Matthew Le God

The theorem is famous. These "experiments" you talk about aren't. Plus I don't see what purpose they serve. The point is that give randomness enough time and seemingly complex or unlikely things are possible. Tossing a coin and getting 10 heads in a row seems unlikely and has poor odds but the important thing is - it can happen! 1/1024 chance of success Derren Brown did a similar thing, however what he didn't show you at first was the 9 hours of failed attempts. Even unlikely events happen given enough opportunities, same applies to monkeys, enough time and typewriters.

Based on what you said about monkeys and typewriters, I don't think you understand the difference between a theorem and an experiment and instead used it to support your argument when it actually does the opposite.

To which you have no answer. Those videos are not good standalone proof. All that is in them can be easily faked. Nope, I much prefer Christopher Hitchens (even though he is a Skate).

Yep, I think I will get over it Scott.

I agree and this is a fundamental difference between science and religion. Science welcomes new ideas with open arms as long as they are supported with evidence. Religion however already claims to know all the answers and isn't open to change even in the face of evidence as it is often claimed to be the un-challengable word of God. If someone provides some good evidence for God or Ghosts I will look at it and consider its merits. If you do the same with for example the Catholic church on the use of condoms, they won't change no matter what you say or how much harm in the world it has caused.

No, what I say is (along with the vast majority of the scientific community) is that I don't know why the universe began. What I'm not prepared to do is plug that gap in knowledge with a God of convenience for whom there is no evidence for.

What was your question?

Example of this?

You have copied and pasted that from somewhere and I don't know what you are using it to say? If DNA has to have had a "designer" because it shows signs of intelligence in your eyes, who created the designer? You have started an infinite regression.

What is the bold bit based on?

What you say about monkeys and typewriters is nonsense. No actual experiment as you describe has taken place, it is a concept to show that given enough time monkeys pounding on keyboards would create the complete works of Shakespeare. Or randomness can create something simply with a structure to it. If anything, it is the complete opposite of what you are trying to use it to support.

Why has no-one ever collected the James Randi million dollar challenge? http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html

Which ones in that video? At what time?

I think you should also consider how incredibly easy it is for even an amateur filmmaker to fake all of those things. Or just be innocently fooled themselves by natural events and genuinely believe it is a ghost when in fact it is something like the lighting, shadows etc from something easily explainable if they were to delve a little deeper. Watch this for something that looks like too elaborate to fake by an amateur filmmaker, but really is quite simple and has fooled many people... When watching a youtube video of a "ghost", before jumping to the conclusion "its a ghost", you have ask yourself... can this be faked and which is more likely, a camera trick or a ghost?

As S-Clarke and Saint Garett have said, you don't need to be in a crisis to bring in an emergency loan. You could have a fully fit and available squad and still bring players in during the emergency loan window between tomorrow and some point in November. For example last year Richard Chaplow was an "emergency loan". I think Professor is confusing it with when clubs in the past have brought in for example a keeper on loan due to an injury crisis outside of the loan or transfer window (as Man City did with Fulop). In these cases they are given special dispensation due to a lack of goalkeepers.

Yep, the infamous "grey shirt game". Although I suppose that line up may have been used in other games that season.

This is where Phoebe's point falls down. Those that believed the earth to be flat did not do so with any use of scientific method to come to their conclusions. Belief in a flat earth was influenced by myth, legend and religious scriptures that were considered infallible and later shown to be wrong by those using scientific method. Ross's view of evolution does however have its roots in scientific method and has lots of evidence supporting it, it is also open to change unlike that of myth, legend and religion which are considered set in stone and non changeable. You can't compare the two. Ross really should have pointed this out to his friend.

I agree.

Why any more so than any of those claiming to have seen ghosts? Why have you decided to label only one side of the debate as moronic?

So it only "looked like a shadow". Why was your first conclusion, "it is most likely a ghost" rather than anything else? Is that really the most likely cause of a shadow?

Nope, definitely you. You can then apply that logic to anything, um... like a celestial teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars. Again, the burden of proof is on you. Provide some peer reviewed academic evidence accepted by the scientific community of anything to do with ghosts? (You are clearly on a wind up)

You are just being silly now. That does not meet the criteria of what I asked for. More silliness... Again, you must on a wind up if you think fictional Hollywood films can be used as evidence. Watch the Bertrand Russell Celestial teapot video.

The ghost can not be a witness to seeing itself. Can you show me a peer reviewed and accepted academic paper which has evidence of paranormal activity? So because they told you it was a documentary based on real events, you take a Hollywood movie of it to be "evidence". The 9/11 conspiracy movie "Loose Change" is also labelled as a documentary, however every claim they make in it can be debunked. Watch the Youtube celestial teapot video I posted in #164 (which you made no comment about). The burden of proof is on you, not me. So far you have failed on that count.