...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...

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...

...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.

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...

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...

...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 ...

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!

...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.

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

The tactic you both use is easily identified and defeated.

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

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.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

...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.

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.

The possibility is rejected due to a lack of supporting evidence. So what you're saying is, you can only "find" it if you're willing to make a faithful (a belief that is not based on proof) conclusion. That is why Intelligent Design should never be taught in science classrooms. Science only teaches the observable that is backed by the physical evidence.

lol really? Show me the data. let me examine your evidence. Being a Catholic and Scientist I draw a line in the sand. I leave science to Scientists and Religion to religious folks.

Need I remind you that we've already discussed and confirmed that ID is Creationism. Creationism is a religious idea and not science. Your arguement is moot.

I have already given you the data. You have yet to give reason.

Yes, we've already discussed [and here is where your mind is closed] that ID is Creationism. I do not believe and have not ever given data here that Intelligent Design is Creationism. I do not believe in the 7 day Creation scenario. I have posted the data from W-Map here and believe that the Universe is something like 14 billion years old. I believe that an accretion disc is how our galaxy and our solar system was formed. I also believe that all the building blocks for life are in free space.

I do 'not' believe in chance. I do believe in freewill.

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.

Whats in a word?

Letters.
Syllables.
Ideas.

What more proof do you need?
Please, do try to keep up.

lol really? Show me the data. let me examine your evidence. Being a Catholic and Scientist I draw a line in the sand. I leave science to Scientists and Religion to religious folks.

Need I remind you that we've already discussed and confirmed that ID is Creationism. Creationism is a religious idea and not science. Your arguement is moot.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

As a member of the scientific community I would think that you wouldn't reject any possibility--even Intelligent Design.

proof? what proof? as in facts or Faith? Faith as you may not know is hardly ladden with facts.

As a member of the scientific community I find this a reprehensible misrepresentation of facts. Putting words in a scientists words or inferring something from what they said is foolish.

Scientist deal with data, facts, logic, and duh science. Nothing that you've given represents that.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Proof was asked for and given. Don't know what else to say. Would you like more proof?

Our Mythical Sky-God requires an open mind. Of which you have not. The paper was clear and to the point. Where as the Neodarwinianism mechanisms as was not explained by Drew Berry and not offered nor does it appear they will offer an explaination.

No actually science requires an openmind. Faith requires one to ignore other possibilities and rely on faith the explain all. Faith tends to explain things poorly though getting you to admit is unlikely

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Our Mythical Sky-God requires an open mind. Of which you have not. The paper was clear and to the point. Where as the Neodarwinianism mechanisms as was not explained by Drew Berry and not offered nor does it appear they will offer an explaination.