No. What i'm saying is, once something happens, the odds of it having happened are 100%
So, you mean to tell me I was correct when I said this
Of course, the chance that it happened on this planet are 100%
I see.
BECAUSE it happened, the odds of it happening prior to that were 100% BECAUSE we know it happened
Funny, because if you ask and scientist (regardless of field) or statistician what the odds were that an event that happened in the past would have happened the way it did, very rarely will you hear them say 100%. Thus:
but, before it happened, they were much slimmer
But I also think I see the problem here:
This is the quote that started this
Huh? Earlier, I said:
And I was replying to a "would have been"
Now, I don't see a "would have been" in what you quoted as "the quote that started this". Do you? No. The quote that started this (and I should know, because I replied to it before you showed up) was:
I'm no expert, but the numbers seem to suggest that it would have been more unlikely for it to NOT happen, at least once.
But the simply fact is, when we ask something like "but what are the odds of it happening (life starting)," the answer is 100%.... because it has happened.
Yes, but before it happened, the odds were 1:([possible_combinations_of_compounds]*[possible_circumstances_within_each_combination_may_exist]); much like the odds of you having won the lottery are 100% if you win, but they weren't 100% before you won (if you did).
This is an argument over are-vs-were semantics and, honestly, it's quite silly. I clearly said "were", I clearly pointed out that I had said "were", and you're arguing "are" when I've already agreed with that point. Tense (timing, e.g. past, present, future) matters.
Actually, you're conflating were and are, but timing matters with odds. Before an even happens, there is uncertainty; after it happens, there is certainty. Ask any quantum physicist if the odds of anything happening are ever 100% and they'll laugh at you; then, ask them if the odds that anything happened are ever 100% and they'll tell you, with a straight face, that they are 100% certain that everything that has happened has happened.
When a bride throws her bouquet into the crowd, there's an even chance that any woman there might catch it*. That is, before it has been thrown and caught. After the event, there is a 100% chance that whoever caught it did catch it.
This isn't an uncommon argument, especially among the creationist groups.
And yours isn't an uncommon argument among creationists, either. Essentially, what you've just said boils down to "nothing comes down to chance because God has already decided what should and will be."
* okay, the odds are better if you're near the middle, but I digress; the point is the chance of any single woman catching it is less than 100% and, on average, will be 1:[number_of_women]
It could have happened on any planet, and that's where we'd be.
In other words, before it happened, the odds that it would this planet were, more or less, the same as the odds of it happening anywhere else. With there being so many planets, the odds were pretty slim.
We're here because it happened here.
In other words, the odds that it did happen on this planet are 100%
All you did was restate what I just said in a different way. Two different ways, actually. Except that your lottery example was flawed because no, there's not always a winner; why do you think the jackpot grows most weeks?
No, I'm really not getting anything backwards here. What were the chances of it happening on this planet? Of course, the chance that it happened on this planet are 100%; but, before it happened, they were much slimmer.
And I was replying to a "would have been", which shares a tense with "were", rather than "are".
Even the most ardent white supremacist can make a valid point having nothing to do with their supremacist beliefs once in a while, just as an astrophysicist can probably also tell you how to tie your shoe.
I was merely pointing out that they were doing the very thing they were accusing someone else of doing. Obviously for the benefit of anyone else who didn't see it for themselves, as this crackpot is never actually going to learn.
That somewhat violates the secondary concern I stated; unless the range I have set up in my back yard counts, in which case, yes, I'd be fine with that because it's already what I do.
Absent some sort of regulation (even self-regulation works), all of the money ends up on one side of the table; then, you no longer have a market and capitalism has failed.
It went from talking about the definition of "well regulated" to an example of where that definition was actually used. Do you have a better example? No? The sit down and shut up.
Don't expect anyone in the EU to understand that; after all, Britain is still a member of the EU and they were the target when we needed to first enact that amendment. Hell, that was 15 years before it was even written!
To them, it does appear that we're all just a bunch of murderous fucks, because we had to be in order to escape their rule. Apparently, they haven't gotten over it in the past 242 years.
Except the comment you are referring to, didn't do that. The comment that you are referring to was making a point about 'well-regulated market' simply used the 2nd amendment as an example of a specific usage of the term 'well-regulated'.
For most of us it's more about the right to be able to put holes in paper targets from a distance, but you go on and think we're all murderous pricks. That we may also use those weapons to defend ourselves if someone should break into our homes is secondary for a lot of us, because we really don't have much fear of that actually happening.
That, right there, is the attitude that scares the living shit out of HR managers who don't want to get sued. Since HR has to approve your hire, it's best not to scare them.
Slashdot Mirror
No. What i'm saying is, once something happens, the odds of it having happened are 100%
So, you mean to tell me I was correct when I said this
Of course, the chance that it happened on this planet are 100%
I see.
BECAUSE it happened, the odds of it happening prior to that were 100% BECAUSE we know it happened
Funny, because if you ask and scientist (regardless of field) or statistician what the odds were that an event that happened in the past would have happened the way it did, very rarely will you hear them say 100%. Thus:
but, before it happened, they were much slimmer
But I also think I see the problem here:
This is the quote that started this
Huh? Earlier, I said:
And I was replying to a "would have been"
Now, I don't see a "would have been" in what you quoted as "the quote that started this". Do you? No. The quote that started this (and I should know, because I replied to it before you showed up) was:
I'm no expert, but the numbers seem to suggest that it would have been more unlikely for it to NOT happen, at least once.
But the simply fact is, when we ask something like "but what are the odds of it happening (life starting)," the answer is 100%.... because it has happened.
Yes, but before it happened, the odds were 1:([possible_combinations_of_compounds]*[possible_circumstances_within_each_combination_may_exist]); much like the odds of you having won the lottery are 100% if you win, but they weren't 100% before you won (if you did).
This is an argument over are-vs-were semantics and, honestly, it's quite silly. I clearly said "were", I clearly pointed out that I had said "were", and you're arguing "are" when I've already agreed with that point. Tense (timing, e.g. past, present, future) matters.
A lot.
When a bride throws her bouquet into the crowd, there's an even chance that any woman there might catch it*. That is, before it has been thrown and caught. After the event, there is a 100% chance that whoever caught it did catch it.
This isn't an uncommon argument, especially among the creationist groups.
And yours isn't an uncommon argument among creationists, either. Essentially, what you've just said boils down to "nothing comes down to chance because God has already decided what should and will be."
* okay, the odds are better if you're near the middle, but I digress; the point is the chance of any single woman catching it is less than 100% and, on average, will be 1:[number_of_women]
Your logic is flawed.
Oh? Let's review.
It could have happened on any planet, and that's where we'd be.
In other words, before it happened, the odds that it would this planet were, more or less, the same as the odds of it happening anywhere else. With there being so many planets, the odds were pretty slim.
We're here because it happened here.
In other words, the odds that it did happen on this planet are 100%
All you did was restate what I just said in a different way. Two different ways, actually. Except that your lottery example was flawed because no, there's not always a winner; why do you think the jackpot grows most weeks?
No, I'm really not getting anything backwards here. What were the chances of it happening on this planet? Of course, the chance that it happened on this planet are 100%; but, before it happened, they were much slimmer.
And I was replying to a "would have been", which shares a tense with "were", rather than "are".
But on this planet? Of all of them?
Even the most ardent white supremacist can make a valid point having nothing to do with their supremacist beliefs once in a while, just as an astrophysicist can probably also tell you how to tie your shoe.
So if I post stuff by a world renowned astrophysicist as my source... I'm a world renowned astrophysicist?
I mean, it should cut both ways, right?
I was merely pointing out that they were doing the very thing they were accusing someone else of doing. Obviously for the benefit of anyone else who didn't see it for themselves, as this crackpot is never actually going to learn.
I can simply point out you're a white supremacist troll and ignore you instead.
You mean bog him down as a troll tactic? And replying is the opposite of ignoring.
Granted.
We've been over this. Do we really need to go over it again?
My contact info is attached to everything I post here. How does one reach you?
Point, game, match.
Well maybe the damned redcoats should have stayed out of the random hillbillies' back yards?
That somewhat violates the secondary concern I stated; unless the range I have set up in my back yard counts, in which case, yes, I'd be fine with that because it's already what I do.
For it to be sustainable, yes, actually.
Absent some sort of regulation (even self-regulation works), all of the money ends up on one side of the table; then, you no longer have a market and capitalism has failed.
It went from talking about the definition of "well regulated" to an example of where that definition was actually used. Do you have a better example? No? The sit down and shut up.
Don't expect anyone in the EU to understand that; after all, Britain is still a member of the EU and they were the target when we needed to first enact that amendment. Hell, that was 15 years before it was even written!
To them, it does appear that we're all just a bunch of murderous fucks, because we had to be in order to escape their rule. Apparently, they haven't gotten over it in the past 242 years.
Yes, and the negotiations come down to "release the hostages or we kill you." If killing wasn't an option, they'd be a lot less effective.
Not enough of you, apparently.
Except the comment you are referring to, didn't do that. The comment that you are referring to was making a point about 'well-regulated market' simply used the 2nd amendment as an example of a specific usage of the term 'well-regulated'.
Try harder next time, idiot euro-troll.
For most of us it's more about the right to be able to put holes in paper targets from a distance, but you go on and think we're all murderous pricks. That we may also use those weapons to defend ourselves if someone should break into our homes is secondary for a lot of us, because we really don't have much fear of that actually happening.
If not the government, then who else?
The people. After all, that's who the governemt is supposed to be of and for in this country.
So you'd rather just make ignorant, uneducated, and incorrect assumptions? And you think I fit the profile of a Trump supporter?
READ MY POST HISTORY, you worthless JACKASS. Trump supporter? HAH!
Now you sound like one of those 1%ers.
That, right there, is the attitude that scares the living shit out of HR managers who don't want to get sued. Since HR has to approve your hire, it's best not to scare them.