It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
BO XIAN
reply to post by rhinoceros
SOUNDS LIKE another distinction without a difference, to me.
Certainly not, to my mind, a significant difference in terms of probabilities.
Something is either likely or it isn't.
In terms of theoretical probabilities, as I understand them . . .
when the probabilities get to be extreme enough . . . the functional reality is that the chance that something will happen is functionally zero.
The lottery proves that in millions of lives and those probabilities are NOT AT ALL as extreme as the ones involved in these issues.
You keep chanting your mantra without articulating any significant difference (in terms of probability theory etc) between the two things you are hollering so much about being different.
BO XIAN
I see now that y'all have moved the goal posts from when I bothered much about these issues 40 years ago.
Just declare that life has always been and redefine evolution as that!
However, I do NOT believe that unique species evolved from earlier forms. etc. etc. etc. I believe that each species was created on its own by God Almighty.
...Religion of Scientism dogma from the so called "objectivist" . . .
And both ID and Judeo/Christian Creationism consider that an absurd and wholesale irrational claim.
BO XIAN
I kind of have the impression that if ID and/or Creationism proponents take the OP to be talking about the ORIGINAL ORIGINS OF LIFE . . .
BO XIAN
reply to post by rhinoceros
It sounds like
YOU ARE
arguing that
BECAUSE biological process exist now
they MUST HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED as You construe them NOW.
That almost sounds like you are carrying ID's and Creationism's water.
LOLOLOL
Enjoy your belief/Religion of Scientism Dogma bubble.
BO XIAN
It appears to me that you are merely breaking the left side down into stages.
I still don't think . . . in terms of probability theory . . . that there's been remotely enough time for your
stages
to do the trick.
peter vlar
reply to post by BO XIAN
One sees it rather simply and Linear from A to B while the other seeks out the answers and evidence to understand the where and how. You're entitled to your insular worldview but remember, one mans common sense may be another's supreme ignorance.
imho
flyingfish
reply to post by BO XIAN
imho
Says it all.
And what's authentic intrinsic Christians?
Your confusing belief as evidence, beliefs are not valid.
You have the absolute right to hold it, of course, but you have a preference, not a hypothesis supported by observational evidence.
All of the evidence you've proposed so far is either not evidence at all, or it actually turns out upon even cursory examination that your evidence weakens the probability of your hypothesis, even as you claim that your belief is thoughtfully, meticulously, thoroughly, objectively, rationally, evidenced.
Let us not forget Occam's Razor, and the Principle of Parsimony.
If I have a hundred absolutely unevidenced claims, the most likely hypothesis is that none of those claims is accurate. It's really that simple.
BO XIAN
reply to post by rhinoceros
It appears to me that you are merely breaking the left side down into stages.
I still don't think . . . in terms of probability theory . . . that there's been remotely enough time for your
stages
to do the trick.
BO XIAN
peter vlar
reply to post by BO XIAN
One sees it rather simply and Linear from A to B while the other seeks out the answers and evidence to understand the where and how. You're entitled to your insular worldview but remember, one mans common sense may be another's supreme ignorance.
1. I disagree. Christians . . . particularly authentic intrinsic Christians . . . have sought out answers--many relentlessly and thoroughly over years
--AT LEAST
--as much;
--as thoughtfully;
--as meticulously;
--as thoroughly;
--as objectively;
--as rationally;
--as reality-based . . .
as any "objectivist"
as any acolyte, high priest, &/or bishop of the Religion of Scientism.
2. We are convinced that we have found better answers.
Better answers based on more solid evidence
with a more robust understanding of the factors involved.
3. It is your world view that comes across as far more insular. The insularity is ensconced within a set of blinders that seem to automatically rule out a whole list of evidence and options, proofs--without remotely sufficient exploration and examination of any significant duration and/or objectivity and vulnerability to the facts involved.
imho
.
HanoiLullaby
reply to post by Helious
It's a trick.
Odds only exist for one moment, they are a prediction of the probable outcomes of a specific event (the odds for flipping a coin are 2/1 it being heads and 2/1 it being tails). As soon as the coin is flipped those specific odds used to describe the probability of the outcomes of that event cease to exist, because the event has happened, it is in the past. We have no need for odds to predict the outcome of a past event, what would be the point of that, it's nonsense. Another set of odds for a second flip are also 2/1. These are not the same set of odds, they are a different set of odds that happen to be like the first set, but they apply to a totally different event (flip).
Applying odds to past events is utterly meaningless.