Posted on 01/03/2006 12:16:26 PM PST by MRMEAN
Well said. I still can never get palatable answers to such simple questions such as: "what process put the matter there that exploded and expanded in the Big Bang in the first place?" First cause, infinity, etc., are profound questions/concepts I find atheists dancing around with dogmatic proclamations such as, "it's just that way, don't you understand?" Sheesh, you would think they would have come up with just as lofty of an explanation for that as for the origin of species.
When it comes to the question of origins I find it reasonable to accept the idea that the current populations derived from original pairs. I do not find the idea that the current populations derived from eons of evolution wherein life began from non-life to be reasonable. However, I am not a biologist. The idea of slicing up frogs never appealed to me. But I do enjoy reading the biologists descriptions of how things are and find it fascinating. In light of the evolutionary guiding principles of survival of the fittest, mutations adding genetic material, and natural selection I would appreciate it if the Freepers of the evolutionary persuasion would give me their ideas on the following:
1. Assuming that life proceeded from non-life and the human organism derived from there, was the first development asexual? Or did two bisexual branches somehow mutate? In other words, what was the genesis of the sexes?
2. Wouldn’t asexual development satisfy the survival of the fittest paradigm better than bisexual development?
3. How can the process of meiosis and its attendant reduction of genetic material comply with evolutionary principles?
4. What is your rebuttal to the creationist arguments from irreducibly complex systems? For instance, how do the subsystems that are useless by themselves survive while waiting for the next mutations to ultimately produce the working system?
I still believe that a debate between credentialed biologists only regarding the merits of the ToE would be enlightening. We could just publish the results and slow all of the banter (I assume it is all good natured). I did research the Sagan/Warren episode and validated my claims on the previous HE thread.
Also, I have tried to understand how ToE could have evolved the idea that there is a God, but it hurts my pea-sized brain.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
He'd want actual data based on something OTHER than random events on the keyboard
BUT...I actually DO have to program random events to select for reviews. I have to select 10 tickets people create (out of hundreds) for reviews and they have to be based on nothing other than some kind of randomness [if that's a word]
Oh, I don't know. Some of the comments I see on these ID vs. evolution threads here on FR reveal comparable levels of ignorance.
Good point, but not the greatest example. It is quite possible in math class for more than one student to make the same error (eg, getting the sign wrong when rearranging an expression). If this is repeated over and over, then...
IMO, better examples are 1) mapmakers who include false features in order to trap plagiarists, and 2) finding the same sentence structure, misspelled words, etc in 2 students' work, or in their work and wikipedia.
On both sides I might add. I also see a lot of extreme arrogance and condescension that is usually observed among liberal academics.
Perhaps, but it's not nearly as much fun.
That's true, but I'm not thinking of the "typo" sort of errors. Usually, errors reveal a misunderstanding of the concept itself, and misunderstandings tend to be like fingerprints, especially in higher-level courses.
+1
Just about any term related to information theory is routinely misused. See also "information", "algorithm", and "complexity" for other recurring examples of misuse. Algorithmic information theory is deeply counter-intuitive and 90% of pro-ID arguments exploit this fact, apparently to great effect.
Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. Certainly the word can be used in a sense that entails "something for which there is no evidence or logical proof." In the case of intelligent design, however, there is an ample supply of organized matter to serve as evidence. In the case of evolution there is no "logical proof," but a fair amount of reasonable inference.
But who believes in something with absolutely no evidence? Even those who truly believe in the Tooth Fairy do not believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. For them the evidence rests first of all in the statement - from a trustworthy source - that there is a Tooth Fairy. Add the experience of mysteriously receiving some coin in exchange for a loose tooth, and the "evidence" becomes more compelling. What is more, it cannot be scientifically proven there is no such thing as a Tooth Fairy. It can only be reasonably inferred from lack of evidence, either direct or indirect.
In the case of organized matter the evidence is not fake, nor is it meager. In the case of various species that have morphological similarities yet undergo change from generation to generation the evidence is not fake, but it is more limited. These are both scientifically accessible phenomena from which reasonable inferences can be drawn.
Tough gig - Anne Boleyn is the only one I can think of, and she's been dead for a while now :)
See also: "natural" and "supernatural"
Personally, I use random (a function in Excel) to get me a value between 0 and 1. Using a "seed" gets me other values that I need.
My big argument that random events do not produce music still stands
As pointed out before, I prgram the random events. If I chose to downpage, select a ticket, downpage again, select a ticket, that is not really reandom
We won't hold our breath waiting for valuable input from you. Given the level of discourse to which you are accustomed, one wonders why you would bother discussing a topic of this complexity at all?
You would do well returning to your "I know you are but what am I" type friends.
I will see if I can add to my definition of faith.
Not familiar with Mozart's minuet dice game? John Cage's "chance music"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.