Whats in a word?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Whats in a word?

Previous · 1 · 2
Author Message
bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,955,958
RAC: 1,529
United States
Message 1275081 - Posted: 25 Aug 2012, 0:12:55 UTC - in response to Message 1275028.

...and short quoting me out of full context will not disprove what I have said. I do not believe in chance. Nor can anyone get out of that argument. The given enough time, or the argument of multi-verses does not hold water. The universe was given time, and life popped up before the given time for life to pop up, us. And no one can show me nor prove that there is another verse. Yet here we are in this verse and life popped up way before the statistical math tells us it should have. If your not looking you're not even looking for supporting evidence. Or, I'll get the argument rejecting both the argument and it's supporting evidence. Heck, just ask Los Vagas about long odds and they would agree with the supporting evidence about the odds of a chance happenning of life, they would drop it all on it not happenning--and win. They would call such a thing a 'sure bet.'

The tactic you both use is easily identified and defeated.

ID, your understanding of statistics is faulty. Even if something only has it chance in a million and it occurs you are asserting it did not happen. Long shots do happen.


Also let's not forget that the statistics ID uses are hardly undisputed. For all ID's disbelief of chance, the theory of quantum electromechanics has produced some supremely accurate predictions, and at it's heart the theory is probabilistic in nature. That is chance is part of the current best approximation of the natural science's view of the universe and will continue to be so regardless of how little ID subscribes to the idea.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1275227 - Posted: 25 Aug 2012, 5:58:45 UTC - in response to Message 1275014.

Just like looking for mushrooms in the woods I guarantee you that you will not ever find a one if you are not looking for them. Same goes for Design, gotta look. When you eliminate the possibility you're sure as hell not looking.


A very naive assertion - when I was doing a lot of running (long distance cross country, often through wooded areas) I used to find plenty of fungi with my feet, hands, body, face - particularly when I tripped on a part buried root - and I certainly wasn't looking for them.


You did NOT deny the supporting evidence, it was all over you. Nothing naive about my assertion...

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1275230 - Posted: 25 Aug 2012, 6:07:22 UTC - in response to Message 1275023.
Last modified: 25 Aug 2012, 6:21:06 UTC

I do not believe in chance. Nor can anyone get out of that argument.


Actually, we can and we have. Several times in several of your other threads. Chance perfectly explains everything around us, regardless if you believe in it or not.


It does not.

The given enough time, or the argument of multi-verses does not hold water. The universe was given time, and life popped up before the given time for life to pop up, us. And no one can show me nor prove that there is another verse.


Yet you want to tell us that your Creator lives in another Universe.


I denied it then and deny it now, the only thing we know is that the Designer is out of this verse and yet in it too. Can't really say more then that and I haven't said any less then that.

Yet here we are in this verse and life popped up way before the statistical math tells us it should have. If your not looking you're not even looking for supporting evidence. Or, I'll get the argument rejecting both the argument and it's supporting evidence. Heck, just ask Los Vagas about long odds and they would agree with the supporting evidence about the odds of a chance happenning of life, they would drop it all on it not happenning--and win. They would call such a thing a 'sure bet.'


You still seem to lack an understanding of the odds argument. The fact that the probability is above zero means that it is entirely possible to have existence by mere chance.


Possible to a POINT then impossible after a point, due to the odds being longer then the universe has had life. And so much so, that it would be impossible because it is longer then many, many, many times the life of the universe. YOU DON'T ACCEPT THIS FACT... Vegas would take them odds if allowed and your money.

Even in Las Vegas, you still have a chance to win [non-zero odds]. The odds might be stacked against you, as it seems to be for the existence of life, but until we have a better representative sample (our sample size is exactly one), we can't truly figure the odds of life forming.


And here is the point of denial. Can't deny the fact but will deny the Supporting Evidence of the fact to make the fact go away. Intellectual cowardice...

The tactic you both use is easily identified and defeated.


I'm still waiting for the 'defeated' part.


Ya, I can see that in you...

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1275232 - Posted: 25 Aug 2012, 6:10:40 UTC - in response to Message 1275028.

...and short quoting me out of full context will not disprove what I have said. I do not believe in chance. Nor can anyone get out of that argument. The given enough time, or the argument of multi-verses does not hold water. The universe was given time, and life popped up before the given time for life to pop up, us. And no one can show me nor prove that there is another verse. Yet here we are in this verse and life popped up way before the statistical math tells us it should have. If your not looking you're not even looking for supporting evidence. Or, I'll get the argument rejecting both the argument and it's supporting evidence. Heck, just ask Los Vagas about long odds and they would agree with the supporting evidence about the odds of a chance happenning of life, they would drop it all on it not happenning--and win. They would call such a thing a 'sure bet.'

The tactic you both use is easily identified and defeated.

ID, your understanding of statistics is faulty. Even if something only has it chance in a million and it occurs you are asserting it did not happen. Long shots do happen.

Them odds are acceptable. Even longer odds are acceptable as we can see with the lottery. I do not deny a winner of the lottery, it does happen. I deny a chance happening of the universe and that of life. As I have said and will do so again, longer then the life of the universe by many times over.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1275233 - Posted: 25 Aug 2012, 6:11:15 UTC - in response to Message 1275056.

Just like looking for mushrooms in the woods I guarantee you that you will not ever find a one if you are not looking for them. Same goes for Design, gotta look. When you eliminate the possibility you're sure as hell not looking.


A very naive assertion - when I was doing a lot of running (long distance cross country, often through wooded areas) I used to find plenty of fungi with my feet, hands, body, face - particularly when I tripped on a part buried root - and I certainly wasn't looking for them.


Good point!


Not worth a comment...

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1275235 - Posted: 25 Aug 2012, 6:12:26 UTC - in response to Message 1275081.

...and short quoting me out of full context will not disprove what I have said. I do not believe in chance. Nor can anyone get out of that argument. The given enough time, or the argument of multi-verses does not hold water. The universe was given time, and life popped up before the given time for life to pop up, us. And no one can show me nor prove that there is another verse. Yet here we are in this verse and life popped up way before the statistical math tells us it should have. If your not looking you're not even looking for supporting evidence. Or, I'll get the argument rejecting both the argument and it's supporting evidence. Heck, just ask Los Vagas about long odds and they would agree with the supporting evidence about the odds of a chance happenning of life, they would drop it all on it not happenning--and win. They would call such a thing a 'sure bet.'

The tactic you both use is easily identified and defeated.

ID, your understanding of statistics is faulty. Even if something only has it chance in a million and it occurs you are asserting it did not happen. Long shots do happen.


Also let's not forget that the statistics ID uses are hardly undisputed. For all ID's disbelief of chance, the theory of quantum electromechanics has produced some supremely accurate predictions, and at it's heart the theory is probabilistic in nature. That is chance is part of the current best approximation of the natural science's view of the universe and will continue to be so regardless of how little ID subscribes to the idea.


And it lives side by side with order. Other then that no comment is needed...

Previous · 1 · 2

Message boards : Politics : Whats in a word?

Copyright © 2014 University of California