 | | Re: A whole new debate.
|
|
(...) Although indirectly it seems that you are agin debating terminology and avoiding the real question (unless you misunderstood what I (they) meant by "transitional". Why are there no fossils that demonstrate transitions between any modern (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
|
(...) I'm with Scott A. on this, while all patterns are equally likely (in a fair draw) to come up, if you want to maximize your expected result, choose patterns less likely to have been selected so you reduce the odds of splitting with someone (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) I've detailed this in previous posts, including the following one where I made a distinction between evolution as a process and the theory of evolution: (URL) that we are discussing material presented in schools, and so I will reiterate here (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
|
(...) Well, definitely such a sequence is much less likely than a more "random looking" sequence. If you 6 numbers are the digits 1-9, there are only 4 such sequences compared to a total of 9!/3! sequences (if each digit can only occur once, 9^6 (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Probability: (Was: Re: Chaotic Systems...)
|
|
(...) Most definitely, but that's only because there are more non-sequential combinations. But any PARTICULAR non-sequential combination is just as likely, obviously... (...) And again, the same applies... given that it'll be sequential, the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
