And a little more -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Friday, May 03, 09:41:51pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: And a little more

Author:
Damoclese

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07/18/04 7:08pm
In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Okay." on 07/15/04 10:11pm

A tomato and a pool of water are 95%
>identical chemical composition (both water).
>Coincidence?

No, actually, and neither is it a coincidence that humans are 3/4's water and a tomato is 95% water. All living things on Earth need water. One might say living things depend on water, just as they depend on their DNA.

>
>If the tomato is not related to a pool of water, then
>someone or something has gone to great lengths to make
>me think that they are. Could it be me
>misinterpreting the data? That's ridiculous.

But of course, the tomato is "related" to the pool of water, just not in the way you might expect given this absurd example.

The fact that water and tomato are somehow related is indisputable. The theory as to how they are related and why they are related, well, that's a different story.

>
>But long story short, the track record leaves me
>unconvinced. Do apes and people have a common
>ancestor? Not sure, but I doubt it.

Then you deny that which is beyond question.

>
>
>>>You see, I can play the same game too. Who
>>>said the creator was invisible anyway?

You played the same game, and you made the same mistakes that you do when you address evolution.

Still,
>the fact remains that whatever caused the universe to
>exist imprinted a sophisticated mathematical order to
>it that only the most educated mathematicians can
>fully comprehend.

Statistical measures do not spell out any definite order. Just because in any given crowd we can get a percentage of the number of people wearing red shirts doesn't mean someone orchaestrated what the crowd wore. Even if we get a number saying what proportions of colors we can expect a crowd to wear on any given day doesn't imply some kind of crowd color wearing order. The fact of the matter is, so long as we are willing to look broadly enough, (as relates to statistics) we can always perceive order.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies: