Origin :) the numbers

@kellyjay said
What has to be directed is what should concern you not what you want.
Dice and cards are small things to over come, but what about a single protein?
The numbers of everything required to get it right are beyond staggering.

So your starting point in your "seeking truth " is that there are "directed processes"?

@kellyjay said
No, which ever one I want isn't a criteria with which to base anything on. People who select religions on what they like are not seeking truth they want their ears itched.Truth is what matters, my wants have to take a backseat.

So all this isn't about your religion?

@fmf said
So your starting point in your "seeking truth " is that there are "directed processes"?

You can setup your query to show anything you want, it doesn't mean the query is meaningfull. As I pointed out shuffling a card deck will always end up with the 52 cards in some order, so the odds of that happening are one, telling everyone what that order is after it is shuffled before anyone can know is quite different.

If I'm trying to prove something and I only look at what does that, I've done exactly what you claim so many do with the conformation bias.

@kellyjay said
You can setup your query to show anything you want, it doesn't mean the query is meaningfull. As I pointed out shuffling a card deck will always end up with the 52 cards in some order, so the odds of that happening are one, telling everyone what that order is after it is shuffled before anyone can know is quite different.

If I'm trying to prove something and I only look at what does that, I've done exactly what you claim so many do with the conformation bias.

I'll try again. Is your starting point ~ in what you describe as your "seeking truth" ~ that there are "directed processes"? Yes or no?

@fmf said
So all this isn't about your religion?

It will point to something that supports my views, but no matter how the numbers fall out that doesn't automatically prove my religion. My religion could still be wrong even if we show that natural processes could not do it, but what it would do is eliminate one of the theories that are currently in place that some have bought into hook line and sinker.

@fmf said
I'll try again. Is your starting point ~ in what you describe as your "seeking truth" ~ that there are "directed processes"? Yes or no?

I said yes, the numbers do not support an undirected process of life rising from non life in an undirected process with or without natural selection.

@kellyjay said
It will point to something that supports my views, but no matter how the numbers fall out that doesn't automatically prove my religion. My religion could still be wrong even if we show that natural processes could not do it, but what it would do is eliminate one of the theories that are currently in place that some have bought into hook line and sinker.

"Hook line and sinker"?

@fmf said
"Hook line and sinker"?

Someone who is "all in" just a term for true believers.

@kellyjay said
I said yes, the numbers do not support an undirected process of life rising from non life in an undirected process with or without natural selection.

So if you feel the numbers do not support undirected processes, what is the issue?

@kellyjay said
Someone who is "all in" just a term for true believers.

What "true believers"?

@fmf said
So if you feel the numbers do not support undirected processes, what is the issue?

I think you should mull over what has been posted, if you cannot figure that out with what has been posted no one is going to be able to explain it to you.

@kellyjay said
I think you should mull over what has been posted, if you cannot figure that out with what has been posted no one is going to be able to explain it to you.

I don't agree with your perspective. I remember twhitehead dismantling your Argument from Improbability 5-6 years ago. I agreed with him. This ground was covered before. But if you feel your Argument from Improbability supports your religious affiliation and dogma, so be it.

@fmf said
I don't agree with your perspective. I remember twhitehead dismantling your Argument from Improbability 5-6 years ago. I agreed with him. This ground was covered before. But if you feel your Argument from Improbability supports your religious affiliation and dogma, so be it.

You may remember him and I talking about it, that's about it, your bias is showing.

@kellyjay said
You may remember him and I talking about it, that's about it, your bias is showing.

What does "that's about it" mean?

@kellyjay said
your bias is showing.

Don't we both have "bias"?

I am biased towards the video clip I posted and you are biased towards the video clip you posted.