Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,924 Year: 4,181/9,624 Month: 1,052/974 Week: 11/368 Day: 11/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Oh those clever etcetera--What RAZD said
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 78 of 95 (250143)
10-08-2005 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
10-06-2005 3:22 PM


For the record: WHAT RAZD SAID
I really get amused by people telling me what I said.
Especially when they cannot discern the nuances of the arguments.
For the record, what I said was that there were several errors involved in the usual creationist "calculations" of improbability. I repeat them here summarized and clarified:
Common error #1
Not enough is known about the system to calculate the odds. We don't know how many sides are on the dice, we don't know how many are being thrown, and we don't know the numbers on the sides. Any mathematical model that pretends to model such an unknown system is based on too many assumptions to be valid.
Common error #2
The calculation itself is done improperly. Even if the {model} was right (it isn't) the calculation is wrong. This is like an argument based on a false premise. The fact that the calculation is done wrong should also be a clue that the source is unreliable.
Common error #3
The number of valid solutions is not evaluated. If the number of valid solutions is anywhere near as great as the number of possible results, then the probability is high that a valid result occurs.
Common error #4
The difference between improbable and impossible is vast. Divide any improbable number you like by zero and the result is infinity: that is the difference between improbable and impossible.

Does this mean that abiogenesis HAS to be the answer?
No. That is absurd logically and does not follow from the argument.
Does this mean then that god-did-it HAS to be the answer?
No. That is absurd logically and does not follow from the argument.
All that it means is that the argument based on a mathematically false, logically false, informationally devoid improbability calculation is invalid.
Now:
(1) do you still consider this "begging the question" or not?
(2) do you get it yet?
This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*08*2005 07:30 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 10-06-2005 3:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Yaro, posted 10-08-2005 7:51 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 10-08-2005 8:51 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 79 of 95 (250148)
10-08-2005 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Parasomnium
10-06-2005 4:57 PM


Re: Analysis.
Gosh, I'm gone for three days and people are analysing my words as if they were the wholly grail!
RAZD equivocates when he says "once it has happened", "it" meaning "life on earth". He cannot say that the probability is irrelevant, because the probability he's talking about is the probability of something else. He can only be right if he assumes that life on earth is the result of abiogenesis. But that was what was under dispute.
And that's exactly what Faith is on about. Faith is right: RAZD commited a fallacy.RAZD equivocates when he says "once it has happened", "it" meaning "life on earth". He cannot say that the probability is irrelevant, because the probability he's talking about is the probability of something else. He can only be right if he assumes that life on earth is the result of abiogenesis. But that was what was under dispute.
And that's exactly what Faith is on about. Faith is right: RAZD commited a fallacy.
No. Sorry to disagree.
The evidence is that there is life. It is here. We have it. The probability is irrelevant because it is a fact that life exists.
The question is whether the cause is abiogenesis, god-did-it or some other possible answer.
If the answer is GDI so be it.
If the answer is abiogensis, then the event, no matter how improbable it really was, Watson, happened.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Parasomnium, posted 10-06-2005 4:57 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 10-08-2005 9:00 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 89 by robinrohan, posted 10-08-2005 11:45 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 81 of 95 (250157)
10-08-2005 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Yaro
10-08-2005 7:51 PM


Re: For the record: WHAT RAZD SAID
Thanks. I now know that I am god-like in my ability to inspire others to interpret my meanings

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Yaro, posted 10-08-2005 7:51 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Yaro, posted 10-08-2005 9:20 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 86 of 95 (250184)
10-08-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
10-08-2005 8:51 PM


Re: For the record: WHAT RAZD SAID
All that is not begging the question, it is what you intended to say, yes,
it is what I said.
thank you.
everything else is your misinterpretation of what I said.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 10-08-2005 8:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 10-08-2005 11:47 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 87 of 95 (250185)
10-08-2005 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
10-08-2005 9:00 PM


Re: Analysis.
The quotes in question logically do not allow for Creation, RAZD, although you assert it from time to time in other places. It would be good of you to rethink those quotes.
They do not necessarily need to.
They don't have to match your creation.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 10-08-2005 9:00 PM Faith has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 92 of 95 (250207)
10-09-2005 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Faith
10-08-2005 11:47 PM


Re: For the record: WHAT RAZD SAID
Faith, you really just don't get it.
about how the existence of life can't be improbable or impossible considering that life in fact does exist
It is really totally and completely, boringnly irrelevant what the probability is or was, because it is a fact that life exists.
Therefore, if it happened by abiogenesis it beat the odds (or was assisted along the way). If it didn't happen by abiogenesis, then the probability had absolutely nothing to do with it. Either way same end result: observed reality, regardless of the probability.
falsely imputing that claim to your opponent's probability model
What I showed was that the "opponent's probability model" in question was full of logical and mathematical errors and unstated assumptions and ignored whole segments of possibility that a valid model would include.
All that the extremely bad (if not dishonest) model argument shows to me is that the person(s) making such an extremely bad (if not dishonest) argument (for whatever reason) are not credible sources for trustworthy information.
It certainly does not "prove" that abiogenesis happened. Just that the calculation that were made are invalid.
The real probability for abiogenesis is not known. It could be 1 in a billion, a really easy case to realize given the size and expanse of time in the universe. We don't know. We won't really even begin to hope of having a clue until we find other life on other planets (or moons).
How do you justify such deceitfulness?
The deceitfulness that I see is in the misrepresentations of what I have said.
Personaly I see a universe intentionally primed for life with a maximized diversity of environments, of which we just happen to be one ... but that is a separate issue.
Would it kill you to be wrong?
Not on my own mistakes: I have been, and have owned up. This is not the case here.
The best you have is a word usage that may be loose, but the meaning is not changed, the argument is not changed, the result is not changed, and the idiocy of going on ad nauseum over it is not changed.
If that is a victory for you, then by all means break out the band wagon and light the fire-crackers.
Excuse me if I don't get excited by someone who cannot understand the argument and then calls me a liar based on that misunderstanding: I have clarified what I meant several times and I have better things to do than waste any more time on this idiocy.
Enjoy.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*09*2005 01:33 AM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 10-08-2005 11:47 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024