Jojo,
I thought scrabble was a word game not a sentence game as there are no
spaces.
You say the chances are aqual for the tiles results. I would think the
chances of the tiles coming up with a non grammatically correct jumble of
letters would be much higher than meeting all the constraints of our chosen
english language since there are a limited number of results that meet that
criteria using your available letters.
Also, my 9 year old, with the same DNA at age 2 would most likely arrange
nonsense while at 9 probably something closer to your proof of intelligent
design.
BTW I do not have a strong enough belief in either theory.
On Sunday, May 27, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
> **
> OH my! What is your major malfunction? Are you experiencing major
> cognitive dissonance? The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge
> yourself to is not as factual as you thought it was? Did I just hit a
> central nerve? I thought we were discussing with civility? I guess I just
> pissed you off too much with facts and logic.
>
> OK. Whatever.
>
> Jojo
>
>
> PS. Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, nothing
> will. Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents. When someone
> brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive dissonance
> and react like this.
>
> Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold
> Fusion. Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid
> criticism of its Darwinian religion.
>
> The parallel has been clearly illustrated. My point is proven.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* James Bowery <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'jabow...@gmail.com');>
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'vortex-l@eskimo.com');>
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>
> OK, so you don't think you need an experiment.
>
> Go fuck yourself.
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> **
> I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.
>
> What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?
>
> Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the
> presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent
> Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations. Random
> processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the
> exact opposite of Randomness.
>
> For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence
> requires the input of an Intelligent being. If your throw a bunch of
> Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance
> of occuring.
>
> "There is a God"
>
> "ethresi da Go" - (No, this is not a foreign language. This is
> a random mixture of the same letters above.)
>
>
> What is the difference between the 2 sentences above. Nothing as far as
> randon chance is concerned. Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge
> difference. What differentiates the 2 sentences? It is Information of
> course. There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea?
> And Ideas are the purvue of Intelligent Beings.
>
> Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long;
> you might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of
> Information in our DNA.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* James Bowery
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:42 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>
> No. I'm talking about the scientific technique of strong inference.
>
> In strong inference you are not simply testing a hypothesis. You are
> admitting multiple hypotheses in the formulation of your experiments and
> attempting to most economically compare them. It is legitimate, of course,
> to have any number of experiments to achieve this comparison.
>
> In this case, there are two hypotheses: Darwinian Evolution and
> Intelligent Design.
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> **
>
>
