EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[themadhair]

Ignorance is ALWAYS at the heart of the use of probabilities.
…
You do not know what the coin flip will produce because you are IGNORANT of ALL the factors that will determine it, period.

Does ignorance signify a lack of explanation? We know all the factors that determine what result a coin-flip will have. If we make the relevant measurements of the forces involved we can correctly determine the result. If we don’t make those measurements we have to use probability – does that mean we have no explanation for that result?

Not understanding "every single environmental possibility" equals

How did ‘expressed’ become synonymous with ‘understanding’. Oh right, you wanted to erect that straw-man again.

You cannot imply that you have explained the source of mutations using probability and randomness . . .

But that is not what I, and science, is implying. Gene duplications, translocations, ionisation effects, transcription errors, etc are the source (which you ignored yet again). You seem intent on making this “probability is the source” straw-man. It is getting pathetic at this stage.

fraudulently ruling out any need for a source, like God

10 Accuse science of adopting a position on god(s)
20 Ignore the posted correction to my straw-man
30 Goto 10

 

[MysticPhD]

Does ignorance signify a lack of explanation? We know all the factors that determine what result a coin-flip will have. If we make the relevant measurements of the forces involved we can correctly determine the result. If we don’t make those measurements we have to use probability – does that mean we have no explanation for that result?

When you use probability as the explanation for it by calling it random . . . yes

How did ‘expressed’ become synonymous with ‘understanding’. Oh right, you wanted to erect that straw-man again.

By you ignoring and leaving out the relevant part of my post about it, eg. "You cannot imply that you have explained the source of mutations using probability and randomness . . . you can simply express your ignorance scientifically using mathematics and leave the impression that you have explained it (fraudulently ruling out any need for a source, like God). You can add survival imperative and resource competition to the mix ("Ponzi up" your "natural selection" . . which could be called my God selection) . . . but it does NOT remove the basic underlying ignorance.

But that is not what I, and science, is implying. Gene duplications, translocations, ionisation effects, transcription errors, etc are the source (which you ignored yet again). You seem intent on making this “probability is the source” straw-man. It is getting pathetic at this stage.

What is pathetic is your seeming lack of awareness of what is being implied by the very words you use so cavalierly AS IF they were explanations because they were "Ponzied" up from ignorance. No one is saying you haven't adequately described How the ensuing processes proceed . . but you have said and can imply NOTHING about what invoked them. Of course, if someone is "implication-impaired" . . . it can be difficult to see such distinctions.

10 Deny science implies a position on God by default
20 Ignore the posted correction to the implication-impaired
30 Goto 10

 

[themadhair]

When you use probability as the explanation for it by calling it random . . . yes

Good thing science doesn’t do that then. Your straw-man view of science does, but that differs from actual science.

you can simply express your ignorance scientifically using mathematics and leave the impression that you have explained it

But the mathematics is used to model the explanatory mechanisms. You keep ignoring the actually these explanations, almost wilfully so.

You can add survival imperative and resource competition to the mix but it does NOT remove the basic underlying ignorance.[/quote]
I don’t know what ‘survival imperative’ is here (not terminology I’ve seen in this context). Are you suggesting that adding in resource competition, essentially including information obtained by observational means, to a theory implies underlying ignorance?

("Ponzi up" your "natural selection" . . which could be called my God selection) . . .

If your definition of ‘god selection’ matches that of ‘natural selection’ then sure. I don’t see the point or the relevance of your objection to the ‘word’ nature.

What is pathetic is your seeming lack of awareness of what is being implied by the very words you use so cavalierly AS IF they were explanations because they were "Ponzied" up from ignorance.

The only person claiming that science uses probability as an explanation for mutations is you, and as has been repeatedly pointed out there is an explanation for those mutations that isn’t probability. Knocking down straw-men is quite easy.

No one is saying you haven't adequately described How the ensuing processes proceed . . but you have said and can imply NOTHING about what invoked them.

Without evidence science cannot take a position on what invoked/did not invoke anything. This is why science doesn’t take a position on what did or did not invoke/not invoke. How many times does this have to be said?

Of course, if someone is "implication-impaired" . . . it can be difficult to see such distinctions.

It is easy to namecall someone when you ascribe straw-men to them. Rather pointless though.

10 Deny science implies a position on God by default
20 Ignore the posted correction to the implication-impaired
30 Goto 10

There are two problems with this:
Firstly, science doesn’t take a position any way, although you seem determined to pretend that it does no matter how many times this is pointed out to you.
Secondly, how can you hope to argue that science takes a position on anything when you are totally unwilling to provide a definition of that anything that could be used to make your determination???? It’s almost as if your argument relies on being vague.

 

[YmirGF]

It’s almost as if your argument relies on being vague.

I think this thread has become a "RF Classic". I really have not encountered such bizarre thinking, passed off as intelligence, prior to this (on the part of MysticDoc - not yourself and others, of course).

To paraphrase Tina Turner, "What's god, got to do with it?"

Sorry,
I just
don't
get it.

 

[MysticPhD]

Good thing science doesn’t do that then. Your straw-man view of science does, but that differs from actual science.

But the mathematics is used to model the explanatory mechanisms. You keep ignoring the actually these explanations, almost wilfully so.

You can add survival imperative and resource competition to the mix but it does NOT remove the basic underlying ignorance.

I don’t know what ‘survival imperative’ is here (not terminology I’ve seen in this context). Are you suggesting that adding in resource competition, essentially including information obtained by observational means, to a theory implies underlying ignorance?

Natural selection is the term for the process that pits the survival instincts (survival imperative "designed" into life) of various competing species for resources that produces the "winners." If life didn't have the instinct to survive at all costs . . . natural selection would not work. When the underlying premise is based on ignorance ALL subsequent additions are also based on that ignorance.

If your definition of ‘god selection’ matches that of ‘natural selection’ then sure. I don’t see the point or the relevance of your objection to the ‘word’ nature.

Because you actually appear to be implication-impaired . . . I thought I was just joking and being sarcastic . . . apparently not.

The only person claiming that science uses probability as an explanation for mutations is you, and as has been repeatedly pointed out there is an explanation for those mutations that isn’t probability. Knocking down straw-men is quite easy.

The use of probability hides the basic ignorance so that the average bear sees only the implications . . . but apparently not people like yourself who are impaired in that department.

Without evidence science cannot take a position on what invoked/did not invoke anything. This is why science doesn’t take a position on what did or did not invoke/not invoke. How many times does this have to be said?

THEY DON'T HAVE TO . . . the implications are everywhere!

It is easy to namecall someone when you ascribe straw-men to them. Rather pointless though.

I apologize for the sarcasm . . . but it would appear to be more like a diagnosis than name calling at this point.

There are two problems with this:
Firstly, science doesn’t take a position any way, although you seem determined to pretend that it does no matter how many times this is pointed out to you.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO.

Secondly, how can you hope to argue that science takes a position on anything when you are totally unwilling to provide a definition of that anything that could be used to make your determination???? It’s almost as if your argument relies on being vague.

Implications can seem that way to those unaccustomed to seeing them.

 

[lunamoth]

I don't understand why everyone is being so combative with Mystic PhD. I think maybe he is right that it is a reaction to his avatar and his writing style. From my reading of his posts it is obvious that he is not attacking science, but the misuse of science. And although we would all love to think that all scientists and critical thinkers are perfectly neutral about religion, this is not the case. He is rightly pointing out that the way we use the word 'nature' today does make it sound like it is exclusive of, or the opposite of God. That is a new development in thinking and not a rational, scientific conclusion, but one of faith.

He also seems to be pointing out that the chaotic nature of mutaion (not the selective pressure on those mutations) does not 'explain' what is happening (and yes, I understand the biochemical process of mutation quite well thank you.) The mathmatics state what is happening and can help form predictive models, but a probablility is a space holder for uncertainty. And if you are uncertain, you don't know and thus have not explained.

He's also made it clear that his views about God come from personal experience, that he's had a profound religious experience that has changed his worldview. He's fit his known data and respect for science to fit this worldview...something that we all do.

 

[themadhair]

If life didn't have the instinct to survive at all costs . . . natural selection would not work.

Doesn’t evolution, by its nature of selecting those best predisposed to survival, not induce survival instinct?

THEY DON'T HAVE TO . . . the implications are everywhere!

Just like design is everywhere too I imagine.

Implications are everywhere to those determined to see them.

FIFY

Secondly, how can you hope to argue that science takes a position on anything when you are totally unwilling to provide a definition of that anything that could be used to make your determination???? It’s almost as if your argument relies on being vague.

Implications can seem that way to those unaccustomed to seeing them.

So respond to an accusation of vagueness by being vague? Makes sense I suppose. If you had to actually define what it is you are charging science of discriminating against it would make the argument much clearer and easier to respond to.

From my reading of his posts it is obvious that he is not attacking science, but the misuse of science.

Except when he straw-mans science of course.

He also seems to be pointing out that the chaotic nature of mutaion (not the selective pressure on those mutations) does not 'explain' what is happening (and yes, I understand the biochemical process of mutation quite well thank you).

Unfortunately, when MysticPhD accuses science of using probability as the explanation for mutations, rather than those biochemical processes, and does so for about the twentieth time it starts to get a little tiring.

The mathmatics state what is happening and can help form predictive models, but a probablility is a space holder for uncertainty. And if you are uncertain, you don't know and thus have not explained.

I don’t see how the second sentence follows from the first. You know the mechanism involved and how they work. I don’t agree that not having made the required measurements to make a non-probabilistic prediction means you are missing the explanatory mechanism of that prediction. To refer back to my coin-flip analogy, this is like saying that because we can’t predict the result of a coin toss we are without an explanation for how coin-tossing works.

I don't understand why everyone is being so combative with Mystic PhD. I think maybe he is right that it is a reaction to his avatar and his writing style. From my reading of his posts it is obvious that he is not attacking science, but the misuse of science.
…
He's also made it clear that his views about God come from personal experience, that he's had a profound religious experience that has changed his worldview.He's fit his known data and respect for science to fit this worldview...something that we all do.

I can’t say I have been any more combative toward mystic than mystic has been toward me. I will say that, regardless of his/her religious views, it does seem as if he/she is conflicting this worldview with an inaccurate perception of science. The need to imagine science has a position on god(s) isn’t a reference to misuse of science, it seems to signify a perceived philosophical difference that forms the basis of his/her argument. This has gone around the blocks quite a few times already, but without being able to ascertain what this position science is supposed to have mistakenly taken (due to total vagueness on what god(s) science took a position on and a refusal to define such) it is likely to go around the blocks a few more times.

 

[MysticPhD]

Doesn’t evolution, by its nature of selecting those best predisposed to survival, not induce survival instinct?

You have the causality backwards . . . maybe causal dyslexia is the problem with seeing implications of fundamental assumptions. You cannot make nature a SEPARATE concern without IMPLICITLY creating a separate "god" to explain what you find . . . with the attributes of indifference and purposeless.

Just like design is everywhere too I imagine.

How could it not be? Do you have a better explanation for its existence and consistency? I'm listening?

Implications are everywhere to those capable of seeing them.

FIFY

So respond to an accusation of vagueness by being vague? Makes sense I suppose. If you had to actually define what it is you are charging science of discriminating against it would make the argument much clearer and easier to respond to.

See above.

Unfortunately, when MysticPhD accuses science of using probability as the explanation for mutations, rather than those biochemical processes, and does so for about the twentieth time it starts to get a little tiring.

When you cannot see the implications of saying . . . "we know what things are going on . . . it is a "natural" biochemical process of random mutation . . . (when you have no idea what invoked that process) . . . you are IMPLYING there is NO NEED for anything to invoke it . . . it is "natural" (YOUR god . . . NOT my God.) Hello . . . anyone home in that brain of yours?

I don’t see how the second sentence follows from the first. You know the mechanism involved and how they work. I don’t agree that not having made the required measurements to make a non-probabilistic prediction means you are missing the explanatory mechanism of that prediction. To refer back to my coin-flip analogy, this is like saying that because we can’t predict the result of a coin toss we are without an explanation for how coin-tossing works.

Because you have accounted for everything that is involved INCLUDING the FLIPPER! . . NOT SO for mutations . . . you are missing the flipper and calling it nature with its mathematical propensity to flip randomly.

I can’t say I have been any more combative toward mystic than mystic has been toward me. I will say that, regardless of his/her religious views, it does seem as if he/she is conflicting this worldview with an inaccurate perception of science.

My perception of science is quite accurate, thank you . . . as is my understanding of the philosophical implications of its methods.

The need to imagine science has a position on god(s) isn’t a reference to misuse of science, it seems to signify a perceived philosophical difference that forms the basis of his/her argument.

My problem is with the implied position endemic to the use of a separate nature as the subject of the investigations AS IF there were some scientific validity for doing so.

This has gone around the blocks quite a few times already, but without being able to ascertain what this position science is supposed to have mistakenly taken (due to total vagueness on what god(s) science took a position on and a refusal to define such) it is likely to go around the blocks a few more times.

True . . . as long as you fail to see even when it is spelled out for you in detail. BTW . . . to make things easier . . . I am male.

 

[lunamoth]

I can’t say I have been any more combative toward mystic than mystic has been toward me. I will say that, regardless of his/her religious views, it does seem as if he/she is conflicting this worldview with an inaccurate perception of science. The need to imagine science has a position on god(s) isn’t a reference to misuse of science, it seems to signify a perceived philosophical difference that forms the basis of his/her argument. This has gone around the blocks quite a few times already, but without being able to ascertain what this position science is supposed to have mistakenly taken (due to total vagueness on what god(s) science took a position on and a refusal to define such) it is likely to go around the blocks a few more times.

Ok, well the way I've read Mystic is that's he advocating the view that science has not killed God.

His beef is not with science, but with a growing public perception of science that a few vocal scientists and atheists are happy to promote. Even on this website I can find posts from this week in which people say they base their atheism on logic and science. When a famous scientist writes a book saying something like this, the impression is that science is in antagonism to faith in God.

Belief in God is consistent with our scientific understanding and explorations of the universe.


Added: Just to be clear, I don't say that 'God' is an explanatory hypothesis either.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Call me antagonistic, but I'm sticking with the peyote theory.

 

[lunamoth]

Call me antagonistic, but I'm sticking with the peyote theory.

You're a very naughty boy. Good thing you're so cute!

 

[J Bryson]

You're a very naughty boy.

He's not the messiah!

(Sorry..saw that film recently, and couldn't resist)

 

[The Voice of Reason]

You're a very naughty boy. Good thing you're so cute!

Stop it, Luna. You'll turn my head.

 

[Willamena]

Mystic: Your tendency to obfuscate makes your posts virtually incomprehensible.

Ooops; sounds like someone I should be fruballing.... Thanks for the heads-up.

 

[Willamena]

I will accept that it is NOT a goal of science . . . just an unintended consequence of the unaddressed misunderstanding of the implications our mathematical non-explanations give to the average person. Math is not the strong suit of the masses.

It's only implied in as far as we make it implied.

I have that problem, too.

 

[MysticPhD]

I think this thread has become a "RF Classic". I really have not encountered such bizarre thinking, passed off as intelligence, prior to this (on the part of MysticDoc - not yourself and others, of course).

That's :cold: Oh well . . . as long as it passes.

To paraphrase Tina Turner, "What's god, got to do with it?"

Close. What's nature got to do with it? It's ALL about love.

Sorry,
I just
don't
get it.

That happens a lot . . . nothing to worry about.

 

[lunamoth]

I don’t see how the second sentence follows from the first. You know the mechanism involved and how they work. I don’t agree that not having made the required measurements to make a non-probabilistic prediction means you are missing the explanatory mechanism of that prediction. To refer back to my coin-flip analogy, this is like saying that because we can’t predict the result of a coin toss we are without an explanation for how coin-tossing works.

When scientists express the probablility (or randomness) of mutation etc. in mathmatical terms, the lay public hears math = science = nature explained without need for God.

But, uncertainty, the source of creativity, can equally be viewed as an attribute of God.

 

[MysticPhD]

When scientists express the probablility (or randomness) of mutation etc. in mathematical terms, the lay public hears math = science = nature explained without need for God.

Eloquently summarized in a single sentence. :yes:

But, uncertainty, the source of creativity, can equally be viewed as an attribute of God.

All dispute is about the attributes . . . not the existence of God.

 

[Autodidact]

I thought I was doing just that.

You're mistaken.

This is a misunderstanding by association. My avatar broadcast a specific mindset leading to assumptions that do not apply. My attempts to break the "taken for granted" separation of nature from God were seen as hostility because of said assumptions of "supernaturality," Omni's . . . whatever and association with "every religionist who has ever argued." I am the opposite of hostile to science. I refuse to accept nothing about any individual's preferences or beliefs. But the implicit denial of God by default separation from nature is endemic to science . . . and completely unjustified on any grounds.

Nope, it has nothing to do with your avatar, but with your constant, repeated, and false attacks on science. THERE IS NO IMPLICIT DENIAL OF GOD, by separation from nature or any other way. God can be separate from nature, identical with nature, non-existent, or any other permutation--science doesn't, and by its nature, can't, care. If you want science to care, and to take a stand on the issue, then you're seeking to destroy the source of its strength, that is, you're attacking it. Just like the Discovery Institute.

I'm pretty liberal on what I'll include under the rubric of Christian, but you go too far. The core belief of all 3 Abrahamic religions is that God created the world. If you reject that, then you can't be Christian. If you accept it, you can't be panentheist.

Now, for the second time, what is your religion of origen?

 

[Autodidact]

What "reasonable" question did I ignore?

What religion is your family of origin? In what religion were you raised?