Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:27:00 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.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: <3D7FC334.396A9F12@mindspring.com> References: <20020911140623.A45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Neal E. Westfall" wrote:
> > Well, if you want, we can start at the very, very beginning,
> > and work out the entire basis for a rationalist world view.
> > We can start with "light bulbs work".
>
> 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.
> > 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.
Is the true canon the dead sea scrolls? Or is it the King James
translation into English of the Bible?
> > 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.
> 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.
> Trouble is the Second Law militates against the notion that the
> universe is infinitely old.
Only if you accept the "big bang" theory, which is not the only
theory. Are you advocating the "big bang"?
> > Because it's expedient.
>
> 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.
> If you are going to continue to insist that life arose this way, you
> will have to eventually get around to answering the question as to
> how you think your reasoning ability isn't just an illusion, since if
> you are right, you can't help but reason the way you do.
See other posting. This does not follow from your argument.
> > 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.
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.
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"?
> 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.
> > All of these questions stretch exactly the same credulity, and
> > yet they have answers.
>
> Really? What *is* one divided by infinity?
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.
> > 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.
> > > > 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.
> > 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.
-- Terry
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?3D7FC334.396A9F12>