourself out, but calling his analysis an expression of faith is not merely utterly stupid, it is false. By the way, if you want to talk about faith, then let's discuss the faith required to belief in the neo-Darwinian creation story---that against impossible statistical odds, evolution just has to be true because our a priori commitment to materialism demands a naturalistic creation story. Talk about metaphysical faith!
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,036
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,036 |
[quote=Thunderstick]How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability? Take those elements out of science categorically and you will have no reliable building blocks from which to draw any scientific conclusions. Removing them from the origins model simply means that the model is no longer scientific and that the conclusions being drawn from such a selective model are not scientific. So until someone comes up with a mathematical and statistical case of probability that is demonstrated in a repeatedly sustainable model to show life spontaneously generating from random materialistic processes that start with nothing; we should not even consider it intelligently viable. Science does not exclude logic, math, or statistical probability. These are the very tools of science. It is the theist who misrepresents science in an attempt to justify creation by Magic. Once again: Introduction''Both traditional creationists and intelligent design writers have invoked probability arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, "random" process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. They often equate the hypothesis of evolution to the absurd suggestion that monkeys randomly typing at a typewriter could compose a selection from the works of Shakespeare, or that an explosion in an aerospace equipment yard could produce a working 747 airliner [Dembski1998; Foster1991; Hoyle1981; Lennox2009]. More recent studies of this genre, in an attempt to promote an "intelligent design" worldview, argue that functional biology operates on an exceedingly small subset of the space of all possible DNA sequences, and that any changes to the "computer program" of biology are, like changes to human computer programs, almost certain to make the organism non-functional [Axe2017; Marks2017].''
Fallacies in the creationist probability arguments
One major fallacy in the alpha-globin argument mentioned above, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a enormous figure but incomparably smaller than 10183. A calculation such as this can be refined further, taking into account other features of alpha-globin and its related biochemistry. Some of these calculations produce probability values even more extreme than the above. But do any of these calculations really matter? The main problem is that all such calculations, whether done accurately or not, suffer from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event. But generating a molecule "at random" in a single shot is decidedly not the scientific hypothesis in question -- this is a creationist theory, not a scientific theory. Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic has demonstrated that alpha-globin arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. See, for example, the survey article [Hardison2001], which cites 144 papers on the topic of hemoglobin evolution (note: this reference is now 17 years out of date -- many more have been published since then). In short, the creationist-intelligent design argument claiming that scientists assert an all-at-once "at random" creation of various biomolecules, and then asserting that this is probabilistically impossible, is a classic "straw man" fallacy. Scientists do not believe this, so this line of argumentation is completely invalid. In other words, it does not matter how good or how bad the mathematics used in the analysis is, if the underlying model is a fundamentally invalid description of the phenomenon in question. Any simplistic probability calculation of evolution that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is almost certainly fallacious and can easily mislead [Musgrave1998; Rosenhouse2018]. What's more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of "random" assemblage. Yet this process occurs many times every day in the human body and in every other plant and animal species.''
I have to chuckle when I read this nonsensical mumbo-jumbo because it is essentially saying that if we can exclude the logic and mathematics required by the big cosmic picture from the equation we might have a case of statistical probability for one minuscule factor. And we should exclude the big picture, because the scientific model that we arbitrarily created does not need to consider all the properties in the universe that need to align, in order for this one proposition in our model to prove itself on the basis of our selective criteria whereby we eliminated all other relevant factors.
The people that write such nonsense are either motivated by pure prejudice or they are educated beyond their intelligence--or both.
You are merely offering your opinion. An opinion that is the expression of your faith. Faith being a belief held without evidence. Sorry to be blunt. Jesus, you are one stupid man DBT. Of course Thunderstick is offering his opinion (analysis actually). The issue is whether his analysis is correct. Merely because it is "his" however does make it incorrect. Therefore, responding to his analysis by saying "you are merely offering your opinion" is essentially to respond with unintelligible nonsense. Your statement that his opinion is "the expression of his faith" is equally nonsensical and and utterly false. In the first place, are all opinions mere expressions of faith, or just the ones you don't like? But Thunderstick pointed out quite cogently that the article you "cut and pasted" in response to the statistical problem evolution must overcome to be true is really nothing more than hand-waving. His response was quite substantive. He did not offer a belief held without evidence, he offered a logical deconstruction of the article you pasted. If you want to refute him, knock yourself out by address his actual argument. But calling his analysis an expression of faith is no response at all because his deconstruction of your cut and paste is in o way an expression of faith. Its an actual argument! By the way, if you want to talk about faith, then let's discuss the faith required to belief in the neo-Darwinian creation story---that against impossible statistical odds, evolution just has to be true because our a priori commitment to materialism demands a naturalistic creation story. Talk about metaphysical faith! Oh and by the way, faith is not a belief held without evidence. It is a belief held where the evidence is insufficient to provide certain knowledge. You've just demonstrated that you're unable to understand, conceptualize and articulate the definition of even a simple one syllable word. Come back when you've gained some intelligence.
Last edited by Tarquin; 08/08/19.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
[quote=Thunderstick]How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability? Take those elements out of science categorically and you will have no reliable building blocks from which to draw any scientific conclusions. Removing them from the origins model simply means that the model is no longer scientific and that the conclusions being drawn from such a selective model are not scientific. So until someone comes up with a mathematical and statistical case of probability that is demonstrated in a repeatedly sustainable model to show life spontaneously generating from random materialistic processes that start with nothing; we should not even consider it intelligently viable. Science does not exclude logic, math, or statistical probability. These are the very tools of science. It is the theist who misrepresents science in an attempt to justify creation by Magic. Once again: Introduction''Both traditional creationists and intelligent design writers have invoked probability arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, "random" process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. They often equate the hypothesis of evolution to the absurd suggestion that monkeys randomly typing at a typewriter could compose a selection from the works of Shakespeare, or that an explosion in an aerospace equipment yard could produce a working 747 airliner [Dembski1998; Foster1991; Hoyle1981; Lennox2009]. More recent studies of this genre, in an attempt to promote an "intelligent design" worldview, argue that functional biology operates on an exceedingly small subset of the space of all possible DNA sequences, and that any changes to the "computer program" of biology are, like changes to human computer programs, almost certain to make the organism non-functional [Axe2017; Marks2017].''
Fallacies in the creationist probability arguments
One major fallacy in the alpha-globin argument mentioned above, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a enormous figure but incomparably smaller than 10183. A calculation such as this can be refined further, taking into account other features of alpha-globin and its related biochemistry. Some of these calculations produce probability values even more extreme than the above. But do any of these calculations really matter? The main problem is that all such calculations, whether done accurately or not, suffer from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event. But generating a molecule "at random" in a single shot is decidedly not the scientific hypothesis in question -- this is a creationist theory, not a scientific theory. Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic has demonstrated that alpha-globin arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. See, for example, the survey article [Hardison2001], which cites 144 papers on the topic of hemoglobin evolution (note: this reference is now 17 years out of date -- many more have been published since then). In short, the creationist-intelligent design argument claiming that scientists assert an all-at-once "at random" creation of various biomolecules, and then asserting that this is probabilistically impossible, is a classic "straw man" fallacy. Scientists do not believe this, so this line of argumentation is completely invalid. In other words, it does not matter how good or how bad the mathematics used in the analysis is, if the underlying model is a fundamentally invalid description of the phenomenon in question. Any simplistic probability calculation of evolution that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is almost certainly fallacious and can easily mislead [Musgrave1998; Rosenhouse2018]. What's more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of "random" assemblage. Yet this process occurs many times every day in the human body and in every other plant and animal species.''
I have to chuckle when I read this nonsensical mumbo-jumbo because it is essentially saying that if we can exclude the logic and mathematics required by the big cosmic picture from the equation we might have a case of statistical probability for one minuscule factor. And we should exclude the big picture, because the scientific model that we arbitrarily created does not need to consider all the properties in the universe that need to align, in order for this one proposition in our model to prove itself on the basis of our selective criteria whereby we eliminated all other relevant factors.
The people that write such nonsense are either motivated by pure prejudice or they are educated beyond their intelligence--or both.
You are merely offering your opinion. An opinion that is the expression of your faith. Faith being a belief held without evidence. Sorry to be blunt. Jesus, you are one stupid man DBT. Of course Thunderstick is offering his opinion (analysis actually). The issue is whether his analysis is correct. Merely because it is "his" however does make it incorrect. Therefore, responding to his analysis by saying "you are merely offering your opinion" is essentially to respond with unintelligible nonsense. Your statement that his opinion is "the expression of his faith" is equally nonsensical and and utterly false. In the first place, are all opinions mere expressions of faith, or just the ones you don't like? But Thunderstick pointed out quite cogently that the article you "cut and pasted" in response to the statistical problem evolution must overcome to be true is really nothing more than hand-waving. His response was quite substantive. He did not offer a belief held without evidence, he offered a logical deconstruction of the article you pasted. If you want to refute him, knock yourself out by address his actual argument. But calling his analysis an expression of faith is no response at all because his deconstruction of your cut and paste is in o way an expression of faith. Its an actual argument! By the way, if you want to talk about faith, then let's discuss the faith required to belief in the neo-Darwinian creation story---that against impossible statistical odds, evolution just has to be true because our a priori commitment to materialism demands a naturalistic creation story. Talk about metaphysical faith! Oh and by the way, faith is not a belief held without evidence. It is a belief held where the evidence is insufficient to provide certain knowledge. You've just demonstrated that you're unable to understand, conceptualize and articulate the definition of even a simple one syllable word. Come back when you've gained some intelligence. Stupid you say? Stupid is offering faith and opinion instead of evidence and research as if opinion and faith means something. Stupid is asserting the existence of supernatural agency when there is no evidence for it. Stupidity is clinging to the creation myths of bronze age goat herders as if they are actual explanations for the existence of the universe and life. Each faith asserting its own version of truth, fighting and arguing over points of meaningless dogma. There lies the stupidity. Try again when you have an actual argument to offer.
Last edited by DBT; 08/08/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
One major fallacy in the alpha-globin argument mentioned above, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a enormous figure but incomparably smaller than 10183.
A calculation such as this can be refined further, taking into account other features of alpha-globin and its related biochemistry. Some of these calculations produce probability values even more extreme than the above. But do any of these calculations really matter? The main problem is that all such calculations, whether done accurately or not, suffer from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event. But generating a molecule "at random" in a single shot is decidedly not the scientific hypothesis in question -- this is a creationist theory, not a scientific theory. Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic has demonstrated that alpha-globin arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. See, for example, the survey article [Hardison2001], which cites 144 papers on the topic of hemoglobin evolution (note: this reference is now 17 years out of date -- many more have been published since then).
In short, the creationist-intelligent design argument claiming that scientists assert an all-at-once "at random" creation of various biomolecules, and then asserting that this is probabilistically impossible, is a classic "straw man" fallacy. Scientists do not believe this, so this line of argumentation is completely invalid. In other words, it does not matter how good or how bad the mathematics used in the analysis is, if the underlying model is a fundamentally invalid description of the phenomenon in question. Any simplistic probability calculation of evolution that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is almost certainly fallacious and can easily mislead [Musgrave1998; Rosenhouse2018]. This is simply more obfuscation. You don't have a cosmos until you consider all the factors needed to make a cosmos. This line of reasoning does not prove anything other than that in a controlled environment, with in an induced model, certain aspects life of forms can propagate. This does not even come close to engaging with the real issues of spontaneous generation on a cosmic scale through random processes.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 08/09/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
[quote=Thunderstick]How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability? Take those elements out of science categorically and you will have no reliable building blocks from which to draw any scientific conclusions. Removing them from the origins model simply means that the model is no longer scientific and that the conclusions being drawn from such a selective model are not scientific. So until someone comes up with a mathematical and statistical case of probability that is demonstrated in a repeatedly sustainable model to show life spontaneously generating from random materialistic processes that start with nothing; we should not even consider it intelligently viable. Science does not exclude logic, math, or statistical probability. These are the very tools of science. It is the theist who misrepresents science in an attempt to justify creation by Magic. Once again: Introduction''Both traditional creationists and intelligent design writers have invoked probability arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, "random" process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. They often equate the hypothesis of evolution to the absurd suggestion that monkeys randomly typing at a typewriter could compose a selection from the works of Shakespeare, or that an explosion in an aerospace equipment yard could produce a working 747 airliner [Dembski1998; Foster1991; Hoyle1981; Lennox2009]. More recent studies of this genre, in an attempt to promote an "intelligent design" worldview, argue that functional biology operates on an exceedingly small subset of the space of all possible DNA sequences, and that any changes to the "computer program" of biology are, like changes to human computer programs, almost certain to make the organism non-functional [Axe2017; Marks2017].''
Fallacies in the creationist probability arguments
One major fallacy in the alpha-globin argument mentioned above, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a enormous figure but incomparably smaller than 10183. A calculation such as this can be refined further, taking into account other features of alpha-globin and its related biochemistry. Some of these calculations produce probability values even more extreme than the above. But do any of these calculations really matter? The main problem is that all such calculations, whether done accurately or not, suffer from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event. But generating a molecule "at random" in a single shot is decidedly not the scientific hypothesis in question -- this is a creationist theory, not a scientific theory. Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic has demonstrated that alpha-globin arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. See, for example, the survey article [Hardison2001], which cites 144 papers on the topic of hemoglobin evolution (note: this reference is now 17 years out of date -- many more have been published since then). In short, the creationist-intelligent design argument claiming that scientists assert an all-at-once "at random" creation of various biomolecules, and then asserting that this is probabilistically impossible, is a classic "straw man" fallacy. Scientists do not believe this, so this line of argumentation is completely invalid. In other words, it does not matter how good or how bad the mathematics used in the analysis is, if the underlying model is a fundamentally invalid description of the phenomenon in question. Any simplistic probability calculation of evolution that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is almost certainly fallacious and can easily mislead [Musgrave1998; Rosenhouse2018]. What's more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of "random" assemblage. Yet this process occurs many times every day in the human body and in every other plant and animal species.''
I have to chuckle when I read this nonsensical mumbo-jumbo because it is essentially saying that if we can exclude the logic and mathematics required by the big cosmic picture from the equation we might have a case of statistical probability for one minuscule factor. And we should exclude the big picture, because the scientific model that we arbitrarily created does not need to consider all the properties in the universe that need to align, in order for this one proposition in our model to prove itself on the basis of our selective criteria whereby we eliminated all other relevant factors.
The people that write such nonsense are either motivated by pure prejudice or they are educated beyond their intelligence--or both.
You are merely offering your opinion. An opinion that is the expression of your faith. Faith being a belief held without evidence. Sorry to be blunt. Jesus, you are one stupid man DBT. Of course Thunderstick is offering his opinion (analysis actually). The issue is whether his analysis is correct. Merely because it is "his" however does make it incorrect. Therefore, responding to his analysis by saying "you are merely offering your opinion" is essentially to respond with unintelligible nonsense. Your statement that his opinion is "the expression of his faith" is equally nonsensical and and utterly false. In the first place, are all opinions mere expressions of faith, or just the ones you don't like? But Thunderstick pointed out quite cogently that the article you "cut and pasted" in response to the statistical problem evolution must overcome to be true is really nothing more than hand-waving. His response was quite substantive. He did not offer a belief held without evidence, he offered a logical deconstruction of the article you pasted. If you want to refute him, knock yourself out by address his actual argument. But calling his analysis an expression of faith is no response at all because his deconstruction of your cut and paste is in o way an expression of faith. Its an actual argument! By the way, if you want to talk about faith, then let's discuss the faith required to belief in the neo-Darwinian creation story---that against impossible statistical odds, evolution just has to be true because our a priori commitment to materialism demands a naturalistic creation story. Talk about metaphysical faith! Oh and by the way, faith is not a belief held without evidence. It is a belief held where the evidence is insufficient to provide certain knowledge. You've just demonstrated that you're unable to understand, conceptualize and articulate the definition of even a simple one syllable word. Come back when you've gained some intelligence. Stupid you say? Stupid is offering faith and opinion instead of evidence and research as if opinion and faith means something. Stupid is asserting the existence of supernatural agency when there is no evidence for it. Stupidity is clinging to the creation myths of bronze age goat herders as if they are actual explanations for the existence of the universe and life. Each faith asserting its own version of truth, fighting and arguing over points of meaningless dogma. There lies the stupidity. Try again when you have an actual argument to offer. As already pointed out -- the mathematical, logical and statistical evidence all require a self-existent eternal Designer to bring things miraculously into existence because science proves that it cannot happen any other way. All the evidence is there to logically require the existence of God. If you think the scientific evidence suggests otherwise please provide the mathematical calculations which show it to be a logical and statistical probability on the grand scale of the universe. If successful, you will be a better man than others who have tried and failed. This thread poses the question as to why some would suppose evolution to be a myth and I have given my scientific reasons and those reasons have never been refuted with science. The question of the existence of God and the myth of evolution does not hinge on goat herders or mad or prejudiced scientists--it merely hinges on the evidence that relates to the question that was posed.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 08/09/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
[quote=Thunderstick]How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability? Take those elements out of science categorically and you will have no reliable building blocks from which to draw any scientific conclusions. Removing them from the origins model simply means that the model is no longer scientific and that the conclusions being drawn from such a selective model are not scientific. So until someone comes up with a mathematical and statistical case of probability that is demonstrated in a repeatedly sustainable model to show life spontaneously generating from random materialistic processes that start with nothing; we should not even consider it intelligently viable. Science does not exclude logic, math, or statistical probability. These are the very tools of science. It is the theist who misrepresents science in an attempt to justify creation by Magic. Once again: Introduction''Both traditional creationists and intelligent design writers have invoked probability arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, "random" process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. They often equate the hypothesis of evolution to the absurd suggestion that monkeys randomly typing at a typewriter could compose a selection from the works of Shakespeare, or that an explosion in an aerospace equipment yard could produce a working 747 airliner [Dembski1998; Foster1991; Hoyle1981; Lennox2009]. More recent studies of this genre, in an attempt to promote an "intelligent design" worldview, argue that functional biology operates on an exceedingly small subset of the space of all possible DNA sequences, and that any changes to the "computer program" of biology are, like changes to human computer programs, almost certain to make the organism non-functional [Axe2017; Marks2017].''
Fallacies in the creationist probability arguments
One major fallacy in the alpha-globin argument mentioned above, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a enormous figure but incomparably smaller than 10183. A calculation such as this can be refined further, taking into account other features of alpha-globin and its related biochemistry. Some of these calculations produce probability values even more extreme than the above. But do any of these calculations really matter? The main problem is that all such calculations, whether done accurately or not, suffer from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event. But generating a molecule "at random" in a single shot is decidedly not the scientific hypothesis in question -- this is a creationist theory, not a scientific theory. Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic has demonstrated that alpha-globin arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. See, for example, the survey article [Hardison2001], which cites 144 papers on the topic of hemoglobin evolution (note: this reference is now 17 years out of date -- many more have been published since then). In short, the creationist-intelligent design argument claiming that scientists assert an all-at-once "at random" creation of various biomolecules, and then asserting that this is probabilistically impossible, is a classic "straw man" fallacy. Scientists do not believe this, so this line of argumentation is completely invalid. In other words, it does not matter how good or how bad the mathematics used in the analysis is, if the underlying model is a fundamentally invalid description of the phenomenon in question. Any simplistic probability calculation of evolution that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is almost certainly fallacious and can easily mislead [Musgrave1998; Rosenhouse2018]. What's more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of "random" assemblage. Yet this process occurs many times every day in the human body and in every other plant and animal species.''
I have to chuckle when I read this nonsensical mumbo-jumbo because it is essentially saying that if we can exclude the logic and mathematics required by the big cosmic picture from the equation we might have a case of statistical probability for one minuscule factor. And we should exclude the big picture, because the scientific model that we arbitrarily created does not need to consider all the properties in the universe that need to align, in order for this one proposition in our model to prove itself on the basis of our selective criteria whereby we eliminated all other relevant factors.
The people that write such nonsense are either motivated by pure prejudice or they are educated beyond their intelligence--or both.
You are merely offering your opinion. An opinion that is the expression of your faith. Faith being a belief held without evidence. Sorry to be blunt. Jesus, you are one stupid man DBT. Of course Thunderstick is offering his opinion (analysis actually). The issue is whether his analysis is correct. Merely because it is "his" however does make it incorrect. Therefore, responding to his analysis by saying "you are merely offering your opinion" is essentially to respond with unintelligible nonsense. Your statement that his opinion is "the expression of his faith" is equally nonsensical and and utterly false. In the first place, are all opinions mere expressions of faith, or just the ones you don't like? But Thunderstick pointed out quite cogently that the article you "cut and pasted" in response to the statistical problem evolution must overcome to be true is really nothing more than hand-waving. His response was quite substantive. He did not offer a belief held without evidence, he offered a logical deconstruction of the article you pasted. If you want to refute him, knock yourself out by address his actual argument. But calling his analysis an expression of faith is no response at all because his deconstruction of your cut and paste is in o way an expression of faith. Its an actual argument! By the way, if you want to talk about faith, then let's discuss the faith required to belief in the neo-Darwinian creation story---that against impossible statistical odds, evolution just has to be true because our a priori commitment to materialism demands a naturalistic creation story. Talk about metaphysical faith! Oh and by the way, faith is not a belief held without evidence. It is a belief held where the evidence is insufficient to provide certain knowledge. You've just demonstrated that you're unable to understand, conceptualize and articulate the definition of even a simple one syllable word. Come back when you've gained some intelligence. and then he quotes other's viewpoints as if they are not opinions... This approach is certainly not helping the cause for the intellectual viability of the theory of evolution--in fact it is demonstrating how unscientific it is. Atheistic/materialistic evolution as a standalone principle, is similar to the theory of Communism which rests upon this fundamental premise, which in its demise and failure, has proven itself to be guilty of the charge of the "opiate of the masses."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
This approach is certainly not helping the cause for the intellectual viability of the theory of evolution--in fact it is demonstrating how unscientific it is. Atheistic/materialistic evolution as a standalone principle, is similar to the theory of Communism which rests upon this fundamental premise, which in its demise and failure, has proven itself to be guilty of the charge of the "opiate of the masses."
And yet, this is the dumbest post of all time. Not just in this thread - which is saying something in itself, but for of time, all threads, all forums, throughout the internet. Just stunning. But that's what makes this place so frikkin' funny. Soldier on. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
And the Earth was flooded with fresh water about 4000 yrs ago,
1: Where did all the salt water fishes come from?
2: How did all of the millions of terrestrial species of mammals, reptiles, and birds survive the flood?
3: Why are not all humans still black? This is a convoluted argument. Evolution can be proven to be a myth because it cannot be scientifically demonstrated how random process can spontaneously generate the whole cosmos, whether you believe in the Genesis account or not. So until you accept that evolution is a myth on scientific grounds it is pointless to discuss all that we do not exactly know about how certain things developed over time. When you recognize the scientific fallacy of the theory of evolution, and remove that obstruction as an apriori, then your mind is cleared of the obstructions to intelligent design. No one will ever be able to completely explain how an infinite cosmos came into existence and development with our finite capacities.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
This approach is certainly not helping the cause for the intellectual viability of the theory of evolution--in fact it is demonstrating how unscientific it is. Atheistic/materialistic evolution as a standalone principle, is similar to the theory of Communism which rests upon this fundamental premise, which in its demise and failure, has proven itself to be guilty of the charge of the "opiate of the masses."
And yet, this is the dumbest post of all time. Not just in this thread - which is saying something in itself, but for of time, all threads, all forums, throughout the internet. Just stunning. But that's what makes this place so frikkin' funny. Soldier on. Eliminate atheistic/materialistic evolution and Communism has no starting point and would never have been propagated. Communism has clearly failed and shown that a state created opiate can fail and leave behind a lot of disillusionment in its wake. Its starting point is the very premise that we are discussing. This all could be considered humorous from an intellectual stand point, if it were not true, and if it had not produced such horrific results. Both evolution and Communism rely on false scientific propaganda and the premise that theism should be eradicated. Both systems of thought have proven that the masses of the people, and the masses of scientists can blindly accept state supported propaganda. Evolutionary theory today is largely state regulated propaganda that is required to be taught in the classroom--which goes against the Declaration of Independence which supports the equal creation of all mankind. When skeptics cannot reply with a substantive argument, they resort to scorn--and they continue on the road of scorn until they implode from within.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 08/09/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
keep going man. This is a first. Conflating communism with evolution. How awesome. You are the dumbest box of rocks yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,418
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,418 |
I don't see a reason to be upset either way you currently believe. I believe in both creation and evolution.
If something powerful enough to create something from nothing it is certainly able to manipulate time. Science has proven this with quantum mechanics. It is inexplicable but true.
The Bible is a manual for a good life, much of it in parables, and I do believe in good and evil forces that are simply around us.
The Bible even predicts the science and does not give us more than humans can conceptualize.
It doesn't say there were no dinosaurs either.
Time can be manipulated concurrently, back and forth and over great distances- Quantum science says so. Humans don't have the understanding how( and never will)God Bless you all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Uh ... Communists have conflated atheism, evolution, and Communism for decades. I am merely pointing out their affinity for atheistic evolution and their conflation of those principles.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 08/09/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
To clarify -- theists largely believe in adaptation and evolutionary processes within a species over time. They do not believe that it is a viable starting point for the universe.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 08/09/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,183
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,183 |
"The Bible even predicts the science and does not give us more than humans can conceptualize."
So you haven't really read the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Evolution as a starting point for the cosmos cannot be scientifically proven, but yet is required by the state to be taught in the schools. This makes it pretty clear that it is simply state propaganda.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,102 Likes: 6
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,102 Likes: 6 |
What I actually said was: there is no evidence for the existence of a God (whatever that is supposed to be), nor is such a thing necessary to explain evolution or how it works.
No, that's wrong. What you "actually said" went quite a bit further than that, here it is verbatim: Life evolves for reasons that have nothing to do with a God.
What you "actually said" was a definitive statement with no qualifiers. That's why I'm asking you for the evidence you're using to support your contention that God is not involved with evolution. Are you backing off that now? If so, go ahead and admit that what you actually said was wrong, don't just deny you said it. That would be "cowardly" as you put it. You've said repeatedly that there is no evidence that God is involved with evolution and I've never challenged that. Because in your context of scientific evidence, I don't believe there is, and I don't believe it can be "proven" scientifically one way or the other. Because I'm not one who believes that we currently understand everything there is to know about the universe and how it works. Are you? Earlier, you laid out your concept of God as being "all-powerful" and "all-knowing." Either that was a strawman you created to argue that such a being "should have no problem proving His existence" or you actually believe it. If you actually believe that there could be a Creator that is all-powerful and all-knowing, why on earth would you presume that you or anyone else is capable of understanding how He operates?
A wise man is frequently humbled.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,418
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,418 |
It is a good conversation, in my opinion human kind has not the ability to grasp this concept.
I read the bible daily and see something new in it often.
Perhaps one of the false prophets is the total belief in science ? Just putting it out there.
I keep my cowboy bible handy and old style King Jame's version by the bed.
The mystery of faith- love it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,348 Likes: 3
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,348 Likes: 3 |
There is nothing wrong with having a belief in science and having a general faith based belief in God.
Remember why, specifically, the Bill of Rights was written...remember its purpose. It was written to limit the power of government over the individual.
There is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,418
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,418 |
There is nothing wrong with having a belief in science and having a general faith based belief in God. I agree. Good discussion
|
|
|
|
|
522 members (10Glocks, 007FJ, 06hunter59, 1234, 22250rem, 01Foreman400, 62 invisible),
2,403
guests, and
1,207
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,410
Posts18,489,010
Members73,970
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
