Let's see- was the theory of evolution (or any theory proposed) before or after the observations were made? If it was after then according to chance it is nothing more than "post hoc" reasoning.
You know very well that I am specifically referring to probability style questions re the privileged planet, solar eclipses, Drake equation and the like. To take that and infer that it applicable to was the theory of evolution (or any theory proposed) before or after the observations were made?
is a gross error of logical argument.
Neither Creationists nor IDists say that something that is improbable must have been designed. I have said this several times now but chance keeps repeating it anyway.
Really! Then why present such argument if not to infer such? What is itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s purpose if not to demonstrate, Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducible complexityÃ¢â‚¬Â, or Ã¢â‚¬Å“itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s too improbable to have happened by chanceÃ¢â‚¬Â if there is an alternate explanation to why these subject are used, here is you chance to set the record straight. What do these examples represent and why bring them to discuss?
Notice that all chance can say is:
My position is sound re 'after the fact' because it wont end with a conclusion of Ã¢â‚¬Å“it so improbable it must be designedÃ¢â‚¬Â or "habitability = measure-ability" and especially with such formula as the drake equation. So if you have a counter example proving your point lets see it.
But that is it. Nothing to substantiate the claim just a repition of the claim.
On one hand we have scientists and probability theorists who use the Drake equation and say it is OK to do. On the other hand we have chance who says it isn't.
Hah, the difference is that scientist are under no illusion about the claim you can make with a drake equation, or any other similar probability exercise, far different from inferring design from an eclipse, do you agree?
BTW chance, science is done via inference. It seldom concludes and it never proves.
All theory is tentative and relies on the evidence available to support the theory. Not sure what you mean by is done via inference
What ius being measured? LoL! This is why it is never a good thing to debate something you don't know anything about. We can measure just about anything we can observe. Distances, light and radio frequencies, decay rates...
The question was, Infer all you like, but I want to talk specific evidence that can lead to the conclusion of Ã¢â‚¬Ëœhabitability = measure-abilityÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. What exactly is being measured?
So what is being measured that allows the conclusion, habitability = measure-ability,? lets talk specifics, so that we can see who knows what about what.
If the moon had its own moon? LoL! What do you know of science? If our Moon had its own moon we wouldn't be here to observe it- that is what science says.
Interesting, on what do you base this? (pre-emptive reply Ã¢â‚¬â€œ before you answer please note I made no qualifying requirements on the size of the second moon, or method or date of capture, so you can drop any orbital mechanics objections re unstable orbits). So to repeat the question
how do you know what effect there would be on life, man, or civilisation if the moon had itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s own moon? Do you have a method to determine the consequences?
bolded to emphasise actual line of questioning, i.e. lack of a control, or low of sample size.