What's your definition of "God"?

[Adamantium]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I've actually been reading up on it. At first I thought it was just creationism in disguise, but then you have triple Ph.D's with more education than you, me, and everybody on this forum combined, convert from Darwinian viewpoints to ID, and you got to wonder why. It's easy to dismiss if you have an agenda and little knowledge of it, but that's not exactly intellectually honest.

Well fortunately I don't have that problem. There are Ph.D's who believe a lot of crazy or faith-based stuff. 99.99% of the world-wide scientific community sees Intelligent Design and those Ph.Ds for what they are.

The proponents of Intelligent Design are generally religious Ph.Ds. At least, that's what I've found.

Originally Posted by John Scott

Darwinian evolution theory can work only at the cell level, and can't work on single cells. So how did DNA evolve? It's an interesting question, and I'll suspend condemnation of ID until I research it for myself.

I applaud your general objectivity there.. and yes, very intersting, and it has taken up too much of my past reading and debating time but I find the topic fascinating. What I am willing to bet you find is that Intelligent Design is based upon either things like "oh, science has no answer for THAT, then it is Intelligent Design," OR misrepresentations such as treating the Earth as a closed system so they can conveniently apply the second law of thermodynamcs to it. Then there is the no new information baloney, and let's not forget the blatant ignoring of things like new species popping up over time, gradually, in each time period. Where did they come from if not from previously existing species? The Creationist, I've found, either ignores that or expects reasonable people to dismisses evidence and science wholesale on that matter.

Good luck on your research, I am pooped out on that topic. At least for now.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Adamantium

Then there is the no new information baloney, and let's not forget the blatant ignoring of things like new species popping up over time, gradually, in each time period.

I think that's, to be frank, evidence of your, um, less than knowledgeableness on this topic. From what I've seen, most ID'ers support evolution. They do not deny new species. They do not deny evolution at all. They deny Darwinian evolution.

The difference is that they believe that some facets of evolution - such as DNA - did not evolve and are evidence of a higher power giving direction to evolution.

[Adamantium]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I think that's, to be frank, evidence of your, um, less than knowledgeableness on this topic. From what I've seen, most ID'ers support evolution. They do not deny new species. They do not deny evolution at all. They deny Darwinian evolution.

The difference is that they believe that some facets of evolution - such as DNA - did not evolve and are evidence of a higher power giving direction to evolution.

I don't understand how you go from saying you need to read and learn about it to claiming I am displaying a lack of knowledge by expressing what I have seen IDers say and debate. In any case, perhaps when you do the reading you said you need to do, you will see how IDers do not believe man evolved from primate via evolution alone, nor do they believe species evolved from other species with their ID. That is their whole point - it takes intelligent design to make a species. Their position is that evolution can not be responsible for a man evolving from a primate, that there are problems with that and the answer is intelligent design.

They believe the natural forces of evolution and adaptation can not supply the life on Earth that we have today. They believe the "holes" in evolution are answered by ID.

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

A little reason might come in handy here. Odds do not dictate reality. The odds are a distinct field of study which which deals with the theoretic probability of something occurring. Of course, reality ignores probability, maybe because probability is based on incomplete consideration. Who knows? If all things were considered, maybe probability could predict the roll of the dice.

As it stands, however, a lot of people have lost a lot of money in casinos believing that probability was somehow dictating reality.

Whereas quantum mechanics shows that probability does dictate reality. Time and again, it proves it. Where do you get your ideas from?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

Whereas quantum mechanics shows that probability does dictate reality. Time and again, it proves it. Where do you get your ideas from?

Man you are dense sometimes.

Actual probability does not change. Perceived probability changes. Can your pea sized mind grasp the reason why without me teaching you like a 4 year old child?

Okay, I should have know.

Actual probability is determined by what happens. Empirical. If I rolled cat eyes, the actual probability was that I would roll cat eyes.

Theoretical probability, which we have been discussing, says that at any given time rolling cat eyes is highly improbable. The reason it that it doesn't take into account every single atom at play in the universe that could possibly affect the outcome of the roll of dice.

Sometimes I wonder if you are actually this dumb or if you're just trolling.

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Actual probability is determined by what happens. Empirical. If I rolled cat eyes, the actual probability was that I would roll cat eyes.

Theoretical probability, which we have been discussing, says that at any given time rolling cat eyes is highly improbable. The reason it that it doesn't take into account every single atom at play in the universe that could possibly affect the outcome of the roll of dice.

Sometimes I wonder if you are actually this dumb or if you're just trolling.

You obviously haven't looked at quantum mechanics much, John. You just posted nonsense.

"The Copenhagen interpretation, due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr, is the interpretation of quantum mechanics most widely accepted amongst physicists. According to it, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics predictions cannot be explained in terms of some other deterministic theory, and does not simply reflect our limited knowledge. Quantum mechanics provides probabilistic results because the physical universe is itself probabilistic rather than deterministic."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

You obviously haven't looked at quantum mechanics much, John. You just posted nonsense.

You never cease to amaze me.

I saw that at Wikipedia and was going to quote it, but decided to quote Dr Sophie Allen of Oxford instead.

Nonsense? Ha! I quote Dr Sophie Allen and you think it's nonsense? And to prove it's nonsense you go and quote Wikipedia which states the same thing?

Your entertainment value just went through the roof.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

Whereas quantum mechanics shows that probability does dictate reality. Time and again, it proves it. Where do you get your ideas from?

And, amusingly, you just stated a wholesale falsehood.

Quantum theory is often presumed to provide a strong counter-example to the truth of *determinism. The location of an electron(say) can best be described in terms of the probability of its being found at a particular location, the shape and evolution of such probabilities, known as wave-functions, being governed by the Schrodinger equation. However, if measurement of location is made, we do not observe the electron to be in a superposition of possible states: the electron will be found at a particular location, and it is no longer possible for it to be anywhere else. Thus, von Neumann postulated that Schrodinger evolution is interrupted and the wave-function 'collapses', it is discontinuously and indeterministically reduced to a particle-like state.

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

You never cease to amaze me.

I saw that at Wikipedia and was going to quote it, but decided to quote Dr Sophie Allen of Oxford instead.

Nonsense? Ha! I quote Dr Sophie Allen and you think it's nonsense? And to prove it's nonsense you go and quote Wikipedia which states the same thing?

Your entertainment value just went through the roof.

Au contraire. What I posted directly contradicted what you were saying. You said that probability is determined by what has happened. Clearly nonsense. Probability determines the likelihood of what will happen, the probability of something that has just happened is 1.

What Atom said is true: "The more the distance the less likely it is for an odd occurrence to ever be known by us." That's much my way of thinking also.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

Au contraire. What I posted directly contradicted what you were saying. You said that probability is determined by what has happened. Clearly nonsense. Probability determines the likelihood of what will happen, the probability of something that has just happened is 1.

Again, intentional obtuseness.

You interchange theoretical probability with empirical probability. Theoretical probability does not determine any outcome. Empirical probability does. Which was already explained:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Actual probability is determined by what happens. Empirical. If I rolled cat eyes, the actual probability was that I would roll cat eyes.

Theoretical probability, which we have been discussing, says that at any given time rolling cat eyes is highly improbable. The reason it that it doesn't take into account every single atom at play in the universe that could possibly affect the outcome of the roll of dice.

If you honestly think that theoretical probability determines outcome, you should go to Las Vegas and make yourself a millionaire.

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

Clearly nonsense.

Clearly nonsense? I didn't write it. I copied it from the Oxford Companion to Philosophy. You think you know more than Dr Sophie Allen about quantum physics? LOL.

[Adamantium]

Some say it is all archaic, superstitious, male-dominated, ignorance-based baloney. Some say a lot of things, but that one sounds doable.

[Ferre]

I have to admit that as a child I did believe for a while that the bogeyman was living under my bed, but ever since I lost that superstition I failed to see why I should adopt the adult version.

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Clearly nonsense? I didn't write it. I copied it from the Oxford Companion to Philosophy. You think you know more than Dr Sophie Allen about quantum physics? LOL.

Whuh? You used the Oxford Companion to Philosophy in a discussion aboutQuantum Physics? OK, John. Dr Sophie Allen, who evidently rocks your world, is a philosopher. I haven't a clue what she knows about quantum physics and neither does anyone else. She teaches courses such as Philosophy and Theology; Philosophy, Politics and Economics. Not quantum physics.

I'm not entirely sure why you've dragged her into this discussion of quantum physics, other than she cropped up in a book on philosophy you were reading and you thought she backed up your argument. Sadly, she doesn't.

I'm also not entirely sure why you think actual probability is the same as empirical probability.

This is how backwards you're being. You think that the reason a tossed coin has a fifty-fifty chance of landing heads up, is because of previously observed experiments. Which means you'd ascribe the chance of it landing on its side to be zero because after ten thousand flips you've never seen it happen. This is, of course, pure tomfoolery on your part. Given a proposition that logically a priori only has two equally likely outcomes, you won't be able to arrive at this probability until you've seen the experiment taking place? It's obvious you're only taking this stance for the sake of argument.

Every time you do a coin flipping experiment your results will be a bit different, always tending towards fifty fifty, but each time they're different. Does that mean the probabilities really are different, they're not fifty-fifty? No. It means you're being very silly and you shouldn't get philosophic-theologians to do your thinking for you.

As for going to Vegas, if it was just odds at play there, with a big enough starting pot and going on to bet on black with the doubling bet scheme, from 1 to 2 to 4 to 8 each time you lose, then you would win. But it isn't just about the odds at Vegas, John. The house has already factored itself in to the equation. Going to Vegas wouldn't really tell anyone anything about probability, merely about human stupidity, so I'll pass on that one.

[John Scott]

Whuh? You used the Oxford Companion to Philosophy in a discussion aboutQuantum Physics?

Yes, I did. You would have to be ignorant at the highest degree of ignorance to know understand the relevancy of philosophy to quantum physics. And Dr Allen's entry on quanum physics - which you so ignorantly call "nonsense" - was written by Dr Allen at the request of Oxford because she was best qualified to write it; chosen because of her experience in the field.

When you get a PhD and are allowed to lecture on Oxford on the implications of quantum physics, then maybe you could try saying "nonsense" and it would actually carry weight.

You think that the reason a tossed coin has a fifty-fifty chance of landing heads up, is because of previously observed experiments.

LOL. It's called the frequency theory of probability. Look it up. And yes, it is based on empiricism.

Which means you'd ascribe the chance of it landing on its side to be zero because after ten thousand flips you've never seen it happen.

I already told you that I flipped a coin and it landed on its side. Are you suffering from some type of memory loss?

As for landing on its edge and staying upright, the frequency theory of probability would discount that probability of that happening until it did actually happen.

Given a proposition that logically a priori only has two equally likely outcomes, you won't be able to arrive at this probability until you've seen the experiment taking place? It's obvious you're only taking this stance for the sake of argument.

LOL. What do you know a priori? What is it that you entirely a priori? When you think you know something a priori it's just a posteriori knowledge applied to other concepts.

Every time you do a coin flipping experiment your results will be a bit different, always tending towards fifty fifty

That's your mistake. I can flip a fair coin and it can be heads every single time, for infinity. There is nothing in the world that is going to force that coin to land tails up.

You obviously think that "probability" is actual force in nature. It isn't. The coin doesn't know what probability thinks. The coin doesn't care.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Tell me exactly what physical force is at play and will make that coin defy probability?

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

That's your mistake. I can flip a fair coin and it can be heads every single time, for infinity. There is nothing in the world that is going to force that coin to land tails up.

You obviously think that "probability" is actual force in nature. It isn't. The coin doesn't know what probability thinks. The coin doesn't care.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Tell me exactly what physical force is at play and will make that coin defy probability?

Electrons, John. Double slits. Back to basics.

"Nobody has come up with anything better than probability waves. Thus it seems like they don't exist at all as real waves- probability is just a mathematical function. Yet the theory works, correctly predicting the results of countless experiments, and if the waves don't exist it is difficult to see how nature could behave the way it does."

http://instruct.tri-c.edu/fgram/web/quantum.htm

Or quantum decay:
"On the other hand, suppose that all atoms of a certain isotope really are identical (except for external attributes such as position), then, in a deterministic universe, we would expect them all to exhibit the same behavior. If their stability (or lack thereof) is such that it corresponds to a median life of 5730 years, we would expect them all to decay simultaneously after an interval of that order of magnitude. Poff! - Such a scenario seems just as difficult to envision. Yet, after a century of increasingly refined measurements, including the discovery of many subatomic particles and the modelling of quarks, no evidence has ever been found for any kind of individuality at the atomic level."

-http://www.zenker.se/Surprise/quantum.shtml

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

Electrons, John. Double slits. Back to basics.

"Nobody has come up with anything better than probability waves. Thus it seems like they don't exist at all as real waves- probability is just a mathematical function. Yet the theory works, correctly predicting the results of countless experiments, and if the waves don't exist it is difficult to see how nature could behave the way it does."

http://instruct.tri-c.edu/fgram/web/quantum.htm

Or quantum decay:
"On the other hand, suppose that all atoms of a certain isotope really are identical (except for external attributes such as position), then, in a deterministic universe, we would expect them all to exhibit the same behavior. If their stability (or lack thereof) is such that it corresponds to a median life of 5730 years, we would expect them all to decay simultaneously after an interval of that order of magnitude. Poff! - Such a scenario seems just as difficult to envision. Yet, after a century of increasingly refined measurements, including the discovery of many subatomic particles and the modelling of quarks, no evidence has ever been found for any kind of individuality at the atomic level."

-http://www.zenker.se/Surprise/quantum.shtml

LOL! Are you suggesting that wave packets tell the dice the coin to land on tails half the time and heads the other half? LOL!

I haven't laughed this hard in months.

[Rankenstein]

I'm bored of this topic now... seriously bored, though I did laugh myself to sleep last night thinking about John's put-downs. Anyhow, I've got to go and glad-hand some university students and assure them that Manchester is a good place to stay and get a job, and they shouldn't go to London. That's proof there isn't a God.

What's next? 'Necessary conditions for life' should be suitably contentious. One thing's for sure, God isn't one of them. (Might as well get the shots in early, eh?)

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

I'm bored of this topic now... seriously bored, though I did laugh myself to sleep last night thinking about John's put-downs. Anyhow, I've got to go and glad-hand some university students and assure them that Manchester is a good place to stay and get a job, and they shouldn't go to London. That's proof there isn't a God.

What's next? 'Necessary conditions for life' should be suitably contentious. One thing's for sure, God isn't one of them. (Might as well get the shots in early, eh?)

I thought we were talking about necessary conditions for life.

In astronomy a habitable zone (HZ) is a region of space where conditions are favorable for life

[Rankenstein]

Yeah, it deserves a thread of its own.. The latest state of abiogenesis theories etc.

[DarthMall]

how can you prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist by using a priori methods? Just curious..

or was it that you can easily prove false the fact that santa claus doesn't exist,meaning he does exist? I'm quite confused here.