Terribly flawed thinking demonstrated in the argument below, and clearly demonstrative of the use of ignorance and limitations. First, there is absolutely nothing at all random about the shuffling of cards. It is 100% physics, 100% purely physical. There are no violations of physical law during the shuffling of the cards, nothing fundamentally random about it. Simply because someone lacks the tools to accurately and precisely know all the details of the shuffle which influence the outcome, they conclude the process is random. It is not random, it is precise and following all the laws of nature. If we could precisely measure each and every force and agent that was involved in the shuffling of the deck, which would include the cards, the atmosphere, gravity, etc. and precisely every movement of the person shuffling the cards, and the cards themselves we could with certainty predict the order of the cards being shuffled. There is no magic here, just simple physical interactions. There is no biological life in the cards, and none in the shuffle. There is only the nature of a human being involved in the process...which makes it unpredictable as to the outcome as well as the inability to measure each and every physical motion precisely. Why people believe that an infinite bunch of monkeys typing infinitely will eventually produce Shakespeare's plays exactly, yet those same people think that a shuffling of a deck of cards produces a random result is daft. There is no magic here. We could take a machine that would produce the exact same movements of shuffling every single time...exactly the same. Atmosphere exactly the same. External forces exactly the same. Cards exactly the same and starting from exactly the same sequence. Everything programmed via a computer. So what happens? We have human behavior involved the process, which makes it beyond our ability to calculate all the possible factors, thus we claim "Eureka" it has to be RANDOM! It is the human element that generates the most "random" events, because the belief dominates the scientific world that the mind is itself a random generator. All of this thinking of course conveniently stands in denial of the fundamental principles and axioms of cause and effect. This concept of random happenings is the bedrock of evolutionary theory. It is a poor excuse for ignorance, but that is the cop out of the evolutionists perpetually. "We don't see a pattern, we can't figure out why, so it must be random." "Well, science can't measure that and all the possible influences, so we have to insert RANDOM into the equation to make our formula work." Really has nothing to do with science in a pure form, it has to do with advancement of ignorance, and strangely deciding that ignorance is more "logical" of a foundation to make a guess on than a guess of non random. See, it is hard to prove intelligence and programming unless there is sufficient data, and easy to stand on a platform of limited evidence and knowledge with the position of "you have to prove random wrong first" The modern scientific mind is so dominated by ego, so driven to pretend that it has the answers that it accepts a foundation of ignorance to build on. The need to speculate as to the "whys" without the ability to really know why is of course human nature. Sadly science has no scientific understanding as to why this our human nature, or what human nature and nature of the mind actually are, that they have to build their house with the straw of ignorance. Deep down they know that anything that is a product of the mind, i.e. scientific theory that rests on an unprovable assumption of random is bogus, but I suppose human nature being what it is prevents them from any real intellectual honesty in this area. Throw in the psychologically of the walking wounded with their issues with their own experience of religion, and you have the perfect situation to produce a god of randomness that they worship...
Showing your ignorance once again. There is a mathematical proof some twenty years ago that it takes 7 shuffling to completely mix a deck. Here is the NYT article about it: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/course/topics/winning_number.html
That has nothing to do with randomness. It has to do with the limits of physical science and man's limitations of gathering sufficient information to know and calculate the consequences and effect of all the causes. Even the concept of "complete mixing" of a deck is an imprecise term. "Complete mixing" is just another term that is relativistic in nature to create a condition which prevents the human mind from gaining any advantage of knowing the sequence of cards in a deck in a game of chance. The order of the cards is not random at all, they don't have a mind of their own, they have no will, no stubborn streak, they are just following hard and fast physical laws. That science can't find a way to figure it out except to call it a "random" conclusion speaks libraries to the ignorance underlying the promotion of such ignorance. Genuine admission of ignorance is to say "I don't know." Further genuine admission of ignorance is to admit "I don't know, and I don't know how it is even possible to know." However to conclude it is actually random (substitue worship of the "god of random) on that basis of ignorance is a psychological defect of mind...or human nature, whichever way a person wants to look at it.
Ditto that. Add the fact that quantum uncertainty among all of the various turbulences which might affect the shuffle, right down to the nervous system electrical charges that cause the hands of the dealer to shuffle imperfectly, make it impossible for us to know the outcome of the card shuffle with absolute certainty. Quantum uncertainty/mechanics is probably the single most thoroughly tested set of theories in all of science. Randomness exists in the universe -- certainly with regards to chemical reactions. And, if randomness exists as a scientifically provable fact, then at least as far as it can be scientifically established, the first replicating molecule could have been the product of random chance. Which is all that's necessary, to prove evolution and abiogenesis possible -- without divine intervention.
Okay, now this is the same thing that you did with the Phoenix Lights Incident. Now, let's start with Reagan's 2nd UFO citing. (The first one is probably the best know because it was on the way to a party at William Holden's and he told both Lucille Ball and Steve Allen about it. Lucille Ball actually wrote about it in her memoirs.) In this citing, Reagan saw the following: "Paynter, the pilot stated, â"it appeared to be several hundred yards away" and it was "a fairly steady light until it begun to accelerate. Then it appeared to elongate. Then the light took off. It went up a 45 degrees angle at a high rate of speed. Everyone on the plane was surprised." Paynter added: "The UFO went from normal speed cruise to a fantastic speed instantly. If you give an airplane power, it will accelerate, but not like a "hot rod", and that's what this was like. Governor Reagan expressed amazement. I told the others I didnât know what it was. The UFO went from a normal cruise speed to a fantastic speed instantly. If you give an airplane power it will accelerate - but not like a hotrod, and that is what this was like." Now in this case there are really only 3 choices because of the nature of what he saw: 1) Reagan saw something supernatural/spiritual, 2) Reagan is lying or 3) Reagan was hallucinating. #2 and #3 are very unlikely based on what we know about Reagan. #1 is therefore the most likely. What I am asking once again is why would you make the assumption that he was lying or seeing things when he so clearly described what he saw? And if you can't trust Ronald Reagan, who can you trust?
ShoeShineBoy: Perhaps you can help me. I saw things before I became a Christian, and I saw things after I became a Chrisitan. I haven't seen a thing for a long time. Now I don't always believe what I have seen and what I have heard. Sometimes we see and hear things that our minds want us to see and hear. You might argue that the biochemistry occuring in our brains is coming from God, but do we have evidence to prove it? It is possible the biochemistry process in our brains is just a random process. I used to think that it was illogical for John, Peter, Paul and many other authors of NT to lie about the stories of Jesus, and so I believed the bible. Combining with my own experience, I thought it was very logical that Jesus was real, and so was/is God. Now there are a lot of evidence that people believe in something that are not real and they will even die for their beliefs. Most spiritual people don't need hard evidence. They believe what they think. Bush believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Christians believed Bush didn't lie, and you believe if you can't trust Reagon, you can't trust anyone. I have doubts. I don't see evidence of ID. I don't see evidence of God. I think it is okay to have different beliefs. Belief is not science. It never will. I just "choose" to have my belief. I am in the spiritual crossroad trying to find out what is real and what is not.
The certainty of uncertainty, what a trap... Classic human nature at work. "Which is all that's necessary, to prove evolution and abiogenesis possible -- without divine intervention." Since you don't have knowledge of what divine intervention would be, since you have no way to exclude it...not with certainty anyway (that cracks me up) it is logically impossible to say with certainty what you just said. Man, the asylum is filled to the brim with intellectuals spiraling out of control with their feelings of certainty based on a belief of uncertainty. Without knowledge, sustaining any belief is possible, and without absolute knowledge even the illogical is grasped as possible and held as hard and fast as a theist holds their object of worship. Too bloody amusing...
Shoe, I'm gonna start with your ending and go from there... >And if you can't trust Ronald >Reagan, who can you trust? Oh, you've got to be kidding. You can't get to be President without lying your ASS off (why Ron Paul won't win). You can't stay president without lying your ASS off. One of the last people I would trust regarding ANYTHING would be a politician -- the higher up, the less trust. >Okay, now this is the same thing that you did >with the Phoenix Lights Incident. Of course, and it's the same thing I'll do with ALL of the incidents you bring here until you there is something besides a couple of people saying "I saw". Did you not read what I wrote? Too many people lie and too many people "see things" that turn out to be BS. In the words of Shania -- "that don't impress me much". Unless you give them all carte blanche (and you just may), you must have methods to differentiate. >Now in this case there are really only 3 choices >because of the nature of what he saw: 1) Reagan >saw something supernatural/spiritual, 2) Reagan is >lying or 3) Reagan was hallucinating. 1: Possible 2: Very Possible 3: Probably not since the pilot's claims are similar. BUT, you conveniently leave out the 4th possibility. -- what he saw was real, but has a natural explanation. I'll give you a simple example.... Just pay a bit of attention to something we all take for granted -- oncoming headlights on a two lane night drive. On a long straight stretch, due to geometry, the lights appear to hover until the last moment when the acceleration appears dramatic...zing and they're gone. Add to this the fact that objects in the *air* are visible for miles and are unconstrained in 3D and you have the opportunity for dramatic changes in perspective. Overwhelmingly, MOST ufo incidents turn out to have been *easily* explainable situations. Yes there are some tougher than others, and yes there are some that have to this day withstood significant scrutiny. Overall, most have yielded simple answers, misdirection or even outright lies. NONE of them have yielded any evidence more powerful than "I saw". >#2 and #3 are very unlikely based on what we >know about Reagan. #1 is therefore the most >likely. I still think you must be joking here -- Reagan (like any "good" politician) was renown for stretching the truth. Reagan allowed White House schedules to be set according to astrological charts, etc. Reagan would be one of the LAST people I would trust on the UFO subject. >What I am asking once again is why would you >make the assumption that he was lying or seeing >things when he so clearly described what he saw? I'll leave you with another "clearly described" Reagan statement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow Geez Shoe, since when does "clearly described" translate into "accurate and truthful"? You really need to upgrade your BS meter. JB
But, you see, I brought that up to show another example where you immediately dismiss everything as false. In the case of the Phoenix Lights Incident, I brought up a respected neurosurgeon who lived in Phoenix and described how (I believe it was 3) lights moved slowly in front of her window, etc. Now, regardless of your impression, note that you immediately dismissed what she wrote. Why?
I wanted to get back to this KJ because I think the consciousness issue is of primary importance here. I need clarification of the definition of consciousness you're using - namely "consciousness defined as a highly ordered state of being" . Is 'being' mere existence ( a rock, a dewdrop ) or is it mere living ( a plant, a microbe ) or what.. ? I'm arguing that consciousness is essentially different from anything that preceded it - that it's not made of any stuff that was available before its appearance. It seems to me that the mere hyperorganization of dumb matter can't account for it. The most sophisticated computer is no closer to being conscious than is a light bulb. Hans