| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"neo" |
| Date: |
30 Sep 2006 06:18:21 PM |
| Object: |
Theory Of Probability Vs Intelligence. |
Creationist: The arrow is right on target hence the archer is
intelligent and skilled.
Darwinist: The archer fired few billion arrows in all direction. And
according to theory of probability one arrow is right on target. What
it has to do with intelligence or skill?
Me: So what Newton, Einstein has to do with intelligence? They were on
target when million other physicists missed the target, eh?
.
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory Of Probability Vs Intelligence. |
30 Sep 2006 08:32:08 PM |
|
|
"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159640301.120346.179050@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Creationist: The arrow is right on target hence the archer is
intelligent and skilled.
But first the creationist must fabricate the arrow, the archer and the
target.
Darwinist: The archer fired few billion arrows in all direction. And
according to theory of probability one arrow is right on target. What
it has to do with intelligence or skill?
Straw man. Please provide some references for this "theory of probability".
Me: So what Newton, Einstein has to do with intelligence?
Intellect is invisible to the man who has none.
They were on
target when million other physicists missed the target, eh?
Silly twaddle. As Newton observed, they saw further because they stood on
the shoulders of giants.
Regards,
Josef
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "rmj" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory Of Probability Vs Intelligence. |
30 Sep 2006 06:42:58 PM |
|
|
"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159640301.120346.179050@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Creationist: The arrow is right on target hence the archer is
intelligent and skilled.
Darwinist: The archer fired few billion arrows in all direction. And
according to theory of probability one arrow is right on target. What
it has to do with intelligence or skill?
This is an assertion without evidence. How did you calculate the
probability. Perhaps using the same methods that Hoyle used to find the odds
10^4000 against an arrow hitting the mark.
Me: So what Newton, Einstein has to do with intelligence? They were on
target when million other physicists missed the target, eh?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory Of Probability Vs Intelligence. |
01 Oct 2006 12:09:42 AM |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2006 11:18:21 -0700, "neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1159640301.120346.179050@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Creationist: The arrow is right on target hence the archer is
intelligent and skilled.
Darwinist: The archer fired few billion arrows in all direction. And
according to theory of probability one arrow is right on target. What
it has to do with intelligence or skill?
No proponent of evolution would ever claim this.
For one thing, evolution is NOT targeted, and relies on a ratchet
effect of millions of small changes, some of which are retained.
Me: So what Newton, Einstein has to do with intelligence? They were on
target when million other physicists missed the target, eh?
You have turned Newton and Einstein into straw men.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory Of Probability Vs Intelligence. |
01 Oct 2006 11:10:36 AM |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2006 11:18:21 -0700, "neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote:
Creationist: The arrow is right on target hence the archer is
intelligent and skilled.
No, there is an arrow. Your bias as to what constitutes a target
causes you to think the arrow is on the target.
Darwinist: The archer fired few billion arrows in all direction. And
according to theory of probability one arrow is right on target. What
it has to do with intelligence or skill?
No, you imagine that the accident of your existence is a target and
then create the delusion of an archer needing you as a target to
explain the arrows you see all around you.
Me: So what Newton, Einstein has to do with intelligence? They were on
target when million other physicists missed the target, eh?
Only if they make the same sort of assumptions about targets that you
do.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory Of Probability Vs Intelligence. |
30 Sep 2006 07:12:19 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:18:21 -0700, neo wrote:
Darwinist: The archer fired few billion arrows in all direction. And
according to theory of probability one arrow is right on target. What
it has to do with intelligence or skill?
Wrong.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory Of Probability Vs Intelligence. |
30 Sep 2006 06:27:20 PM |
|
|
neo schreef:
Creationist: The arrow is right on target hence the archer is
intelligent and skilled.
Darwinist: The archer fired few billion arrows in all direction. And
according to theory of probability one arrow is right on target. What
it has to do with intelligence or skill?
Me: So what Newton, Einstein has to do with intelligence? They were on
target when million other physicists missed the target, eh?
In a way yes most of the billions are still missing the point:)
There was no archer.
Peter van Velzen
September 2006
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sammybaby" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory Of Probability Vs Intelligence. |
01 Oct 2006 03:04:04 AM |
|
|
His point is that there is no reason to believe that Einstein or Newton
were archers either. We assume that archers arose, but there is no
reason to assume that evolution produced archers - meaning conscious
choosing creative beings.
pbamvv@worldonline.nl wrote:
neo schreef:
Creationist: The arrow is right on target hence the archer is
intelligent and skilled.
Darwinist: The archer fired few billion arrows in all direction. And
according to theory of probability one arrow is right on target. What
it has to do with intelligence or skill?
Me: So what Newton, Einstein has to do with intelligence? They were on
target when million other physicists missed the target, eh?
In a way yes most of the billions are still missing the point:)
There was no archer.
Peter van Velzen
September 2006
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory Of Probability Vs Intelligence. |
01 Oct 2006 10:35:54 AM |
|
|
Sammybaby schreef:
His point is that there is no reason to believe that Einstein or Newton
were archers either. We assume that archers arose, but there is no
reason to assume that evolution produced archers - meaning conscious
choosing creative beings.
My point is that a vast majority of people do not comprehend Einsteins
theory
many do not understand Darwins,
and now and again one finds out that some do not understand Newtons.
(like when I explain how a God (if there was any) might make a stone
that can't be lifted
and than lift it anyhow:)
But that is a silly story,
for there is no God
Peter van Velzen
October 2006
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory Of Probability Vs Intelligence. |
01 Oct 2006 03:55:10 AM |
|
|
Sammybaby wrote:
His point is that there is no reason to believe that Einstein or Newton
were archers either. We assume that archers arose, but there is no
reason to assume that evolution produced archers - meaning conscious
choosing creative beings.
Well, sure there is. We're animals, and we can trace our fossil record
and compare genomes with our cousins just fine. Why should we assume
that evolution didn't produce us? Does a process ahve to be able to fly
to produce animals with wings? Does it have to be venomous to produce
poison fangs? Why would it have to be intelligent to produce
intelligent animals?
All intelligence is is the mind, the behavioral aspect of a working
brain. We can see less complex brains all around us; we can see
evidence of their development in the genome and fossil record. We can
understand how smarter brains were an advantage for social, hunting
apes, and therefore would have been selected for.
We would need a very good reason to assume "conscious choosing creative
beings" are *not the result of evolutionary processes.
pbamvv@worldonline.nl wrote:
neo schreef:
Creationist: The arrow is right on target hence the archer is
intelligent and skilled.
Darwinist: The archer fired few billion arrows in all direction. And
according to theory of probability one arrow is right on target. What
it has to do with intelligence or skill?
Me: So what Newton, Einstein has to do with intelligence? They were on
target when million other physicists missed the target, eh?
In a way yes most of the billions are still missing the point:)
There was no archer.
Peter van Velzen
September 2006
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
Kermit of the Apes
"I speak their language!"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory Of Probability Vs Intelligence. |
30 Sep 2006 06:49:33 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
Creationist: The arrow is right on target hence the archer is
intelligent and skilled.
Darwinist: The
Error &H942874 Fake word "Darwinist" detected: reading terminated.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dkomo" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory Of Probability Vs Intelligence. |
30 Sep 2006 08:48:03 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
Creationist: The arrow is right on target hence the archer is
intelligent and skilled.
Darwinist: The archer fired few billion arrows in all direction. And
according to theory of probability one arrow is right on target. What
it has to do with intelligence or skill?
Me: So what Newton, Einstein has to do with intelligence? They were on
target when million other physicists missed the target, eh?
Well, for starters, it was a blind archer (you've heard of the blind
watchmaker, yes?). The blind archer fired the arrow in a random
direction. Later, mankind came along and drew a target around the
arrow, and said "this arrow was obviously right on target." Later
still, one member of mankind by the name of Dembski saw the arrow and
target and said "Ah! Specified complexity!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory Of Probability Vs Intelligence. |
01 Oct 2006 02:20:04 AM |
|
|
dkomo wrote:
neo wrote:
Creationist: The arrow is right on target hence the archer is
intelligent and skilled.
Darwinist: The archer fired few billion arrows in all direction. And
according to theory of probability one arrow is right on target. What
it has to do with intelligence or skill?
Me: So what Newton, Einstein has to do with intelligence? They were on
target when million other physicists missed the target, eh?
Well, for starters, it was a blind archer (you've heard of the blind
watchmaker, yes?). The blind archer fired the arrow in a random
direction. Later, mankind came along and drew a target around the
arrow, and said "this arrow was obviously right on target." Later
still, one member of mankind by the name of Dembski saw the arrow and
target and said "Ah! Specified complexity!"
LOL.
Then another ape-like being, named Behe, stood in front of a judge and
said "Arrow? WHAT arrow? I never said anything about an arrow!" The
judge, who was another ape-like being, whipped out and read a quote
from Behe's book that talked long and passionately about The Great
Arrow, after which Behe used his mandible, complete with opposible
thumb, to motion over yet another ape-like being, called a "Lawyer,"
and muttered something about perjury and the Fifth Amendment.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Inez" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory Of Probability Vs Intelligence. |
30 Sep 2006 06:33:40 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
Creationist: The arrow is right on target hence the archer is
intelligent and skilled.
Darwinist: The archer fired few billion arrows in all direction. And
according to theory of probability one arrow is right on target. What
it has to do with intelligence or skill?
Me: So what Newton, Einstein has to do with intelligence? They were on
target when million other physicists missed the target, eh?
And do you find this a convincing argument about something?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory Of Probability Vs Intelligence. |
30 Sep 2006 08:26:53 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
Creationist: The arrow is right on target hence the archer is
intelligent and skilled.
Darwinist: The archer fired few billion arrows in all direction. And
according to theory of probability one arrow is right on target. What
it has to do with intelligence or skill?
Me: So what Newton, Einstein has to do with intelligence? They were on
target when million other physicists missed the target, eh?
So the puddle must have been sculpted to fit the hole in the ground
then, rather than just naturally assuming the shape natural forces
forced ti to assume?
Never heard of convergent evolution?
In other words, because things that work are similar, natural selection
results in certain similar forms seem to proliferate, even in different
kindoms of life (the same forces cause corals and plants to have
similar shapes).
FOAD Troll
--
Lucifer, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and General
Purpose Igor
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory Of Probability Vs Intelligence. |
01 Oct 2006 03:49:25 AM |
|
|
neo wrote:
Creationist: The arrow is right on target hence the archer is
intelligent and skilled.
Darwinist: The archer fired few billion arrows in all direction. And
according to theory of probability one arrow is right on target. What
it has to do with intelligence or skill?
Any mutation that is more likely to reproduce than others will probably
spread thru the genepool.
What target?
There are millions, perhaps billions of species alive today. There are
likely millions of others that could have been, but never will be.
Me: So what Newton, Einstein has to do with intelligence? They were on
target when million other physicists missed the target, eh?
Ah, yes. Animals with nervous systems have been selected to interact
with the environment. The more neurologically complex ones have
sophisticated inner maps of the environment, and make decisions about
how to act in that environment. My cat knows the neighborhood, and
where the other cats live, and which fences have dogs behind them, and
where cars drive.
Newton and Einstein were cutting edge apes, and formed very kewl maps
of the environment, which they shared with the rest of their species.
I'm not sure I understand your question. Perhaps if you chose another
metaphor...
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory Of Probability Vs Intelligence. |
30 Sep 2006 07:06:27 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
Creationist: The arrow is right on target hence the archer is
intelligent and skilled.
Darwinist: The archer fired few billion arrows in all direction. And
according to theory of probability one arrow is right on target. What
it has to do with intelligence or skill?
What archer? What target?
Me: So what Newton, Einstein has to do with intelligence? They were on
target when million other physicists missed the target, eh?
You'll have to rephrase your questions, using proper grammar. I don't
understand what you're trying to say.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sammybaby" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory Of Probability Vs Intelligence. |
01 Oct 2006 03:08:59 AM |
|
|
His point is that there is no reason to believe that Einstein or Newton
were archers either. We assume that archers arose, but there is no
reason to assume that evolution produced archers - meaning conscious
choosing creative beings.
The watchmaker's 'proof' fails in most scientists eyes. He is saying
it should also fail when we posit our own free consciousness creative
existence. There are only watches, some watching.
Our sense that we seem to exist is as valid as claims that people sense
a God. It is not worded well, but it is a decent argument.
From a Buddhist perspective most westerners, athiests included are as
loopy and making nearly as many assumptions - for no reason - as
theists.
Chris Johnson wrote:
neo wrote:
Creationist: The arrow is right on target hence the archer is
intelligent and skilled.
Darwinist: The archer fired few billion arrows in all direction. And
according to theory of probability one arrow is right on target. What
it has to do with intelligence or skill?
What archer? What target?
Me: So what Newton, Einstein has to do with intelligence? They were on
target when million other physicists missed the target, eh?
You'll have to rephrase your questions, using proper grammar. I don't
understand what you're trying to say.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory Of Probability Vs Intelligence. |
01 Oct 2006 04:07:17 AM |
|
|
Sammybaby wrote:
His point is that there is no reason to believe that Einstein or Newton
were archers either. We assume that archers arose, but there is no
reason to assume that evolution produced archers - meaning conscious
choosing creative beings.
Please explain how evolution could produce big noses or big necks or
big wings, but have trouble with big brains?
The watchmaker's 'proof' fails in most scientists eyes. He is saying
it should also fail when we posit our own free consciousness creative
existence. There are only watches, some watching.
So, it fails because it is a bad argument, but if the subject is
important and dear to your heart, it must be true?
Complex animals were not built at random; this is a strawman argument,
and does not represent the evolutionary process. Even simple molecules
are not random, but react according to the laws of chemistry.
Our sense that we seem to exist is as valid as claims that people sense
a God. It is not worded well, but it is a decent argument.
I would suggest that "we exist" is self-evident. If you doubt it, come
over here and let me kick you in the shins. If you are a Zen Buddhist,
I will still kick you in the shins.
I have looked for god, but all I have found is my cat.
From a Buddhist perspective most westerners, athiests included are as
loopy and making nearly as many assumptions - for no reason - as
theists.
Ah. How many assumptions does it take to not believe in leprechauns?
<snip>
Does any of this have to do with science?
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
