ID/creationism: Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy [repost2]

[Nerusai]

I resent the use of using monkeys and typewriters! This was recently scientifically and experimentally dealt with!!! Turns out if you give monkeys typewriters, they won't at all produce much variation, if memory serves they produced only a few pages of work. And those pages were mostly covered by the letter s.

[wickedlady4180]

none of this actually disproves creationism either.....

[evilotakuneko]

@wickedlady4180 Sure it does. Disproving creationist arguments also disproves creationism itself. Oh, and then there's also all the evidence against it, too...

[wickedlady4180]

@evilotakuneko I understand that there is tangible evidence to prove that evolution did indeed happen. But there is absolutely no evidence that intelligent design didn't have a hand in that process. Anything further you wanna add?????

[evilotakuneko]

@wickedlady4180 There is no evidence that I do not have an invisible dragon in my garage. See how silly that is?

[Lallapalalable]

very nice video. Reiterates itself a lot, but I guess the ultimate target audience would need that.

[powerstone2]

And one last point to wrap it up. Do you realize that YOU have to arbitrarily assign meaning to your "organisation/systems/organs/f­unctions?" Again, this is the bulls eye you're irrationally painting. Masses of molecules cannot comprehend these terms and have no inherent concept of them. The molecules clashing around in your "organised" brain is no different from those clashing around in a river. It's only organised and functional because YOU arbitrarily said so.

[powerstone2]

But even if you designate that Hearts hand as having "organisation/function/etc.", inherently, it's just like any other Hearts hand. No more/no less likely to occur randomly. If you got dealt a "organized/functional/etc." hand, you lucked out, if you didnt', you also lucked out.

[powerstone2]

This is what I mean by painting bulls eyes. It's all the fancy "organised systems" you were trying to push. Truth is, you can ask yourself the same question: how can randomness build "unorganised non-systems?" Both of them are just masses of molecs. 1,you arbitrarily assigned meaning to,other you didn't(since a pool of pond water has no meaning/function to you). But both are inherently clumps of molecules that have "tiny chances" of forming "randomly." It doesn't mean Zeus made that pond water

[leswades]

(Pt. 1 of 2) powerstone2: "Truth is, you can ask yourself the same question: how can randomness build 'unorganised non-systems?'"

That sir is nonsense. First of all, "unorganized" and system are mutually exclusive. Second, we EXPECT disorganization, that's the overall direction the universe is moving.

We also can expect the sort of organization that normal physical forces produce, especially since we can recreate them in the lab without the slightest problem . . .

[leswades]

(Pt. 2) . . . What we cannot reproduce is perpetual, system-building self-organization; life is the ONLY example, and that demands we prove randomness and natural selection can create like that, yet we haven't.

According to science, since E-theorists have asserted the claim, it is on them to demonstrate it. How do we know another force isn't affecting mutation, some sort of universal organizing influence?

Why is randomness assumed willy nilly? Science demands OBSERVATION, not assumptions.

[powerstone2]

1)Again,whether you can arbitrarily claim something is "perp,system-build,self-org" or not is irrelevant. It may be the case,but it's still arbitrarily assigned, and not inherent. We are a mass of molecules that clash around inherently NO DIFFERENTLY from those of a cloud/star.

The question is,why don't YOU go prove it,and prove how stars form while you're at it,since it's not the point of my video at all? So, even if they don't have your so-called proof yet,what are you going to do about it

[powerstone2]

2)Are you going to say that since no one's "proven" it yet,the cause doesn't exist/deity. (argument from ignorance)

"How do we know another force isn't affecting mutation, some sort of universal organizing influence?"

-argument from ignorance. Disprove that an invisible leprechaun is the "universal organising influence" that's boiling my hot water right now. The leprechaun is called physics,kiddo. Physics ain't random. We're saying that physics made life. Better than saying that fairies did.

[leswades]

"argument from ignorance. Disprove that an invisible leprechaun is the "universal organising influence"

What are you talking about? I've not said anything is true because randomness is unproven! Star formation theory is based on solid physical evidence; randomness, however, is infamous for is DISorganizing effect. So if you are going to rely on randomness to create billions of years of hugely effective organization, then you have to show randomness can contribute in other than its normal ways.

[powerstone2]

I said unorganized non-systems...as a counterpart to what you said... >_>

Please,your use of "organized/system" is irrelevant as I've shown. Painting bullseyes buy calling one collection of molecules organized, and not another (which may very well be true),has no influence on how likely they can form randomly. I repeat the point of the video: it's TSF to claim that something is non-random because you paint a bullseye around it and say it's organized and it's low probability.

[leswades]

powerstone2: "The molecules clashing around in your "organised" brain is no different from those clashing around in a river."

Left out organization quality again. The molecules are the same, the way they are organized is not. Do you understand that my objection to randomness is because of the rules of science?

Science requires the observation of a hypotheses, yet randomness is merely ASSUMED to be what causes mutation. How can you possibly know what is behind mutation without observing it?

[powerstone2]

Even if you had the best quality/organized hand of cards,it's still irrational to claim a false deal.

Science sees cloud. Science never seen how cloud forms. How cloud form? Use EXISTING entities to explain: physics/chem/electrostatics/an­d yes, even "randomness." We KNOW that cloud formed by a cause we know to EXIST. YES,we can ASSUME that some COMBINATION of them formed that cloud. Claiming that a magic fairy helped make it is illogical.

Now,replace cloud with whatever entity you want.

[leswades]

"YES,we can ASSUME ... a magic fairy helped make it is illogical."

You are confirming you don't understand how science is conducted. One cannot assume any hypothesis no matter how much "sense" it makes. Our debate is stalled as long as you insist we don't need to OBSERVE the randomness luck needed for evolution.

Also, why keep talking about fairies and creationism? I am not religious in any way; I simply have no basis for faith in randomness, and like a good scientist I'm looking for that.

[powerstone2]

You messed around with my quote! :O

My video WAS about creationism,not "supporting randomness of evo",but you were the one that brought up a new topic. I'm only guilty of trying to stay on topic.

I'm not saying "randomness" made XYZ. See what I wrote: We KNOW that something that EXISTS made XYZ. Agreed? This doesn't need to be assumed at all. Thus,some combination of existing entities MUST have made XYZ. (be it phys/chem/electrostatics/rando­mness).

[powerstone2]

I think I've pinpointed the problem here.

My vid critisizes ID's "low chance thus non-random" because-TSF. That's it! Doesn't mean that I'm thus arguing "since TSF,thus MUST be random" (which you seem to be accusing me of doing).

However,since you brought it up,I'm not saying "random makes XYZ",I'm saying that EXISTING entities made XYZ (no need to be assumed) which is more logical that saying fairies/gods made XYZ (things,who's existence we're unsure of.)

[leswades]

"My video WAS about creationism,not 'supporting randomness of evo'"

True. However, my ORIGINAL critique of your logic was that your bullseye didn't fairly represent the creationist objection, which isn't a single or few improbabilities, but zillions of improbabilities, AND, which built incredibly organized systems.

Because randomness has an indispensable role in that system-building, and since randomness is unproven as an organizing force, I say you didn't properly refute their logic.

[powerstone2]

Again,I'm still not liking the "organized systems." This is an arbitrary attribution,not an inherent property,which I've shown to be irrelevant when calculating odds. An unorg/non-sys has an equally low chance through "zil of improb" to occur than a org/sys. Painting bullseyes doesn't work

[powerstone2]

The zil of improb is not a relevant attempt to break down prob. A molec of water starts at point A a mil yrs ago. Every second it has the possibility to go in an infinite # of directions. Yet it only goes in one dir that:1 in infinity: improb. After a mil yrs,after choosing a zil times an 'improb'direction it ends up at point B. It's still illogical to say: This water molecules went through a zil improb,each time going in 1 dir among infinte # of dir to arrive at point B,thus it wasn't "random

[powerstone2]

I just feel that people think that I'm comparing the examples I give to the actual arguments. It's not necessarily the case. I give examples to illustrate the fallacy. When all's said and done,the point of the vid is to show what the TSF simply states:low chance doesn't means non-random/design,regardless if you can arbitrarily assign meaning to your hand of cards. And thus,if you try to claim:low chance=non-random,then it's a TSF.

Sorry for the abbreviations. Lack of space.

[leswades]

(Part 1 of 3) "Sorry for the abbreviations"

Yes, it's impossible to intelligently debate here, but I appreciate your respectful responses (unlike a lot of YouTube participants).

My last comments are that no argument except a tautology can prove or disprove any proposition IF we accept that science is the epistemological standard the modern world decides "proof" by. That's why we seek situations to observe in science, and do not decide by arguments. But that is a different issue from if . . .

[leswades]

(Part 2) . . . improbability should cause us to doubt randomness (in E-theory) because randomness is expected to behave in a way that we have insufficient observational evidence supporting. In fact, the vast majority of evidence we have with randomness is that it furthers DISorganization. So one must be suspicious of a theory that merely assumes randomness can positively contribute to uber-organzing.

Creationists, as little sense as their supernaturalism theory might make, are reasonable . . .

[leswades]

(Part 3) . . . in challenging improbability if they don't go on to say that is PROOF of a designer. IOW, it is one thing to challenge a claim, and another to state anything whatsoever is proven sans observation. Likewise, logically thrashing creationist/ID statements doesn't prove or strengthen E-theory's use of randomness. For science, observation is the ONLY avenue to proof. So, e.g., there's proof life evolved, but no proof randomness is responsible for gene changes that created organs.

[powerstone2]

Sorry. Hiatus,due to...life :)

1)"thrashing creationist/ID statements doesn't prove or strengthen E-theory's use of randomness."

Never said it did. Several of my other vids directly address this. And again,'E-theory use of random' is something I've never mentioned,and isn't a focus of my vids. My videos have only been critical of ID/creationist logic patterns, and why they're irrefutably illogical and unscientific.

[powerstone2]

2)

Now,the flaw that you seem to see was summarized previously: bullseye didn't fairly represent the creationist objection, which isn't a single or few improbabilities, but zillions of improbabilities, AND, which built incredibly organized systems.

Again,being organized has no bearing on probability since it's an arbitrary characteristic you and I need to assign to a system,just as we have to arbitrarily designate one hand of cards as 'good' and another as 'bad',despite equal odds of both

[powerstone2]

3) Fact is,most people WOULD accuse you of cheating if you got a 12345678910JQK hand of cards. But as I've shown,it's not logical to conclude a rigged deal. That's why this ID argument is so specious to people who don't understand logic. Furthermore you seem to think that committing a fallacy a zil times somehow cancels out the fallacy. The winner of the raffle had a 1 in 2 mil chance of winning. If you held a zil raffles, each raffle winner would also have had a 1 in 2 mil chance. That's a

[powerstone2]

4 'zil improbabilities' (as you put it). And yet,you can see that it's STILL illogical to accuse ANY of the zil raffles of being rigged. 2 wrongs don't make a right, and neither do a zil wrongs. This is the beauty of logic fallacies,wouldn't you agree? They don't suddenly "stop working" after committing it a certain arbitrary huge number of times. You commit circular reasoning once or a zil times, and it's still circ reasoning. You commit TSF a zil time,it's still illogical.

[powerstone2]

5 main thing is-I AM only challenging ID/creationism. You thought that my challenge in this video was invalid b/c of "org/zil improbab". I think I've shown that the fallacy stands regardless: low prob can't logically point to non-random(TSF)

My vids have little to do with evo and its relations with sci/random,so I'm always puzzled when you steer that way. Frankly,I don't feel competent enough to discuss it. BUT logic is the base of sci,so I focus on it. Without it,you simply don't do sci

[ozredneck22]

@leswades

(creationists).. . ". in challenging improbability if they don't go on to say that is PROOF of a designer"

Exactly, creationists don't say it's "proof" of a designer, they say it is a fact that supports their "faith" in a designer conversely a huge amount of faith on the non IDist's part is requiredto believe it could happen by "chance".

Which then places this video in the category of STRAWMAN.

[powerstone2]

Same with your brain. No matter now much you'd like to deny it, it's a mass of molecules no different from molecules you find in a cloud, mountain, planet, etc. The chances of all those molecules in a C/M/P coming together "randomly" to perform all those functions is small.

[powerstone2]

However, it's a TSF to claim that they didn't come together "randomly" Just because you can put a "purpose" to the mass of molecs that make up a mountain, raincloud, brain, doesn't mean it's any less likely to occur than a "meaningless" arrangement of molecules. And it certainly doesn't mean you can claim it's non-random.

Once again: TSF: small chance doesn't mean non-random.

[leswades]

(Pt. 3 of 3) . . . the steps build, and 3) the TYPES of systems built (like brains). So your debunking overall is a fallacy of reverse composition where you break a whole system down into parts, and then say "see, there's nothing exclusively improbable in one part, so there's nothing improbable about the whole." While I agree that improbability doesn't PROVE God (only observation proves IMHO), neither have you successfully argued that the claim of improbability is fallacious.

[Qba86]

TSF is only one of the fallancies made by ID proponents, when they try to prove that evolution is improbable. The other, more serious one is assuming that evolution is a fully random process. Well, it is not. The mutations are random, but the natural selection is not. Therefore the fact that one particular beneficial mutation occured is random, but the fact that most of the beneficial mutations were favoured by the evironment is not. This PLUS the TSF completely invalidates the ID arguments

[leswades]

Qba86: "The mutations are random, but the natural selection is not."

Selection does not eliminate the crucial role of randomness in evolution. The right parts for selection must still be provided through no other influence than zillions of happy accidents, yet no one has bothered to show that luck can be as propitious as it must be to feed the organ-building process. Luck is merely ASSUMED to be so capable.

However, that has nothing to do with my criticism of the logic of this video.

[Qba86]

You are correct, however, the probability calculated with such assumptions is completely different. Even in case of simple structures, the number of combinations (that need to be tried on average, to obtain a particular structure) differs by a coulple orders of magnitude. For the best example of such differences google "Levinthal paradox". It has nothing to do with evolution but the fallancy is identical. Also, it's not merely assumed. Evolutionary algorythms have proven this to be correct.

[leswades]

(Pt. 2). . . awarded favored-epistemology status to science. Unlike rationalism, where being logical is sufficient (and actually a rationalist's objective), a science proof requires the OBSERVATION of what's hypothesized.

Returning to my objections -- first, while improbability is not a proof of design, to imply that a logical refutation of an improbability argument means randomness is capable of generating organ-building parts is a fallacy from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) . . .

[powerstone2]

And yet randomness can be assumed to build clouds and volcanoes?

Take a closer look. I said "she could've cheated the raffle, however, it's illogical to claim so simply because her odds are small."

I NEVER claimed "TSF, therefore, MUST be random"

Thus, you're argument from ignorance accusation is out the window.

[leswades]

(Pt. 3) . . . Second, and most importantly, is that the randomness claim has never been empirically demonstrated. Evolutionary algorithms are not a scientific proof since math (like computer simulations) in the absence of observation is simply abstract rationalism. Therefore it violates the empirical standard to merely "assume" a cornerstone of E-theory, randomness, can provide zillions of organ-building parts for selection. The type of proof we really need is to see that chemistry can . . .

[powerstone2]

Back up, I just realized. I'm not claiming that randomness builds stuff. I'm saying that you claiming low chances thus design is irrational. Simple as that. Completely different things. If you want to proof that randomness builds stuff, go seek it yourself. If you want to claim that the proof doesn't exist simply because you don't know it yet, and that you want to then seek a deity for the answer, THAT's an argument from ignorance.

[powerstone2]

However, would you like to go and prove that randomness can generate huge stars? Again, in your words, randomness is the cornerstone of Nebular theory, after all, it just says that gas clouds swirls around and builds stars. Wo why don't you go prove that in a few 100 mil years, you can make a star "randomly?"

...See your problem now?

[leswades]

Powerstone2: "I'm not claiming that randomness builds stuff. I'm saying that you claiming low chances thus design is irrational."

But it isn't me that claims low chances equals design. I am saying that observation is the only "proof" allowed in science. Anyone trying to prove or disprove a proposition by logic alone is being anti-scientific.

[powerstone2]

1)hi leswades. "low chance equals design" is what this vid claims to be irrational, which I think you agree to, so I was wondering why you brought up an irrelevant topic.

Ah, but consider this observation: Stars exist. It takes millions of years to make one. Is it impossible to observe? No. It just takes a while. Is is impossible to view magic fairies making stars? Yes (regardless how long you wait) But we can see stars at different stages of their evolution.

[powerstone2]

2) Thus,we can logically deduce how stars evolve, using things we know to exist (physics, etc, what you call "random", but it really isn't,like my gravity example in the vid) and not things whose existance we're unsure of (intelligent fairies). But according to you, since no one's "proven" how a star forms by taking a few mil years to observe it, and we're "assuming it"...astronomy isn't scientific?

[powerstone2]

3)Same with evo and even abiogen. We know life/clouds/mountains/etc. exist. Somehow,they formed from molecs. No one's observed a mountain forming since that takes way too long, but use what we know to EXIST to explain how they formed. (physics, etc. what you mistakenly call random). Saying something "randomly" built itself is always more likely than saying a pixie fairy built it. The latter is impossible, simply put.

[leswades]

(Pt. 4). . . self-organize into system on top of system on top of system — PERPETUALLY -- and that the systems integrate in service to an overall organizational scheme. THAT is the sort of randomness-feeding-selection demonstration that parallels evolution, (and why abiogenesis is so relevant to evolution theory). Since we cannot find that quality of self-organization anywhere in the physical world, to assume it's a fundamental physical basis for evolution is anti-empirical.

[powerstone2]

Once again, "self-organisation" paints another bulls-eye.

Wait, I detect argument from ignorance again. I'm surprised you'd commit it since you actually seem to know it. "Since we cannot find it, therefore it doesn't exist and it's anti-empirical?" If you didn't know a chemical reaction that gave off gas X,it doesn't mean you can claim it doesn't exist and is thus anti-empirical. There was no way to test Einsteins theories a while ago, but that certainly didn't mean they weren't empirical.

[powerstone2]

. You don't have an adequate understanding of what "empirical" and "science" are.

Again, I'm not saying randomness does XXX. I'm saying it's illogical to say "low chance thus non-random." The direction your taking is not relevant (and fallacious in other ways) to my argument.

[leswades]

powerstone2: "Wait, I detect argument from ignorance again... 'Since we cannot find it, therefore it doesn't exist and it's anti-empirical?'"

Hey, strawman! I said no such thing!!! You too I'm afraid do not understand the rule of science. It is the E-theorist who asserts the randomness hypothesis, not me. A hypothesis in science is required to be demonstrated. My only point along these lines has been that the random hypothesis remains unobserved (merely assumed), and that is anti-empirical.

[powerstone2]

Strawman, huh? Physics=random. Again, I don't know why my ball/gravity example didn't seem to catch you. You show that a ball falling down is "random" then tell me which evo source tells you it's random,or is it simply creationist lies that's ever so rampant. Strawman? huh...

See moutain/star/einstein etc. examples above. You're claiming that geology/astronomy/relativity aren't empirical.

[powerstone2]

See, you're still making the same fallacy. What about the gazillion "happy accidents" that those molecules up in the sky need to make in order to turn out a huge thunderstorm? The happy accidents that turned a gazillion molecules into the volcano in its exact shape/funtion instead of the gazillion different shapes/functions it could have potentially assumed?

[powerstone2]

Your organs, again are nothing more than a collection of molecules. If those molecules got swept in a random tornado, you can end up with a gabillion different rearrangements. One of those arrangements is your functional organ. The chances of it forming are 1 in a gabil. However there are a gabillion minus 1 other different things that could have formed. Of course, those aren't functional organs and we probably couldn't assign any function/meaning to them.

[powerstone2]

However, that doesn't mean that they were any less likely to occur randomly. Once again. If lady luck happened to make you an organ out of those molecs, then you lucked out. It she happened to make you a piece of junk, well,you also lucked out. It's not rational to accuse the raffle of being rigged simply because the winner couldn't have won simply because of a "freak happy accident"

Understand?

[leswades]

powerstone2: "Your organs, again are nothing more than a collection of molecules."

LOL! There you go again. Why do you leave out the QUALITY of organization found in organs? That is what you do when you say they are "nothing more than a collection." Yes they are a collection, but they are also found in the most advanced state of organization in the known universe.

[powerstone2]

I don't know how you possibly quantify "organization" to say that one thing is organized and another is not

truth is,it's only "organized" because YOU ARBITRARLY designate it so. Objectively, these ARE just collections of molecules, and what you assign it arbitrarily has NO BEARING how how "unlikely" it is to form. See my Hearts example. If you got dealt "organized, winning hand",you lucked out. If you got dealt a crappy,unorganized hand,you also lucked out. See how organization is irrelevant

[leswades]

Powerstone2: "What about the gazillion "happy accidents" that those molecules up in the sky need to make in order to turn out a huge thunderstorm?"

You argue this several times in your responses to me, and it is false analogy. Just like the original blind watchmaker vid pointed out that tossing watch parts around in box leaves out the attraction molecules possess, so too is your example of organization in volcanos or storms unlike the QUALITY of organization found in life.

[powerstone2]

Sorry,watchmaker vid,can't remember

Once again,you need to accept the fact that your arbitrary assignment of "organization" to one set of molecs and not to another set has no bearing on it's odds of occurring randomly. Truth is,these molecules are just bumping around and cannot understand your "organization" which you're trying to claim that they inherently have.

REGARDLESS of organization, if you got dealt an "organized hand or cards" you lucked out and have no basis to claim a false deal.

[powerstone2]

Regardless if you give it a fancy name "system", everything is simply a mass of molecules. Some arrangements will give you a function, others won't. Some arrangements of air molecules will give you rain, others won't. However,claiming that the bunny-shaped cloud that rains is "so unlikely to form randomly,thus Zeus made it" is obviously irrational.

[leswades]

powerstone2: "Regardless if you give it a fancy name "system", everything is simply a mass of molecules."

I didn't invent the meaning of "system." The fact that you gloss over the quality of organization in life (like every evolution believer I've encountered), proves to me that you don't have much faith the randomness hypothesis yourself. If you KNEW randomness could be counted on as you say, then you'd demonstrate it building systems rather than acting like organization is inconsequential.

[powerstone2]

I don't gloss over it. I say it's an arbitrary attribute you need to assign this mass of molecs.

Once again,org. IS inconsequential to the odds of something happening randomly,as I've shown over and over again and you've yet to counter. That being said, I'll repeat myself: TSF doesn't mean MUST be random. Again, arg f. ignore. I'm saying that low chance don't mean non-random.

[powerstone2]

No where did I say "random builds stuff" (irrelevant topic,and the strawman of "random" again). So since you mentioned it,why don't YOU go prove it and build life in a beaker "randomly" without physics? Or are you going to claim that since you know know anyone who has done it yet,deity X did it? (arg. f. ignore) See above example: randomly building mountains:possible. Fairies building mountains:not possible

Please don't make me repeat myself so. it's oh so exhausting *faints* =(

[powerstone2]

Well, it's a simple fact: your brain is made up of molecules, just like the bunny-shaped cloud that spits out rain/lightning. Actually, the cloud has far more molecules and has even a smaller chance of forming "randomly." And yet you'd never say Zeus made it. So why would anyone point out how "improbable" a bunch of molecules came together to form a cell/brain/organ/etc. to say that Zeus made that?

[powerstone2]

This is simply irrelevant to any names you give your brain "system". See, you're trying to assign function/meaning and paint the bulls-eye. Furthermore,I never broke anything down. I agreed that clashing a huge # of molecules together to form a bunny shaped cloud that spits rain and thunder is unlikely, but as I've shown, that still doesn't mean that Zeus made it. It's simply what the TSF states. I never claimed "nothing improbable in one part" now did I?

[powerstone2]

A can of paint splatters on the ground and the paint can splatter a billion different patterns. The result is that it will create one SINGLE pattern. What are the chances of that happening randomly? 1 in a bil. But does that mean it didn't happen randomly and an invisible leprechaun did it?

[leswades]

(Pt. 2 of 3) . . . of the zillions of steps that make it up become less improbable when standing alone. We might accept the improbability that a screw can randomly form, but do we expect a complete and functional car to come about that way? Hell, crime detectives infer non-randomness from just a few steps of interrelated organization. The improbable claim is advanced precisely BECAUSE of: 1) the NUMBER of interconnected steps 2) the QUALITY of system organization. . .(cont. in Pt. 3)

[leswades]

(Part 1 of 4) QBa86: "Levinthal paradox...has nothing to do with evolution but the fallacy is identical."

I can't see how they are identical. Levinthal's argument (like Hoyle's) was yet another futile attempt to "prove" something through rationalization. ANY argument except a tautology can be logically refuted some way or another, even true arguments (e.g. as observed in the spectacle of politics). The centuries of failures by rationalists to determine anything conclusive was why we . . .

[powerstone2]

fallacy simply states: low probability doesn't mean nonrandom. And it's something you can't avoid regardless of how many examples you give.

You're still painting the bulls-eye after the event and calculating backwards. Your car example: In a junkyard,tornado passes through "randomly". There are many potential different rearrangments that can result: Let's say 2mil, sake of argument. One of those is your functional car. So you ask: what are the chances of a fnal car forming? 1 in 2mil

[powerstone2]

But look again,what are the odds of forming any of those other "non-functional" rearrangements? Well, 1 in 2 mil TOO. So if the tornado swept through and built you a car, then you got dealt a good hand. If it built you one of the other 2mil-1 things,well you lucked out also. Just because you paint the bullseye around your car doesn't change its odds with respect to the other 2mil - 1 other possible rearrangements.

[powerstone2]

It's a LOGIC FALLACY to claim that it wasn't random simply because the chances are small. Crime detectives NEVER infer non-randomness from organisation. They can tell a crime scene was caused by a person because they've OBSERVED similar crime scenes caused by other people. NEVER does anyone claim "odds small", thus person caused it. If they do, it's also fallacious. See my circular reasoning video.

[leswades]

(Part 1 of 3)

Your argument itself is a couple of informal fallacies, beginning with a straw man. The theists' claim of "improbable" concerns the billions-years-long series of interrelated, organizing steps that creates life in an overall disorganizing universe with enough variables to ensure it never happens at all (i.e., no guaranteed winner). Further, you can't properly infer that the huge collection of interrelated steps behind life is NOT improbable because each one. . .(cont. in Pt. 2)

[C4PT4INR3NOLDS]

ele12957 got burned :)

good video

[ele12957]

This is laugable go and read Roger Penrose btw he is an atheist.

[powerstone2]

Bravo. You're argument is so thought-provoking, well-thought out and comprehensive! Are you also so intelligent in real life as well?

[LogicSoup]

Very very happy to see you making videos again! Excellent job on this ^^

[SofaKingLoaded]

Simply fantastic.. good to see you making videos again powerstone, they continue to be among the best to be found on Ewetoob. Still nothing funnier than the religiously addled creationist dolts standing around scratching their heads at the improbability of events that have, in fact, already happened..

[Deflin]

I really like these....any chance for an actual video lecture and not just powerpoint?

[powerstone2]

I'm shy...

:(

Thanks anyways though, and thanks everyone else, as well.

[Yakushii]

Luck is a variable factor that cannot be processed by either mind or computer. It is a single non-linear part of the equation that, no matter how hard you try, you can't calculate, and include.

Let's say you have to choices; door #1 and door #2. One of them has a big paycheck, the other hides nothing.

You have a 50% chance of getting the prize, so basically, no matter what you choose, LUCK is the 100% certainty that decides the outcome.

The outcome is decided, but disguides as a choice.

[Yakushii]

But, in the name of religion, luck is renamed "God", "divine intervention", "miracle", and other supernatural occurences, that we have named, but not understood, or even proved.

By the way, I do notice the typos in my previous post, now that I've posted it, and duely apologize.

[ross350tube]

scrolls too quick mate. but really why are you debaters the only ones realy pumping this method of cramming as much text and ideas into a movie?I think i evolved. but then i think of what the world would be like without religion. for either to be work a person the need to beleive without doubt, can't let people have that now can we. I don't give a shit about your little novels you put up here and not just you by the way. this isn't

[ross350tube]

personal but until there is proof, wich will be soon with this collider thing they are constructing then i I think the world will change. till then it's all theory

[powerstone2]

Sorry ross. I, like everyone else is doomed by the 10min limit. I try to make these concise, yet I do want to get the point across so there are no misunderstandings. I guess I could've made it slower seeing as how I have a minute to spare.

And I really don't put these up to sway people. I've only had one purpose and that's to defend what is science and logic. I don't care what people believe, but I do care when people claim something is science or logic when it is not.