24 May '11 15:22>
Originally posted by jaywillNo, I didn't. You just don't understand the argument or probability. Whats more worrying is that you don't want to understand.
You shoot yourself in the foot.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am going to look carefully again over your argument.
No, I didn't. You just don't understand the argument or probability. Whats more worrying is that you don't want to understand.
Originally posted by KellyJayAre you sure I said that peguins evolved from birds that can fly?
If you and the super majority in the scientific community think that, I guess
it is a fact not a theory, not a belief in your mind. You are a true believer I
guess there is no debating you on that topic.
Are you sure I said that peguins evolved from birds that can fly?
Kelly
Originally posted by jaywillWell lets see who chickens out first. 🙂
I am going to look carefully again over your argument.
But let it be said that I have a similar feeling about you not wanting to understand.
Originally posted by twhitehead==========================
Well lets see who chickens out first. 🙂
Lets test your knowledge of probability, consider the following:
Which is more likely:
1. You winning the lottery six times in a row.
2. The following six people winning the lottery in the order given: James Connelly, John Jackson, Gordon Winston, Kenneth Smith, Vanessa Williams, Jane Merredith.
Assume that ...[text shortened]... of six people that actually won the lottery, winning the lottery when considered after the fact.
Originally posted by jaywill[/b]I appreciate that you actually bothered to read through my very long argument 🙂
[b]========================================
“..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHQsaiMcPLc&feature=related ...”
But he then goes on to say that evolution is fantastically improbable and elaborates on what he means by this by saying that for humans to have evolved would have been fantastically improbably because it would have required ten improbable steps surprising. We are comtemplating the available evidence that we have.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton===========================
I appreciate that you actually bothered to read through my very long argument 🙂
-I admit that I think I made that far too long.
“....Would this analogy work for ANY "vanishingly small chance" event ? ...”
No, just with outcomes that;
1, come from a process that INEVITABLY (but, strictly speaking, it can also be “probably” or even merel ...[text shortened]... ior to theists? I would not claim nor believe such a ludicrous sweeping generalisation.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillNo, not really. It shouldn't take very long at all.
Some kind of test of endurance here?
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton======================================
I appreciate that you actually bothered to read through my very long argument 🙂
-I admit that I think I made that far too long.
“....Would this analogy work for ANY "vanishingly small chance" event ? ...”
No, just with outcomes that;
1, come from a process that INEVITABLY (but, strictly speaking, it can also be “probably” or even merel ...[text shortened]... ior to theists? I would not claim nor believe such a ludicrous sweeping generalisation.[/b]
Originally posted by twhitehead===================================
No, not really. It shouldn't take very long at all.
[b]Lay out my course curriculum. What classes will lead to this kind of atheism ?
I am working on it, though atheism is not required, all I am demonstrating is that your argument from improbability is based on a poor understanding of probability.
If I wanted to be [b]rigorous about it, nt ways could life have arisen? I bet you cant even estimate most of those numbers.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillIn this case, I have given you all the information required to answer the question.
If you wanted to get down to actual odds, to tell you what the probability characteristics were, we would need more numerical info.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton=========================
I appreciate that you actually bothered to read through my very long argument 🙂
-I admit that I think I made that far too long.
“....Would this analogy work for ANY "vanishingly small chance" event ? ...”
No, just with outcomes that;
1, come from a process that INEVITABLY (but, strictly speaking, it can also be “probably” or even merel ior to theists? I would not claim nor believe such a ludicrous sweeping generalisation.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillThat “audience” does NOT equate with “theists” for there would be many theists NOT in that particular “audience” intelligent enough to see the obvious flaw in that speaker's logic. I do NOT deny that there are theists more intellegent than I. I do NOT claim nor ever done so nor implied that “theists” are less intelligent than I am for that would be just a silly sweeping generalisation.
[b]===========================
where did I say that theists are less intelligent or we are superior to theists? I would not claim nor believe such a ludicrous sweeping generalisation.
==============================
You said that the applause of the audience showed that they were not too intelligent.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywill“...You should say "We have not yet figured out the origin of life problem." ...”
[b]=========================
NO, evolution is NOT a theory of the origins of life.
===============================
You know, I think some of you Evolutionists should stop saying this. You know what I think you should say instead ?
You should say "We have not yet figured out the origin of life problem."
Honestly, I think ...[text shortened]... yet figured out how the process started life. We may get the answer. Stay tuned." [/b][/b]