A revolution in thought

[davidm]

peacegirl's linked Human Events article is full of lies and stupidity. Anyone care to play along and deconstruct this rubbish? The very first sentence is a whopper!

The people who are the targets of this stuff must be our knuckle-dragging ape cousins! But that's an insult to non-human apes.

[But]

Originally Posted by davidm

I'm not an expert on statistics and probability, but I believe this may be incorrect.

I don't think "zero probability" is synonymous with "impossible."

Yes, it is. I think what you're getting at is that necessary vs. contingent stuff and I'm not quite sure how that plays into it.

I think it means something more like "negligible": that if we ran a series of trials looking for some event x, we should never expect to see x happen even after an indefinite number of trials, thought still x could happen.

No. If the probability is zero, we will never ever observe it. If it could happen, then the probability is not zero.

If that's right, then probability "less than zero" would indeed have a meaning: it would mean, literally, impossible; i.e., no number of trials could ever yield event x even in principle.

Would -0.00001 be enough or would it have to be -1 or -2 to be absolutely impossible? For that matter, what about a probability of 2? No, it's just mathematically meaningless.

There is something that behaves a bit like probability and can be negative (even complex-numbered!), which is probability amplitudes in quantum mechanics. They add and can cancel out if they have opposite sign, but to get probabilities out of them you have to (absolute-) square them. If you have a negative, non-zero probability amplitude for something, you get a positive, non-zero probability out of it. But of course, they are not talking about anything like that.

So what the video dum-dums are saying, really, is that life is impossible. And yet, life is all around us.

No, it's just a meaningless statement. What negative probabilities are supposed to mean is just undefined.

[peacegirl]

Scientists who support intelligent design
Anika Smith May 11, 2007 1:24 PM | Permalink

One of the more frequent questions people ask about intelligent design is whether any scientists actually support ID theory. There are many notable biologists, biochemists, physicists, and astronomers who support intelligent design, and their work continues to develop the young scientific theory. Here are just a few of them:

Scientists who support intelligent design - Evolution News & Views

[davidm]

@ But

I don't think this digression is of any great importance to the issue at hand, which is peacegirl's risible stupidity, but see here, for example.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Scientists who support intelligent design
Anika Smith May 11, 2007 1:24 PM | Permalink

One of the more frequent questions people ask about intelligent design is whether any scientists actually support ID theory. There are many notable biologists, biochemists, physicists, and astronomers who support intelligent design, and their work continues to develop the young scientific theory. Here are just a few of them:

Scientists who support intelligent design - Evolution News & Views

Now you're jumping on that bullshit wagon. Why am I not surprised?

Oh wow, they have five scientists!

Look, there are at least 1300 scientists who think the opposite.. and whose first name is Steve or Stephen.

The List of Steves | NCSE

[But]

Originally Posted by davidm

@ But

I don't think this digression is of any great importance to the issue at hand, which is peacegirl's risible stupidity, but see here, for example.

I don't think it makes sense to distinguish between impossible and zero probability; the only examples are mathematical idealizations involving uncountable infinities.

But in any case, using negative probabilities is nonsense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Now you're jumping on that bullshit wagon. Why am I not surprised?

Oh wow, they have five scientists!

Look, there are at least 1300 scientists who think the opposite.. and whose first name is Steve or Stephen.

The List of Steves | NCSE

I'm not counting. I'm just noticing that not all scientists are atheists.

[LadyShea]

Of course not all scientists are atheist. Whoever said that?

[LadyShea]

My point was that since life exists then the probability cant be zero. Dont have to know shit about statistics to know that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course not all scientists are atheist. Whoever said that?

It appears to me that scientists are considered the humanist types (the evolutionists) while the ID proponents are the creationist types, which really isn't a fair portrayal.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My point was that since life exists then the probability cant be zero. Dont have to know shit about statistics to know that.

Based on their estimates, the probability that life as we know is somewhere else in the universe is pretty darn low.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the region of near-field diffraction (or Fresnel diffraction), the pinhole focuses the light slightly, and the resolution limit is minimized when the focal length f (the distance between the pinhole and the film plane) is given by f = s2/λ. At this focal length, the pinhole focuses the light slightly, and the resolution limit is about 2/3 of the radius of the pinhole. The pinhole in this case is equivalent to a Fresnel zone plate with a single zone. The value s2/λ is in a sense the natural focal length of the pinhole.

Pinhole camera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure, when it's very small you get some diffraction effects.

Hey peacegirl, do you even know what diffraction is?

You do realise that a very small hole make the image worse most of the time, due to this? Again read your own links... I bet you haven't, because you're desperately Googling and pasting while your father is contradicted at every turn.

But otherwise, quantum effects don't come into play unless the hole is very small. So does the light travel instantly then? And if so: how?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It appears to me that scientists are considered the humanist types (the evolutionists) while the ID proponents are the creationist types, which really isn't a fair portrayal.

Scientists who understand evolution have a range of beliefs, "scientists" who believe in Intelligent Design are Creationist types, by definition.

They don't have to be Christian, though. There are Creationist Muslims as well.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Sure, when it's very small you get some diffraction effects.

Hey peacegirl, do you even know what diffraction is?

You do realise that a very small hole make the image worse most of the time, due to this? Again read your own links... I bet you haven't, because you're desperately Googling and pasting while your father is contradicted at every turn.

But otherwise, quantum effects don't come into play unless the hole is very small. So does the light travel instantly then? And if so: how?

I never said light travels instantly Dragar.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Scientists who understand evolution have a range of beliefs, "scientists" who believe in Intelligent Design are Creationist types, by definition.

They don't have to be Christian, though. There are Creationist Muslims as well.

Intelligent design is frowned upon by most scientists but there are some who are beginning to believe that there has to be an intelligence (not necessarily a personal God) governing everything rather than just chance mutations.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Based on their estimates, the probability that life as we know is somewhere else in the universe is pretty darn low.

Their estimates are asstimates as they have an agenda and we have very litte actual data on which to base any decent probabilities . As I said, they dont seem to understand very large numbers.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said light travels instantly Dragar.

Then since you agreed with me that vision is light landing on the retina that is interpreted by the brain, we don't see instantly.

I also note you don't appear to know what diffraction is, or care to answer my questions about what a (not tiny) hole is doing to act like a lens. As usual, weasling continues.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even if they are off in their calculations (which I don't see but I'm not an expert), the problem still exists in that we don't know whether an intelligence beyond ourselves set this whole world on its course.

Nope we don't know, and barring an intelligence beyond ourselves announcing its existence in an undeniable way, we can't know.

I hope you don't teach your son that we are just the result of chemistry which may cause him to question his place in the scheme of things.

I am teaching my son that we don't know- and probably can't know- if there is "an intelligence beyond" us, but that different people believe different things, and he should reach his own conclusions through thoughtful processes. I have told him my opinions and we use critical thinking and scientific methodology in our lives as we explore and experience this world.

What on Earth is bad about questioning his place in the scheme of things? That's what humans do, that's whats leads to creating meaningful lives.

This can only occur because of your confusion regarding design versus evolution in my humble opinion. Nuff said. No need to reply.

What can only occur? I am not confused, I am following the evidence, as always.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Then since you agreed with me that vision is light landing on the retina that is interpreted by the brain, we don't see instantly.

You still don't understand what I'm even talking about. Light is at the retina not because it has teleported there, and not because it doesn't travel, but because we get a mirror image instantly when the object meets the requirements (assuming we see the opposite of what is believed). This occurs because it's a closed system. We see the object; we're not waiting for light to land on our retina (it's already at our retina) after traveling a long distance.

Originally Posted by Dragar

I also note you don't appear to know what diffraction is, or care to answer my questions about what a (not tiny) hole is doing to act like a lens. As usual, weasling continues.

None of this negates Lessans' claim although it's interesting.

The principle of the pinhole camera ensures that the image of a point is, in fact, a small disc. The smaller the hole, the smaller the disc and hence the sharper the image. However, this is only true up to a point. If the hole is too small, then light is diffracted and the image becomes less sharp.

diffraction
[dih-frak-shuh n]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
noun, Physics.
1.
the phenomenon exhibited by wave fronts that, passing the edge of an opaque body, are modulated, thereby causing a redistribution of energy within the front: it is detectable in light waves by the presence of a pattern of closely spaced dark and light bands (diffraction pattern) at the edge of a shadow.
2.
the bending of waves, especially sound and light waves, around obstacles in their path.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even if they are off in their calculations (which I don't see but I'm not an expert), the problem still exists in that we don't know whether an intelligence beyond ourselves set this whole world on its course.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope we don't know, and barring an intelligence beyond ourselves announcing its existence in an undeniable way, we can't know.

We can only know indirectly by appreciating the magnificence and majesty of our world which allows us to see that such complexity could not have come about by chance.

I hope you don't teach your son that we are just the result of chemistry which may cause him to question his place in the scheme of things.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am teaching my son that we don't know- and probably can't know- if there is "an intelligence beyond" us, but that different people believe different things, and he should reach his own conclusions through thoughtful processes. I have told him my opinions and we use critical thinking and scientific methodology in our lives as we explore and experience this world.

What on Earth is bad about questioning his place in the scheme of things? That's what humans do, that's whats leads to creating meaningful lives.

As long as you help him to see that his place in the scheme of things is important and that he matters. People often feel insecure in this big wide world because they believe their existence has no meaning. I guess you're aiming for the same thing.

This can only occur because of your confusion regarding design versus evolution. Nuff said. No need to reply.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What can only occur? I am not confused, I am following the evidence, as always.

It's good that you are giving your son all sides so he can form his own opinions. I personally hope my grandchildren develop a strong faith in a higher power (call it God if you will), as I see that this brings comfort and confidence to those who lean on something bigger than themselves. I don't see leaning on God as a weakness; I see it as strength.

[LadyShea]

As long as you help him to see that his place in the scheme of things is important and that he matters.

Of course he knows he is important and matters to those around him. What a strange thing to say!

People often feel insecure in this big wide world because they believe their existence has no meaning.

I see that this brings comfort and confidence to those who lean on something bigger than themselves

By people and those you clearly mean you, yourself. Where do your weird insecurities come from? Lessans had them too, did he foist them onto you?

Existence has no ultimate meaning, our individual lives have the meaning we create. That's what makes life awesome, IMO.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It appears to me that scientists are considered the humanist types (the evolutionists) while the ID proponents are the creationist types, which really isn't a fair portrayal.

Your stereotyping bigotry is astounding.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Based on their estimates, the probability that life as we know is somewhere else in the universe is pretty darn low.

Humanity has only been listening for a few years, and we've been broadcasting our existence for less than a hundred. On a cosmic scale that isn't much, in fact that's almost next to nothing. Aliens might not ever be broadcasting with a signal that we would recognize, after all they are Alien.

[LadyShea]

We can only know indirectly by appreciating the magnificence and majesty of our world which allows us to see that such complexity could not have come about by chance

.

Awe and wonder are not knowledge.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said light travels instantly Dragar.

Yes you have, you have claimed that photons are instantly at the retina or film in efferent vision. Photons are light, and to be instantly at the retina or film, they would have to have traveled instantly