Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We can also show that the lottery has the "appearance of design", in that the Powerball lottery has been designed so that specific people win.
Let's do the simple math. Let's say that the odds of winning the Powerball are 1 in 150 million. For each drawing we have 150 million people buy a single ticket, and for each drawing there is a single winner. Again, this is just to keep the math simple.
Let's say that John, Susan, and Ralph are the last 3 winners of the Powerball lottery. Using the design argument, we can only conclude that the Powerball lottery had to be intelligently designed in order for those specific 3 people to win due to the astronomical odds of them winning. The odds of those 3 people winning are 150 million to the 3rd power, or 1 in 3,375,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. According to ID proponents, that is fine tuning.
I never felt it looked that much like a pig in the first place.
However, do you equate the precise constants of the universe to fluffy clouds? Do you equate DNA and its complexity to fluffy clouds?
No, incorrect. Sure a ticket is going to win. 100% probability that someone is going to win, perhaps even more than one person will win the same lottery game.
Are you saying that I am delusional?
How do you equate the precise shape of cloud to the fluffy universe? Do you equate the complexity of the precisely shaped cloud to fluffy DNA?
I can load questions, too.
Explain?
I do. However, the cloud pig is not the issue of delusion.
You're right, neither can proven. They are both faith based belief systems.
I couldn't agree more!
How can one know anything?
You have a very strong form of agnosticism. It is skepticism taken to the point of ridiculousness.
I mean, why would you trust a burning bush that is speaking to you and not the vast amounts of scientific data for evolutionary theory and common descent? If a burning bush started speaking to me, I would immediately think I was hallucinating or delusional.
Why? Because of inductive reasoning. No bush has ever spoken to me before, so it is reasonable to be skeptical of talking bushes.
Your epistemological framework is baffling...
You would more quickly believe a talking bush than well-defined and well-documented scientific evidence...???
Alright, so perhaps saying you think they're both "wrong" is incorrect, but I'm guessing you're at least doubtful about either theory. Do you have a view about the origins of life that's different from either creationism or Darwinism?
ID proponents like to calculate the odds of specific features evolving, and showing how the chances of that specific feature evolving is very improbable. They then claim that this gives life the appearance of design.
Lack of evidence of a designer, a plausible explanation of why objects appear to be designed without the need for a designer, the fact that within those objects, if they were designed, there is evidence of sub-optimal design.
The key word in what I said is appear. Do you believe everything you see. David Copperfield made an Elephant disappear on stage. Is it delusional to believe that all might not have been as it seemed?
No, your logical argument is baffling.
First you say that I am supremely skeptical because I don't accept the results of logical fallacies. All right, if that makes me skeptical so be it.
On the other hand, when I say that I would be solidly convinced by a burning bush and someone saying, "Zosimus. Take off your shoes." I mean once I cleaned the crap out of my shorts, I would take anything and everything said very, very seriously. Really! I wouldn't have given God half of the talk back and refusal that Moses did.
So now you say that I'm too gullible. Which is it? Am I an extreme skeptical or too gullible? You go on to say that since I've never seen a burning bush before, that I should doubt it and assume that I was hallucinating it.
Perhaps I should ignore every new student who comes to see me. After all, I've never seem him or her before, therefore I might well be hallucinating the experience. Perhaps I should run around disbelieving every new experience.
What's that? The restaurant has a new dressing? Impossible -- I've never seen that dressing before. I must be hallucinating it.
First you say that I am supremely skeptical because I don't accept the results of logical fallacies. All right, if that makes me skeptical so be it.
Sure lots of things about humans seem sub-optimal. Dios mío humans come with two lungs, when you only need one. They come with six eye muscles, when you only need four.
Of course by this argument you can demonstrate that no V8 engine is designed. After all, cars run just fine on 4 cylinders. In fact, 3 cylinder cars work well, too. I refuse to believe, therefore, that the Dodge Challenger was designed. It must have occurred naturally through millions of years of natural selection.
Sure lots of things about humans seem sub-optimal. Dios mío humans come with two lungs, when you only need one. They come with six eye muscles, when you only need four.
Of course by this argument you can demonstrate that no V8 engine is designed. After all, cars run just fine on 4 cylinders. In fact, 3 cylinder cars work well, too. I refuse to believe, therefore, that the Dodge Challenger was designed. It must have occurred naturally through millions of years of natural selection.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?