From: zeb haradon (zebharadon@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Jan 14 2001 - 13:04:51 MST
>From: John Marlow <johnmarrek@yahoo.com>
>
>**I am aware of this. Try this: Where I use the word
>"coincidence," substitute "random chance."
>
Is it correct semantics to use phrases/words like "random chance" or
"coincidence" to describe situations where an expected effect comes from a
cause?
If I flip a coin 10 times in a row and it comes up heads each time, I might
call it a coincidence, because there's other ways it could have come up and
this sequence is very unlikely, but since there was (presumably) no foreign
event causing it and it is no different from every other coin toss, it's
called a coincidence.
But is it a coincidence that when lightning strikes a tree it catches on
fire? "Of all the things that could have happened to the tree when lightning
struck - it could have turned to cheese, it could have began dancing - but
no, it caught on fire, and trees do this every single time they are hit by
lightning, is it a coincidence or is there some higher force at play?".
Someone who says this does not understand cause and effect. And someone who
tries to describe evolution as a series of random chance events co-occurring
does not understand the theory behind evolution. Early Greek postulations
about humans evolving from lower animals was a theory of "random chance" and
that's why it never took hold. Darwin described for the first time how it
could happen in a cause-and-effect deterministic way.
>
>**Next time you see that Darwin guy, you ask him from
>me: How does your theory account for the creation of
>the whole shebang? The starting kickoff?
>
Same way that economics accounts for the existence of the top quark - it
doesn't address it. It's not in its field of study.
>**Even assuming the theory accounts for the appearance
>of life and all evolution since--the problem still
>remains: order and increasing levels of apparently
>self-organizing order was/were set into motion, flying
>in the face of entropy--or of nothingness.
>
This is a problem of physics, not biology.
>
>**Einstein, however, made frequent reference to a
>"God."
>
So have many other atheists, whether in metaphorical usage (as in your
examples below) or in criticizing the idea.
>"I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details."
>
>--Albert Einstein
>
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
expressed it clearly."
--Albert Einstein
>**And, of course, in referene to our little
>discussion:
>
>**"God does not play dice with the universe."
>
>Take it up with him.
>
>john marlow
>
---------------------------------------------------
Zeb Haradon (zebharadon@hotmail.com)
My personal webpage:
http://www.inconnect.com/~zharadon/ubunix
A movie I'm directing:
http://www.elevatormovie.com
"Fish fuck in it." - W. C. Fields answer to why he never drank water.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:04:52 MST