Isn’t it obvious as well? A property is a capability, not a capacity. The word “faster” is an adjective modifying the capability to “run.” Buffalo’s claim that an effect cannot have properties greater than those in one or more of its causes stands.
Darwin’s theory of Evolution is about living things, not the weather.
Seeing as all but 2 or 3 of those willing to spend their time pointing out how wrong you can possibly be are Catholics, is it your position that Catholics are trolling a Catholic site?
My example showed that buffalo’s statement was wrong. A small cause (the butterfly) can have a great effect (the storm). It is clear that buffalo’s earlier statement was incorrect. Either that or you have a disproof of the mathematics of complexity theory.
As a Catholic that accepts evolution, I haven’t seen a denial of God based on evolution. I also am not exactly out to disprove God. In fact my daily plan involves
Here’s the closest I could find.
It didn’t deny God though, just compatibility with orthodox Catholicism. And of course many of us Catholics on the evolution side would disagree with such a statement.
Thank you for the chuckle.
Is that an argument?
The causes of storms is not limited to a butterfly’s wing movement.
Here we go again. A theory that proves another theory. That is not how science works.
No, it was an example. The example showed that small causes can have large effects. Thus showing that buffalo was incorrect.
It is typical. It is a rare day he actually deals with the argument itself.
The butterfly is simply a trigger.
Whenever you have a field (like evolutionary biology) with many many specialists in that field, it is always possible to find someone in that field who confirms your view. Finding 2, or 3, or 4, or even 8 specialists who confirm your view is cherry-picking. Thus it is possible to “support” any premise, like a knock-down of Darwin, by carefully selecting who you want to listen to. In such a situation, a more logical approach is to poll all the experts and not do any selection yourself. That way you can have more confidence that the position you arrive at is not unduly influenced by your preconceptions. Since this thread is about whether evolution is scientific, it would seem that the relevant experts to poll would be scientists. So I challenge those who say evolution is not scientific to produce a poll of a large random sample of scientists who agree with your claim.
Yes, you’ve been skii’d (see definition below). We all have at one time or another. But remember, he can’t help himself – just like the fish that reflexively lurches at that bright shiny lure.
I’ve got good and bad news for you. The bad news first: your first sentence is incorrect. The good news: the second sentence is correct. Your case fails.
Cambridge dictionary:rossum:
The butterfly is simply a trigger.
Newsflash! It’s a metaphor.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
No. The Buffalo says it’s a trigger!Bradskii:
Newsflash! It’s a metaphor.
Not limited you say? There are other reasons AS WELL as butterly wings? Maybe I stand corrected. It appears that some people actually DO think there’s a correlation and it’s not just metaphorical. Maybe they think it’s actually a trigger.
Double newsflash, it is a metaphor for Chaos theory where a tiny change in the initial conditions has a very large effect on the final result.
He was correct. If the initial value of a chaotic function is 1.00000000000000 then the result is very very different from a starting value of 1.00000000000001. Hence the small change of 0.00000000000001 in the starting value has a much larger effect on the result. The limitation on predictability is the limitation on our accuracy of errors in our measuring the initial values in the world. That 0.00000000000001 is provided by the butterfly flapping its wings.
‘Excuse me, sir. We believe you were an eye witness to the terrible destruction wrought by the collapse of the massive beam. Do you have any idea how this happened? Someone said that they heard you say that a butterfly caused it. Is that true?’