Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing
The coin flip has nothing to do with the due theory, nor is the fact that each flip is independent problematic. If you understood probability, you would know that things with a very low (but positive) probability are more likely to occur as you approach an extreme number of events. That is not the due theory, which is a total fallacy, it is simply an expression of the total probability of any event and it has nothing to do with causality. I can't imagine how you could have assumed it did. It is a result within a series of independent event. I'll try to explain, with the expectation you still won't get it.
The probability of, let's say, ten heads in a row is about 1 in 1,000. So if you flip the coin 1,000 times you may see ten heads in a row come up once or, say, three times or zero times. But if you flip the coin enough, the probability it will come up heads ten times in a row approaches certainty. Conversely, if you only flip the coin 10 times the probability of it coming up heads each time is almost zero.
The mathematics, which I'm sure would befuddle you, are based on the total probability of an event. In simple terms, an event which has a 1 in 1,000 probability suggests that with 1,000 flips of a coin you'd expect ten heads in a row to occur once. That doesn't mean it will occur once. It could occur multiple times or not at all. You get to the conclusion it should occur one in a thousand flips by taking the individual probability of each event and multiplying it ten times. So without doing the math, now consider flipping the coin a billion times instead of 1,000 and imagine what the probability of a 1 in 1,000 event occurring is. It approaches a certainty. If you don't believe me, why don't you try it. It's not voodoo or magic. It is a simple expectation based on individual probability extended to a very large number of independent events. No causality, not even an implied causality. Simple probability. By this time, I'm not amazed in the least you don't understand this.
As for your specious building argument, the intelligent design people look at everything and assume that with low probabilities of occurrence, there must be a better explanation, that of a supreme creator. Go back to the mountain. We know about how buildings occur. Mountains, nobody was around to actually watch it happen, so you have to speculate. It is different than the building because, assuming you have no geologic or scientific knowledge, you could look at the mountain and say, that's just too complicated for it to have occurred randomly. Someone with a plan must have made it. Those with geologic and scientific consciousness might say, that was simply the result of a sialic plate colliding with a basaltic plate and the sialic plate lifting over to form a mountain. There is science to explain complex organs (the eye, a flagellum motor, the venus fly trap), and ignoring the science is pretty much the only way you can come to the conclusion that a supreme creator is the only explanation. I have proof for plate tectonics or evolution. You have a book. Only equivalent in the mind of the dogmatist.
By the way, could you try understanding what specious means.
|
