|
|
#201
03-18-2005, 04:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Negreanu and Jesus
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I just finished reading this, umm, 'interesting' thread and have to say - the suggestion that folks bone up on their Bill Hicks is most likely the only intelligent thing within the entire collection. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe in another 340 years, those in charge of Christianity will have a vote and decide he was the 2nd coming. [/ QUOTE ] Then we can have a New New Testament that opens with "Excuse me while I plaster on a fake smile and plow through this sh!t one more time." It would be refreshing for fundamentalists to quote the Book of Rant in E-Minor or the Book of Arizona Bay. 
|
|
#203
03-18-2005, 07:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Negreanu and Jesus
[ QUOTE ]
"If he really wants to know how the laws of probability apply to abiogenesis, he should check out Coppedge's book, Evolution, Possible or Impossible?, about half of which is available on the net." [/ QUOTE ] If you can show me where Coppedge is wrong concerning probablility and the origin of life I'll stop citing his work. [ QUOTE ] "Chance is just a euphemism for what we don't know." [/ QUOTE ] I think the whole subthread was about that. I don't recall the error. What was it? [ QUOTE ] "You want there to be no God, but you want order and purpose, which can only be qualities of a Person." [/ QUOTE ] I don't know if it's true of any particular individual, but it's certainly true in general of atheism. I stated this as a challenge to which no one has responded. If someone wants to deny it, we have the subject of another thread. [ QUOTE ] "Evolution is often just a fancy disguised term for atheism." [/ QUOTE ] This statement is true on its face, with the understanding I'm referring to atheistic evolution, chance-based evolution. The problem with using that word is it means many different things. So I guess I was guilty of imprecision.
|
|
#204
03-18-2005, 09:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Negreanu and Jesus
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "If he really wants to know how the laws of probability apply to abiogenesis, he should check out Coppedge's book, Evolution, Possible or Impossible?, about half of which is available on the net." [/ QUOTE ] If you can show me where Coppedge is wrong concerning probablility and the origin of life I'll stop citing his work. [/ QUOTE ] Lots of errors. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "Chance is just a euphemism for what we don't know." [/ QUOTE ] I think the whole subthread was about that. I don't recall the error. What was it? [/ QUOTE ] Chance isn't a synonym for "what we don't know." Some things that we don't know have nothing to do with chance. I don't know whether Aristotle's father owned a dog. It's not a matter of chance, though: either he did or he didn't. The outcome has already been determined. It's just that the information is lost. Chance means that the outcome hasn't been determined yet. Most interpretations of quantum mechanics involve true chance. We don't know which atom will decay first, or how long it will take because it's random, not predetermined. You seem to think that "non-random" is a synonym for "design." It's not. It's a sysonym for "determined by a prior cause." Not all prior causes have a conscious will, so not all non-random events happen by design. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "You want there to be no God, but you want order and purpose, which can only be qualities of a Person." [/ QUOTE ] I don't know if it's true of any particular individual, but it's certainly true in general of atheism. I stated this as a challenge to which no one has responded. If someone wants to deny it, we have the subject of another thread. [/ QUOTE ] Order can exist without persons. And persons can exist without gods. The notion that order cannot exist without gods is therefore nonsense. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "Evolution is often just a fancy disguised term for atheism." [/ QUOTE ] This statement is true on its face, with the understanding I'm referring to atheistic evolution, chance-based evolution. [/ QUOTE ] No, the statement is ridiculous on its face. Evolution has nothing to do with theism or atheism. It doesn't presuppose the existence of any gods, but neither do the theory of gravity or the rules of baseball. Are the rules of baseball thinly disguised atheism as well?
|
|
#205
03-18-2005, 11:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Negreanu and Jesus
First, as to Coppedge.
There is much material in this site and thanks for finding it. Over the last 3 or 4 years I have run many googles on Coppedge and never found anything contrary to what he says. It will take me some time to study this, but there is a small flaw at the outset. He quotes Coppedge as follows: "Coppedge says that "the average number of amino acids in proteins of the smallest known living thing is 400, at the very least"(p 57). Carrier forgot to mention that Coppedge includes a footnote in the book stating he obtained this information from Harold J. Morowitz. I googled Morowitz and found biophysicist and Robinson Professor in Biology and Natural Philosophy, George Mason PH.D. Yale, 1951 Until further notice I'm gong to assume Morowitz is a real "scientist". Then on page 112 Coppedge says "there is no real reason at present to believe that any living thing has ever existed that is simpler than the...smallest living entity known" (p. 112). Coppedge here footnotes a book by Morowitz. Carrier forgot to note this. Carrier cites this and then says [ QUOTE ] But this is the exact opposite of the truth. There are many reasons to think otherwise. It has been estimated that over 99% of every known species that ever lived has gone extinct, and the simplest of organisms would surely have been devoured or starved out by their more advanced descendants long ago. [/ QUOTE ] What Carrier forgot to mention was that later on page 112 Coppedge says Both the Mycoplasma hominis H39 and the theoretical smallest living thing have proteins averaging at least 400 amino acids of the 20 common varieties. Here Coppedge footnotes that this comes from a personal communication with Morowitz. So Coppedge is basing his idea of the theoretical smallest living thing on a statement by Morowitz. Perhaps science no longer believes this. Perhaps Coppedge was lying. Perhaps Morowitz was lying. Carrier should have at least discussed this instead of giving the above speculation. At any rate, for me the jury is still very much out on this question. I first read this book when it was originally published (yeah, I'm getting on in years), but I've never used it much because I can't verify the scientific claims. So at least for now I will only cite it with qualifications. I will say I find Carrier uses a somewhat underhanded debate technique by lumping several serious attempts to calculate abiogenisis with several obviously ignorant if not fraudulent attempts. This smacks of guilt by association. [ QUOTE ] Some things that we don't know have nothing to do with chance. [/ QUOTE ] I didn't say ignorance is chance. I said chance is ignorance. [ QUOTE ] Chance means that the outcome hasn't been determined yet. [/ QUOTE ] I see you get it now. "hasn't been determined yet" means we don't know means chance. [ QUOTE ] Most interpretations of quantum mechanics involve true chance. We don't know which atom will decay first, or how long it will take because it's random, not predetermined. [/ QUOTE ] Well, maybe you don't get it. If by true chance, you mean it just happens irrationally, is totally unsusceptible to calculation or explanation, then you should take your seat next to God for only omniscience can know that. [ QUOTE ] We don't know which atom will decay first, or how long it will take because it's random, not predetermined. [/ QUOTE ] The fact that WE don't know does not equate to UNKNOWABLE. I may not know the directions to Carnegie Hall, but that doesn't mean it's unknowable. [ QUOTE ] Not all prior causes have a conscious will. [/ QUOTE ] That begs the question. If God exists and is in control of the universe, there is a Will behind all causes. [ QUOTE ] Order can exist without persons. And persons can exist without gods. So it simply doesn't follow to say that order can only exist with gods. [/ QUOTE ] Again, begs the question. The whole question is whether or not God exists and created the universe. You are simply stating either that He doesn't or doesn't have to for the universe to exist. But that's the issue itself. The Christian position is that without God there is nothing. Asserting the contrary just demonstrates your religious position. [ QUOTE ] Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. It doesn't presuppose the existence of any gods, but neither do the theory of gravity or the rules of baseball. [/ QUOTE ] The existence of the universe, the origin of life and the developement of biological diversity occurring by chance, without God, is the definition of atheism. If you think gravity and baseball can exist without God, that is also atheism.
|
|
#206
03-19-2005, 08:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Negreanu and Jesus
"Not really. "Laws" of physics are just descriptions of how the universe works. As soon as we observe an event that's inconsistent with some physical theory or another, it doesn't mean that a law of physics was violated -- it means that our theory was incorrect."
Wrong. God can break a law of phsics that could not be broken by anyone but him. He can't do that with math.
|
|
#207
03-19-2005, 12:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Negreanu and Jesus
[ QUOTE ]
"Not really. "Laws" of physics are just descriptions of how the universe works. As soon as we observe an event that's inconsistent with some physical theory or another, it doesn't mean that a law of physics was violated -- it means that our theory was incorrect." Wrong. God can break a law of phsics that could not be broken by anyone but him. He can't do that with math. [/ QUOTE ] There is absolutely no way one can back this claim up.
|
|
#208
03-19-2005, 05:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Negreanu and Jesus
This is the first thing you've been right about in like four days. Congrats!
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
