Wednesday, 4 March 2009

the ultimate boeing 474

Richard Dawkins has a section in the god delusion called 'an interlude at Cambridge'Richard Dawkins explains how he presnted his boesing 474 argument infront of a group of theologians and they were stummped and left quibbling over wheater there sky daddy is simple. Clearly if the top theolgoisns are stumped by this argument then it must be a really good one.

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

C'mon Mike it was a 747. Why the intentional manipulation of the numbers. Sweet the plane in question is a boesing 474. You wonder why people think you are a parody?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous he is just toying with you good people. It is entertaining really. Why not interact with his statements and not his grammar?

I brought the fiddle. Now are you Xians going to dance for me?

Sacker X

Anonymous said...

C'mon I know some of you people know Pixie Stix. Bring her to me.

Sacker X

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

Some people swear I'm her sock puppet. Does that count?

Anonymous said...

That is funny. I seem to recall an SF Sock Puppet or something like that in the early days of this blog. I really am not picking a fight with her I just find her debate lively.

Sacker X

P.S. Is Dr. NO someone's sock puppet? Next thing you know someone will be calling me someone's sock puppet. How dreadful.

johnny said...

Since i haven't read his book yet, could someone please present Dawkin's 474/747 argument?

I suppose i could try googling it, but for now i'll just wait... Annie and I are going to Dairy Queen for a Turtle and a malted milk.

johnny

johnny said...

back from DQ and still no 474 reference... oh well... google sux

Anonymous said...

Johnny do a search for it. It is the basic creationist argument that you cannot get order form disorder. It's basic premise is that if you had all of the parts of a 747 in a junkyard and there was some kind of explosion the parts would not form a 747. It is you Christian "ID" argument. It is generally stated that the probability of this happening is slim to none. Dawkins turned it on y'all to show that God would have to be more ordered than creation to bring about creation if that indeed happened. So the probability of God existing is even more illogical. It seems to make sense. Keep in mind this is a thumbnail sketch and is not nuanced, but a simple search will help you find all of the information. What say you?

Sacker X

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

I never quite understood how 'GOd must be complicated' leads to 'God doesnt exist.'

Unless you want to go the 'who made God' route. But then you miss the point that God(at least in the theistic tradition) is eternal and uncaused.

But then the problem isnt something exclusive to theism either. Athiesm has the same problem: Yea the Big Bang created the universe, but what caused the Big Bang? And what caused the cause of the BB? and what caused the cause of that. and so on and so forth.

In either case the end result must be either infinite regression, or a single uncaused cause of everything. I think Octams razer and the fact that Infinte Regression is impossible to prove makes an uncaused cause far more likely. In theistic beliefs God IS the uncaused cause, and thus to ask 'who made God?' is utterly meaningless.

johnny said...

I don't have a problem with googling it myself, however, it would seem that, if one thought it were as strong as it's being claimed, then a short explanation or at least a link..

Although i think i would attack this from a little different direction, here is one counter-argument..

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/the_god_delusion4.html

johnny

johnny said...

Well said, STAL.

johnny

Anonymous said...

Fellows I appreciate your time. I am busy this evening, but I guarantee I will try to make the best case argument later. I am sorry I am actually being lazy right now. I guess if Mike will not explain the argument I will.

Sacker X

FiFi said...

As far as I recall (it was a couple of years ago when I read the 747 argument) the point Dawkins was making is that xians are in the belief that evolution is a random, chance sequence of events, when really it isn't.

I'm gonig to read that chapter again tonight to refresh my memory.

Anonymous said...

Excerpt from Alvin Plantinga's review of The God Delusion in Christianity Today March/April, 2007

"Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying. I shall put irritation aside, however and do my best to take Dawkins' main argument seriously."

Anonymous said...

Fellows I will have to admit I am not familiar with the argument. It would be nice if Mike would flesh it out for us, but he is probably too busy with other endeavors. I will try to take the time this weekend to review it.

Sacker X

Just wondering do you think if I started a blog that you guys would visit it?

Anonymous said...

If I were Mike I would put a sitemeter on this so I could see who the sock puppets are.

Sockpuppet?

johnny said...

FiFi,

You said, "...the point Dawkins was making is that xians are in the belief that evolution is a random, chance sequence of events, when really it isn't."

I've heard this several times. Could you (or anyone) explain how evolution (as a purely natural mechanism) is not chance?

johnny

FiFi said...

"FiFi,

You said, "...the point Dawkins was making is that xians are in the belief that evolution is a random, chance sequence of events, when really it isn't."

I've heard this several times. Could you (or anyone) explain how evolution (as a purely natural mechanism) is not chance?

johnny"

Certainly.

I'm not gonig to give you a lecture in genetics right now, but mutations occur during reproduction (which is how you get, say Down't Syndrome and other genetic disorders) some of which are beneficial, some of which detrimental. Now in the harsh natural world, detrimental mutations will die out very quickly as per the phrase 'survival of the fitest' (and that isn't a spelling mistake - its not referring to physical fitness, its re fit for purpose) but beneficial mutations will survive, and that particular gene then spread throughout the gene pool. For example, giraffe necks. Before the current 'version' of the giraffe evolved, their necks were much shorter, but due to the need to reach higher in the trees to get more food, those giraffes who were born with longer necks were able to reach higher into the trees for food and thus survived, whereas their shorter-necked brothers and sisters starved and died out.

That's a very simplistic analogy to illustrate the point, but you can see from that (I hope) that whereas genetic mutations themselves are seemingly random, there is nothing random about which of these mutations endure and which ones die out.

I hope that clarifies things for you.

FiFi

johnny said...

Thank you FiFi, it does clarify it some, but there is still chance that has not been addressed (not your fault.. i've seen it over and over, which is actually why i've asked for clarification).

Suppose the first (and only) giraffe with the beneficial long neck mutation were caught by a passing lion and eaten before it gained maturity in order to pass on it's new "beneficial" mutation... rather "unlucky", wouldn't you say?

Or, suppose that first giraffe had brothers and sisters who also enjoyed a longer neck... but a grass fire happened along and consumed the whole family (mom & pop, too).

According to the ToE, evolution does not have a goal, so the mutations can not hold a mutation toward a goal (in fact, i seem to recall reading that the copying process in genes tries to fix mistakes [mutations]).... I'm using the term 'hold toward a goal' in much the same manner as Dawkins' (i think) weasle program, or, in terms of the 747 argument, that if the pilot's seat ends up in the correct spot, it will stay there until all the parts for the jet are in their correct spots.
Or... in the case of the theoretical infinite monkeys on typewriters w/ infinite paper, shakspeare's hamlet will come about much sooner if/when the characters are correct and in the correct location... but this is not what we are told occurs in the gene.

One more thing.. consider the good luck of the giraffe that did grow it's neck and was able to be attractive enough for it to pass on it's mutation at the particular time that the trees happened to be getting taller.

Gotta get ready for work..

johnny

Anonymous said...

Fifi:

I think that we all can agree that individual species have evolved within their individual species, but can you show incontrevertable proof that one species has evolved into another species?

I am not trying to be argumentative. I would just like to pick your brain a bit.

Also I have heard the argument that if we evolved from apes why are there still apes.

Do you mind answering that? I have never heard the rebuttal.

johnny said...

Anonymous said (to FiFi), "Also I have heard the argument that if we evolved from apes why are there still apes.

Do you mind answering that? I have never heard the rebuttal.
"


If there's no objection, i would like to field this...

An ape-like ancestor (for all practical purposes we can call it an ape) was the common ancestor of both (present day) apes and man.

johnny

Anonymous said...

So Johnny you adhere to theistic evolution?

johnny said...

No, YEC.

johnny

Anonymous said...

"An ape-like ancestor (for all practical purposes we can call it an ape) was the common ancestor of both (present day) apes and man."

You say you are YEC, but I am confused. Keep in mind I am not trying to debate you. I just want to understand your views. How doe this ape-like creature fit in your model?

johnny said...

One of the anonymous posters asked FiFi "Also I have heard the argument that if we evolved from apes why are there still apes.

Do you mind answering that? I have never heard the rebuttal."


I was just offering the standard response to the question.

Ape-like ancestors to humans do not do not fall with-in a YEC view.

johnny

Anonymous said...

Johnny glad there was clarification there. I was concerned about your YEC view.