Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
I dunno. It'd sure be nice if we were autotrophs, but it just doesn't seem to be in the cards, no matter how much we might wish for it...
I just tossed the following sequence. What is the probability (You can provide the formula if you like):
HTTHT THHTT TTTHH HTTTH HTHTH THTHT TTTTH HTTTT HTTHH TTTHH
Never play three-card monte against one of those park card-sharks. Why? Same reason. The outcome of the game is designed, even though the shark will make every effort to make it appear to fit your "random" assumption.
It is almost 11:00:00.00 AM on 2/2/2005. What is the probability of that date and time occuring in the whole life of the earth?
I notice that you ducked the question ...
1 part in two to the whatever.
You started on this "randomness thing".
For the Christian believer, the Bible presents the compelling and authoritative case for God's creation of the cosmos. Specifically, the Bible provides us with the ultimate truth concerning human origins and the special creation of human beings as the creatures made in God's own image. Thus, though we believe in more than Intelligent Design, we certainly do not believe in less. We should celebrate the confusion and consternation now so evident among the evolutionists. Dr. Stephen Meyer's article--and the controversy it has spawned--has caught evolutionary scientists with their intellectual pants down.Hmmmmmm?
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. (1 Corinthians 14:33)
You are missing the point. Any predefind series is equally likely or unlikely. When creationists assert that the outcomes of evolution are unlikely, they are predefining a specific series.
The important point is that the series that led to current life forms is not the only series possible. There is nothing in biology that predicts, in advance, the occurrance of any particular structure or trait.
Uh do you mean 1 divided by 250?
Unity.
If the Plant Kingdom vanished tomorrow, the Animal Kingdom would certainly survive - granted almost all of the current genera would swiftly fall to extinction. It'd be interesting to see what a primarily fungivorous ecology looked like, not that we'd be around to see it!
The three-card monte shark loves people to make such assumptions -- it pays his bills.
Sort of like how the dummies send their money to the creationists' website on the assumption that those guys actually have something of worth to buy?
You are most gracious, Ichneumon, to step into this fray! Looks like I owe WildTurkey an apology, despite the fact that by no means was I trying to "trick him" or make him look like a fool. It was just a light-hearted moment.
FWIW, I can get just as torqued off by certain claims that "creationists" make as you or WT. In my case, I think it is ill-advised (man, am I gonna catch HAIL for using that word!) to read the sublime language of the Holy Scriptures literally, as if the Book were no more than a "how-to manual" or "textbook."
If WildTurkey would like to, we can start off fresh. If there's any particular statement of the anti-evo crowd to which he particularly objects, we could start there. Then we can all jump on it!
Thanks again, Ichneumon!
Excellent point. It is the essence of hypocrisy.
Oh boy. Here I am supposed to be finalizing my IRS 1040s and you talk about people volunteering to send their money to research efforts they wish to encourage. Making all the more frustrating when I think of my money going to fund all sorts of mis-guided and silly research and I have no direct say in it.
You must be thinking of someone else. I was talking about the fools that by the books and DVDs from the kooks that run the creationists' websites.
Did you agree with my 1490?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.