The probability, and this was from 5-10 years ago, was about 1 in 10 to the 30th w/o even taking into account the constants of physics. So my example is actually too optimistic for Joe Lottery...
666...the Devils Moving Average
- Thread starter crackhead
- Start date
it's just so off-putting when you have to wade through axeman-like "red herring" restrictions on the scope of the discussion; they're clear signs that someone couldn't care less about understanding your point of view but in "winning" some debate they think is taking place.
Alfonso
________________________________________
This is an excellent observation.
1. Limit the scope of the debate so that only your side is favored.
2. Limit the references for backup in the debate so only yours can be used or considered valid.
3. Constantly declaring victory for yourself. (All of the debates I have witnessed have had judges that were not participants in the debate. Unilateral declaration of victory is certainly considered juvenile and a sign of weakness.)
4. Drifting off into uncivil attacks.
These points are exactly what led me to observe what Josh McDowell had witnessed years ago. There is a reason outside of the debate that causes the closedmindedness and need to "win".
Alfonso
________________________________________
This is an excellent observation.
1. Limit the scope of the debate so that only your side is favored.
2. Limit the references for backup in the debate so only yours can be used or considered valid.
3. Constantly declaring victory for yourself. (All of the debates I have witnessed have had judges that were not participants in the debate. Unilateral declaration of victory is certainly considered juvenile and a sign of weakness.)
4. Drifting off into uncivil attacks.
These points are exactly what led me to observe what Josh McDowell had witnessed years ago. There is a reason outside of the debate that causes the closedmindedness and need to "win".
So you are now asking Joe lottery to find 1 particular dime in a sea of dimes. Why? How does that equate to the question of intelligent design??
How does that relate to the chances of something coming from nothing and not from intelligent design ??
Why only one Joe Lottery? Is this somehow supposed to be analogous to what??...one chance... or one God? Then mathematically speaking there is no chance and no God !!?? Is that it?
The fallacy of this is that you get to state and decide ALL the controlling conditions with the Joe Lottery scenario.
But after more analysis I find out that there wasn't just one chance for Joe Lottery. He spawned another and another ad infinitum, whose sole purpose of existence was only to attract a 1983 dime to the sole of their shoes as they ran through a 4ft global sea of 1982 dimes. The only inevitable result is that they will find the dime. My viewpoint changes from divine intervention to mathematically and statistically probable.
Unfortunately this also destroys the idea that it needs one God to intervene for Joe Lottery to succeed.
___________________________________________
Right on. Which brings up another observation that science is very effected by the humans that are scientists. The "Abilene Paradox" by Jerry Harvey of George Washington University really explains the psychology of the lockstep mentality in humans. Basically people desire consensus over what they really believe or in the case of science observe and report. So to get consensus they actually report what is expected to stay "in the fold" rather than what they believe and find, if it contradicts the consensus.
To get funding and promotions scientists need to have "published works". If what they write on or their findings are not "in the fold" then they will never get published or have favorable peer reviews. This is an absolute incentive not to go outside the box. If you don't think this happens everyday then let me introduce to the real world
Big problem with that doubter, it works equally well for believing in religion.
Unlike religion, Science shows how things CAN and ARE achieved, not by humans fiddling the statistics because they want to be published. Even if they get away with that, SCIENCE will find them out.
And you will then say what?... Science is wrong because it can be misused or abused?