Re: The Darwinian Fairytale as "Science"

On Apr 7, 4:58 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:09 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Well, that and he's trying to calculate the odds of his theory by
going 1-(the odds of this phoney balony version of evolution he's
cooked up).  That's not a good method unless he can show that there
logically cannot be another option.  Further, we don't know that the
odds have to add up to 1.  It could be that we just got really lucky.

Yeah - really lucky.  You're basically arguing that if someone
happened to win the California Lottery 100 times in a row that you'd
have no problem with the theory that this was just really good luck in
play.  Sorry, but the hypothesis of deliberate manipulation or design
is much more tenable.  I just don't have the kind of faith that you
have in such extremely unlikely powers of the "luck" hypothesis.

No, you have Faith in something much more at odds with the principle
of parsimony than stochastic processes.

I wish you would stop offering this very disingenuous Lottery example
as an argument. The response (which you have so far ignored) is
simple: you're erecting an obvious strawman. Virtually everyone would
have a "problem with the theory that this was just really good luck in
play." But nobody would make an unwarranted, Faith-based inference to
some as yet undiscovered, completely unevidenced intelligent (non-
natural, but don't tell anybody) entity. We would all (and that
includes you, because this event would not be seen to imperil your
theology) conclude that some other, entirely natural force was at
work. And yes, it quite possibly might involve intelligent agency, but
the intelligence that we infer would be well known to be exist, be
capable of, and be responsible for, the kind of activity we imagine.
It (our inference) would not simply assume the conclusion we wish to
prove - which the example, as you use it, does.

Please don't use this argument in the future without addressing the
points above (he asked, knowing that such a request regarding SETI has
been consistently ignored).

RLC

Beyond this, you do realize that SETI is in fact based on the odds
that additional counter evidence will not be discovered to effectively
falsify their ID theory? - i.e., their theory that only deliberate
intelligent aliens could produce the types of radio signals they are
looking for?  How do they know that for certain?  Of course, they
don't know for certain.  They only know with a high level of
predictive value that is not and will never be at 100%.

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Darwinian Fairytale as "Science"
    ... have in such extremely unlikely powers of the "luck" hypothesis. ... entirely natural force was at ... That's not true for SETI. ... but the intelligent agent does NOT have to be "well known ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Darwinian Fairytale as "Science"
    ... have in such extremely unlikely powers of the "luck" hypothesis. ... The response is ... SETI scientists do not propose to have met ... but the intelligent agent does NOT have to be "well known ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: $$ private tutoring - osmium
    ... >> the person who posted the errant response. ... Of couse the wording will be prettied up in the course listings. ... I wish him good luck in his search. ...
    (alt.comp.lang.learn.c-cpp)
  • Re: Focus
    ... Thanks again for your response, John. ... Tried both, no luck. ... Funny ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: urlretrieve get file name
    ... but I'm a guy with no luck. ... file name from response header... ... want to download a file from a web server and save it locally with the ... Gabriel Genellina ...
    (comp.lang.python)
Loading