The Case for Theism

[Jackalope]

---

Let's illustrate Mister Agenda's point in a slightly different way.

There are approximately 2 * 10 ^ 19 molecules in a grain of sand. Feel free to calculate the odds of each individual molecule being arranged exactly as it is - it's infinitesimally small. Yet, every one of the billions and billions of grains of sand on earth is arranged exactly as it is, despite those infinitesimal odds against such a specific arrangement. I'll add that despite those odds, the arrangement is wholly unremarkable, because nobody predicted it would occur.

Probability is useful for making predictions, not for analyzing events which have already occurred.

---

Incidentally, if you're going to copy-paste your argument from the internet (a practice that is frowned upon), the least you can do is attribute your source.

http://www.religiouslyincorrect.com/Arti...ion5.shtml

---

Furthermore, let's go see what Borel himself had to say about (ab)using probabilities in this manner:


I'll summarize what Borel said: probability estimates that don't account for non-random properties of matter (i.e. physics and chemistry) are meaningless.

---

So now your claiming evolution as fact... since it "already accured" right? Show me some empirical evidence please

I never even mentioned evolution. You want empirical evidence, google is your friend. There's tons of it - if you can't find it, that's my problem. Whether you accept it or not, well, that's your business, and I could not care less.

I'm not even the least bit interested in discussing evolution at this time - my interest in this thread at this time is in pointing out that your argument is horribly flawed - and it's your argument that this thread is about. As you recall, the thread is "The Case for Theism" - and to make that case, you, well, need to make your case - and undermining a competing hypothesis does nothing for your case. This thread is not about evolution. You still have to make your own case.

Oh, and when I say "your argument" what I really mean is "the argument you plagiarized (spelling errors and all) from someone else" (referring to the Borel's law stuff, don't know if you did the same elsewhere or not).

Borels law of probability can be used to test the accuracy of theories. and since evolution is still a theory we can use it to test how accurate it really is

No, it cant. It can be used to analyze RANDOM events.

Did you even read the excerpt from Borel's book that I posted? He states quite clearly that it cannot be used in this way - because interactions of matter are not random, but rather are in largely driven by deterministic processes (e.g. physics and chemistry). Do you understand the difference? Possible results affected by deterministic processes are not equally weighted, and those processes have not been accounted for.

I'll note also that theism does not depend on evolution being false. Perhaps some specific incarnations of theism do, but in the general sense it does not - because evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life at all, rather it speaks to change in existing lifeforms. It's a red herring, a non sequitur. It's nothing but a distraction from the fact that your argument fails to stand on it's own feet.