Okay do I showed the picture of the possible unicorn. So does that mean God exists? I noticed that unicorn thingy isn't being said anymore.
It means a possible unicorn exists is all. The evidence being just one may be a birth defect. And I always thought a unicorn looked like a horse, not a deer.
Yeah that's what I thought. But it tosses a wrench in the whole "Prove a unicorn exist" rant I was getting. LOL
It isn't being said because you told me scientists PROVED that unicorns do not exist. I am waiting on you showing me the evidence of proof something doesn't exist. A deer with a freak growth isn't evidence they DO NOT exist.
I promise you I am not oversimplifying anything. Simplifying, yes -- I am using metaphors to try and show you how you are misusing probabilities, but the points stand. Part of the confusion right now is that you are mixing together the two probabilistic arguments from before: 1) Life formed somehow. This is improbable, from a strictly random viewpoint. Thus, God must have done it. 2) The universe has set laws that have resulted in patterns (galaxies, planets, etc...). If those laws were different, all that stuff might not exist. Therefore, God must have personally chosen those laws to make this universe. I have already addressed the problems with each of these using different analogies. I've got to make dinner, but I'll clarify later if necessary.
It has no affect on the unicorn question, which was rhetorical. It could have easily been smurfs or Keebler elves.
"Some chance involved" is a far cry from the calculations based on PURE randomness that he was attempting to perform... And of course the odds of seeing those cars turned out to be 100%, since I saw them!
I have no idea what you mean by "normality" here, but I don't see anything resembling a meaningful, purposeful pattern in the creation and destruction of stuff around us.
I got that too! LOL Fabricated evidence Otto von Guericke's unicorn skeleton, exhibit near the Zoo, Osnabrück Among numerous finds of prehistoric bones found at Unicorn Cave in Germany's Harz Mountains, some were selected and reconstructed by the mayor of Magdeburg, Otto Von Guericke, as a unicorn in 1663 (illustration, right). Guericke's so-called unicorn had only two legs, and was constructed from fossil bones of a woolly rhinoceros and a mammoth, with the horn of a narwhal. The skeleton was examined by Gottfried Leibniz, who had previously doubted the existence of the unicorn, but was convinced by it.[22] Baron Georges Cuvier maintained that, as the unicorn was cloven-hoofed, it must therefore have a cloven skull (making the growth of a single horn impossible); as if to disprove this, Dr. W. Franklin Dove, a University of Maine professor, artificially fused the horn buds of a calf together, creating the external appearance of a one-horned bull.[23]
Not must have. But it could be a probability. And just like science; we can only make assumptions or logical answers. Are you saying God can't be a logical answer? What if I say "designer", "intelligent design"?
Well, you're wrong then. Science disproved ONE example of what someone claimed was a unicorn. And this has been what I have been saying all along about evidence. They didn't present evidence that the unicorn does not exist. What they did was refute the evidence presented that such a thing was a unicorn. but that doesn't prove the inexistence of unicorns. Unless you can say that if someone claims they have a biblical artifact, and it is shown to not be such, that that somehow disproves god, because of that. Nope. It disproves that relic, that one claimed unicorn. So, existence of unicorns still on, and science has made no effort to prove they don't exist. It's like some weird unicorn conspiracy going on in science.
Wow. Way to completely mischaracterize science. In terms you might understand, "god has red skin, a tail with a pointy barb on the tip, two horns on his head, and hoofed feet."
I know. Was cracking some humor. I guess no one saw my sarcasm. LOL. Next time, say smurfs. The unicorn can now be a possibility.
