If Evolution were true...

[sandwiches]

Then let's test your theory, shall we?

Take a jackhammer, encase it in a huge block of ice, turn it on and let it run awhile, then turn it off and see if it -- by coincidence -- hammered out a cavity that, when filled with plastic (or some other pliable material), would solidify and, after the ice melts, there stands a statue in your image and likeness.

(Or the image and likeness of Joe down the street, or Jorge, or anyone.)

In fact, do it 10[sup]50[/sup] times or more -- I'll wait.

I'll let you know how that turns out. In the meanwhile, may I ask you know if that's something that even has a possibility above zero? I sure as heck don't know. Do you?

Now, regardless of how my statue turns out, you're still misunderstanding probability.

 

[sandwiches]

And here we go -- let's latch on to a side-issue and run it into the ground, until the main point is long-forgotten.

Science at its best.

The issue that I am trying to point to you, AV is your lack of understanding of probability as I've stated before. I showed you how those probabilities that you like to use are meaningless.

So, if you can't understand how that example directly relates to your claim, then it just reinforces what I've said about your knowledge in this matter.

 

[rjc34]

And here we go -- let's latch on to a side-issue and run it into the ground, until the main point is long-forgotten.

Science at its best.

This isn't a side issue, he's directly addressing your ignorance about how probabilities work.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll let you know how that turns out. In the meanwhile, may I ask you know if that's something that even has a possibility above zero? I sure as heck don't know. Do you?

Now, regardless of how my statue turns out, you're still misunderstanding probability.

Good -- for the sake of the discussion then, let's just pretend like I didn't even mention it, eh?

 

[Freodin]

We're both just repeating our stances, are we not?

No, I am pointing out that your conclusion does not derive from your premise.

Plainly... your reasoning is wrong, again.

 

[AV1611VET]

The issue that I am trying to point to you, AV is your lack of understanding of probability as I've stated before. I showed you how those probabilities that you like to use are meaningless.

So, if you can't understand how that example directly relates to your claim, then it just reinforces what I've said about your knowledge in this matter.

Sorry I even brought it up already.

I didn't know you were going to use it to talk yourself out of understanding my point.

 

[AV1611VET]

This isn't a side issue, he's directly addressing your ignorance about how probabilities work.

Good -- then he's using my ignorance to support his.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I am pointing out that your conclusion does not derive from your premise.

Plainly... your reasoning is wrong, again.

Neat.

 

[MoonLancer]

Then let's test your theory, shall we?

Take a jackhammer, encase it in a huge block of ice, turn it on and let it run awhile, then turn it off and see if it -- by coincidence -- hammered out a cavity that, when filled with plastic (or some other pliable material), would solidify and, after the ice melts, there stands a statue in your image and likeness.

(Or the image and likeness of Joe down the street, or Jorge, or anyone.)

In fact, do it 10[sup]50[/sup] times or more -- I'll wait.

The jack hammer would likely fail, however since evolution occurs in stages and your experiment must be done as a single stage it doesn't share any comparison to evolution.

 

[Phred]

For this entire universe to be tuned in such a way that, when man arrives -- created in the way that he is -- he is able to live within the parameters of said universe; should he also be in the image and likeness of God, that would constitute a coincidence so outstanding, that it would fall under the mathematically-impossible range (i.e. 10[sup]50[/sup] and up).

Except you're making all sorts of assumptions in order to find that very large number. But the biggest one is that you assume that man was a GOAL of the universe. That from the very beginning we were the intended outcome. That's a creationist mindset at work.

Now... Let's rid ourselves of that assumption. The universe is dumb as a rock and it has no goals. Go with me here. Just for a moment.

The universe exists as it is and any life within it MUST adhere to the laws that it consists of. This is not surprising it's necessity. The laws were not created FOR us. We were created BY THE LAWS. So naturally we conform to them.

What you've actually found, if you look at it, is that the odds are against your argument. The odds against a universe being fine-tuned for a man when he arrives are what again? Yeah, exactly. You've just talked your way out of your own argument.

 

[sandwiches]

Good -- for the sake of the discussion then, let's just pretend like I didn't even mention it, eh?

Good. Then I'll take this as a retraction of this comment then:

Otherwise, it would be of the most incredible coincidence.

Sorry I even brought it up already.

I didn't know you were going to use it to talk yourself out of understanding my point.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that disagreement is lack of understanding.

I understand that you think it's too big a coincidence. I am merely telling you you're wrong and explaining to you why.

 

[sandwiches]

The jack hammer would likely fail, however since evolution occurs in stages and your experiment must be done as a single stage it doesn't share any comparison to evolution.

We were talking about more than just evolution, I believe. It's about the chances of this universe having properties that would produce life.

 

[MoonLancer]

Sorry I even brought it up already.

I didn't know you were going to use it to talk yourself out of understanding my point.

?

This is the exact opposite of talking ones self out of a point.

The reality a point needs support and you don't understand how your support works so you have no point that's worth addressing.

Your point has a foundation of BS

 

[AV1611VET]

The jack hammer would likely fail, however since evolution occurs in stages and your experiment must be done as a single stage it doesn't share any comparison to evolution.

We're not talking about evolution though, are we?

We're discussing the Anthropic Principle tete-a-tete with the Pothole Theory -- right?

Let me make this simple for all of us, shall we?

Just go to ridicule mode, whilst I saddle up and mosey off into the sunset, eh?

 

[Phred]

Then let's test your theory, shall we?

Take a jackhammer, encase it in a huge block of ice, turn it on and let it run awhile, then turn it off and see if it -- by coincidence -- hammered out a cavity that, when filled with plastic (or some other pliable material), would solidify and, after the ice melts, there stands a statue in your image and likeness.

(Or the image and likeness of Joe down the street, or Jorge, or anyone.)

In fact, do it 10[sup]50[/sup] times or more -- I'll wait.

This is a test of how a man can have people explain to him, over and over and over and over again how evolution works and after almost a decade you still don't have a clue.

 

[AV1611VET]

 

[MoonLancer]

We were talking about more than just evolution, I believe. It's about the chances of this universe having properties that would produce life.

ah my mistake. then the puddle example works well in my opinion.

It comes down to that Av doesn't understand probability so he shouldn't be using chance as an argument.

Special pleading doesn't work in math AV.

 

[sandwiches]

This is a test of how a man can have people explain to him, over and over and over and over again how evolution works and after almost a decade you still don't have a clue.

Well, it's somewhat coincidental because in another thread AV was explaining to us how it's not that the Bible is confusing, it's that people don't want to understand. Strangely, AV has admitted something to the effect of not wanting to believe evolution, abiogenesis, etc as they can lead to satanism and the like.

 

[MoonLancer]

We're not talking about evolution though, are we?

We're discussing the Anthropic Principle tete-a-tete with the Pothole Theory -- right?

Let me make this simple for all of us, shall we?

Just go to ridicule mode, whilst I saddle up and mosey off into the sunset, eh?

why bring up human likeness then?

 

[sandwiches]

Riding into the sunset, I'm guessing?

Now, I want to make it clear that I wasn't trying to mock you. I was trying to explain to you why you were mistaken. Look back at my history. I've been shown wrong by both theists and atheists!

Nothing wrong with being wrong as long as we're willing to learn.