[js1138]

I am not assuming the coins were placed there or occurred randomly. I am saying they were placed ther by a process that we can observe, model mathematically, emulate on a computer, and which is sufficient.

It's your turn to produce an agency whose properties can be observed, described and modeled, and which is sufficient.

[Question_Assumptions]

I am not assuming the coins were placed there or occurred randomly. I am saying they were placed ther by a process that we can observe, model mathematically, emulate on a computer, and which is sufficient.

Why go through all of that trouble when it won't answer the key question, expecially if a person created the pile with the intent to make it look random? Suppose the computer model determines that the pile could have occurred naturally. Does that mean it did?

It's your turn to produce an agency whose properties can be observed, described and modeled, and which is sufficient.

Why is that necessary? There are plenty of other scientific theories that cannot be observed, modelled mathematically, or emulated on a computer -- for example, the full process of pre-animate organic molecules forming the first life on earth. Does that mean it's not legitimate science to propose such a theory?

[Question_Assumptions]

I should also add that there are parallels in the search for life on Mars. The idea is to look at rocks and the chemistry of Mars and determine whether there is any evidence of water or life that existed in the past but no longer exists and can no longer be observed. Is that not science because they can't observe life on Mars happening, can't model it mathematically, and can't plug it into a computer model to get a definitive result? Or will they just look at the evidence and assess the probability that various things happened naturally ore were produced by water and/or life?