'Your definition of a miracle appears to ne something very improbable.
  That is quite incorrect, at least that it not the usual meaning of
the word.'

REPLY: Actually, my definition of a miracle is nearly the same as
atheist Dr. Francis Cricks definition of a miracle . He claims its a
miracle that first life on earth arrived.

'Things which are extremely improbable (indeed, completely improbable)
happen a lot. I will give you an example. A little girl from Birmingham,
England, was on holiday at a seaside resort in Southern England. On the
last day of her holiday she wrote a message and put it in a plastic
bottle and threw it into the sea. Almost two years later she received a
letter from Australia where another little girl, of the same name, had
found the bottle. 
That is not a miracle but it was improbable before it happened. '

REPLY:  An improbable event differs from a real bonified miracle ;  what
you described above is an improbable event. A miracle is something that
is beyond what natural laws can produce  ;  the little girl in your
example was dealing WITH natural laws , but,  a miracle is what no
natural law can produce.

'We can not apply probability to past events. If we did so we would have
to assume that such an event with a probability of zero did not actually
happen by chance but was somehow a cheat, or we might say that a person
just made it up.'

REPLY: Atheist CoDiscover of DNA, Dr. Francis Crick , has given a
mathematical probability of first life arriving on earth by
chance/without any intelligent input behind it ;  his calculation is 10
to the 40,000 th power and he estimates theres only 10 to the 82nd power
electrons in the Universe. Therefore, i dont have enough faith to be a
Materialist/Naturalist (atheist).

'However, such things with zero probability happen a lot. They are not
miracles.'

REPLY:  See the definition above for whats a miracle and whats
improbable.The two differ.

'In fact, arguing that God can only do things that are improbable is
effectively also admitting that those things can have happened by
chance.'

REPLY:  Because God , our personal Theistic Creator,  brought a fully
functioning Universe with over 250 razor edge precise Physics Constants
(which are all needed simultaneously and working collaboratively) into
existence when they didnt need to exist  so the Universe could be
sustained...which certainly cannot occur based on materialism thru
naturalism or any other Natural Laws by themselves...then God CAN and
DID the greatest miraculous event ever,  and  him performing
'improbable things' is  childs-play by comparison. 

His awesome and incredible power should be enough  for people to humbly
bow to him out of reverence ;  with our finite minds it is nearly
incomprehensible to fathom what a personal Being as God is like , for,
there is nothing that can compare.  Why dont you want God to exist as
'an atheist' ?

On May 4, 2:38 pm, DaveInLakeVi...@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa)
wrote: (Snipped the usual daveshite with his psychotic rantings)

For your consideration:
Many, if not most of Dimwit Dave's replies, have nothing to do with
the original subject
And:
Most of Dimwit Dave's replies have nothing to do with reality.

Ken wrote:
> On May 4, 2:38 pm, DaveInLakeVi...@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa)
> wrote: (Snipped the usual daveshite with his psychotic rantings)
> 
> For your consideration:
> Many, if not most of Dimwit Dave's replies, have nothing to do with
> the original subject
> And:
> Most of Dimwit Dave's replies have nothing to do with reality.
> 

True. He also still persists with a line of argument that has no 
logical basis.

He believes that by challenging evolution and scientific thinking 
around abiogenesis (no matter how inept his arguments are) he can, 
in some way, add to the validity of his own view.

regards, Ian

On May 5, 4:05 am, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> > On May 4, 2:38 pm, DaveInLakeVi...@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa)
> > wrote: (Snipped the usual daveshite with his psychotic rantings)
>
> > For your consideration:
> > Many, if not most of Dimwit Dave's replies, have nothing to do with
> > the original subject
> > And:
> > Most of Dimwit Dave's replies have nothing to do with reality.
>
> True. He also still persists with a line of argument that has no
> logical basis.
>
> He believes that by challenging evolution and scientific thinking
> around abiogenesis (no matter how inept his arguments are) he can,
> in some way, add to the validity of his own view.
>
> regards, Ian

REPLY:  Youre not paying attention Ian, or, you cant personally afford
a personal Creator to be the Cause so you are stuck in desperate FAITH
in the impossible of occuring. 10 to the 40,000 th power FAITH  says
you are a very foolish unwise man.

On May 5, 5:25 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"  wrote:

(Snipped the usual daveshite with even more of his psychotic
rantings)

As in this example, many, if not most of Dimwit Dave's replies, have
nothing to do with
the original subject but just goes of on some unrelated tangent meant
to push his delusional view of reality, and as usual, Dimwit Dave's
replies have nothing to do with actual reality

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> REPLY:  Youre not paying attention Ian, or, you cant personally afford
> a personal Creator to be the Cause so you are stuck in desperate FAITH
> in the impossible of occuring. 10 to the 40,000 th power FAITH  says
> you are a very foolish unwise man.

OK, Dave - lets play "Challenge Dave", as we have done before...

You appear to proposing that a 'creator' exists.

Please present the evidence in support of this (again, for clarity, 
not an attempt to undermine accepted science - real positive 
evidence for the existence of your god).

regards, Ian

"Dave in Lake Villa"  wrote in message 
news:10482-481E2CC5-557@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net...

<I wrote:

<'Your definition of a miracle appears to ne something very improbable.
That is quite incorrect, at least that it not the usual meaning of
the word.'>

< Dave wrote:

REPLY: Actually, my definition of a miracle is nearly the same as
atheist Dr. Francis Cricks definition of a miracle . He claims its a
miracle that first life on earth arrived.

REPLY:  See the definition above for whats a miracle and whats
improbable.The two differ.>

You gave no definition of a miracle, as you can see from the above, you said 
that a chap called Crick claimed a miracle:  of course he was, if he said 
that, quite wrong.

I will explain why that is.   Some things are not known.  Many people do not 
know how a conjuror bends a spoon.  So instead of thinking 'I wonder how he 
did it', they fill in an answer for themselves.  They might say that he did 
it with halides, or with his mind, or he did it with devilish magic.  They 
do not admit they don't know.  With his mind or devilish magic would be 
miracles.  With halides would be a cheat, a trick, and boringly mundane.

It is not known how the big bang came about.  It is not known how life began 
on Earth, or anywhere else;  indeed it is not known whether there is any 
life elsewhere.

Claiming that it was a miracle when in fact it is not known is quite 
incorrect.  In order to qualify as a miracle an event must be shown to be 
inexplicable, not merely unexplained.

It might be that, try as we might, it is impossible for chemicals, treated 
in any way, to exhibit traits of living things.  Indeed it might be possible 
to engineer chemicals together exactly as they are in a living organism but 
nevertheless the chemicals do not become alive.  On the other hand, it might 
be that one day a person does make a living thing and can explain how it was 
done.

In fact the coming about of life might have been a miracle, or it might just 
have been improbable, or it might have been the absolutely certain outcome 
of they way that hydrogen, carbon and oxygen atoms combine with other 
things.   So life might be anything between a miracle or a certainty. 
That's how it is when we don't know.


<  Why dont you want God to exist >

That it it really isn't it?  You want God to exist, and I do not think that 
God exists.  It would be easy for the world to be a little better and you 
have to explain why it isn't in terms of your perception of the possible 
motivations of a God, and I explain it by not thinking that there is a God.

Ian Smith  wrote:
> IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>> 
>> REPLY:  Youre not paying attention Ian, or, you cant personally afford
>> a personal Creator to be the Cause so you are stuck in desperate FAITH
>> in the impossible of occuring. 10 to the 40,000 th power FAITH  says
>> you are a very foolish unwise man.
> 
> OK, Dave - lets play "Challenge Dave", as we have done before...
> 
> You appear to proposing that a 'creator' exists.
> 
> Please present the evidence in support of this (again, for clarity, 
> not an attempt to undermine accepted science - real positive 
> evidence for the existence of your god).

Even a rational argument that we should favour the christian god rather than
thor, zeus or any of a 1000 more gods for whom there is extensive written
evidence...

-- 
Gustaf Lindborg: The sailor does not pray for wind, he learns to sail