A simple reason really. Op777 thought that I misrepresented her statements. She pulled out a quote of mine from a post to you. Don't know, you never said you did. Frankly, you're answers have ignored most of the arguments I've made. Good news, I haven't. That's an absurd conclusion. There's such little to do to prove a negative assertion. And what's interesting about proving a negative assertion, such as god doesn't exist, is that it solely relies on the proof that validates the assertion that God does exist. But if there is no way to prove that God does exist, then the negative assertion that he doesn't exist requires no proof. It becomes valid by default. Brush up on logic and argumentation to see how dissimilar they are.
Not sure where the confusion lies when it comes to the question why there are no other creatures nearly as intelligent as humans. Why is human intelligence a unique occurrence in the evolutionary process? So it's back to your bogeyman. FAITH You have FAITH in scientific proofs which by extension means you have FAITH in some probability that Human intelligence comes from natural evolution. Your argument: Put an infinite number of monkeys in a cage with typewriters and there is some probability one monkey will theoretically type out the entire works of Shakespeare. My argument is: Good luck with that theory. Sure there is some theoretical probability of one of the monkeys typing out the entire works of Shakespeare, however the probability is so infinitesimal as to be nonexistent. Modern humans evolving superior intelligence by some random quirk in it's evolutionary history has similar infinitesimal probability.
your arguments to me were mostly ignored because they attributed assumptions to my position which were off point or irrelevant. note you may wish to review what happens when the null hypothesis fails.
Well considering that you are clearly unable to recognize the stark and glaring differences between the conversation at hand (defending an assertion and proving a negative) and the mechanics and scope of the null hypothesis, it is no wonder you would think that I made assumptions about your position, that my responses were "off point and irrelevant." Now that's irrelevant and demonstrates that you have only a cursory understanding of the null hypothesis. And what is more, you demonstrate no understanding of affirmative and negative assertions and the veracity of proof required of each. Have the last word. I have a sinking suspicion you're getting a lot of what you think you know from ICR (Institute for Creation Research) or some such Intelligent design advocates.
Your pattern skills need some work. I engaged in fine tunings argument with the et atheists years ago. I started to hammer it when a major physicist wrote about it in his book in 2005 or 6. that authors name is susskind. You can see my arguments develop from the quotes of physicists not your website. regarding the null hypothesis -- look into the argument I had with a stats professor http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...ge=6&highlight=null hypothesis&pagenumber=283 you might learn something about accepting or rejecting the alternative hypothesis.
Funny. There's nothing in creationism in any form that can be falsified. That is to say the null hypothesis, or the falsifiability aspect of the hypothesis, has no basis for testability when it comes to creationism. Not even in a philosophical sense. And that is what separates evolution from creationism (young Earth, progressive, intelligent design). Like I said, you don't exactly know what the null hypothesis is or is used for. Thanks for the link though. It was in interesting read.
Prefect example of while I did not respond to much of your argument. I am not arguing that science proves creation... never have. I argue that atheists are fools for saying they know God does not exist. If I assume you grasp the difference I can not understand why you keep trying to pin me with arguments I do not make. its runs through much of your posts. By the way... It is not logical to say zzz can't prove a totality therefore God is not a totality. (were you saying that?) I thought you would see the analog to stats.... but I guess not.
Who's zzz? Op777? In any event, it looks like you need, if you really care, to reread all the posts I made to you. You'll see just how on point they are including the last one you responded to. Especially the one about op777 and how there can be no analogy to statistical methods that would apply considering the untestable nature of her assertions. Otherwise, it just looks like you have a reading comprehension issue or that you are purposely skim reading as if "oh, yeah, I've seen atheist arguments before, they're all the same so I get the gist." I'm not going to respond to your subsequent posts unless you demonstrate that you are actually reading what is being posted to you. Who would?
Roll over Fido...good doggy... LOL!!! What really cracks me up is that you think you are winning an argument... Too ridiculous...