If evolution is true...

[klutedavid]

Very likely, as the reactions of the bottles themselves to the wind and current are highly contingent. But you are raising a metaphysical question where only a practical question is implied. Remember, the scientific definition of "random" was "predictable by no known algorithm," not necessarily inherently unpredictable. In any case, I am not a determinist, nor do I believe that determinism is necessary as a vehicle of divine providence (In case that's where you are going with this).

I did not ask a metaphysical question, all I asked was, whether the path of the floating bottle could be predicted.

These days we can throw sophisticated buoys in the ocean and measure currents and even at depth. We can also measure wind strengths and wind direction across the ocean. We already do this for shipping purposes.

Would it be feasible to predict where a floating bottle would end up a few days later?

Of course we could predict where the bottle could be found. This is not an example of a random event.

 

[Speedwell]

I did not ask a metaphysical question, all I asked was, whether the path of the floating bottle could be predicted.

These days we can throw sophisticated buoys in the ocean and measure currents and even at depth. We can also measure wind strengths and wind direction across the ocean. We already do this for shipping purposes.

Would it be feasible to predict where a floating bottle would end up a few days later?

Of course we could predict where the bottle could be found. This is not an example of a random event.

If you like, but I don't think t would be as certain as you make it sound.

Here is another example. In the case of radioactive decay, it is possible to predict with great accuracy how many atoms in a sample will decay within a given period of time, but not which ones. The decay of any particular atom is a random event.

 

[JackRT]

There was a British soldier in WW2 in North Africa who tossed a message in a bottle into the Mediterranean. About 15 years later he was walking the seashore in England and found his own bottle.

 

[klutedavid]

This has always made me wonder: do creationists see other non-creationist Christians as an active threat to their own beliefs?

If one can be a Christian without all the science-denial baggage that comes with creationism, why even be a creationist?

It reduces to what you are taught when you are educated in the scripture.

I am not a young earth creationist and never was a young earth creationist.

The reason I do not believe that the earth is young because archaeology discoveries, can confirm that human settlements that have been discovered. Can be firmly dated to around seven to nine thousand years ago. That is all I need to reject the concept; that the genealogy of the Old Testament cannot be used to establish the date of the creation event.

 

[klutedavid]

If you like, but I don't think t would be as certain as you make it sound.

Here is another example. In the case of radioactive decay, it is possible to predict with great accuracy how many atoms in a sample will decay within a given period of time, but not which ones. The decay of any particular atom is a random event.

Will you at least admit that we can much more accurately. Predict the path of that floating bottle better than we could say, one hundred years ago?

As the accuracy of the prediction increases the appearance of the randomness of any event decreases.

The decay of any radioactive element appears at the atomic level, i.e., which atom will decay, to be an unpredictable event. But in the future science will advance to the stage whereby, more than likely, atomic decay will be predictable.

The concept of a random event in science is diminishing rapidly and has been for centuries.

 

[loveofourlord]

Just be very careful of what you're sure of... there's always the next question:

And, the next...

the truth should not be feared, why do creationists fear the truth?

 

[inquiring mind]

Apostolic Witness. Remember He said "preach the Gospel" not "Hand them out a magic book what my daddy wrote." St. Paul tells us that the Scriptures are "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" but he never suggests that they are to be the sole basis of our faith.

You do realize that Jesus continually quoted the OT during His ministry, and believed it was God’s Word. He was plain about it in (Matthew 15:3-7) and (Mark 7:13). He also said it couldn’t be broken (John 10:35), and that it couldn’t be destroyed (Matthew 5:18). I don't understand your attitude toward it.

 

[Speedwell]

You do realize that Jesus continually quoted the OT during His ministry, and believed it was God’s Word. He was plain about it in (Matthew 15:3-7) and (Mark 7:13). He also said it couldn’t be broken (John 10:35), and that it couldn’t be destroyed (Matthew 5:18). I don't understand your attitude toward it.

My attitude toward scripture the same as Jesus's, apparently--at least from what you've quoted here.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Will you at least admit that we can much more accurately. Predict the path of that floating bottle better than we could say, one hundred years ago?

As the accuracy of the prediction increases the appearance of the randomness of any event decreases.

The decay of any radioactive element appears at the atomic level, i.e., which atom will decay, to be an unpredictable event. But in the future science will advance to the stage whereby, more than likely, atomic decay will be predictable.

The concept of a random event in science is diminishing rapidly and has been for centuries.

Quantum theory says you are incorrect. The universe is only deterministic over statistically significant averages.

 

[loveofourlord]

Quantum theory says you are incorrect. The universe is only deterministic over statistically significant averages.

Yeah, even with the bottle we can only guestimate where it will go if all things go perfect, but that can't take into acount hurricanes or other things that change it.

 

[klutedavid]

Quantum theory says you are incorrect. The universe is only deterministic over statistically significant averages.

In classical physics, experiments of chance, such as coin-tossing and dice-throwing, are deterministic, in the sense that, perfect knowledge of the initial conditions would render outcomes perfectly predictable. The ‘randomness’ stems from ignorance of physical information in the initial toss or throw. In diametrical contrast, in the case of quantum physics, the theorems of Kochen and Specker,[4] the inequalities of John Bell,[5] and experimental evidence of Alain Aspect,[6][7] all indicate that quantum randomness does not stem from any such physical information.

In 2008, Tomasz Paterek et al. provided an explanation in mathematical information. They published ingenious work, proving that quantum randomness is, exclusively, the output of measurement experiments whose input settings introduce logical independence into quantum systems.[8][9]

Logical independence is a well-known phenomenon in Mathematical Logic. It refers to the null logical connectivity that exists between mathematical propositions (in the same language) that neither prove nor disprove one another.[10]
(Wikipedia.indeterminacy.Indeterminacy.and.incompleteness)

 

[Bungle_Bear]

In classical physics, experiments of chance, such as coin-tossing and dice-throwing, are deterministic, in the sense that, perfect knowledge of the initial conditions would render outcomes perfectly predictable. The ‘randomness’ stems from ignorance of physical information in the initial toss or throw. In diametrical contrast, in the case of quantum physics, the theorems of Kochen and Specker,[4] the inequalities of John Bell,[5] and experimental evidence of Alain Aspect,[6][7] all indicate that quantum randomness does not stem from any such physical information.

In 2008, Tomasz Paterek et al. provided an explanation in mathematical information. They published ingenious work, proving that quantum randomness is, exclusively, the output of measurement experiments whose input settings introduce logical independence into quantum systems.[8][9]

Logical independence is a well-known phenomenon in Mathematical Logic. It refers to the null logical connectivity that exists between mathematical propositions (in the same language) that neither prove nor disprove one another.[10]
(Wikipedia.indeterminacy.Indeterminacy.and.incompleteness)

You believe that you can, theoretically, predict how much force I will use in a coin toss? That sort of determinism is an interesting philosophical choice. It's not a choice I'd expect a Christian to make.

 

[stevevw]

Has anyone else noticed that when someone starts a question/argument with "if evolution is true..." that what follows invariably has nothing to do with how evolution actually works?

Why is that?

Because I don't think it is entirely a question of true or false. It is funny how despite knowledge growing that there are still people who question evolution. Like any scientific theory it is based on certain assumptions that are tested. But like some theories we are seeing that there is often new findings that question those assumptions. So I don't think evolution theory is ever completely true but rather accepted based on current findings which may change. This can put people in two minds. The other thing is evolution theory is one of those ideas where some see the evidence one way and others another similar to climate change. So in that sense saying "if evolution is true" is a relevant statement considering.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Staff Edit

To see things in the clear light of day.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't accept your misquote on faith:

"When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school
It's a wonder I can think at all"
Paul Simon, Kodachrome

Perhaps you should use your brain for correct attribution?

So, Paul Simon didn't write the (slightly misquoted) lyric? Who did?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So, Paul Simon didn't write the (slightly misquoted) lyric? Who did?

I say it was Paul Simon who wrote it. According to you it was Neil Simon, hence my post. Do you pay any attention to what you write?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I say it was Paul Simon who wrote it. According to you it was Neil Simon, hence my post. Do you pay any attention to what you write?

Oops. Another unforgivable mistake worthy of sarcasm and ridicule. I'm usually more careful.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Staff Edit

There is a great deal of ignorance in both camps. Fortunately school is never out while one remains on the green side of the grass. The Christian has the advantage in that God is on our side, through the indwelling Holy Spirit, which will "lead us into all truth", if we have an ear to hear.

 

[Speedwell]

Staff Edit
Wrong. Simple faith in Christ is never maligned. However, attempting to mount scientific arguments against the theory of evolution without any particular knowledge of the subject is backward and foolish. Maintaining a condescending and offensive attitude towards Christians who are not "Bible-believers" is malicious as well as being backward and foolish.

 

[Speedwell]

Staff Edit
Very often the claim is made explicitly. It is the Big Lie of creationism, first perpetrated by Henry Morris, the father of modern creationism:

"The purpose of the Theory of Evolution is to deny the existence of God."