Emilio Primo

Exactly... In order to produce AND sustain life the early earth's environment had to go from a "reducing atmosphere" to a "oxidizing" one rather abruptly. Biological chemicals(amino acids, ect) could only form in a "reducing atmosphere" but then when these chemicals are formed the atmosphere would then have to shift to an "oxidizing" atmosphere instantaneously or the new life forms would die from lack of oxygen. This is so because amino acids cannot form in an "oxidizing atmosphere" the oxygen would destroy them before they had a chance to develop. But then once life DID form oxygen was needed immediately. DO you see the dilemma? These are not the true odds. You are speculating that life coming about by chance had favorable odds, but this is incorrect. I understand statistics, I am just trying to get the point across that nothing can change probabilities. Oh wait there is something that can, a miracle.

Which ones? Sorry, but THAT is randomness, or we can tak into account YOU threw the ball which would be intent. Without randomness you have intent, there is no inbetween. Because it is not, why do you keep stating it is. Yes, we did cover it. Literally everything is observed through "indirect evidence." I believe there was a discussion about a table. Even though it violates scientific laws? How so? Pasteur seemed to falsify life from non life over a hundred years ago, but yet this theory still persist. Scientist try to create life in conditions that assume may have been early earths atmosphere, but with each failed experiment, they assume that they had the conditions of early earth's atmosphere inaccurate. So how would they know if they ever get them right, this process could go on forever, with the same reason for failure... We still have yet to replicate earth's early atmosphere. Which to me makes it impossible to falsify this theory.

People seem to be forgetting that it is theorized that earth's early atmosphere was a harsh, and not suitable for life, that earths early environment was a reducing atmosphere. This is one of the reason for these astronomical odds, not to mention the occurrence of life from non life. Which according to physics as we know them is a supernatural feat in itself. That s because those odds though low are, not improbable, these odds can be beaten. You have to remember that probabilities have no memory, so attempts do not "accumulate" after each attempt the odds of you making the next attempt always revert back to 1/x(Or in this case 1/10^41,000) Odds can become so great that you can make attempts at them for a trillion, trillion years and still not beat those odds, it is then that they are deemed impossible. This would be the situation for all time and space. You are forgetting of the reducing atmosphere of early earth, which was not suitable for life.

Why can't any(Except One) of you defend your position against the questions I raise? Why is every post dealing in semantics? Is this not a science forum? This is incorrect. There is no in between regarding randomness and intent, it's either one or the other. So if a constraint occurs without any conscious intent or influence that means it is random. You either have randomness or you either have intent.

You should have proof read your sources: These observations provide the strongest evidence yet that most of the matter in the universe is dark. Despite considerable evidence for dark matter, some scientists have proposed alternative theories for gravity where it is stronger on intergalactic scales than predicted by Newton and Einstein, removing the need for dark matter. However, such theories cannot explain the observed effects of this collision. "We've closed this loophole about gravity, and we've come closer than ever to seeing this invisible matter," Clowe said. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html To the contrary, the hot gas in clusters of galaxies provides an independent confirmation of dark matter. As with giant elliptical galaxies, the measurement of the hot gas pressure in galaxy clusters shows that there must be about 5-6 times as much dark matter as all the stars and gas we observe, or the hot gas in the cluster would escape. http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_astro/dark_matter/index2.html

Time is irrelevant, and so is space. Probabilities remain constant, so if there is a 1/10^41,000 chance on earth that would mean it would be a 1/10^41,000 chance anywhere in the universe. Time means absolutely nothing. If you roll a six sided dice now and rolled the die for 1 million years non stop, the chance of you rolling any number will always be 1/6, if you walked to the ends of the universe and then rolled the die the chances of you rolling any number would still be 1/6. Why is Talk Origins the go to site for you guys. I understand probabilities perfectly.

Even still, this does nothing to effect the probability, the probability remains constant ALWAYS no matter how much time has past and no matter how many individual tries there are or chances you attempt. Then we are also talking pretty astronomical odds here. So if you take into account the OP, the chances are 1/10^41,000(So that is 1 chance in 10^41,000) (10^41,000 = 1 followed by 41 thousand zeros) So each INDIVIDUAL chance has these odds. The fact that there may be billions of other attempts being made for life has no effect on these probabilities, it stays constant. So they are EACH faced with 1/10^41,000 odds...

OK, how is science able to study dark matter?

So how would this effect the probability of an outcome? If I gave 1 person a six sided die, and then told him to roll a six his odds of rolling a six is 1/6. If I then gave 1 billion people a six sided dice a told each to roll a six, the outcome for each person is still 1/6. That probability does not change just because more people are now rolling the dice or because more attempts are being made. The chances for each person is still exactly the same for rolling a six with a six sided die, as it is for one person... Whether it be many or be few... 1/6

Could someone explain how time and an infinite universe effects probability? Because it doesn't.

You need to read my post more thoroughly. What are you trying to argue here, that electrons were observed, but then again they weren't? The point: Atoms interactions were observed through the movement of electrons. What's the point you are trying to make here? What is this way that I am using "directly" If you are going to try and make "cool points" against someone's argument, please understand first what the argument is you are attempting to discredit. So, what is the relevance of this? Learn what my argument is, the debate can move much more linear this way. Limited to what? Study, observe, evidence? Can we stop all the game playing and get down to the topic.. Defend your stance, and stop with the semantics debate it's getting old tired and juvenile. My argument on what is meant by "observed" should be pretty clear by now. Are you studying to be a scientist or an English professor, or is your stance that weak that you have to resort to misdirection to defend it?

How are the premises incorrect? So life coming about by chance is not random? If it is not random, then that would mean intent, and if there is intent, then there would have to be an intelligence behind this intent. Why does everyone insist on playing this game? So why have none been observed in nature, where it was said to have happened originally? Where is this macro evolution of species? Observed through indirect evidence, we covered this early on in the thread. So is the big bang theory science? Is life from non life science, is dark matter science? Scientist argue that life arose from non life on primitive earth, through condition unlike that exist today? Can this be falsified?

No, before august 2010 we just could not observe electrons in real time. The point of the matter is electrons have been observed, now back to black holes...

And I am accused of playing games.... This is false, electrons are not based on indirect evidence. Electrons are component of the atom, this is known through direct observation and study: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2010/08/04/electrons-moving/

This is how the charge of an electron was determined, but does this negate anything about the direct study of an electron? Compared to indirect evidence of the existence of black holes.

http://www.windows2universe.org/physical_science/physics/atom_particle/electron.html We know by studying the electron directly that electrons help make up atoms, we know the mass of an electron, we know they produce a negative charge, ect ect.

LOL I always appreciate a good sense of humor, this is funny.

OK Exactly, because this has yet to be done.

It does not have to be the exact same way. This is why started the thread, so both point of views can be debated and examined.

Sorry you feel this way but I play no game. I do not think this a strategy, but a debate. The questions I propose I feel are valid, and deserve to be engaged. I feel that science, at times(Some of are the questions I already proposed) does not hold up to it's own scrutiny. The restrictions it places on other venues to supplying evidence or sufficient evidence, or it's views cannot be considered "scientific" sometime science itself fails in this regard, but is never called on the carpet for it. This is the "game" I play, if you wish to call it that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erosion —— Electrons existence are not based on indirect evidence. Excuse me what are you talking about? What did I say does not constitute science?

You are observing, studying the actual 'light' what it's effects are how it works, how/why it reflects. You cannot do this with a black hole, you can only study, observe the effects around what you THINK or assume is a black hole, not the black hole in of itself. That's the difference.

What are these reasons? Yes Yes, evolutionary theory predicts that one day this will take place, with the passing of many, many generations. Macro evolution that I am specifically referring to is the branching off of one species into a separate and new species, families, phyla or genera, like I explained in my example: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#what Not quite.

I play no game, I have stated my stance for the beginning. I recently have stated the effects of macro evolution have not been observed to be more precise. Something you can study directly. I have read that many times, could you please provide anything in that link that disagrees with the method I explained. Macro evolution takes place precisely as I have explained it.

Macro erosion has been observed. This is not life from non life, here is the definition: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O6-biopoiesis.html