Changes

:In any event, [[Statistics|statisticians]] quote odds all the time--to show that a [[null hypothesis]] is untenable, and that one must accept as valid the notion that a given difference is relevant and/or that intervention is taking place.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:In any event, [[Statistics|statisticians]] quote odds all the time--to show that a [[null hypothesis]] is untenable, and that one must accept as valid the notion that a given difference is relevant and/or that intervention is taking place.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::Evolution is not a random walk, because you have selection. You are just confusing the different meaning of the word "random" again. I'll say it again, go check evolutionary and genetic algorithms, and see for yourself that their behavior is proven to be different from a random walk. One difference is e.g. that solution of and genetic algorithm will converge to a local optimum, while a random walk will not. Look up the proofs. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)  

::Evolution is not a random walk, because you have selection. You are just confusing the different meaning of the word "random" again. I'll say it again, go check evolutionary and genetic algorithms, and see for yourself that their behavior is proven to be different from a random walk. One difference is e.g. that solution of and genetic algorithm will converge to a local optimum, while a random walk will not. Look up the proofs. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)  

:::::But [[Atheism|atheistic]] [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] ''must'' assert that life arose from non-life, because if that did not happen, then they cannot explain how life came to be.

:::::But [[Atheism|atheistic]] [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] ''must'' assert that life arose from non-life, because if that did not happen, then they cannot explain how life came to be.

::::::In deed atheists have to explain it to complete that part of the the history of life.  

::::::In deed atheists have to explain it to complete that part of the the history of life.  

:The above is a signal admission, by you, that atheism cannot offer a complete history of life without explaining how life arose from non-life without [[God|Divine]] or other intervention. Some atheists have tried to fudge the issue by postulating an [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|earlier generation]] of [[Extraterrestrial life|beings from another star or galaxy]] that fired a brace of missiles hither and yon, one of which missiles crashed on earth and gave rise to all life hereon, including us. But that merely shoves the problem back another step--for how did this earlier generation come to be? I now learn that even [[Francis Crick]] had to abandon that theory, perhaps after too many people laughed at him for proposing it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:The above is a signal admission, by you, that atheism cannot offer a complete history of life without explaining how life arose from non-life without [[God|Divine]] or other intervention. Some atheists have tried to fudge the issue by postulating an [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|earlier generation]] of [[Extraterrestrial life|beings from another star or galaxy]] that fired a brace of missiles hither and yon, one of which missiles crashed on earth and gave rise to all life hereon, including us. But that merely shoves the problem back another step--for how did this earlier generation come to be? I now learn that even [[Francis Crick]] had to abandon that theory, perhaps after too many people laughed at him for proposing it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::Atheisms really isn't about abiogensis. And I always thought that religion wasn't about abiogenesis either. Atheism doesn't explain why we are able to ride a bicycle either, and neither does religion. And the much of mechanics of bicycling is also still a mystery. Many scientists are atheists, but that doesn't mean that atheism is science is atheism. As a note aside, Panspermia isn't quite dead, just earlier versions of it. But the whole panspermia discussion is kind of irrelevant. Not quite sure if the core of your religion is to explain unknown scientific facts, but its certainly not the core of atheism. The core of atheism is that doesn't belief in the existence of a deity. Full stop. If you want to have a deity to explain gaps in scientific knowledge away, you are (1) arguing for the "god of the gaps", and (2) actually not explaining anything scientific. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::Atheisms really isn't about abiogensis. And I always thought that religion wasn't about abiogenesis either. Atheism doesn't explain why we are able to ride a bicycle either, and neither does religion. And the much of mechanics of bicycling is also still a mystery. Many scientists are atheists, but that doesn't mean that atheism is science is atheism. As a note aside, Panspermia isn't quite dead, just earlier versions of it. But the whole panspermia discussion is kind of irrelevant. Not quite sure if the core of your religion is to explain unknown scientific facts, but its certainly not the core of atheism. The core of atheism is that doesn't belief in the existence of a deity. Full stop. If you want to have a deity to explain gaps in scientific knowledge away, you are (1) arguing for the "god of the gaps", and (2) actually not explaining anything scientific. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::You have just admitted, by the way, that without abiogenesis, biological evolution is a concept with no warrant in reality. Now you want to talk of "artificial" evolution. Well, "artificial" implies an [[God|Artificer]], does it not?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 10:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::You have just admitted, by the way, that without abiogenesis, biological evolution is a concept with no warrant in reality. Now you want to talk of "artificial" evolution. Well, "artificial" implies an [[God|Artificer]], does it not?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 10:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::That is why the creationist arguments are flawed. Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen.  This is how the creator set up life. Whatever the creating cause might be. Arguing in contrast that the principle is impossible is a folly, since on principle it works. This is why theistic evolutionist and also IDers do not reject evolution, but say say that evolution is insufficient to explain everything. And one of the things that is currently unexplained is abiogenesis. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:18, 26 September 2007 (EDT)  

::::::That is why the creationist arguments are flawed. Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen.  This is how the creator set up life. Whatever the creating cause might be. Arguing in contrast that the principle is impossible is a folly, since on principle it works. This is why theistic evolutionist and also IDers do not reject evolution, but say say that evolution is insufficient to explain everything. And one of the things that is currently unexplained is abiogenesis. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:18, 26 September 2007 (EDT)  

:The [[Hell|aitch-eeh-double-hockey-stick]], that's not what you said. In any event, your continued assertion, without proof, that evolution is "a principle," evades the issue of ''why'' people tout evolution so loudly, and suppress creation. And to the extent that species change, they change only for the worse, not better. The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] tells how. The [[Bible]] tells why--because [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|sin]] has come into the world. Therefore, evolution, by the new and watered-down definition you now stand by, is a consequence of ''sin''.

:The [[Hell|aitch-eeh-double-hockey-stick]], that's not what you said. In any event, your continued assertion, without proof, that evolution is "a principle," evades the issue of ''why'' people tout evolution so loudly, and suppress creation. And to the extent that species change, they change only for the worse, not better. The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] tells how. The [[Bible]] tells why--because [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|sin]] has come into the world. Therefore, evolution, by the new and watered-down definition you now stand by, is a consequence of ''sin''.

::*It is really almost exactly what I said. I said first "Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen", and later "even if he exists, (...) evolution will still happen".  

::*It is really almost exactly what I said. I said first "Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen", and later "even if he exists, (...) evolution will still happen".  

::* Anyway. If you want proof that evolution a principle that applies also outside of biology , check out work on evolutionary and genetic algorithms. I mentioned this before.  

::* Anyway. If you want proof that evolution a principle that applies also outside of biology , check out work on evolutionary and genetic algorithms. I mentioned this before.  

::* The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply, because life is not a closed system.  

::* The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply, because life is not a closed system.  

::* To observe that the laws of evolution also apply outside of biology isn't watering down; it makes it stronger, because its more general. And sin doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions used to define evolution.  

::* To observe that the laws of evolution also apply outside of biology isn't watering down; it makes it stronger, because its more general. And sin doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions used to define evolution.

:::::::I confidently predict that you will never, never explain abiogenesis. And I repeat: without it, your atheistic system falls to the ground.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 23:59, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::I confidently predict that you will never, never explain abiogenesis. And I repeat: without it, your atheistic system falls to the ground.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 23:59, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I can confidently predict that I will never explain abiogensis either. I am a computer scientist. And I can also confidently predict that I will never prove that evolution works as a mathematical principle. That has already been done in the last century. No need to do it all over again. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I can confidently predict that I will never explain abiogensis either. I am a computer scientist. And I can also confidently predict that I will never prove that evolution works as a mathematical principle. That has already been done in the last century. No need to do it all over again. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:I do not accept that claim.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:I do not accept that claim.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::You don't need to accept that claim, you can look up the proof. And it has been proven whether you like it or not. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::You don't need to accept that claim, you can look up the proof. And it has been proven whether you like it or not. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::But I wonder why atheism should fall over if science cannot explain abiogenesis. It is not a cornerstone of atheism. Atheism isn't about biology, even if Dawkins is a biologist. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::But I wonder why atheism should fall over if science cannot explain abiogenesis. It is not a cornerstone of atheism. Atheism isn't about biology, even if Dawkins is a biologist. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:Merely because, without abiogenesis, atheism cannot answer the question, "If there is no [[God]], then where did we come from?"--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:Merely because, without abiogenesis, atheism cannot answer the question, "If there is no [[God]], then where did we come from?"--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::Atheism isn't about abiogensis, so they probably don't care much. Its up to science to find an explanation if they can. And the explanation that God did it, isn't much of an explanation either. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::Atheism isn't about abiogensis, so they probably don't care much. Its up to science to find an explanation if they can. And the explanation that God did it, isn't much of an explanation either. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

My crack at the King of England was implied at your pompous air: ''As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do.''

My crack at the King of England was implied at your pompous air: ''As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do.''