Bravus wrote: That’s not a matter of cowardice, it’s a matter …

Comment on Adventists are virtually silent by Sean Pitman, M.D..

Bravus wrote:

That’s not a matter of cowardice, it’s a matter of discretion in a needlessly hostile environment.

Like a thief calling the police department needlessly hostile against those trying to make an honest living by taking stuff that isn’t theirs… forcing thieves to be more discrete in their efforts 😉

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman, M.D. Also Commented

Adventists are virtually silent
@Geanna Dane:

“Now, how is it that even you would be able to easily detect design in such a situation? Upon what basis is the conclusion of ID so obvious in such situations? Upon what is it’s predictive value established or calculated? Do you know? If so, please do explain it to me given that I’m so far off base here…” – Sean Pitman

I’ll accept it on faith.. I can’t prove it like you think you can (but still refuse to do).

You have no reason except for completely blind faith that someone drawing aces a few hundred times in a row is obvious doing so via deliberate design? Come on now. Do you think the Las Vegas casino managers are able to figure this sort of thing out, very consistently, based only on faith? Why then do they hire mathematicians and odds analyzers and pay them such large salaries? If all that is needed is blind faith to figure this sort of thing out why waste the money? ; )

Remember now, science isn’t about demonstrating absolute proof. It is about demonstrating a useful degree of predictive value that never reaches the level of absolute perfection. Leaps of “faith” are always required – even in science, when determining what is and what is not most the most likely explanation.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Adventists are virtually silent
@Geanna Dane:

PROBABILITY OF A LIVING BREATHING HUMAN ORIGINATING FROM A CLUMP OF DIRT IN TRILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF YEARS = NONE (YOUR CLEARLY STATED CLAIM)

PROBABILITY OF A LIVING BREATHING HUMAN ORIGINATING FROM A CLUMP OF DIRT INSTANTANEOUSLY = ??? (and the answer is?)

Given that a human being did originate from a clump of dirt, the hypothesis with the greatest predictive value, by far, is the one that includes the involvement of very high level intelligent design. A being with access to extremely high levels of intelligence could easily produce all kinds of things that would appear to us to be miraculous.

How do I know then that very high level ID was the most likely involved in the production of such high levels of functional complexity? It’s turtles all the way up…

You’d say the same thing if I started pulling aces on you for every hand a few hundred times in a row. You’d intuitively know that such a thing could only happen by design with any reasonable degree of predictive value. In other words, I’d be right in my predictions of ID far far more often than anyone betting against me would be right in such a situation. The odds are strongly in my favor here. This is how Las Vegas casinos catch cheaters so effectively…

Now, how is it that even you would be able to easily detect design in such a situation? Upon what basis is the conclusion of ID so obvious in such situations? Upon what is it’s predictive value established or calculated? Do you know? If so, please do explain it to me given that I’m so far off base here…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Adventists are virtually silent
@Geanna Dane:

“such questions are well within the realm of scientific investigation and statistical analysis with regard to the likelihood of the hypothesis vs. the opposing null hypothesis.”

So you understand poker, huh? I’m callling your bluff. Give me some statistics. What IS the probability of this very simple event: forming a human out of a pile of dirt. Prove your claims!

If you answer my poker question, I’ll answer your question…

If someone draws aces on you 100 times in a row, what scientific hypothesis caries the greatest predictive value to explain this phenomenon? – deliberate design? or random chance?

Please explain your answer…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman, M.D.

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.