Fine-tuning and the claim that “unlikely things happen all the time”

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 1, 2017

Fine tuning}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Often used to dismiss the masses of evidence for fine-tuning of our universe, as opposed to chance. From Tim Barnett at Salvo:

This response may have some rhetorical force, but it makes a fundamental mistake. To expose the error, let me give you another illustration. Imagine your best friend has been murdered and the lead suspect is on trial. In fact, DNA evidence puts the suspect at the scene with the murder weapon in hand. As a result, the defense attorney turns to the jury and says, “The DNA evidence makes it highly unlikely that my client is innocent. But unlikely things happen all the time. For example, for you to exist, your mom and dad had to meet, fall in love, and have sex at just the right time. . . .

Would any jury accept this response? I think we would have to say no.

But why wouldn’t they accept it? It is because there is a better explanation; namely, that the suspect really is the killer. More.

Note: Lots of good stuff to read at Salvo Online #41

See also: In search of a road to reality

Comments

Some UD posts of reference: On the stat mech issue: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/of-s-t-r-i-ng-s-nanobots-informational-statistical-thermodynamics-and-evolution/ Second law: https://uncommondescent.com/informatics/ud-guest-post-dr-eugen-s-on-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-plus-vs-evolution/ Hoyle, Walker & Davies: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/hoyle-with-updates-from-walker-and-davies-on-cosmological-fine-tuning-a-common-sense-interpretation-of-the-facts-suggests-that-a-super-intellect-has-monkeyed-with-the-physics-as-well-as-the-c/ Collins on Fine Tuning: https://uncommondescent.com/fine-tuning/robin-collins-on-cosmological-fine-tuning/ On FSCO/I: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/btb-q-where-does-the-fscoi-concept-come-from/ --> I would start with the first one. KFkairosfocus_{June 4, 2017
June
06
Jun
4
04
2017
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

EA, a superlaw locking constants, structure of laws, quantities etc to a Goldilocks zone would itself be at least as fine tuned. Of course, the determined objector will typically refuse to acknowledge the point. KF PS: A multiverse speculation -- no real empirical observational support -- raises the question of a universe bakery capable of producing a quasi-infinite array of sub cosmi. And beware the problem of the million monkeys discovered when somebody gave real monkeys a vote: they kept typing s endlessly, it seemed. Not exactly as planned.kairosfocus_{June 3, 2017
June
06
Jun
3
03
2017
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

Kmidpuddle, if you WERE a physicist you might buy into the idea that physical constants vary wildly over the expanse of the multiverse. Only here in our universe are the constants impossibly "fine-tuned" to allow life. If the multiverse had to have the same values as our universe - the fine tuning problem would become a bit worse haha.ppolish_{June 3, 2017
June
06
Jun
3
03
2017
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Eric, I'm no physicist so I can't comment conclusively on why some have used the term "fine tuned", but we are all guilt of the sloppy use of language. Evolutionists often use terms that are commonly used to describe design or purpose. But I doubt very much that they really mean that there is design or purpose. For some constants we know that there are other possible values. The speed of light for example. It is a constant in a vacuum. But the constant has a different value in water, or glass. I am not aware that any physicists have demonstrated that the physical constants, other than the type of example I mentioned above for light, have any other possible values. But, I could be wrong.kmidpuddle_{June 3, 2017
June
06
Jun
3
03
2017
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

kmidpuddle @45: You make an interesting point (at least with respect to gravity and some other key constants; I'm not sure Pi is relevant). It is interesting to me, and quite noteworthy, that many physicists -- no friends of intelligent design -- have noted the issue, have referred to it as "fine tuning", and have either explicitly stated or implied that other values are possible. Indeed, some of the attempts to explain our existence based on the multiverse are explicitly based on the idea that other values are possible. Are all of these theorists and physicists wrong? Is it the case that only one kind of universe is possible, even in principle, that all of the laws and constants have to be just as they are, and that our universe is the only kind possible? Maybe you are right. But you should take up your argument with the physics community. The question you raise is an important one. Personally I wouldn't mind learning a little more about the basis for the idea that other values are possible. But that seems to be the understanding within the scientific community. So, based on that evidence and the current understanding, it is perfectly reasonable to ask: What do we make of the fact that our universe has the specific laws and constants that it does? If our universe were designed, is there any way that we could tell?Eric Anderson_{June 3, 2017
June
06
Jun
3
03
2017
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

BTW, the claim Seversky hints at (we need omniscience to conclude design) and explicitly states (we must exhaust all potential naturalistic explanations) is the same failed claim that has been made before on these pages. We've seen it before from keiths, Elizabeth Liddle and others. Discussed in the context of biology (rather than cosmology) here: https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/must-csi-include-the-probabilities-of-all-natural-processes-known-and-unknown/ The underlying essence of the argument is a philosophical commitment to materialism, an unwillingness to accept the current best evidence and follow it where it leads. Instead, we get promissory notes and vague assertions that one day in the distant future a materialistic explanation will be forthcoming.Eric Anderson_{June 3, 2017
June
06
Jun
3
03
2017
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

The entire use of probality in the fine tuning argument is an improper use of probability. To calculate probability estimates for a physical constant you must know all of the values for that constant that are possible. How many possible values are there for Pi? For Planck's constant? For the speed of light? For the gravitational constant? As far as anyone knows, there is only one possibility for any of these. Until we have evidence that any other values are possible, the best probability estimate for them Is one.kmidpuddle_{June 3, 2017
June
06
Jun
3
03
2017
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Yes, @ your #24, John S, it has long been known that the religious instinct is deeply, nay, indelibly, imprinted on the atheist's soul. Truth to tell though, I am inclined to believe that there are genuine atheists of the first water, though relatively few in number. I believe someone holding a similar belief said that the film celebrity, Oliver Reid was one such natural-born atheist.Axel_{June 3, 2017
June
06
Jun
3
03
2017
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

Florabama @ 41: Of course Seversky "believes by faith." It's what a/mats do. They have more faith than most theists. The a/mat philosophical worldview is a faith-based secular religion.Truth Will Set You Free_{June 3, 2017
June
06
Jun
3
03
2017
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

Seversky @35 misrepresents the design inference in two instances as the claim that design is the ONLY explanation for fine-tuning. That’s not the claim Sev. The claim is that intelligent design is the BEST explanation we have at this point.
Sev: … because it is so hugely improbable that such a universe could have come about through some natural process or by accident, it can only be the product of some intelligent agency.

Sev: … however, to conclude that the universe must therefore have been designed you must assume that current human knowledge exhausts all possible naturalistic explanations.
This is, in fact, correct. Anyone who claims that the universe MUST have been designed — or can ONLY be designed — must, indeed, exclude all possible naturalistic explanations. However, as pointed out, this is not the claim. The universe doesn’t have to be designed, but design it is the better explanation at this point.Origenes_{June 3, 2017
June
06
Jun
3
03
2017
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

Seversky @ 35, in other words, you believe by faith. "However, to conclude that the universe must therefore have been designed you must assume that current human knowledge exhausts all possible naturalistic explanations. In other words, if we cannot think of a naturalistic explanation now the only possibility is intelligent design. That goes too far. Yes, since we don’t know how it all started, intelligent design cannot be ruled out yet. But, since we don’t know what we don’t know, we also cannot rule out hitherto unknown naturalistic causation."Florabama_{June 3, 2017
June
06
Jun
3
03
2017
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

Seversky, Pardon, but, the first problem is, you are not addressing the issue of evident, highly precise values for a large cluster of values, parameters, quantities and circumstances in the physics of our cosmos. And if instead you wish to imply the cluster is forced, that, too implies a higher level at least as fine tuned forcing law. Fine tuning is not simply dismissible. In that context, asserting appeal to ignorance is inappropriately dismissive. Indeed, frankly, it sounds far too much like conclusion in hand, let's find a plausible talking point, oh, good we can always assert appeal to ignorance, so there Sir Fred Hoyle et al. Second, you are simply not reckoning seriously with the implications of the phase space perspective, as Walker and Davies recently underscored. They spoke to OoL but origin of a cosmos conducive to that is directly relevant:
In physics, particularly in statistical mechanics, we base many of our calculations on the assumption of metric transitivity, which asserts that a system’s trajectory will eventually [--> given "enough time and search resources"] explore the entirety of its state space – thus everything that is phys-ically possible will eventually happen. It should then be trivially true that one could choose an arbitrary “final state” (e.g., a living organism) and “explain” it by evolving the system backwards in time choosing an appropriate state at some ’start’ time t_0 (fine-tuning the initial state). In the case of a chaotic system the initial state must be specified to arbitrarily high precision. But this account amounts to no more than saying that the world is as it is because it was as it was, and our current narrative therefore scarcely constitutes an explanation in the true scientific sense. We are left in a bit of a conundrum with respect to the problem of specifying the initial conditions necessary to explain our world. A key point is that if we require specialness in our initial state (such that we observe the current state of the world and not any other state) metric transitivity cannot hold true, as it blurs any dependency on initial conditions – that is, it makes little sense for us to single out any particular state as special by calling it the ’initial’ state. If we instead relax the assumption of metric transitivity (which seems more realistic for many real world physical systems – including life), then our phase space will consist of isolated pocket regions and it is not necessarily possible to get to any other physically possible state (see e.g. Fig. 1 for a cellular automata example).
[--> or, there may not be "enough" time and/or resources for the relevant exploration, i.e. we see the 500 - 1,000 bit complexity threshold at work vs 10^57 - 10^80 atoms with fast rxn rates at about 10^-13 to 10^-15 s leading to inability to explore more than a vanishingly small fraction on the gamut of Sol system or observed cosmos . . . the only actually, credibly observed cosmos]
Thus the initial state must be tuned to be in the region of phase space in which we find ourselves [--> notice, fine tuning], and there are regions of the configuration space our physical universe would be excluded from accessing, even if those states may be equally consistent and permissible under the microscopic laws of physics (starting from a different initial state). Thus according to the standard picture, we require special initial conditions to explain the complexity of the world, but also have a sense that we should not be on a particularly special trajectory to get here (or anywhere else) as it would be a sign of fine–tuning of the initial conditions. [ --> notice, the "loading"] Stated most simply, a potential problem with the way we currently formulate physics is that you can’t necessarily get everywhere from anywhere (see Walker [31] for discussion). ["The “Hard Problem” of Life," June 23, 2016, a discussion by Sara Imari Walker and Paul C.W. Davies at Arxiv.]
Directly connected, you have strawmannised the inference on best explanation by turning it into both a simplistic caricature and a fallacious deductio. nWhile, you must know it is an INDUCTION in the modern sense, an inference to best current explanation on a cluster of challenging evidence. Such an argument does not pretend to be a proof beyond doubt for all comers. It also happens to be precisely the type of argument that is used to construct and test scientific theories, which are never held true beyond room for doubt -- at least for those informed enough to be aware of the history of theory refinement and replacement. Where, theories regarding the deep issue of origins, face the further challenge that we must infer from traces and on causes observed to cause the like effects. Or at least, we SHOULD. Further to this, you are dealing with complex, highly specifically functional organisation that supports a cosmos in which the first four elements are H, He, O and C with N close by. Stars, galaxies, the rest of the periodic table, water and organic chem already, with N bringing in proteins. Other circumstances are supportive of galactic habitable zone, long lived stars that can host terrestrial planets in stellar habitable zones. That is already suggestive, given the actual possibilities for cause on the table at base level: blind chance and/or mechanical necessity or intelligently directed configuration, aka design. Where, fine tuning of complex clusters of components is a sign of design, for reasons similar to those discussed by Walker and Davies etc. Next, we also know that what begins requires adequate cause. The observed cosmos, on multiple grounds, points to such on a scale 10 - 20 BYA. And the logic of temporal-causal succession by finite duration stages implies that traversal of an endless past succession is maximally implausible. The logic of being then points to a necessary being world root. So, the generic possibility of an extra cosmic designer is not an arbitrary rabbit pulled out of an imaginary hat. It is a serious issue in the background context of origin of a world. That's not science in itself, but it is key background. And no, that sort of reasoning is not "ignorance." Turning back to the science proper, we routinely infer design on sign, so if there is a sudden, stout resistance in one case or another the obvious issue is whether there are controlling ideological commitments energising selective hyperskepticism. And, in the case of origins, that is obvious. I suggest, instead, allow the signs to speak for themselves, as Sir Fred Hoyle had the courage to allow. KFkairosfocus_{June 3, 2017
June
06
Jun
3
03
2017
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

Thanks, jdk, I'll swing over there if I get some more time in the next few days.Eric Anderson_{June 2, 2017
June
06
Jun
2
02
2017
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

Seversky @35:
The first inference is that, because it is so hugely improbable that such a universe could have come about through some natural process or by accident, it can only be the product of some intelligent agency. In other words, it must have been designed. That, however, is an argument from ignorance.
I happen to think that the argument for design is stronger in biology than in cosmology, but you seem to be misrepresenting the argument in cosmology a bit, so I will respond. No-one, ever, infers design on the basis of improbability alone. (Yes, I'm sure you can do a Google search and find plenty of people who have failed to properly describe how they draw the inference and whose choice of wording gives the wrong impression.) In addition to sheer improbability, part of what moves many people to consider design in the cosmos, to at least consider the possibility, is the appearance of purpose. One is certainly free to argue against that, but the issue is essentially equivalent to what Dawkins acknowledged about biology: things appear to have been designed for a purpose. In our regular life in our ordinary experience, when we see something that works toward a purpose and which is not readily explainable by purely natural causes as we understand them, there is good reason to think it may have been designed -- at least we ought to be open to the possibility. Then we can start to examine the probabilities, to eliminate false positives, to reject the inference when it is not warranted and to strengthen it when it is warranted. It is the materialist who, as Dawkins has attempted to do, has the burden of proof to demonstrate that his claim of illusion is true. That things aren't really designed, they just appear designed, and that the materialist can point to a naturalistic cause that can act as a designer substitute.
However, to conclude that the universe must therefore have been designed you must assume that current human knowledge exhausts all possible naturalistic explanations. In other words, if we cannot think of a naturalistic explanation now the only possibility is intelligent design. That goes too far. Yes, since we don’t know how it all started, intelligent design cannot be ruled out yet. But, since we don’t know what we don’t know, we also cannot rule out hitherto unknown naturalistic causation.
This is a serious misrepresentation of the question on the table. You seem to be claiming that we can't know until either (a) we become omniscient, or (b) we find a definitive naturalistic explanation. Is our knowledge tentative? Sure. Do we do science with the understanding that we may learn something more down the road? Absolutely. Must we sit on our hands and avoid drawing a tentative inference based on the state of the evidence we do have in front of us? The materialistic answer -- a fully self-serving answer we should note -- to this question is, yes, we must scrupulously avoid drawing any inference until, in your words we "exhaust all possible naturalistic explanations". And, dear reader, let us be very clear about this point. The materialist isn't satisfied if we have exhausted all currently known naturalistic explanations. The materialist isn't satisfied if we have exhausted all tentative naturalistic explanations. The materialist isn't even satisfied if there is strong evidence that rational naturalistic explanations are unlikely to be forthcoming. No. We must wait until all naturalistic explanations have been fully exhausted, even inane, irrational, wildly-speculative naturalistic explanations. Because, you see, dear reader, the materialist thinks he knows a priori without even looking at the evidence that there must be a naturalistic explanation. No other answer is acceptable. We just have to keep looking long enough. Again, many cosmologists, no friends to intelligent design, have noted the incredible fine tuning of the universe and the appearance of purpose. The burden of proof is squarely on the materialist who claims this is all an illusion to offer a reasonable alternative. And that burden cannot be met by a handwaving assertion that until all naturalistic explanations -- present ones, tentative ones, crazy ones, ones that haven't even been thought up yet -- have been exhausted. Such an approach is not science. It is materialistic philosophy masquerading as science.
The reality is that if we leave the surface of this planet, we must take extreme measures to protect ourselves against an environment that is relentlessly hostile to life such as ourselves. . . .
Really? I hope you don't think this is a serious argument against fine tuning. Do you really think the universe should have been set up so that humans should be able to exist in comfort in every part of the universe? What strange set of laws and constants would you propose that would make this possible? If anything, your point underscores the incredible fine-tuned delicacy that the Earth's cocoon provides to us, something that most rational people would conclude might look a lot like a purposeful arrangement. At least they would be open to the possibility.Eric Anderson_{June 2, 2017
June
06
Jun
2
02
2017
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT}

Barry @31, thank you for using an Uncommondescent link to prove an Uncommondescent POV. May I now use the Koran to prove an Islamic POV? Your existance is indeed unlikely. The number of permutations, accidents, lucky or chance meetings, chemical improbabilities, and just quantum silliness, that went into making YOU can not be denied. That being the case we can safely say, dumb luck and chance rule, intentional design does not.rvb8_{June 2, 2017
June
06
Jun
2
02
2017
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

Eric asks about the discussion going on in the Darwinism thread:
So I’m curious about the context of the other discussion and why the discussion would even be taking place, if not to support one of those two fallacies.
One answer is that it is important to understand probability from a purely mathematical point of view if one is to hope to be able to think accurately about probabilistic events in the real world. Also, ideas about specification, which can be considered from a purely mathematical point of view, and significance, which involves human judgments about patterns, are relevant to discussions about the real world, so exploring them in discussion about cards, and coins, and dice is useful. You might understand more about what's been going on by looking at two of my long posts in the Darwinism thread, 105 and 192.jdk_{June 2, 2017
June
06
Jun
2
02
2017
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

The problem with the fine-tuning argument is that it derives two ill-founded inferences from one observation. The observation is that, if the values of certain fundamental physical constants varied even slightly, our Universe could not exist at all. It would never have formed in the first place. That much seems unobjectionable. The first inference is that, because it is so hugely improbable that such a universe could have come about through some natural process or by accident, it can only be the product of some intelligent agency. In other words, it must have been designed. That, however, is an argument from ignorance. Eric Anderson refers to a materialist creation story but, speaking as an atheist materialist, I know of no such thing. I have no idea how this universe came into existence. All we have is the observation that it does exist and that evidence from astronomy and physics points to a beginning around 13.7 bn years ago. What caused the primordial singularity, whatever that was, to go "bang!" when it did is unknown. However, to conclude that the universe must therefore have been designed you must assume that current human knowledge exhausts all possible naturalistic explanations. In other words, if we cannot think of a naturalistic explanation now the only possibility is intelligent design. That goes too far. Yes, since we don't know how it all started, intelligent design cannot be ruled out yet. But, since we don't know what we don't know, we also cannot rule out hitherto unknown naturalistic causation. The further step in the fine-tuning argument is the claim that, not only was this universe was designed but it was designed specifically to support the life that exists here on Earth. The problem with this argument is that observation is against it. The reality is that if we leave the surface of this planet, we must take extreme measures to protect ourselves against an environment that is relentlessly hostile to life such as ourselves. If we don't we can be variously starved of oxygen, flash-frozen by numbingly low temperatures, seared by blisteringly intense radiation, vaporized in an instant by supernovas or sucked into oblivion by black holes. Anyone who thinks this universe was designed just for us needs to metaphorically stop gazing at their navels and look outside. Beyond the relatively benign environmental cocoon of the Earth's surface the vast majority of this universe is utterly inimical to life as we know it. If it was all designed with us in mind, whoever did it had a very strange way of going about it. One more question concerning the claim that the universe was created or designed by an intelligent agent is where did the knowledge that must have preceded the design come from? When human aeronautical engineers design a new aircraft they draw on a vast body of pre-existing knowledge. But try to imagine some sort of intelligent designer existing in a "reality" before our Universe existed at all. How did it know what to do?Seversky_{June 2, 2017
June
06
Jun
2
02
2017
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

Phineas @ 27: I will cut back, then. Need to save original material for the book, and all.LocalMinimum_{June 2, 2017
June
06
Jun
2
02
2017
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

BO’H and KMP: I would advise you to remember the level of many commenters at UD.
Yeah! Take me for instance. :)Mung_{June 2, 2017
June
06
Jun
2
02
2017
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

DaRook:
. . . which means if it is not specified, something will happen 100% of the time.
Exactly. And all the examples that supposedly refute design fail to provide a specification. Or, as in an example I just noticed by Jeffrey Shallit over at Kirk Durston's blog about the sequence of letters "ih", fail to be complex. The complexity + specification requirement is very robust, is used all the time in the real world, and there are no known false positives that I have ever seen to date.Eric Anderson_{June 2, 2017
June
06
Jun
2
02
2017
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

We have debunked the "improbable things" straw man many times. There is even a name for it. Look up "Miller's Mendacity" in our glossary. https://uncommondescent.com/glossary/Barry Arrington_{June 2, 2017
June
06
Jun
2
02
2017
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

Improbable things happen all the time, but it seems to me that something has to happen, which means if it is not specified, something will happen 100% of the time. Specifying that that 4 aces will be on the top of the deck is a different story. When that happens, everyone would know it's a trick.DaRook_{June 2, 2017
June
06
Jun
2
02
2017
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

jdk fair enough and thanks for the clarification. Apologies for lumping you in with Bob O'H. BTW, do the participants at the "Darwinism" thread you mentioned recognize the difference between improbable things happening all the time and the way the design inference works? It isn't particularly interesting and there isn't a lot to say about improbable things happening in and of itself, outside of the context of a particular claim (1) against design or (2) in support of the great power of randomness to do wonderful things, both of which fail. So I'm curious about the context of the other discussion and why the discussion would even be taking place, if not to support one of those two fallacies.Eric Anderson_{June 2, 2017
June
06
Jun
2
02
2017
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Localminimum writes,
Declaring “unlikely events happen all the time” is cute, but logically speaking it’s an equivocal superposition built by rhetorically welding points of reference before and after an event.
It's not cute: it's true. (Have you followed the discussion on this in the "Darwinism" thread.) But I do think there are some interesting points (although not equivocal or rhetorical) about probabilities considered before and after an event. If I take the time to write something about that, I'll post it on the Darwinism thread.jdk_{June 2, 2017
June
06
Jun
2
02
2017
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

LM @26: You should right a book. I would read a book's worth of your incisive, witty posts in a heartbeat. And might even pay for the privilege.Phinehas_{June 2, 2017
June
06
Jun
2
02
2017
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

Declaring "unlikely events happen all the time" is cute, but logically speaking it's an equivocal superposition built by rhetorically welding points of reference before and after an event. Of course, when challenged, that superposition collapses to the state which best meets the challenge...and then spontaneously reforms if you should ever look away; or blink, even. Spooky.LocalMinimum_{June 2, 2017
June
06
Jun
2
02
2017
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

@Truth Will Set You Free: "Fascinating. How do a/mats typically respond to that argument?" I don't know. I presented this argument today (first time publicly) at Yahoo Answers in order to get a response from a/mats but so far nobody has responded. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20170602093515AAAY1rlforexhr_{June 2, 2017
June
06
Jun
2
02
2017
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

but how often do impossible things happen? The multiverse argument is, in my opinion, an admission of the folly of 'unlikely things happen all the time'. If they do then there would be no reason to postulate the rescue device of a multiverse. The idea didn't come from following evidence it came from realization that fine tuning is so unlikely we have to increase the probability. It was birthed out a worldview, out of a philosophy not through discovery of facts. It's like every piece of evidence points to the killer, so the DA says maybe they guy had an exact double created by space aliens and he's the one who committed the murder. Sure unlikely, but you can't disprove it so it could happen, and since it's unlikely it must be true. 'Necessity is the mother of invention' - PlatoJohn S_{June 2, 2017
June
06
Jun
2
02
2017
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

EA @ 21: "the entire materialistic creation story is an appeal to one long string of miracles after another — improbabilities stacked on top of one another. And all without any evidence that even a single one of the numerous required events actually could occur in practice." Nothing but the truth.Truth Will Set You Free_{June 2, 2017
June
06
Jun
2
02
2017
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

Eric writes,
Ah, yes, the failed “unlikely things happen all the time” argument against design.
FTR, I am not making any arguments for or against design. I am just saying that, yes, unlikely things happen all the time. I not want to be misrepresented as to the purpose of my post.jdk_{June 2, 2017
June
06
Jun
2
02
2017
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply