Hi bluegenes,
I agree with you here but was trying to think of an example of what NoNukes is doing since you both appear to be talking past each other.
Over 40 years ago while taking Statistics for the Earth Sciences on my first homework assignment one of the questions wanted me to take a coin and flip it 25 times, record it in a table, and do the calculations to show that the probability of getting heads or tails was 50:50.
Ok, so I flip 25 times and get 2 heads and then 23 tails in a row. The probability of that happening is very very small, and it isn't going to illustrate what the problem wants. However since that's what happened that's what I put down.
Now I get my homework back and the prof has marked this problem wrong and included a sarcastic comment implying I made this up, or let's use the right word here, that I DESIGNED this because the probablity of this happening was so small. Of course he was 100% wrong.
Probablity applied to the past is basically meaningless. What you see is what you get, what exists, exists however improbable. It tells you nothing about design and doesn't even imply it. It is just
what is.
So I don't see a problem here for one world or many.
P.S. It appears to me creationists are married to the ideas that God created this universe and the life in it. If you are not married to those ideas you will understand that the existence of the universe and life by natural means says nothing about the existence of God or not.
Edited by petrophysics1, : typo
Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2