@TRiG Based on what?

@Jas3.1 What's your own view, and how are you on Adam and Eve as literal persons?

@TRiG If you had a hypothetical universe where God (the Christian God) existed, and another hypothetical universe where God "did not exist", how could you tell which universe you were in?

@Jas3.1 Well, not strictly nothing given that evolution doesn't apply to the origin of life, but yes. Anyway, I said earlier that evolution does not mandate strict improvement, just like the the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent a decrease of entropy in a subset system. The principle of Survival of the Fittest is based on adaptation, not improvement. Thus, the evolutionary tree does not necessarily need to descend "upwards".

@Alypius YEC (I'll spare everyone my rant.)

However, I feel that it is like the Law of Large Numbers (roll 1000 dice, expect about 167 1s) in that evolution does not mandate individual improvements, but rather overall improvement. (And even that isn't technically true, but rather the most likely result.)

@Jas3.1 What's the summary of the rant?

@Alypius Hmm. A universe ruled over by an amoral, petty, homicidal bully should be pretty obvious, you'd think.

(Perhaps I'm too tired for this conversation.)

@El'endiaStarman Evolution applies directly after the origin of life, and plays into the ability of life to survive long enough to establish an origin

@TRiG Is that our universe, or?

@Alypius Apparently not.

@El'endiaStarman I am aware of this. But you can't claim that the Theory of Evolution is based on genetic evidence. If an intellectually honest scientist were to start objectively with genetic evidence, the clearest (naturalistic) solution would be to assume that all life arose from a super-being that contained every fully-functional gene in existence.

More seriously, there are some versions of Christianity I think are pretty nice, actually. Unfortunately, there's no evidence to support them. There are other versions of Christianity which are absolutely horrifying, and thank goodness there's no evidence to support them.

@El'endiaStarman Claiming that the Theory of Evolution represents the most statistically likely result is baffling. The Theory of Evolution is the most statistically ridiculous invention ever contrived.

And I really do think I'm too tired for this conversation.

@TRiG Ok. What are the odds that you've got your conception of God mixed up?

@TRiG Long day?

@TRiG Me too... I've been trying to quit for a while now! Hah.

@TRiG Given your time zone, I don't blame you.

@TRiG lol

@TRiG Do you think that randomly murdering other people is wrong?

@Alypius Good night.

@TRiG Peace :) You can reply when you come back in, yaknow.

@Jas3.1 You kinda whiffed past my point on this one. I said that overall improvement is the most likely result of evolution. Not that evolution is the most statistically likely result of...something.

@TRiG G'night! :)

@Alypius And WOW Alypius, that's amazingly blunt and direct. :P

@Alypius Here's the rant, as requested: Philosophically there is no hope for man discovering truth unless there is a "God" who knows everything, and is willing and able to reveal truth, and does so. Let's just call Him "Yahweh" and label these things omniscience, benevolence, omnipotence, and grace. Presumably, if you seek this God for truth, given His nature, He would grant it. And He has.

@Jas3.1 Not so sure about that. To argue this point, we'd have to delve into evidence, I think, which I don't like nearly so much as the philosophical discussions we've been having. :P

As such, I see the revealed word of God as the only credible standard for truth, and Scripture is our standard for recognizing the word of God. This recognition comes by spiritual regeneration, which builds into His people the necessary presuppositions for understanding and accepting His word (in general, God exists, interacts with man, etc.)

@El'endiaStarman What do you mean? Do you think it's wrong?

@Alypius No, it's just very straight-to-the-point.

@El'endiaStarman Ah - I meant, do you think murdering people is wrong. (The expected response is yes, then we get into "evidence" for such a belief.)

@El'endiaStarman (1) The Theory of Evolution is statistically impossible. (2) The Theory requires "overall improvement" to be shown through experimentation to be the most statistically likely, and it does not.

@Jas3.1 You don't think that human reason and trust in the testimony of other humans plays a role?

@Alypius That's the question for TRiG to answer.

@El'endiaStarman Yep, I just thought I'd get the rough idea out there for when he comes back.

@Jas3.1 What revealed truth is evolution inconsistent with?

@Jas3.1 Never, ever, describe the Theory of Evolution as statistically impossible. Because you will always be wrong to do so. Statistically improbable is the claim you may make. (As an example, rolling 1000 1s in a row on a fair dice is statistically improbable [and extremely so], but not impossible.)

@El'endiaStarman Well, if it's wrong, then I guess it's impossible ("Jesus will not return" is statistically impossible). I'm not sure what's meant, or which part is impossible/improbable, though...

@Alypius Of course human reason plays a role. I'm using it right now. And of course credible testimony plays a role. But you have to ask yourself who is credible -- and why?

@Alypius Jesus' resurrection (forgetting the spiritual component) is still technically possible by the laws of quantum mechanics. And my, isn't that an interesting thought.

Wait a minute...maybe even I am too tired to think straight.

@El'endiaStarman The random production of a man who can perform miracles?

(And I've only been awake for 8 hours!)

@Alypius Technically yes. Heh heh heh...

@El'endiaStarman Miracles involve complete control over all natural laws... are you sure?

The expected amount of time for such a sequence of events to happen is probably on the order of Graham's Number, though it's still technically possible, given quantum tunneling, etc.

@Jas3.1 The Catholic Church! Because it is established by Christ Himself, and is guided by the Holy Spirit! :)

@El'endiaStarman It depends on which threshhold you use for statistical impossibility. If you argue that it is zero, then perhaps you are correct, but I'm not sure that is a useful definition.

@El'endiaStarman I'm pretty sure that even with quantum mechanics, the odds of every piece of matter in the universe suddenly moving into our solar system are 0.

@Jas3.1 What is the probability that a fair die will roll 10^10^10^10 1s in a row? Non-zero.

@Alypius Nope, it isn't.

@El'endiaStarman Speed of light.

@Alypius Tunneling ignores that restriction.

@El'endiaStarman Good job. Someone give this man a gold star.

@El'endiaStarman Is this fully observed and confirmed? If you want another example, consider the spontaneous generation of matter in our solar system.

@El'endiaStarman What is the probability that it will roll that many sevens?

Gotta go. Have fun.

@Jas3.1 Peace

@Alypius Are we talking about six-sided normal dice? Zero. Now let's talk about dice with probability distributions that are non-zero over the entire number line...

Well, turns out I was right anyway. Zero-spin particles can travel faster than light while tunneling.

@Jas3.1 Seeya!

Okay, so, what I'm reading about electrons is that electrons are not precisely point particles, but rather standing probability waves. In particular, the lone electron around a hydrogen nucleus has a probability wave function that is a "product of a polynomial series, and exponential and trigonometric functions", meaning that an electron can be literally anywhere in the universe with non-zero probability.

I would imagine the same would hold true for protons and neutrons, and so every single possible configuration of the universe has non-zero probability.

@El'endiaStarman Only applies to zero-spin particles. (Also, Wikipedia is not the best source for hard facts.)

@Alypius Ta-da.

@El'endiaStarman A single paper to support the claim of faster than light?

@Alypius If you'd like to research it, you may. I've already said that that wasn't the idea I meant to convey.

@El'endiaStarman In any case, the probability of matter being created or destroyed, and so on. Not everything is possible. I still doubt that even basic miraculous things are possible just within the laws of nature.

@Alypius Hmm. It seems you're right, actually. Quantum fluctuation only works on extremely short time scales. So, while matter cannot be created or destroyed without a change in energy, its constituent particles can still re-shuffle. Thus, it would still be possible for all of Jesus' miracles (I think) to have happened without any being seeing matter disappearing from another place.

I'm sure I'll catch flack for this, because it does not jive with the Almighty Theory, but for anyone who is interested in some actual science from a primary source, this is pretty good: youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8

@Alypius Yes. I do think randomly murdering other people is wrong. I also think the word other in that sentence is redundant. I don't know what argument you're planning to derive from this, but I strongly suspect you're barking up a non-existent tree.

@Jas3.1 My home computer doesn't turn on these days (it's in a shop being repaired). The speakers on my work computer stopped working a few weeks ago. I may watch that video one of these days.

@TRiG Do you believe in moral relativism?