Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:27:44 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, <dave@jetcafe.org>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020912090001.L69462-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <3D7FC334.396A9F12@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Actually you can't start there. The premise that "light bulbs work"
> > is dependent on the uniformity of nature, for which you have yet to
> > provide a justification.
>
> I justify it by the fact that light bulbs are *observed* to work.
I see. So your justification of induction is based on induction.
Right.
> > > There are a number of scriptures which are and aren't considered
> > > part of "The Bible"; the inclusion and exclusion are rather
> > > arbitrary and political, as well.
> >
> > Proof, please. What you seem to be missing is that on a theistic
> > worldview, God is able to ensure that the totality of what He wishes
> > to reveal, nothing more, nothing less, gets into the canon. If God
> > is providentially in control of all things, he is able to ensure
> > that the word He wishes to communicate gets so communicated. Political
> > considerations are irrelevant.
>
> So which is the *true* canon, and *why*? The dead sea scrolls,
> of which th Bible is a translation, are not all of the dead sea
> scrolls there were, they were only some of them.
The Christian canon is not based on the dead sea scrolls. The canon is
based on what the church has always recognized as the scriptures. The
concept of canonicity was inherited from the Jewish church from whom it
received the Old Testament scriptures. The New Testament scriptures
were received gradually by the church from the apostles and their close
associates, and as such were approved by the apostles, who were in turn
commissioned by Christ Himself.
> Is the true canon the dead sea scrolls? Or is it the King James
> translation into English of the Bible?
What has *any* English translation have to do with it? The canon
was received from the apostles, who were commissioned by Christ.
The principle by which the church eventually agreed on what was to
be included in the canon was the historical tradition of apostolicity.
> > > I think you are mistaken in your assumptions here. "Life", as
> > > such, is *not* anti-entropic, in the larger sense. It increases
> > > order locally ("extropy"), at the expense of higher overall entropy.
> >
> > This sounds to me like an embarrassing rescuing device intended to hide
> > the fact that the theory of evolution is in direct contradiction to one
> > of the best attested laws of science.
>
> ? Definition: extropy: anti-entropy
>
> > You can't even demonstrate that "extropy" is even occuring,
>
> By "extropy", we are talking about a local increase in order.
> AKA "life".
>
> So you are basically saying that I can't demonstrate that life
> is even occurring.
No I'm saying that you have no justification for assuming that
it just spontaneously occurs in antithesis to one of the best
attested laws of physics. I'm saying that you can't *account*
for the existence of life on your worldview. Calling it
"extropy" is just another way of saying that you believe in
spontaneous generation, which is absurd.
> > I see. So your view is based on yet more faith commitments and
> > speculation.
>
> Actually, it doesn't, if you accept the steady-state theory. Even
> if you insist on a "big bang" theory, where we now exist in the one
> universe, with a finite duration, which has ever existed (calculate
> the probability of *that*!), there;s still no faith commitment
> required.
The steady-state theory itself is based on faith-based commitments.
It is pure speculation which also could never be proven. Theories
which can never be proven with any empirical evidence are just
creation myths for atheists.
> > It's also expedient to believe in absurdities, like that given enough
> > time, anything can happen.
>
> That's not an absurdity, that's a consequence of math you apparently
> can not understand. It has to do with the fact that there are orders
> of infinity, and that when you divide infinity into any value that is
> of a lower order, you end up with zero.
You are talking nonsense. How can you divide infinity into anything?
If it isn't finite, it can't be divided.
> > > What is one divided by infinity? What is seventy seven divided
> > > by infinity? How many integers are there? How many real numbers
> > > are there? What is the value of the number of integers divided by
> > > the number of real numbers?
> >
> > Mathematics cannot be used to prove that the universe is infinitely
> > old.
>
> That something *must* happen in an infinite amount of time is
> not the same as saying that you *must wait an infinite amount
> of time for it to happen.
And your point is...?
> That something that *must* happen, given an infinite amount of
> time, *has* happened, does *not* mean that an infinite amount
> of time has therefore elapsed.
My point precisely! You suggested an infinite amount of time,
which is another of your faith commitments.
> The probability of flipping a coin once, and having it come up
> "heads" instead of "tails" is 1:2. If you flip it 10 times, and
> it comes up "tails" all 10 times, what is the probability that,
> if you flip it again, it will come up "heads"?
1:2. What you are suggesting, however, is that it came up heads
billions of times in the past, when there is absolutely *no*
justification for believing that. This goes right back to the
problem of induction. What justification do you give for
believing that it will continue to come up heads in the future?
It takes a lot of faith to believe that, and if you do, I'm
sure the casinos in Vegas would love to have you.
> > Your reasoning here is just as fallacious as that of Zeno's
> > paradoxes that purportedly "proved" that you could never get from
> > point A to point B.
>
> Zeno's paradox is not a paradox. It is a proof of the theory of
> limits, because a paradox, by definition, can not exist. If it
> seems to be a paradox to you, all that means is that you need to
> learn some more mathematics.
You keep raising these red herrings. Zeno's paradox may be a proof
of the theory of limits, but that does not mean it is not a paradox.
He used it to prove that motion was impossible, which is obviously
a fallacious conclusion, although mathematically it was true. Hence,
appealing solely to mathematics can lead one to draw fallacious
conclusions.
> > > All of these questions stretch exactly the same credulity, and
> > > yet they have answers.
> >
> > Really? What *is* one divided by infinity?
>
> Zero.
No it isn't, it is an infinitesimally small number that approaches
zero.
> > > > No, I do not want to believe in square circles.
> > >
> > > Squaring the circle is possible; it's just not possible using
> > > only geometric constructions.
> >
> > Clever, but all you've done is shown that you can equivocate on
> > the meaning of words. Mighty impressive indeed.
>
> No, I've demostrated that a 4th century B.C. knowledge of
> mathematics is not sufficient, nor is it "the state of the art",
> and anyone who relies on such a poor understanding of mathematics
> for their arguments is likely to be wrong in ways that they are
> incapable of understanding, until they learn more mathematics.
Oh, what a cop-out. Let me spell it out for you: The concept of
a square circle is an absurdity, it predicates the property of
"squareness" to an object that by definition can not have that
property. I never said anything about "squaring" a circle, which
implies an intentional act, and equivocates on the meaning of the
word "square".
> > > So if you are going to limit
> > > the ways in which you are willing to think, yeah, some things
> > > are going to appear impossible to you, which are perfectly
> > > rational to someone else who doesn't adopt the same arbtrary
> > > boundaries you choose to adopt.
> >
> > Yeah, and the concept of one hand clapping is perfectly rational
> > to an irrationalist. So what?
>
> It's perfectly rational to the rationalist, as well. It is a
> proof of the incompleteness theorem.
You are using Godel's theorem to imply that there is no such thing
as an irrational concept. This is a completely fallacious inference.
The incompleteness theorem merely shows that no formal system of logic
can decide on the truth or falsity of every proposition, namely, ones
that are irrational within that system.
> > > > > Entropy chooses water's path. 8-).
> > > >
> > > > As it does the human mind. 8-)
> > >
> > > Correct.
> >
> > On such notions you can't even know that your reason is functioning
> > properly. You've reduced yourself to absurdity.
>
> Your conclusion does not follow from your argument, and your
> argument is incorrect. I only need to know that my reason is
> self-consistent to know that it is functioning properly.
As if this doesn't beg the very same question! You could never
know whether or not your reason is self-consistent, unless you
want to say that it is self-consistent by definition. But then,
everyone else's reason is also self-consistent by definition
too, and you are reduced to subjectivism.
> > > I guess if you insist on defining your assumptions that way,
> > > then you can not be convinced rationally of the rationality of
> > > anyone who does not already hold the same world view you hold,
> > > so there's really no reason to persist, unless you genuinely
> > > believe you can change other people's world views to coincide
> > > with your own.
> >
> > No, I'm not so arrogant as to think that. Not even you have the
> > power to do that apart from an act of God.
>
> I can change a rational person's views, as a rational person
> can change mine. All they need to do is argue from the basis
> of logic. I've had my opinions chnaged many, many times in
> the past, by people arguing rationally.
You don't even have a basis for assuming the laws of logic!
All you have is your internally consistent by definition
brain functions.
Neal
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020912090001.L69462-100000>