Raider5678

Fair enough.

Even if it was completely random, I can still find the most probable right? If 99 hasn't been picked for the last 3000 times, it has a large chance of being picked then 1 if it had been picked 150 times in a row before that. Extreme examples, but the same concept right? Or am I wrong? Why so?

I hope you're right.

I assumed it off of a pattern that they are choosing the lottery numbers based off of what would make them have to pay out the least amount of money. Which is why numbers like 22,33,44,55,66,77,88,99,00 show up a lot. People are less likely to choose double numbers. At least that's one portion of my method. But you guys are totally sure they can't actually do anything against me?

Well, more like winning a whole ton of little $50 lotteries. About 120 of them.

1. Yes, it's simply a method. For example, in the last 93 numbers that have been picked, a entire collection of numbers ending in "5" are: 45-15-15-55-05-55-15-05 Which if it was random, wouldn't be the clustered. AND since ever number set is like that, it's not just a random chance with one of them. And I don't see how there would be a problem either. Which is why i'm asking what the problem is. 2. Fourteen year old boy with the option to turn $25 to $250 twice a day. How likely do you think it is that I'd have the wisdom to do it "occasionally" and to buy it at different places? Wish I did though. I followed A. Until now. But it was already a little late. 3. Is there a legal sub thread? PA lottery pick 2. Pay $1 for a ticket and win $50. 99 different choices. 1/4 chance of winning if you buy 25 tickets. Some basic calculations, get the chance that you win up to 95%, narrowing it so you buy 25 tickets spread over 5 numbers. It might be. I'm hoping. So neither think I would need a lawyer right?

Hey, I know I said I'd be gone but I need help. How serious can the charges be if I may have made a method and screwed the state lottery over for a few grand? Like seriously, do I need to get a lawyer and is that actually a legal charge? I can't find anything that says I can't do it and I get in legal trouble for it, so what law would I have broken in doing so? I didn't win millions or anything, it's pretty small in comparison to the money they make. Didn't even think they'd notice. Any advice on this? I'm assuming at least one person here had to have done this before, I mean this place is filled with geniuses. What should I do? Can I somehow plea the case I'm one really lucky guy? And if I have to go before a jury, they won't convict me right? Can I go to jail?? I've never been in any legal trouble at all. Please help. Or advise. Something please.

That's actually a really good idea.

This must be hard for you to understand. Let's NOT hijack the thread to tell me how wrong I am and instead respond to the OP. Isn't that the rules?

There is something wrong with it. No disagreement there. But what I was saying is that I doubt the OP can change the professors mind. Do you? And on top of that, what is the point of arguing a pointless argument if you know it will go nowhere? Besides getting on the bad side of the professor, the person who is crazy enough to deny evolution and controls your grade, what will come of it? That's what my post is arguing about. Not about god. Not about creationism. Not about evolution. You gave me a negative rep because of a side point I had said. Not because of the overall point of it. I honestly think it's logical to not argue a pointless argument with someone in a position of power. Now arguing it on science forums is different, because there aren't actually any negative consequences of it. So I ask you. Do you think he's going to get a lot of good done by arguing with the professor? If you say "yes" then fine. I guess I deserved it. But if you say "no" then that was unfair. And what exactly did I lack in logic? Where did my logic go wrong? Fine. Sure. I'm ignoring reality. But it doesn't stop me from going about my day, and it's not the point of this discussion. Please stop telling me I'm wrong.

Are you disagreeing with me saying that people have different opinions because I'm a christian or are you disagreeing with what I said that it's going to be hard to argue with a professor about evolution if he has a lot of the kids supporting him on it? What exactly are you disagreeing on me with? I did not say evolution was wrong. At all. I said I didn't believe in it. Maybe I'm wrong. But then all that means is I'm wrong and you're right. I was trying to give the OP the advice that arguing with a creationist, and a professor at that, is going to be difficult because it won't change their view even an inch. I am not preaching against evolution. I'm just saying debating with creationists can be difficult. And does the OP have anything to say?

Well when you can show me the millions and billions of fossils slowly evolving into human form, I'll believe you. As for taking 3 fossils, and saying their jawbones look the same so they must have evolved from each other is in my opinion(note I said opinion. As I said, just let it go. Neither of us arguing is going to do anything. So don't hijack the thread.) less believable then saying they are 3 different species and God made them. We believe what we want to believe. I choose to believe in God you choose to believe otherwise. I don't want to argue about that, and arguing about that would be getting off topic. So lets agree to disagree and move on before we start a discussion. I was more referring to them being hard headed stubborn cave men rather then it being hard to argue scientifically. "This research provided from this completely reliable, and when I say reliable I mean the most reliable, we have the best reliable sources out there, researched by the best scientists, and we have the best scientists, absolutely THE BEST, say that evolution is impossible. And they are right. And I mean the rightest, there is no one more right then them. Except me of course." Try arguing against that. Anything you say is just countered with. "No, you see, that's where your wrong because that's where it no longer lines up with exactly what I want to believe." Do you see what I meant now? And seriously? -3 rep points? For what? What did I do wrong there?

"Science flies you to the moon, Religion flies you into buildings" I disagree there. I happen to love space and rockets and flying. And I'm religious. And, considering Trump got elected, I'm sure a lot of Americans openly disagreed with climate change to begin with(Guess we'll have to fix it on our own) I don't think they just suddenly appeared because of the president. It is possible that they have become more open about it. And, trying to defend evolution against religion is hard. From our view point, we have arguments that simply can't be argued against because you can't disprove God. And I admit, some of it is circular logic and runs into itself. I honestly don't see why evolution can't be real, but I don't believe we evolved from apes. I believe more that we were created, but things can still evolve. And, honestly, I can't really help you argue against your professor. Just know that he's older and more experienced, and considering he's in college probably has a lot of practice arguing about evolution. It's an argument I don't really see you winning, regardless if you're right or not. Just remember everyone has a right to their opinion as long as it isn't directly hurting others. Him not believing in evolution and other students agreeing with him is their choice. It's also your choice to believe in it. Just try to respect that, and avoid arguing about it because the argument won't change either of your minds. Religion keeps them rooted in their position, and your belief in science gives you a base and reason to keep rooted in your belief. But should you decide to argue, good for you. At least you're standing up for what you believe. Good luck mate.

I think there is a point to sadness. If nobody could feel sadness there would be no empathy. If there was no empathy, social groups would have had a much harder time getting by. So it helped people communicated and live in communities. It's like pain. It doesn't seem like there's a point, but there still is.

My good gentlemen. I feel the need to inform you(while smoking my magical invisible cigar and standing in a suit at your door), that your argument has hit rock bottom and has proceeded to dig. Good day.

Fair enough. I'll be getting the supplies when I can. Can't say when, considering I can't drive.

This is a pathetic argument. They're been debating for 30 pages, and you come in with a simple "yes." It's not that simple, and you can't possibly know for certain. Just the way it is.

I'm not sure the net is negative. I think it's positive. Yes. I'm fairly certain a lot of it would stop.

Screw christian charity and missions to africa and building wells and the salvation army and all those good people who believe in Gods. Just kill them all and the world will be a better place.

Safety standards, don't do something unless you know what you're doing and have the equipment?

Also, since you seem to know a lot about chemistry. If we start a private messaging conversation and I come back to you proving my progress/equipment etc and asking you questions, would you help me out to get started?

Because I was raised believing in God, I've seen miracles, and I in my opinion thats enough evidence for me to believe in a God rather then believe in chance. Terminal cancer doesn't disappear from a body overnight without a reason. According to science, that's impossible. So by listening to science, I know a dead man walking. Believe in God, I can believe God saved him. With out cause I simply choose to believe the one that contradicts my understanding the least. And it's opinion. Please don't start yelling to me that my opinion is wrong and should be rethought. You have your's, I respect that. You have a logical position, and in my opinion so do I. And that's not the point of this discussion. So if we continue with this I guarantee this will get off topic.

If we prove it's possible I'll stop believing in God and immediately accept that's how life began. Even if it's not proven that's how life began, the idea that it's possible simply destroys the concept of God. So yeah, abiogenesis is still a theory. And theories can be proven. I think. Unless I'm wrong, proving it's possible proves that theory? Either way yeah. We'll see. +1 for a good response.