"I think it's important to realize that if something happens "only once in 25 billion years" that does not mean it happens at the end of those 25 billion years. It could just as probably happen on the first day
(Re-quoting) "It could just as probably happen on the first day"
...or not at all...ever
...if one maintains the only possible source of Ool is "Randomness" on into the indefinite future.
That it has "happened" will be quickly argued by most contributors to this thread. "Case Closed" for "Randomness"!
But should it be?
Each must make that choice according to their own beliefs...but to arbitrarily dismiss "ID" would then remove not only consideration of Creationist's arguments before all the dust has settled arising from debates within the scientific community regarding life's origins but also the more radical hypothesis such as "Directed Panspermia"
by some in the scientific community (which amusingly enough represent a form of "ID" themselves).
Hello Lisa Shea...and thank you for the comments.
"With all the planets in the universe, there are undoubtedly many other planets that took the 25 billion years to reach that point."
The search continues for confirmation that life exists elsewhere in the cosmos. There have been (not so long ago) very high level symposiums wherein consideration that the development of "life" has progressed along other than what is represented on Earth. The meetings were entitled "Weird Life" I believe.
"With ours, it happened to be earlier, which is why we're here at this stage of progress to discuss it."
Understandably...the presumption of most contributing to threads such as this one. Yet there is still
the matter of resolving "theory" into "fact" regarding that issue.
As an aside, it seems a little ironic to me that the process of giving Panspermia more and more attention as frustration builds regarding the lack of progress of creating actual "life" in the laboratory is nudging Ool "off shore" so to speak into "space" where it becomes more difficult to meet one of the standards of the scientific community to achieve "proof", namely, for "testable hypothesis" to be tested to move "hypothesis" to the next stage..."theory".
That...plus..."out there" where Panspermia is being looked to finally solve the mystery of Ool is where Creationists also encounter the same problem now to face the scientific community...namely...the lack of being able to respond to criticisms regarding a "testable hypothesis" with the "lab" being removed to the unfathomable reaches of "space"
"A woman won the NY Lottery twice. The odds of doing that are: 1 in 3,669,120,000,000
An envious accomplishment I'm sure we will all agree.
One thing however. The example is that of a "closed" scenario (in a sense) because it has a finite (not theoretical) number of outcome possibilities plus or minus allowance for margin-of-error notation.
By way of comparison...consider "flipping" a two-sided coin. The "potential" outcomes are limited. The same can be said when throwing a (fair) six-sided die...but the possible outcomes are obviously not as constrained (probability-wise) as they necessarily are with the two-sided coin.
The "Probability" or "Statistical" outcomes that are possible are are limited by the "conditions" of the "environment" imposed by the available "materials" (the two-sided coin fewer possible outcomes than the six sided die).
So if the number of state residents available to play the state lottery and the number of numbers on the ballot are known...the "randomness" a casual player depends upon when placing their "bet" does not provide the same "odds" as are made available to the one who is able to bring "Determinism" to bear on the outcome.
As a "case-in-point", consider the story of "The Luckiest Woman In The World"
who won multiple millions by winning four
Looked at with no other qualifying information than that...her "success" would be considered as just incredibly "lucky" (plus maybe drawing the attention of gaming officials?)
One report of her success noted: "The odds of this has been calculated at one in eighteen septillion and luck like this could only come once every quadrillion years."
(MailOnline, Jan 29 2012).
Before everyone starts exchanging "high-fives" that it proves the point made in your first paragraph that "Randomness" was responsible for her wins...it turns out winning four times was less "luck" ("Randomness") and more "ID" ("Intelligent Design" - "Determinism") than was at first thought.
Come to find out, she was a Ph.D. in Statistics
from Stanford University ("Forbes", "ForbesWoman"
This "Luckiest Woman Alive" was able to lessen "chance" as her gambling partner and instead moved the projected outcome from "blind chance" win or lose (Randomness) to "win" (with fewer losses) by employing the equivalent of "Determinism" afforded by using her "mind", her "Intelligent Design" capabilities reflecting her academic accomplishments.
("ID" - Intelligent Design)...was involved in setting up the conditions for her success.
It follows, that when I view, experience, and participate in your
wonderful (and admirable) site...I "sense" (know) a "mind" is behind it all...that it didn't just fall into organizational-place, by "chance", all by itself, as random codes and sequences, letters, and such passed by.
"My web site has grown into over 52,000 pages and images, all hand written and created by me" (underline added)
So the result of this site which we all enjoy was the result not of "Randomness" but "Determinism".
[*] "Randomness", as in the case of developing this site...does not write "Code"
[*] "Randomness", again as in the case of developing this site...does not construct "Sequences"
Neither are the complex codes and sequences found in the replication of living organisms the result of "Randomness" regardless of what time-span is invoked by those who hold an opposing view.
Wish more time was available...but alas...not to be especially since I would like to respond to PDM and others.
Maybe by tomorrow...