thesometimesaint Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 44 minutes ago, TrespassersW said: Um... All over the place? Many, many, many processes are described as essentially random. Chance plays a very large part in describing the behavior of subatomic particles. It plays an essential part in current descriptions of abiogenesis. Random mutation is an essential piece of evolution. Are you saying that science claims that NOTHING in the universe is random? Or have I misunderstood your point? Yes, I understand that selection heuristics also play a part in theories such as evolution and that evolution isn't itself purely random. It wasn't my intention to imply that it was. My point was, ANY fact can be explained purely by chance if we have a high enough threshold for improbability. If we impose limits on how much improbability we're allowed to accept, however, then we have to be more selective. As I understood it, TheSkepticChristian's point was that it is POSSIBLE to explain the universe without invoking God. I was just conceding that point, but that I don't think it matters because I don't believe that was ever seriously in dispute. The more interesting debate is, IMO, whether or not a universe without God is more parsimonious than one with Him. Purely random chance is not random mutation/variation even at the abiogenesis level. Also evolution is not purely chance SEE http://www.udonmap.com/udonthaniforum/abiogenesis-life-from-non-life-duplicated-in-lab-t13609.html SEE https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random/ Nothing is purely random. Everything effects everything else. Even the non-directed chemical reaction of Iron atoms in a solution of Sulfuric Acid falls within a bell shaped curve of reaction times. Whether we can tell which individual atom reacts when is a different question. Science can't posit any God or Godlike force onto science and still be science. Whether there is a God or many gods is outside the realm of science. But it does make for a good religious discussion.
TrespassersW Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Purely random chance is not random mutation/variation even at the abiogenesis level. Also evolution is not purely chance SEE http://www.udonmap.com/udonthaniforum/abiogenesis-life-from-non-life-duplicated-in-lab-t13609.html SEE https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random/ Nothing is purely random. Everything effects everything else. Even the non-directed chemical reaction of Iron atoms in a solution of Sulfuric Acid falls within a bell shaped curve of reaction times. Whether we can tell which individual atom reacts when is a different question. Science can't posit any God or Godlike force onto science and still be science. Whether there is a God or many gods is outside the realm of science. But it does make for a good religious discussion. I'm really not sure what part of my post you're disagreeing with. I said that evolution is not purely chance. I only claimed that chance was an essential part of it. From the evolution article you linked to (emphasis mine): "Natural selection is a rigorous testing process that filters out what works from what doesn’t, driving organisms to evolve in particular directions. However, chance events play a big role too." How was this supposed to refute my claim? My point had nothing at all to do with whether true randomness exists in the universe. It was simply that COINCIDENCE may be used to explain virtually anything, if we are willing to accept large improbabilities. So, the fact that a POSSIBLE explanation always exists isn't particularly informative. As for science positing God or Godlike forces, I have no idea how that has any relationship to anything I've said.
TheSkepticChristian Posted February 22, 2016 Author Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Also evolution is not purely chance True, natural selection and Gene conversion guide it! Edited February 22, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Robert F. Smith Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 23 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: I'm not an atheist, and am fine with God doing it. I just use science to explain how he did it. Hoyle was wrong; ours is an expanding universe, not a steady state one. Wickramasinghe doesn't endorse so called Creation Science. From what is known right now life as we know it is only present on our planet. Hubris says we're wrong. We'll just have to wait and see. This has nothing to do with ridiculous evangelical "creation science," nor with disproven steady state theory, but rather with the belief by most astronomers that life is spread throughout the universe, and that some planets (or systems) are much older than ours and so likely possess advanced alien intelligence -- which would be "godlike" in their knowledge and technical capacity, according to Richard Dawkins, and others. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were not concerned with supernaturalism or miracles, but rather with pure science and math in dealing with such possibilities.
Robert F. Smith Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: True, natural selection and Gene conversion guide it! And the principles of recombinant DNA.
Glenn101 Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 14 hours ago, TrespassersW said: Um... All over the place? Many, many, many processes are described as essentially random. Chance plays a very large part in describing the behavior of subatomic particles. It plays an essential part in current descriptions of abiogenesis. Random mutation is an essential piece of evolution. Are you saying that science claims that NOTHING in the universe is random? Or have I misunderstood your point? Yes, I understand that selection heuristics also play a part in theories such as evolution and that evolution isn't itself purely random. It wasn't my intention to imply that it was. My point was, ANY fact can be explained purely by chance if we have a high enough threshold for improbability. If we impose limits on how much improbability we're allowed to accept, however, then we have to be more selective. As I understood it, TheSkepticChristian's point was that it is POSSIBLE to explain the universe without invoking God. I was just conceding that point, but that I don't think it matters because I don't believe that was ever seriously in dispute. The more interesting debate is, IMO, whether or not a universe without God is more parsimonious than one with Him. The emphasis in the above quote was/is mine. That is one of the things that brought Don Bradley back into the church. Glenn
thesometimesaint Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: This has nothing to do with ridiculous evangelical "creation science," nor with disproven steady state theory, but rather with the belief by most astronomers that life is spread throughout the universe, and that some planets (or systems) are much older than ours and so likely possess advanced alien intelligence -- which would be "godlike" in their knowledge and technical capacity, according to Richard Dawkins, and others. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were not concerned with supernaturalism or miracles, but rather with pure science and math in dealing with such possibilities. I agree life on other planets is entirely possible, maybe even intelligent life. We'll just have to wait and see if it is more than possible, more than likely, but actual evidence that it does. It is hoped that the new James Webb infrared telescope will help.
Gray Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 For the pantheist, science is principally engaged in proving the existence of God over and over and over again
Recommended Posts