Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21  
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    So a random mutation that happened earlier drove the process of natural selection. If the random mutation had not occurred then there would be no new trait to benefit from natural selection. Natural selection seems to be more random than mutations because it is as dependent on random environmental changes as it is on as it is on random mutations.
    A process which favors beneficial mutations which arise from a series of random ones is not random. Randomness is a factor in natural selection but it is not the guiding principle.
    Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member marinejcksn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Penn State
    Posts
    1,820
    Interesting conversation, I'm enjoying it. You know, I don't necessarily hate Richard Dawkins; the guy seems like a very inteligent person. I just hate the snide, dickhead attitude he exudes. If he presented his arguements without the arrogance I think a lot more people might be willing to listen to him objectively. Thats an issue I notice with many Athiests; I personally believe in a Christian God but never would shove my belief down someone's throat but the Athiests I know don't give the same option most of the time, it's a sort of arrogant, talking down, snippy attitude which I don't understand.
    "Don't vote. It only encourages the bastards." -PJ O'Roarke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by marinejcksn View Post
    Interesting conversation, I'm enjoying it. You know, I don't necessarily hate Richard Dawkins; the guy seems like a very inteligent person. I just hate the snide, dickhead attitude he exudes. If he presented his arguements without the arrogance I think a lot more people might be willing to listen to him objectively. Thats an issue I notice with many Athiests; I personally believe in a Christian God but never would shove my belief down someone's throat but the Athiests I know don't give the same option most of the time, it's a sort of arrogant, talking down, snippy attitude which I don't understand.
    What they don't seem to understand is that since there is no proof eiither way, it takes exactly as much faith to believe that there isn't a God as it takes to believe that there is a God.
    It is only upon careful observation, with a magnifying glass, on a sunny day, that one comes to realize how often ants burst into flames.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by marinejcksn View Post
    Interesting conversation, I'm enjoying it. You know, I don't necessarily hate Richard Dawkins; the guy seems like a very inteligent person. I just hate the snide, dickhead attitude he exudes. If he presented his arguements without the arrogance I think a lot more people might be willing to listen to him objectively. Thats an issue I notice with many Athiests; I personally believe in a Christian God but never would shove my belief down someone's throat but the Athiests I know don't give the same option most of the time, it's a sort of arrogant, talking down, snippy attitude which I don't understand.
    Richard Dawkins isn't arrogant. Opinionated? Yes... but not arrogant. I think the reason why Dawkins comes off as arrogant to a lot of believers is that they aren't used to hearing Christianity talked about in the same way they talk about belief systems they don't hold sacred.
    Last edited by The Night Owl; 03-19-2009 at 07:28 AM.
    Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by palerider View Post
    What they don't seem to understand is that since there is no proof eiither way, it takes exactly as much faith to believe that there isn't a God as it takes to believe that there is a God.
    Would you say that it takes as much faith to believe that leprechauns exist as it takes to believe they don't exist? I wouldn't. I'm completely comfortable saying that I'm convinced that leprechauns don't exist... and I say so simply because there isn't any evidence they exist. Of course, the absence of evidence of a god isn't proof it doesn't exist but it's a good reason to doubt it exists.
    Last edited by The Night Owl; 03-19-2009 at 07:45 AM.
    Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,268
    Quote Originally Posted by The Night Owl View Post
    Richard Dawkins isn't arrogant. Opinionated? Yes... but not arrogant. I think the reason why Dawkins comes off as arrogant to a lot of believers is that they aren't used to hearing Christianity talked about in the same way they talk about belief systems they don't hold sacred.
    Richard Dawkins is arrogant. That who dims and brights thing reeks of intellectual snobbery.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,268
    Quote Originally Posted by The Night Owl View Post
    A process which favors beneficial mutations which arise from a series of random ones is not random. Randomness is a factor in natural selection but it is not the guiding principle.
    The whole process is based on random events and the outcome can not be predicted. That is the definition of random. Chance occurrence leads to chance occurrence. Multiple genetic changes may occur but you can't even predict which of these changes will be benefical and allowed to be cared forward and which will cause the host to be non-viable. All the events are random and the outcome is random.

    Now to complicate the matter, from my theist world view nothing is random and the outcomes are are understood bythe Creator beforehand. When we use the word chance what we really mean is that we don't know enough about the initial conditions of a series of causes and effects to understand the outcome.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by The Night Owl View Post
    Would you say that it takes as much faith to believe that leprechauns exist as it takes to believe they don't exist? I wouldn't. I'm completely comfortable saying that I'm convinced that leprechauns don't exist... and I say so simply because there isn't any evidence they exist. Of course, the absence of evidence of a god isn't proof it doesn't exist but it's a good reason to doubt it exists.
    Are there stories suggesting that leprechauns actually exist or is it a given that they are mythical creatures? Being a scientist, it seems a larger leap of faith to me to believe there is no force that has brought such order out of chaos.
    It is only upon careful observation, with a magnifying glass, on a sunny day, that one comes to realize how often ants burst into flames.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    The whole process is based on random events and the outcome can not be predicted. That is the definition of random. Chance occurrence leads to chance occurrence. Multiple genetic changes may occur but you can't even predict which of these changes will be benefical and allowed to be cared forward and which will cause the host to be non-viable. All the events are random and the outcome is random.
    The question to you should be, is why do you shove the random=meaningless canard onto Dawkins?

    As far as we know, there is no such thing as 'random' in the general chaotic sense that we usually think in laymens terms.

    We could talk for pages on the nature of 'randomness', but it generally means is that something is simply outside the limits of our computational capacity... so with that in mind, how on earth do you conclude that if something is outside the limits of our computational capacity, that it must be meaningless?
    Last edited by wilbur; 03-20-2009 at 03:02 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •