11 Apr 05
You claimed the following:
The science of probability virtually disproves the whole card-house of evolutionary theory. It's that simple.
I responded:
I would love to run through this argument that putatively shows that evolutionary theory is likely false. Let's go through it together. I think this will be a valuable service to the RHP community. Since you are more familiar with the manner in which the science of probability virtually disproves evolutionary theory (I had no idea it did so!), perhaps you should get us started. What is the first premise of the argument that shows evolutionary theory to likely be false?
So come on, chinking58, let's do this thing! I really want to get to the bottom of this, 'cause I like having true beliefs rather than false beliefs. If you are right that the "science of probability" shows that the T.o.E. is very likely false, then I will have to change me worldview. Help me, chinking58. Please present the first premise in your argument.
Thanks in advance.
12 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by Nemesio<--- Waits patiently with probability and statistical texts ready.
HOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!
Does he have a particular parameterized structural model of evolution which he plans to test against the data.
Will he be using Likelihood Ratio test? Maybe a Markov Chain Monte Carlo with a comparison via Baye's Factor? Perhaps he plans to use Generalized Method of Moments by specifying certain orthoganility conditions?
No matter how he does it, I want to know what assumptions he will make about the underlying distribution of the data?
Or if Bayesian, what prior distribution will he assume for the data?
You are a very pleasant gentleman, chinking; I hope you present some interesting material.
12 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrWas this claim made under the influence? CWI?
You claimed the following:
[b]The science of probability virtually disproves the whole card-house of evolutionary theory. It's that simple.
I responded:
I would love to run through this argument that putatively shows that evolutionary theory is likely false. Let's go through it together. I think this will be a valuable service to the RHP comm ...[text shortened]... Help me, chinking58. Please present the first premise in your argument.
Thanks in advance.
12 Apr 05
Fred Hoyle was an astronomer and a very imaginative person. But there is some room for doubt that he had considered organic chemistry carefully enough to be able to confidently claim that evolution is as likely as a tornado whipping up a Boeing 747 from a junkyard.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/tornado.html
12 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrWhoa!
You claimed the following:
[b]The science of probability virtually disproves the whole card-house of evolutionary theory. It's that simple.
I responded:
I would love to run through this argument that putatively shows that evolutionary theory is likely false. Let's go through it together. I think this will be a valuable service to the RHP comm ...[text shortened]... Help me, chinking58. Please present the first premise in your argument.
Thanks in advance.
I am floored! I always hoped to see my name up in lights; but up in a THREAD? I never would have dared to dream so big!
(Besides all that, I'm scairtt!)
I'll take some time to think about this, and get back to you Tuesday afternoon.
12 Apr 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672Fair enough. I got carried away. I just want to alert chin that I (and certainly others here) expect something more than a dj2becker rip off from a greedy xtian apologist who doesn't know a probability density function from an Adobe Acrobat file.
I know lots of fancy statistics words, too, tel. Come on, bro.
Well, while we wait for chin's response, how about I ask everyone my question to the fundies who insist on using probability theory to "prove" that life could not have arisen from non-life or that evolution cannot be true?
Here's the question:
What is the probability of the getting exactly 8 heads in a coin flipping experiment?
After giving your response, please explain how it relates to the fundies claims.
12 Apr 05
3 edits
Originally posted by bbarrOk bbarr. First things first. What in the world does putatively mean? Seems to mean supposedly, but is there more to it than that?
You claimed the following:
[b]The science of probability virtually disproves the whole card-house of evolutionary theory. It's that simple.
I responded:
I would love to run through this argument that putatively shows that evo ...[text shortened]... present the first premise in your argument.
Thanks in advance.
Anyway, I will first confess that, perchance, I overreached in claiming that the 'science' of probability disproves evolutionary theory. (though I'm glad to see that I did use my standard qualifier, 'virtually' in my offhanded assertion.) I didn't finish my Master's so, there you have it.
What I meant to say, and I'll stick to this one, is that the common sense of the thinking man indicates that the odds of such an obviously well designed universe coming together by mere chance are astronomical in the extreme. (Which must mean something to us. We cannot simply say, "Yes, it does seem impossible so let's just assume a few more billion years, and then we can pretend it is possible after all." ) Not being familiar at all with any of Tel's impressive tools, I am left to think on my own.
I know how much or little I would bet on a given proposition. I know enough not to buy MORE lottery tickets when the prize goes skyhigh (along with the odds against winning). I know how concerned to be about deer on the road at various times of day. I can judge when it is safe to address my wife's diet, and when it is not. And I know enough about construction and children and singing and personal growth and writing and marriage and playing the drums to know that I can't leave anything to chance! The forces we all live with every day are working against development and not for.
An honest look, with common sense applied, leads me to believe that the structure of the world simply could not have happened by chance.
In all probability (had to get that word in there somewhere.).
I hope my confession and transition to a more philosophical claim hasn't ruined anybody's fun, but the point of my involvement here is to encourage a heartfelt, personal and real encounter with what is true.
Yes, a worldview decision must be corrected as we discover (and accept) a greater approximation of the Truth. I've done it myself a few times and my life is better for it!
First Premise? Common sense says so!
12 Apr 05
Originally posted by chinking58In this context you can use ‘putatively’ and ‘supposedly’ interchangeably.
Ok bbarr. First things first. What in the world does putatively mean? Seems to mean supposedly, but is there more to it than that?
Anyway, I will first confess that, perchance, I overreached in claiming that the 'science' of probability disproves evolutionary theory. (though I'm glad to see that I did use my standard qualifier, 'virtually' in ...[text shortened]... it myself a few times and my life is better for it!
First Premise? Common sense says so!
I’m a glad that you recognize that your original claim was false. So, let us move on to your revised claim:
the common sense of the thinking man indicates that the odds of such an obviously well designed universe coming together by mere chance are astronomical in the extreme.
Now, in your post you have not provided any reasons for thinking that this claim is true. You merely assert that your ‘common sense’ is sufficient to justify this claim. Obviously, the ‘common sense’ of others delivers a quite different result. So, if we are to determine whose ‘common sense’ is correct, we need to give arguments.
So, again, what is the first premise of the argument that shows that the universe is astronomically likely to have been created?
12 Apr 05
6 edits
Originally posted by telerionLOL, clever.
Fair enough. I got carried away. I just want to alert chin that I (and certainly others here) expect something more than a dj2becker rip off from a greedy xtian apologist who doesn't know a probability density function from an Adobe Acrobat file.
Here's the question:
What is the probability of the getting exactly 8 heads in a coin flipping experiment?
After giving your response, please explain how it relates to the fundies claims.
If the experiment is to flip a coin exactly 8 times and observe the 8 sides that land, those 8 sides will all be heads with probability 1/256. What this means is that as the experiment is repeated ad infinitum, the ratio of the number of experiments that result in the outcome of "8 heads" to the total number of experiments performed will approach 1/256.
This relates to claims of fundies in several enlightening ways. I will address but one of them to begin with, which is the notion of "what can happen, will happen." Let us call an event with a probability of less than 1/200 (a half of a percent), but greater than 0, "quite unlikely." Any quite unlikely event is expected to occur not merely once but numerous times, in accordance with its probability, as the experiment is repeated. For example, if the above experiment is performed 1000 times, although the event in question is quite unlikely, we expect it to occur about 5 times. The consequence is that merely showing an outcome to be quite unlikely has no bearing on whether it will be observed but merely on how many times, relatively it will be observed. Similary, showing that a quite unlikely event has been observed is nothing remarkable and should not lead to the conclusion that anything unnatural was at work behind its manifestation. (Quite the contrary, if it is never observed, then is the time for suspicion of some unnatural interference.)
Dr. S
13 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrWhile it's not a strictly "probability" argument, I was listening to a talk given by a scientist regarding the Big Bang (I forget his name, but he was a "traditional" scientist not a Christian fundie). He did mention that if the strength of several of the basic forces, like gravity, was even slightly different the universe would have been inhospitable to life. He spoke of recent theories of "multiverses" which attempted to get around the logical inference that because this universe is "lifeogenic" (my word) it was designed to be that way. What is your response to the proposition that because it was necessary that the basic structure of our universe be like it is for life to exist in this universe, that that is (indirect) proof of design of some sort?
[b/]In this context you can use ‘putatively’ and ‘supposedly’ interchangeably.
I’m a glad that you recognize that your original claim was false. So, let us move on to your revised claim:
the common sense of the thinking man indicates ...[text shortened]... that the universe is astronomically likely to have been created?
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrSimply: Unlikely things are unlikely.
In this context you can use ‘putatively’ and ‘supposedly’ interchangeably.
I’m a glad that you recognize that your original claim was false. So, let us move on to your revised claim:
[b] the common sense of the thinking man indicates that the odds of such an obviously well designed universe coming together by mere chance are astronomical in the extreme ...[text shortened]... se of the argument that shows that the universe is astronomically likely to have been created?
More unlikely things are unlikelyer, or do you say unlikelier?
Unlikely does not mean impossible (as Dr. S. so well demonstrates), but they remain more unlikely to occur than the likely.
One may survive a jump from a 100 foot cliff, but one gives the likely result of being killed more consideration than the possibility of surviving, before taking the leap.
As to the distinction between varied 'common senses'; Do we not each claim our own as the standard? Need I point out that I believe some common sense conclusions are tainted by philosophical presuppositions? (Not mine of course!) I make my appeal to those who might newly recognize that their 'common sense' views have been wrongfully formed by too many assumptive, dogmatic proclamations from the likes of National Geographic documentaries and other myriads of one-sided outlets.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThis argument is known in the literature as the 'fine tuning argument', it is the most recent version of the well known design argument. The first question I would like to ask this scientist is why he thinks that the physical constants of the universe could have been different. It the physical constants of the world are necessary constants, then counterfactual reasoning of the sort that begins "had constant X been slightly different...." would be ruled out, and the argument wouldn't get off the ground.
While it's not a strictly "probability" argument, I was listening to a talk given by a scientist regarding the Big Bang (I forget his name, but he was a "traditional" scientist not a Christian fundie). He did mention that if the strength of several of the basic forces, like gravity, was even slightly different the universe would have been ...[text shortened]... it is for life to exist in this universe, that that is (indirect) proof of design of some sort?
Another objection is as follows:
Suppose you but a lottery ticket, and the chances of you winning are one in a billion. Now, the odds of you winning are astronomically small. Similarly, the odds of anybody else who bought a ticket winning are astronomically small. Yet, somebody will in fact win the lottery. Let's call the winner person W. So, buy parity of reasoning used by scientist you mention, there must have be some explanation other than mere coincidence for the fact that person W won. But this is absurd. It is perfectly reasonable to claim that in the lottery case the explanation for the fact that person W won is that he got lucky. Now, why isn't it perfectly reasonable to argue analogously when talking about the physical constants?