GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-08-2013, 14:02   #461
Syclone538
Senior Member
 
Syclone538's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Not everyone is afraid of every unknown. I suspect many of the more invested in a certain belief are. Those that have a passive lack of belief, probably not. I also sincerely doubt than man was created as man in a day or two. I have no reason not to believe in evolution.

It strikes me as funny that carefully constructed and controlled experiments able to create the building blocks of life are used to support that life occurred naturally. Wouldn't making life in a lab support that life could have been made?
Are you saying that if we can create life with nothing supernatural, that it would be evidence of life being created by something supernatural?
__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Quote:
...
The constitution is not, nor was it meant to be absolutely literal.
...
Syclone538 is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 14:27   #462
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I'm sure you believe a lot of things to increase your own personnal comfort level.
If I've misstated your stance let me know. But you seem to imply that a creator is just as possible as abiogenesis. I maintain that one is far more probable as it has massive amounts of evidence supporting it and the other has none as of yet.
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 14:32   #463
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It strikes me as funny that carefully constructed and controlled experiments able to create the building blocks of life are used to support that life occurred naturally. Wouldn't making life in a lab support that life could have been made?
The carefully controlled conditions are to replicate what a pre-life earth environment would be like. Not the environment of a lab. That's why they're carefully controlled, as not to give results that don't answer the question at hand.

And yes, it does illustrate that it's possible for life to be created... by beings as simple as us. Doesn't require a deity. However... there still is no evidence that such a being has ever or does exist. As far as we know we are the only beings in the universe with the power attributed to God. But that's not surprising since man most likely invented the concept of God.
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 14:45   #464
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syclone538 View Post
Are you saying that if we can create life with nothing supernatural, that it would be evidence of life being created by something supernatural?
Yeah, if anything it illustrates that it's quite possible we were created from organic beings just like us if anything. I think we've most definitely learned it doesn't require magic or wizardry. Just organic materials and the right conditions.
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 14:54   #465
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
If I've misstated your stance let me know. But you seem to imply that a creator is just as possible as abiogenesis. I maintain that one is far more probable as it has massive amounts of evidence supporting it and the other has none as of yet.
Ok, please provide this massive amount if evidence, you might just convince me.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-08-2013 at 14:55..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 14:56   #466
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
Yeah, if anything it illustrates that it's quite possible we were created from organic beings just like us if anything. I think we've most definitely learned it doesn't require magic or wizardry. Just organic materials and the right conditions.
If life was created by other beings, wouldn't intelligent design be something that could be taught in a science class.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 15:10   #467
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
If life was created by other beings, wouldn't intelligent design be something that could be taught in a science class.
Sure, but first we'd need at least some tiny basic evidence that such a being existed before it could be considered science. Without that... it's a fairy tale. We're fairly confident life can be created by beings just like us with the right technology. But that still doesn't imply a design really. Perhaps planting a seed understanding the nature of how it will evolve. But design... eh... that might be pushing it. However... a race of beings far more advanced than us might have the technology not only to create life but structure its evolution. But as of yet there is nothing to support such a claim so we go with what we do know.
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 15:12   #468
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Ok, please provide this massive amount if evidence, you might just convince me.
Read anything you like on abiogenesis. I don't have the evidence in my back pocket. It's available. We aren't going to start playing the "Believers" game that if I can't link you to the wealth and mankind's scientific knowledge then it doesn't exist.
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 16:43   #469
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,950
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Not everyone is afraid of every unknown. I suspect many of the more invested in a certain belief are. Those that have a passive lack of belief, probably not. I also sincerely doubt than man was created as man in a day or two. I have no reason not to believe in evolution.

It strikes me as funny that carefully constructed and controlled experiments able to create the building blocks of life are used to support that life occurred naturally. Wouldn't making life in a lab support that life could have been made?
You seem to have missed the crux of my post (which admittedly was longer than intended), which is what evidence do the Creationists have, that you have accepted, that would cause you to place their claims on an even footing in a science class with science which has evidence of many things?

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 16:47   #470
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
You seem to have missed the crux of my post (which admittedly was longer than intended), which is what evidence do the Creationists have, that you have accepted, that would cause you to place their claims on an even footing in a science class with science which has evidence of many things?

-ArtificialGrape
Honestly, it's just about as scant. The complexity and interdependent relationships of organelles, cells, organs, and organisms are complex enough to open the possibility of a design, hence a designer. It's not that either case is convincing, it's that both are not convincing. We know a lot about life, but really not much about how it started.

Also, we are talking about a paragraph in a large book admitting that we really don't know. Then other time on what we do know.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-08-2013 at 16:50..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 16:57   #471
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
Read anything you like on abiogenesis. I don't have the evidence in my back pocket. It's available. We aren't going to start playing the "Believers" game that if I can't link you to the wealth and mankind's scientific knowledge then it doesn't exist.
Seems that you used to get upset at similar answers, something about not being able to back it up.

Lets cut to the chase, I have read quite a bit about abiogenesis, and it's just not convincing. Boyle suggested randomly creating a 747, even a tricycle would be difficult to believe.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 17:29   #472
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
So, I'm just closer to the middle than you, I see it as roughly 50/50. Are you at around 70/30? 90/10?
Can you explain why you're 50/50 though? Seems there is so much more evidence to support one over the other. I don't understand why you give one possibility with no supporting evidence as much credence as one that does.
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 17:31   #473
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Seems that you used to get upset at similar answers, something about not being able to back it up.
The evidence is available for all. It's not hard to come by. I refuse to keep educating people in this forum. Especially when every time I turn around they still deny the information exists. You're not a stupid man. You can find it if your're truly interested.

Quote:
Lets cut to the chase, I have read quite a bit about abiogenesis, and it's just not convincing.
Which part?
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 18:30   #474
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,950
Blog Entries: 1
You demonstrate a few things in the following 2 quotes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Honestly, it's just about as scant. The complexity and interdependent relationships of organelles, cells, organs, and organisms are complex enough to open the possibility of a design, hence a designer. It's not that either case is convincing, it's that both are not convincing. We know a lot about life, but really not much about how it started.

Also, we are talking about a paragraph in a large book admitting that we really don't know. Then other time on what we do know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Seems that you used to get upset at similar answers, something about not being able to back it up.

Lets cut to the chase, I have read quite a bit about abiogenesis, and it's just not convincing. Boyle suggested randomly creating a 747, even a tricycle would be difficult to believe.
In the 1st quote you demonstrate that you don't know enough about logic fallacies to avoid making an argument from incredulity. We're not talking about opening the possibility of a design/designer, we're talking about evidence appropriate for a science class. What evidence for this design/designer would you care to present?

As a medical provider you have experienced first hand many of the examples of poor (or unintelligent) design. If there was a designer I think we can clearly rule out an intelligent one.

Within the framework of evolution, all these examples of poor design make sense. Evolution cannot start from scratch. It can only work by adapting, repurposing, etc. existing anatomy, and many features are far from optimal. All the examples of poor design do more to discredit an Intelligent Designer than examples of efficient design does to support an Intelligent Designer.

This leads into your 2nd quote above which demonstrates that you don't have even the most rudimentary understanding of how evolution operates (or you do, but you still feel compelled to repeat well dismantled Creationist claims).

Paley's watchmaker was explained away by Darwin's Origin over 150 years ago, but regurgitated later as Fred Hoyle's (not Boyle's) junkyard 747. Nothing about evolution claims that a complex organism randomly appeared in its current, complex form. Organisms have slowly moved from simple to complex through mutations. Some mutations are injurious to a organism's ability to survive and reproduce, and those die off in future generations. Other mutations are beneficial to an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, and those then exist in future generations in higher and higher numbers. Evolution explains how natural processes can lead to efficient features that would have an appearance of design.

So again I must ask, what evidence for a Designer would you care to put forth that would earn it a place in a science class?

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline  
Old 02-09-2013, 06:21   #475
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
You demonstrate a few things in the following 2 quotes.



In the 1st quote you demonstrate that you don't know enough about logic fallacies to avoid making an argument from incredulity. We're not talking about opening the possibility of a design/designer, we're talking about evidence appropriate for a science class. What evidence for this design/designer would you care to present?

As a medical provider you have experienced first hand many of the examples of poor (or unintelligent) design. If there was a designer I think we can clearly rule out an intelligent one.

Within the framework of evolution, all these examples of poor design make sense. Evolution cannot start from scratch. It can only work by adapting, repurposing, etc. existing anatomy, and many features are far from optimal. All the examples of poor design do more to discredit an Intelligent Designer than examples of efficient design does to support an Intelligent Designer.

This leads into your 2nd quote above which demonstrates that you don't have even the most rudimentary understanding of how evolution operates (or you do, but you still feel compelled to repeat well dismantled Creationist claims).

Paley's watchmaker was explained away by Darwin's Origin over 150 years ago, but regurgitated later as Fred Hoyle's (not Boyle's) junkyard 747. Nothing about evolution claims that a complex organism randomly appeared in its current, complex form. Organisms have slowly moved from simple to complex through mutations. Some mutations are injurious to a organism's ability to survive and reproduce, and those die off in future generations. Other mutations are beneficial to an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, and those then exist in future generations in higher and higher numbers. Evolution explains how natural processes can lead to efficient features that would have an appearance of design.

So again I must ask, what evidence for a Designer would you care to put forth that would earn it a place in a science class?

-ArtificialGrape
It's only a fallacy if it's false. Given the possibility of natural phenomena creating very complex structures, where minor defects are incompatible with life, and an intelligence creating it, both are rather hard to believe. Recognizing the extrapolations and assumptions made on both sides of the issue, whether philosophers and logicians agree or not, it seems logical to withhold judgement until such time as enough evidence is present to decide. I also recognize that on both sides there is bias. Some Theists really want to believe they can prove life was designed and created. Some Atheists really want to prove that it was not created and just a natural phenomena.

Your example of an Unintelligent Designer is an example a lack of perfection is not a lack of inteligence. Just figuring out how difficult it is to make a cell work is very complex, figuring out how to make it replicate, differentiate within a mamal, the positive and negative feedback loops between relatively distant tissues within the body to handle small details that without which, it all stops working. I think you are trying to rule out a perfect design, and assuming a perfect designer must make a perfect design, and that you would understand the big picture much better. First, I make no assumptions about the characteristics of a possible designer, not even sure there is one let alone what the characteristics would be. The human body is very complex, homeostasis is a constant and active activity, it's very easy for one defect to stop it all from working pretty quick. To assume if there was a designer that the design isn't good enough is comical. After all, if there were a designer, the design has lasts millipns of years and led to you being able to complain about it. What would happen if animals did not grow up, grow old and die naturally, I see problems with that. We all get to die at least once. It is what it is. BTW: wouldn't arguing that it could not have been designed because the design is uninteligent also be an argument from incredulity?

It is what it is. It was probably either made or just a result of natural phenomena. Both possibilities are incredible. Was life made? Some say yes, some say no, I say maybe.


Can I ask if you've noticed how much information I have proposed putting in front of a science class?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-09-2013, 07:33   #476
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
Can you explain why you're 50/50 though? Seems there is so much more evidence to support one over the other. I don't understand why you give one possibility with no supporting evidence as much credence as one that does.
Actually, there is a lot of conjecture and biased examination of what is observable to be skeptical of both. Lets suppose that all the right pieces just happened to fall into place millions of years ago, when the planet was devoid of life. That's quite a statistical feat. But then why today, when you can find building blocks of life all over the planet, with animals shedding cells and leaving DNA everywhere, and we are knee deep in building blocks for life, are we not witnessing abiogenesis in nature now?

Each side has their fans, both even have their fanatics, I just landed in the middle.

The real interesting thing to think about, is that since there are strong feelings on both sides, and no real proof, why would either side trying to suppress the other and exclude the other possibility from even being taught, unless there was an agenda at work???
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-09-2013 at 07:38..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-09-2013, 08:56   #477
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
I said "evidence to support the possibility", not "evidence of". What evidence is there to support the possibility of creationism?



OK, that makes it even more redundant - "Whichever way it happened is the way it happened." Is that what you're saying? Please tell me I'm still misunderstanding you.




Reasonable speculation? Speculation based on a supernatural being, that there is not one shred of evidence to support the existence of, is reasonable to you?





OK, it's not a good analogy for the beginning of life on this planet. However, creationism dictates that the beginning of life on this planet was initiated by a sentient creative being. It is an excellent analogy of belief in that sentient creative being.



Nope. I've never claimed I could. Can you show me how belief in a sentient creative being is *more* logical? At least we've got solid scientific framework for the possibility of abiogenesis.
Don't forget about me, now, Doc.
hooligan74 is offline  
Old 02-09-2013, 09:23   #478
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Lets suppose that all the right pieces just happened to fall into place millions of years ago, when the planet was devoid of life. That's quite a statistical feat.
You can't actually make the statement that it is "quite a statistical feat" without being able to determine how many trials actually occurred.

If you have a probability of an event occurring of 0.00000001, if there is one shot at it the probability of one success is, naturally, 0.00000001

If there are 1000000000 trials, the cumulative probability that there is more than one success exceeds 0.997. That's 99.7%. The 0.3% left over is the probability that it happened either 0 or 1 times. The probability it happens /at least once/ is so close to 1 that the calculator I used just states 1. It's practically a certainty (although this hypothetical event could still not happen).

It doesn't matter how low the probability of an event is for a single trial - a sufficient number of places in which the event has a chance of occurring will raise the probability of that event, sometimes to near-certainty.

Please consider that before you decide that something is "quite a statistical feat", and ask yourself if you (or anyone) currently even knows in how many places in this gigantic universe we exist in conditions were sufficient to be considered a "trial". We know there's at least one. What we do not know is how many trials are hidden in that 'at least'.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-09-2013 at 09:36..
void * is offline  
Old 02-09-2013, 09:57   #479
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Actually, there is a lot of conjecture and biased examination of what is observable to be skeptical of both. Lets suppose that all the right pieces just happened to fall into place millions of years ago, when the planet was devoid of life. That's quite a statistical feat. But then why today, when you can find building blocks of life all over the planet, with animals shedding cells and leaving DNA everywhere, and we are knee deep in building blocks for life, are we not witnessing abiogenesis in nature now?

Each side has their fans, both even have their fanatics, I just landed in the middle.

The real interesting thing to think about, is that since there are strong feelings on both sides, and no real proof, why would either side trying to suppress the other and exclude the other possibility from even being taught, unless there was an agenda at work???
Because there is some evidence for one side, but not the other. We've been over this.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-09-2013, 10:16   #480
Syclone538
Senior Member
 
Syclone538's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
You can't actually make the statement that it is "quite a statistical feat" without being able to determine how many trials actually occurred.

If you have a probability of an event occurring of 0.00000001, if there is one shot at it the probability of one success is, naturally, 0.00000001

If there are 1000000000 trials, the cumulative probability that there is more than one success exceeds 0.997. That's 99.7%. The 0.3% left over is the probability that it happened either 0 or 1 times. The probability it happens /at least once/ is so close to 1 that the calculator I used just states 1. It's practically a certainty (although this hypothetical event could still not happen).

It doesn't matter how low the probability of an event is for a single trial - a sufficient number of places in which the event has a chance of occurring will raise the probability of that event, sometimes to near-certainty.

Please consider that before you decide that something is "quite a statistical feat", and ask yourself if you (or anyone) currently even knows in how many places in this gigantic universe we exist in conditions were sufficient to be considered a "trial". We know there's at least one. What we do not know is how many trials are hidden in that 'at least'.
A good way to explain this to people...

Go find the largest parking lot you can. Pick a car at random, and look at the vin#. What are the odds that you were going to find a car with that vin? Effectively zero.
__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Quote:
...
The constitution is not, nor was it meant to be absolutely literal.
...
Syclone538 is offline  

 
  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:52.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,260
328 Members
932 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42