8 accounts is excessive for this sort of thing, but there are a number who will 4-box or 6-box so they can play an entire group at once. With a decent computer and the proper configurations (all the eye candy off and lowest resolutions), you can easily run three concurrent instances of EQ on one normal PC. That's two or at most, three PCs to run 5 or 6 accounts, if you're good at it.
> Some would say that design is simpler, while others (like you) would say that "driven by environment, with chance involved" -- dare I say "primarily out of necessity and secondarily out of chance" (??)-- is simpler.
I won't address yet the discussion of simpler concepts here, because I'll cover that below. I just wanted to correct a little on your secondary description, because it's a bit of a misstep. The first (driven by environment with chance involved) is accurate to my view, but "primarily out of necessity and secondarily out of chance" separates the two in a way that introduces inaccuracy. The chance portion affects both the organism and the environment, but it's only insofar as chance events change the environment or the organism's ability to adapt to it. The driving force remains adaptability, and while chance changes that adaptability, it's always there in some form.
> My main point is that it is far from a "done deal" in any scheme that rules out intelligent design.
Dance carefully on that point. My view of science does not by any means rule out intelligent design. It discounts it, and further discounts that intelligent design must be deific in nature, but it doesn't forbid the concept.
> Some Darwinists may have considered that they put the nail into the coffin of "design." But it just will not go away. And it isn't because of any obscurantism or "God of the gaps," it is because that there are good, empirical and rational descriptions that suggest that what Darwin had in mind does not tell the whole story.
You make a good point here, and Darwinists who think that the theory of origins can "kill" ID are simply mistaken. I would be stunned to find that Darwin knew the whole story about how life came to be. Of course, the other side of the coin is that the lack of definitive answers for every aspect of the theory does not in itself sound a death knell for Darwin's theory. While it's incomplete, it can still be right in part. What parts, and how much right, are the points for debate.
> Just like in physics, surely the followers of Newton would have held to the universal application of the law of gravity. So it became embarassing when the data was unable to adequately support the law of gravity for objects that are really close together or far apart.
I've seen this piece of history used time and again to demonstrate the fallibility of science, but frankly I think it's the best example of science working that I can find. Newton's mechanics were thought to be "the answer" for physical motion, and then the data for extreme situations began to fail to fit those laws. Shortly thereafter, a number of scientists began to consider why, and new laws were developed, and when testing found that these new laws were functional, they were accepted, and Netwon's "laws" were earmarked as valid only in certain situations.
This is how the scientific method is supposed to work. Any physicist who was embarassed by this turn of events would need to get past it if he/she wanted to proceed with further study. Sure, it showed a scientific "law" proven false, but it also perfectly demonstrates the method for replacing it with something better.
> This is why "intelligent design" has so much promise in the field of biological (and other) origins. It might just turn up something that Darwin missed.
I disagree with this idea, oddly because I find it too limiting. The reason I always suggest allowing philosophical considerations in science is specifically because it gets people to look at scientific "laws" as mutable, and so it challenges scientists to look everywhere for answers, and not to assume they know anything with certainty. For this reason, I think that religion and other philiosophy has value in forcing people to think about things scientific, but I disagree that it means that philosophy should be directly applied to science.
> Either the claims recorded in the gospels are true, or Jesus was raised from the dead in some other way and the three day thing was just coincidence.
I took this part out because it's illustrative of the assumption that underlies your stance. My point is that there are a number of scenarios that don't match either of these two assertions, and none of them can reasonably be addressed without context of the Bible. For example, what if Jesus said, "I'll die and come back in a week." Then, after returning three days later, he says, "whoops, I missed by a few." When the Bible is compiled later, the Nicenes decide that's not very Godly, and change it. Consider the possibillity that Jesus didn't actually die at all. Who'd know, based only on reading the Biblical account? The point is that evidence that Jesus existed doesn't demonstrate "Son of God" status, and too often I've seen the argument presented, "if he's not God's son, then how did he get resurrected?" when that very question assumes belief in the basic tenet of Christianity to begin with.
> If the resurrection happened, I think we have to listen to his claims.
That would be a reasonable approach, but frankly even if I saw someone come back from the dead, I wouldn't immediately buy into everything he ever said. Sure, that's more skepticism than most people regularly muster, but then I've had a lot of people telling me that God will reveal Himself to me and He obviously hasn't, at least not effectively.
> Of course, all of this is predicated on the assumption that the resurrection did happen, but I think the evidence for that is pretty good.
Differences in faith aren't unusual at all. The thing that seems to interfere most often, and something that I've fought to keep from falling into, is assuming that both sides agree on certain premises when they don't. I'll admit that I'm not always successful, but I do my best to avoid it when I can, or at least mention my assumptions so that if they're counter to someone else's, at least we know there's an underlying dispute so it doesn't color the argument unconsciously.
> Thanks for listening so far, BTW. Nice to have a reasonable conversation.
And thank you as well. Reasonable conversations about philosophy aren't all that rare, but they sure are on Slashdot.
> The reason for my faith in the Bible would be the cross. The crucifixion and resurrection. If they didn't happen, there's no point in trusting the Bible, but if they did, then the NT is true and Jesus verifies the OT as true. There is good evidence to believe in the resurrection, therefore I believe in the Genesis account of creation.
Although yours is one of the more reasonable approaches to the debate, I must comment that your statement that I put in bold above does not follow. Even if Jesus died and came back to life, that doesn't provide any reason to believe that the entirety of the New Testament is true. This leads back to the Nineveh argument. It used to be that nobody (in modern times) knew of the location or existence of Nineveh, and skeptics called it a legendary city. Then, Nineveh was found. The problem is that some Biblical adherents then stated the the discovery proves the veracity of the Old Testament stories about Nineveh, which is overextending the point. Just because Nineveh existed doesn't mean that the Biblical accounts of what happened there are accurate. They might be, but the mere discovery of the city does nothing toward proving that.
By the same token, even if Jesus truly died and was resurrected, that particular event doesn't lend credence to everything else.
Now, again I want to state that it's a reasonable approach to faith, but the bold portion is a non sequitur.
> Much of the confusion regarding "intelligent design" AND evolution is that there are some like DG who explain evolution in terms of chance, while there are others like you who make a distinction between natural selection and chance. The Darwinistic evolutionary camp is not monolithic. That makes a BIG DIFFERENCE in the discussion.
I'll warrant that the people who agree with evolutionary theory aren't all of one mind, but then there are Biblical literalists and Biblical interpreters. The point is that you tend to take the "all by chance" people to be the target by which you take down the entirety of the theory, not just the "all by chance" part of the theory. This is a lot like those who point to Biblical literalists to try to paint all Christians that way, because it makes lampooning them easier. More below on that.
> The proposal offered by "intelligent design" is that complex natural systems, such as biological life, display the characteristics of intelligent design in a plausible and reasonable manner. It can not be proven, but the probabilities are very high that intelligent design is involved when compared to other mechanisms.
Unfortunately, your first example of the 1000 pennies only reinforces this argument. The act of separating the heads from the tails requires some intelligent design. By your example, you have designed the outcome; e.g. placing the tails in a pile. The act of choosing the tails requires intelligence, does it not?
The 1000 pennies argument is oversimplified to demonstrate the "chance" portion of the argument. Sure, I designed the outcome, because it's more clear to the point to do so. This doesn't mean that intelligence is needed for the function in general, just in this specific. A change in the environment, brought about wholly by a random event, can provide the "intelligence" needed for natural selection. A lake that dries up in the summer months, and refills in the spring, does not do so due to any inherent intelligence on the pond's part, but it would provide an environment where stuff that absolutely requires the water would die out in favor of stuff that could survive without it for a few months. Random changes within a given population give some a better chance at surviving the dryout and some a worse chance, and then the receding water does the selecting. So, in answer to your question, the act of choosing doesn't require intelligence. It doesn't preclude it, but it doesn't require it either.
> Does it arise out of necessity? Can you help me out here? This is what I find perplexing about arguments for natural selection that seek to downplay chance. These arguments suggest that there is some mechanism within biological systems that is somehow self-directing or unintelligently-designing actions that would influence the likelihood of certain outcomes.
Again, this is lumping all evolutionary theory into the "all by chance" camp, which you yourself said above is not accurate. I downplay chance as the sole mechanism for evolution, because chance plays a part but so does a dynamic environment, which can change by chance events, but is something that every organism within it must deal with.
> Let's consider your genetic memorization issue a little closer. Would this not all eventually lead back to the genetic code in DNA? But what is DNA anyway? Isn't it a complex storage of information? It isn't simply an incoherent collection of unrelated patterns. Because DNA has the characteristics of possessing information it would seem plausible that intelligent design is behind it.
Actually, by my example it might not lead back to DNA. I posited that it's possible that good memorization skills aren't hereditary. If that's the case, then only those who can learn it win, and it's likely in that case that my "force of nature" (killing the failures) would cause human extinction. As to plausibility, it's certainly reasonable to posit intelligent design. However, it's not
> Likewise, to argue that the process of evolution was able to produce the advanced, intricate life forms we have now from elementary particles simply on the basis of chance is highly problematic at best. The probabilities required to make macroevolution successful as a completely undirected process simply do not work within the time period allowed for how long we currently understand the age of the universe. You need to posit some sort of extraterrestial involvement (as suggested in the recent PBS Nova Origins program) or a theory of multiple universes to make it all work.
I've been reading your posts and I find you're very articulate and very intelligent about your points, but I've just had it with you.
You're being an idiot.
You're being an idiot.
There. Do I have your atention now? Good.
Your view of the theory of origins is broken. It's badly broken. Basing your argument on it makes you look like a buffoon, and your posts show that you're not. Please pay close attention, because many people like you assume that your view of how evolution works is the way it works, and it's wrong. Read this carefully, because it's going to force you to change your argument to compensate. I'll address your errors one at a time.
> Likewise, to argue that the process of evolution was able to produce the advanced, intricate life forms we have now from elementary particles simply on the basis of chance is highly problematic at best.
I highlighted the error. Neither macro- and micro-evolution rely on chance as the driving mechanism. Sure, chance plays a role, but only insofar as natural selection allows for adaptation. Evolution adapts, and maladaptation tends to die off. To show natural selection at work, Consider a box with 1000 pennies. Shake it, then take out a fistful. Throw back most of the heads, and pile the tails outside the box. Now, chance will change how many you throw back, and how fast the pile moves from the box to the stack, but eventually, the outside force (your choosing tails preferentially) will tilt the population to the pile. For a more extreme example, show a page of text to a person. Give them ten minutes to memorize it. Make them recite it, then shoot them if they fail. Soon, one of three things will happen. Either you'll have a smaller population that can do it, it will turn out that memorization is genetic and so your population will spring back, now full of good recitalists, or you'l eventually kill everyone off.
The point is that the mechanism for change is evolution, which incorporates a certain amount of chance. But the driving force of evolution is natural selection, where the environment itself decides which traits allow survival and which cause extinction.
> The probabilities required to make macroevolution successful as a completely undirected process simply do not work within the time period allowed for how long we currently understand the age of the universe.
I agree, but the highlight above shows that this is just a reiteration of your first error. Macroevolution isn't a completely undirected process. Saying it is doesn't make it so.
> You need to posit some sort of extraterrestial involvement (as suggested in the recent PBS Nova Origins program) or a theory of multiple universes to make it all work.
Once you grasp the first error in your view, this becomes rather less necessary. I don't rule them out (nor do I rule out God), but like Biblical history I tend to find it less likely than the theory of origins.
> What then requires the most faith?: believing in the God of the Bible --- or in unproven, materialistic, and speculative scientific theories?
Belief in God requires more faith. If I find a credible alternative to the theory of Origins, I don't have to worry about a crisis of faith, I'll just toss it by the wayside. I have no vested interest in evolutionary theory, i
I would be willing to give a fair reading to your friend's theories. Does your friend have a name? Where can I find a writeup of this analysis? I find that the "I have a friend..." argument is badly overused, so I put you on the spot to provide particulars.
> But seriously, let me make a point. This is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk who carried a gun and ran from the mob. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense.
Nice try, but even with the joke, it's a bad argument because it's weak. Chewbacca doesn't live on Endor, he went there to put the bust on an Imperial facility. But seriously, the problem with your argument is that Chewbacca is a fictional character, so he could reasonably do anything and you could figure out afterwards any explanation you want, and then fit it to what happened based on the assumption that He's real, and come away with all the "proof" of anything you needed concerning Him.
Darn, now how did those capital letters get in there?
> If the world is as bland as you perpetuate it to be, I don't think I'd ever be prepaired for the endless void that would await me as I cease to exist after my demise.
There's nothing about the world that requires it to be a certain way so you can sleep better at night. To think that there "must be" something more because you have difficulty grasping an end to your consciousness is the pinnacle of hubris. I fully agree that ceasing to exist sucks rocks. However, I'm not ready to concede to myself that there must be something waiting after my death merely because I'm uncomfortable with the alternative.
The major problem with this, to take us back to the original point, is that Creationism is being presented as a parallel to the scientific method, while at the same time the people who are pushing it are complaining that science can't answer certain questions that Creationism can. Just as I don't expect a math teacher to address sentence structure, I don't expect a biology teacher to address philosophy. Creationism is a religious concept, and has its place in philosophy studies (or in church), but it shouldn't be presented as a scientific theory, because it's not.
> As soon as a supernatural element is involved, science is incapable of determining the truth and is the wrong tool to use for it.
This is very true, as it pushes the argument out of science into philosophy. But if you think that this ends the argument, then I ask you to tell me why any particular supernatural element is any more valid than any other. That's where the parent of your post stands when he says that not every guess is as good as any other. While it's possible that the Bible has the right Genesis story, it's also possible that some other supernatural element is correct, and there's nothing in your theory that can refute it. This makes it possible to re-simplify the argument back into the realm of science by saying, "I won't assume that Biblical Creation is any more right than other supernatural idea, so I'll conditionally reject them all at this time." Then you can explore options that don't require a supernatural element and see what comes out.
> Could some one explain to me how this infinite virtual world is ever going to run out of real estate.
As in real life, there's more to real estate than just its existence. If this island gets to be developed with lots of good content for players, then players will end up paying a premium to live on the island nearby all the good stuff. Sure, the developers can make another island, but if there's nothing there, not many people will want to "move". So, making a new island requires significant investment to make it compete with what's already there, and in this case I suspect they're just selling the island to this guy and relying on him to do the developing to make it worth enough to draw players to his space. I assume he'll then resell space or charge admission or something to draw his investment back out, but I'm not familiar with Entropia, so I don't know how much involvement this really entails.
Well, if you want to get cranky about it, they aren't weightless, they're in free fall around the Earth. Just because their forward motion prevents them from pressing on a scale placed below them doesn't mean they have no representative "weight" while they're in the Earth's gravity well.
> After all, Mir was 10 years over its planned lifetime. Unlike the two space shuttles the US-Americans managed to crash. Not to mention that the Mir crew survived...
OK, we're all getting annoyed at both of you. Yes, Mir was a good example of Russian technology. Sure, the crew survived, but that's a bad comparison to the shuttles that failed, due to their failures being accidents. If you want to argue that this means that Americans are behind Russians in space tech, I present that the U.S. never blew a big crater in Cape Canaveral like the Russians managed in Baikonur. Still, space travel has been relatively non-hazardous for both nations, and it doesn't really compare to aviation technology. When you're talking about planes, you should be considering Aeroflot, not Mir.
It's true that there are many Americans who look down their noses at Russian technology because it isn't the latest and greatest, and that's not always a good idea. Where high tech is necessary (Life-flight helicopters, military hardware and "hostile-zone" places like flying over forest fires and Arctic conditions), the U.S. shines pretty well. Where hard-down reliability is key, the simpler designs win out. As was said above, "the right tool for the job" is important, so there's a place for both.
> I'm worried about the astronauts losing so much weight. With the weight lost, it will change the trajectory of their orbit. Will it change it enough to be a substantial worry? We don't know this yet. Less weight and less gravity means they will be more likely to be thrown further away from earth.
Oh. My. God. Please tell me you're kidding. If you think that the weight of the astronauts and the food make up even a tiny fraction of an appreciable percentage of the weight of the station as a whole, you need to do a little reading. Their weight loss wouldn't throw the station's orbit off if they jumped out the airlock, much less lost a few love handles.
> Isn't it great to be a mathematician where wisdom doesn't need to impinge on logic?
I wouldn't know. Now, what logic brings you to the initial assumption that someone can't proofread one's own CV? In the original problem, it was barbers, and it's very difficult to cut one's own hair, but this doesn't logically extend to proofreading, where it's relatively easy to proofread your own work.
> This colloquialism does not belong in formal writing.
Your reasoning for considering an online message forum as "formal writing" is what, exactly? Give him his ten points back. His performance is still not great, but it's a passing grade. And since when is 65 a D- instead of D?
"Impact" has been a verb for quite some time. It's possible to impact with something in your travels. For common usage, I refer to the Gospel According to George, being the Star Wars script, when Red Leader fired a torpedo at the famed exhaust port and missed:
"Negative, negative, it didn't go in. It just impacted on the surface."
This was in the '70s, and demonstrates that the word was being used as a verb at that time.
> >They may have aced their CCIE exam, but if I don't already know them then I may not take them to be so bright if they don't know basic grammar like where to capitalize and where to put periods and commas (overuse of which are probably the most common non-spelling error I see).
> This is a good example of a run-on sentence.
If you're going to be a grammar Nazi, you need to know your grammar better. This isn't a run-on sentence. Also, he didn't misuse the "ifs" at all. Sure, the sentence is long, but even though it's convoluted and includes a big parenthetic, it's a single thought about a single subject, and grammatically it's correct.
If you must be a pedant, then this isn't a spelling error, it's a usage error. The word "perspective" is spelled correctly, it's just the wrong word to use here.
> Ok, so a group titled "Christian Science Monitor" is against computer profliferation.
Incorrect in two ways. Firstly, the Christian Science Monitor is simply a newspaper. It was founded by Mary Baker Eddy, who insisted on the name, but has since become just a newspaper, and a rather good one, by all accounts. It is not the reporting arm of the Church of Christ, Scientist, and hasn't been since its inception.
Second, the report did not state that any group is against computer proliferation. They reported the results of a study that found a correlation between computer use in kids and scholastic performance. They didn't even editorialize in the article. You might try reading it.
The Christian Science Monitor, while being founded by Mary Baker Eddy, has shown itself to be a very secularly-based news source, with no strong agenda toward any religion. Google it and you'll see. You should still take the study with a grain of salt (as you should any news article), but not that particular grain of salt.
> But you should not dismiss the study based on the experience of your one daughter.
But he didn't do that. He did it on the basis of everyone in his local environs, as he stated in the follow-up post. Still, it goes to the center when you say:
I wouldn't draw any conclusions from this study unless I were qualified to and saw the hard data.
Neither he nor I are willing to assume we're unqualified to draw conclusions, and it's too bad that you seem to think you are. Social sciences are still nascent enough that anyone who thinks they can draw definitive results from a given study is more foolish than those of us who draw conclusions without deep study into social sciences. So, in reply to your statement, I can do better than simply reserving judgement. I can reject the causation hypothesis until there's something more definitive than was put forward by the study.
Slashdot Mirror
> And then 8 computers to run it on?
8 accounts is excessive for this sort of thing, but there are a number who will 4-box or 6-box so they can play an entire group at once. With a decent computer and the proper configurations (all the eye candy off and lowest resolutions), you can easily run three concurrent instances of EQ on one normal PC. That's two or at most, three PCs to run 5 or 6 accounts, if you're good at it.
Virg
> Some would say that design is simpler, while others (like you) would say that "driven by environment, with chance involved" -- dare I say "primarily out of necessity and secondarily out of chance" (??)-- is simpler.
I won't address yet the discussion of simpler concepts here, because I'll cover that below. I just wanted to correct a little on your secondary description, because it's a bit of a misstep. The first (driven by environment with chance involved) is accurate to my view, but "primarily out of necessity and secondarily out of chance" separates the two in a way that introduces inaccuracy. The chance portion affects both the organism and the environment, but it's only insofar as chance events change the environment or the organism's ability to adapt to it. The driving force remains adaptability, and while chance changes that adaptability, it's always there in some form.
> My main point is that it is far from a "done deal" in any scheme that rules out intelligent design.
Dance carefully on that point. My view of science does not by any means rule out intelligent design. It discounts it, and further discounts that intelligent design must be deific in nature, but it doesn't forbid the concept.
> Some Darwinists may have considered that they put the nail into the coffin of "design." But it just will not go away. And it isn't because of any obscurantism or "God of the gaps," it is because that there are good, empirical and rational descriptions that suggest that what Darwin had in mind does not tell the whole story.
You make a good point here, and Darwinists who think that the theory of origins can "kill" ID are simply mistaken. I would be stunned to find that Darwin knew the whole story about how life came to be. Of course, the other side of the coin is that the lack of definitive answers for every aspect of the theory does not in itself sound a death knell for Darwin's theory. While it's incomplete, it can still be right in part. What parts, and how much right, are the points for debate.
> Just like in physics, surely the followers of Newton would have held to the universal application of the law of gravity. So it became embarassing when the data was unable to adequately support the law of gravity for objects that are really close together or far apart.
I've seen this piece of history used time and again to demonstrate the fallibility of science, but frankly I think it's the best example of science working that I can find. Newton's mechanics were thought to be "the answer" for physical motion, and then the data for extreme situations began to fail to fit those laws. Shortly thereafter, a number of scientists began to consider why, and new laws were developed, and when testing found that these new laws were functional, they were accepted, and Netwon's "laws" were earmarked as valid only in certain situations.
This is how the scientific method is supposed to work. Any physicist who was embarassed by this turn of events would need to get past it if he/she wanted to proceed with further study. Sure, it showed a scientific "law" proven false, but it also perfectly demonstrates the method for replacing it with something better.
> This is why "intelligent design" has so much promise in the field of biological (and other) origins. It might just turn up something that Darwin missed.
I disagree with this idea, oddly because I find it too limiting. The reason I always suggest allowing philosophical considerations in science is specifically because it gets people to look at scientific "laws" as mutable, and so it challenges scientists to look everywhere for answers, and not to assume they know anything with certainty. For this reason, I think that religion and other philiosophy has value in forcing people to think about things scientific, but I disagree that it means that philosophy should be directly applied to science.
> The "all by chance" or "predomin
> Either the claims recorded in the gospels are true, or Jesus was raised from the dead in some other way and the three day thing was just coincidence.
I took this part out because it's illustrative of the assumption that underlies your stance. My point is that there are a number of scenarios that don't match either of these two assertions, and none of them can reasonably be addressed without context of the Bible. For example, what if Jesus said, "I'll die and come back in a week." Then, after returning three days later, he says, "whoops, I missed by a few." When the Bible is compiled later, the Nicenes decide that's not very Godly, and change it. Consider the possibillity that Jesus didn't actually die at all. Who'd know, based only on reading the Biblical account? The point is that evidence that Jesus existed doesn't demonstrate "Son of God" status, and too often I've seen the argument presented, "if he's not God's son, then how did he get resurrected?" when that very question assumes belief in the basic tenet of Christianity to begin with.
> If the resurrection happened, I think we have to listen to his claims.
That would be a reasonable approach, but frankly even if I saw someone come back from the dead, I wouldn't immediately buy into everything he ever said. Sure, that's more skepticism than most people regularly muster, but then I've had a lot of people telling me that God will reveal Himself to me and He obviously hasn't, at least not effectively.
> Of course, all of this is predicated on the assumption that the resurrection did happen, but I think the evidence for that is pretty good.
Differences in faith aren't unusual at all. The thing that seems to interfere most often, and something that I've fought to keep from falling into, is assuming that both sides agree on certain premises when they don't. I'll admit that I'm not always successful, but I do my best to avoid it when I can, or at least mention my assumptions so that if they're counter to someone else's, at least we know there's an underlying dispute so it doesn't color the argument unconsciously.
> Thanks for listening so far, BTW. Nice to have a reasonable conversation.
And thank you as well. Reasonable conversations about philosophy aren't all that rare, but they sure are on Slashdot.
Virg
> The reason for my faith in the Bible would be the cross. The crucifixion and resurrection. If they didn't happen, there's no point in trusting the Bible, but if they did, then the NT is true and Jesus verifies the OT as true. There is good evidence to believe in the resurrection, therefore I believe in the Genesis account of creation.
Although yours is one of the more reasonable approaches to the debate, I must comment that your statement that I put in bold above does not follow. Even if Jesus died and came back to life, that doesn't provide any reason to believe that the entirety of the New Testament is true. This leads back to the Nineveh argument. It used to be that nobody (in modern times) knew of the location or existence of Nineveh, and skeptics called it a legendary city. Then, Nineveh was found. The problem is that some Biblical adherents then stated the the discovery proves the veracity of the Old Testament stories about Nineveh, which is overextending the point. Just because Nineveh existed doesn't mean that the Biblical accounts of what happened there are accurate. They might be, but the mere discovery of the city does nothing toward proving that.
By the same token, even if Jesus truly died and was resurrected, that particular event doesn't lend credence to everything else.
Now, again I want to state that it's a reasonable approach to faith, but the bold portion is a non sequitur.
Virg
> Much of the confusion regarding "intelligent design" AND evolution is that there are some like DG who explain evolution in terms of chance, while there are others like you who make a distinction between natural selection and chance. The Darwinistic evolutionary camp is not monolithic. That makes a BIG DIFFERENCE in the discussion.
I'll warrant that the people who agree with evolutionary theory aren't all of one mind, but then there are Biblical literalists and Biblical interpreters. The point is that you tend to take the "all by chance" people to be the target by which you take down the entirety of the theory, not just the "all by chance" part of the theory. This is a lot like those who point to Biblical literalists to try to paint all Christians that way, because it makes lampooning them easier. More below on that.
> The proposal offered by "intelligent design" is that complex natural systems, such as biological life, display the characteristics of intelligent design in a plausible and reasonable manner. It can not be proven, but the probabilities are very high that intelligent design is involved when compared to other mechanisms.
Unfortunately, your first example of the 1000 pennies only reinforces this argument. The act of separating the heads from the tails requires some intelligent design. By your example, you have designed the outcome; e.g. placing the tails in a pile. The act of choosing the tails requires intelligence, does it not?
The 1000 pennies argument is oversimplified to demonstrate the "chance" portion of the argument. Sure, I designed the outcome, because it's more clear to the point to do so. This doesn't mean that intelligence is needed for the function in general, just in this specific. A change in the environment, brought about wholly by a random event, can provide the "intelligence" needed for natural selection. A lake that dries up in the summer months, and refills in the spring, does not do so due to any inherent intelligence on the pond's part, but it would provide an environment where stuff that absolutely requires the water would die out in favor of stuff that could survive without it for a few months. Random changes within a given population give some a better chance at surviving the dryout and some a worse chance, and then the receding water does the selecting. So, in answer to your question, the act of choosing doesn't require intelligence. It doesn't preclude it, but it doesn't require it either.
> Does it arise out of necessity? Can you help me out here? This is what I find perplexing about arguments for natural selection that seek to downplay chance. These arguments suggest that there is some mechanism within biological systems that is somehow self-directing or unintelligently-designing actions that would influence the likelihood of certain outcomes.
Again, this is lumping all evolutionary theory into the "all by chance" camp, which you yourself said above is not accurate. I downplay chance as the sole mechanism for evolution, because chance plays a part but so does a dynamic environment, which can change by chance events, but is something that every organism within it must deal with.
> Let's consider your genetic memorization issue a little closer. Would this not all eventually lead back to the genetic code in DNA? But what is DNA anyway? Isn't it a complex storage of information? It isn't simply an incoherent collection of unrelated patterns. Because DNA has the characteristics of possessing information it would seem plausible that intelligent design is behind it.
Actually, by my example it might not lead back to DNA. I posited that it's possible that good memorization skills aren't hereditary. If that's the case, then only those who can learn it win, and it's likely in that case that my "force of nature" (killing the failures) would cause human extinction. As to plausibility, it's certainly reasonable to posit intelligent design. However, it's not
> Likewise, to argue that the process of evolution was able to produce the advanced, intricate life forms we have now from elementary particles simply on the basis of chance is highly problematic at best. The probabilities required to make macroevolution successful as a completely undirected process simply do not work within the time period allowed for how long we currently understand the age of the universe. You need to posit some sort of extraterrestial involvement (as suggested in the recent PBS Nova Origins program) or a theory of multiple universes to make it all work.
I've been reading your posts and I find you're very articulate and very intelligent about your points, but I've just had it with you.
You're being an idiot.
You're being an idiot.
There. Do I have your atention now? Good.
Your view of the theory of origins is broken. It's badly broken. Basing your argument on it makes you look like a buffoon, and your posts show that you're not. Please pay close attention, because many people like you assume that your view of how evolution works is the way it works, and it's wrong. Read this carefully, because it's going to force you to change your argument to compensate. I'll address your errors one at a time.
> Likewise, to argue that the process of evolution was able to produce the advanced, intricate life forms we have now from elementary particles simply on the basis of chance is highly problematic at best.
I highlighted the error. Neither macro- and micro-evolution rely on chance as the driving mechanism. Sure, chance plays a role, but only insofar as natural selection allows for adaptation. Evolution adapts, and maladaptation tends to die off. To show natural selection at work, Consider a box with 1000 pennies. Shake it, then take out a fistful. Throw back most of the heads, and pile the tails outside the box. Now, chance will change how many you throw back, and how fast the pile moves from the box to the stack, but eventually, the outside force (your choosing tails preferentially) will tilt the population to the pile. For a more extreme example, show a page of text to a person. Give them ten minutes to memorize it. Make them recite it, then shoot them if they fail. Soon, one of three things will happen. Either you'll have a smaller population that can do it, it will turn out that memorization is genetic and so your population will spring back, now full of good recitalists, or you'l eventually kill everyone off.
The point is that the mechanism for change is evolution, which incorporates a certain amount of chance. But the driving force of evolution is natural selection, where the environment itself decides which traits allow survival and which cause extinction.
> The probabilities required to make macroevolution successful as a completely undirected process simply do not work within the time period allowed for how long we currently understand the age of the universe.
I agree, but the highlight above shows that this is just a reiteration of your first error. Macroevolution isn't a completely undirected process. Saying it is doesn't make it so.
> You need to posit some sort of extraterrestial involvement (as suggested in the recent PBS Nova Origins program) or a theory of multiple universes to make it all work.
Once you grasp the first error in your view, this becomes rather less necessary. I don't rule them out (nor do I rule out God), but like Biblical history I tend to find it less likely than the theory of origins.
> What then requires the most faith?: believing in the God of the Bible --- or in unproven, materialistic, and speculative scientific theories?
Belief in God requires more faith. If I find a credible alternative to the theory of Origins, I don't have to worry about a crisis of faith, I'll just toss it by the wayside. I have no vested interest in evolutionary theory, i
I would be willing to give a fair reading to your friend's theories. Does your friend have a name? Where can I find a writeup of this analysis? I find that the "I have a friend..." argument is badly overused, so I put you on the spot to provide particulars.
Virg
> But seriously, let me make a point. This is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk who carried a gun and ran from the mob. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense.
Nice try, but even with the joke, it's a bad argument because it's weak. Chewbacca doesn't live on Endor, he went there to put the bust on an Imperial facility. But seriously, the problem with your argument is that Chewbacca is a fictional character, so he could reasonably do anything and you could figure out afterwards any explanation you want, and then fit it to what happened based on the assumption that He's real, and come away with all the "proof" of anything you needed concerning Him.
Darn, now how did those capital letters get in there?
Virg
> If the world is as bland as you perpetuate it to be, I don't think I'd ever be prepaired for the endless void that would await me as I cease to exist after my demise.
There's nothing about the world that requires it to be a certain way so you can sleep better at night. To think that there "must be" something more because you have difficulty grasping an end to your consciousness is the pinnacle of hubris. I fully agree that ceasing to exist sucks rocks. However, I'm not ready to concede to myself that there must be something waiting after my death merely because I'm uncomfortable with the alternative.
The major problem with this, to take us back to the original point, is that Creationism is being presented as a parallel to the scientific method, while at the same time the people who are pushing it are complaining that science can't answer certain questions that Creationism can. Just as I don't expect a math teacher to address sentence structure, I don't expect a biology teacher to address philosophy. Creationism is a religious concept, and has its place in philosophy studies (or in church), but it shouldn't be presented as a scientific theory, because it's not.
Virg
> As soon as a supernatural element is involved, science is incapable of determining the truth and is the wrong tool to use for it.
This is very true, as it pushes the argument out of science into philosophy. But if you think that this ends the argument, then I ask you to tell me why any particular supernatural element is any more valid than any other. That's where the parent of your post stands when he says that not every guess is as good as any other. While it's possible that the Bible has the right Genesis story, it's also possible that some other supernatural element is correct, and there's nothing in your theory that can refute it. This makes it possible to re-simplify the argument back into the realm of science by saying, "I won't assume that Biblical Creation is any more right than other supernatural idea, so I'll conditionally reject them all at this time." Then you can explore options that don't require a supernatural element and see what comes out.
Virg
> Could some one explain to me how this infinite virtual world is ever going to run out of real estate.
As in real life, there's more to real estate than just its existence. If this island gets to be developed with lots of good content for players, then players will end up paying a premium to live on the island nearby all the good stuff. Sure, the developers can make another island, but if there's nothing there, not many people will want to "move". So, making a new island requires significant investment to make it compete with what's already there, and in this case I suspect they're just selling the island to this guy and relying on him to do the developing to make it worth enough to draw players to his space. I assume he'll then resell space or charge admission or something to draw his investment back out, but I'm not familiar with Entropia, so I don't know how much involvement this really entails.
Virg
Well, if you want to get cranky about it, they aren't weightless, they're in free fall around the Earth. Just because their forward motion prevents them from pressing on a scale placed below them doesn't mean they have no representative "weight" while they're in the Earth's gravity well.
But yeah, mass makes the discussion easier.
Virg
> After all, Mir was 10 years over its planned lifetime. Unlike the two space shuttles the US-Americans managed to crash. Not to mention that the Mir crew survived ...
OK, we're all getting annoyed at both of you. Yes, Mir was a good example of Russian technology. Sure, the crew survived, but that's a bad comparison to the shuttles that failed, due to their failures being accidents. If you want to argue that this means that Americans are behind Russians in space tech, I present that the U.S. never blew a big crater in Cape Canaveral like the Russians managed in Baikonur. Still, space travel has been relatively non-hazardous for both nations, and it doesn't really compare to aviation technology. When you're talking about planes, you should be considering Aeroflot, not Mir.
It's true that there are many Americans who look down their noses at Russian technology because it isn't the latest and greatest, and that's not always a good idea. Where high tech is necessary (Life-flight helicopters, military hardware and "hostile-zone" places like flying over forest fires and Arctic conditions), the U.S. shines pretty well. Where hard-down reliability is key, the simpler designs win out. As was said above, "the right tool for the job" is important, so there's a place for both.
Virg
> I'm worried about the astronauts losing so much weight. With the weight lost, it will change the trajectory of their orbit. Will it change it enough to be a substantial worry? We don't know this yet. Less weight and less gravity means they will be more likely to be thrown further away from earth.
Oh. My. God. Please tell me you're kidding. If you think that the weight of the astronauts and the food make up even a tiny fraction of an appreciable percentage of the weight of the station as a whole, you need to do a little reading. Their weight loss wouldn't throw the station's orbit off if they jumped out the airlock, much less lost a few love handles.
Virg
> Isn't it great to be a mathematician where wisdom doesn't need to impinge on logic?
I wouldn't know. Now, what logic brings you to the initial assumption that someone can't proofread one's own CV? In the original problem, it was barbers, and it's very difficult to cut one's own hair, but this doesn't logically extend to proofreading, where it's relatively easy to proofread your own work.
Virg
How does he know they're from different villages in the first place? Ask them? Wouldn't that introduce its own problems?
Virg
Your grading needs grading.
> This colloquialism does not belong in formal writing.
Your reasoning for considering an online message forum as "formal writing" is what, exactly? Give him his ten points back. His performance is still not great, but it's a passing grade. And since when is 65 a D- instead of D?
Virg
> ...that you stream of consciousnessed onto the page?
You "verbed" a phrase? That's just hateful.
Virg
Virg
> >They may have aced their CCIE exam, but if I don't already know them then I may not take them to be so bright if they don't know basic grammar like where to capitalize and where to put periods and commas (overuse of which are probably the most common non-spelling error I see).
> This is a good example of a run-on sentence.
If you're going to be a grammar Nazi, you need to know your grammar better. This isn't a run-on sentence. Also, he didn't misuse the "ifs" at all. Sure, the sentence is long, but even though it's convoluted and includes a big parenthetic, it's a single thought about a single subject, and grammatically it's correct.
Virg
If you must be a pedant, then this isn't a spelling error, it's a usage error. The word "perspective" is spelled correctly, it's just the wrong word to use here.
Carry on.
Virg
> Ok, so a group titled "Christian Science Monitor" is against computer profliferation.
Incorrect in two ways. Firstly, the Christian Science Monitor is simply a newspaper. It was founded by Mary Baker Eddy, who insisted on the name, but has since become just a newspaper, and a rather good one, by all accounts. It is not the reporting arm of the Church of Christ, Scientist, and hasn't been since its inception.
Second, the report did not state that any group is against computer proliferation. They reported the results of a study that found a correlation between computer use in kids and scholastic performance. They didn't even editorialize in the article. You might try reading it.
Virg
The Christian Science Monitor, while being founded by Mary Baker Eddy, has shown itself to be a very secularly-based news source, with no strong agenda toward any religion. Google it and you'll see. You should still take the study with a grain of salt (as you should any news article), but not that particular grain of salt.
Virg
But he didn't do that. He did it on the basis of everyone in his local environs, as he stated in the follow-up post. Still, it goes to the center when you say:Neither he nor I are willing to assume we're unqualified to draw conclusions, and it's too bad that you seem to think you are. Social sciences are still nascent enough that anyone who thinks they can draw definitive results from a given study is more foolish than those of us who draw conclusions without deep study into social sciences. So, in reply to your statement, I can do better than simply reserving judgement. I can reject the causation hypothesis until there's something more definitive than was put forward by the study.
Virg
> How am I going to climb the clock tower if I can't climb a tree?
Potential valedictorians should know that while trees are seldom fitted with stairs, clock towers usually are.
Carry on.
Virg