Answer me this question with a simple yes or no answer and you may understand the problem here:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
It is a very simple question, so you should be capable of answering it.
Truly not the same question. My question did not assume an occurrence, it dealt with how you would qualify that occurrence.
I don't believe in space aliens, but if someone were trying to convince me, a fair question would be, "What would you say if a saucer came down right here and a four legged, three eyed creature stepped out and dissolved this tree with a ray gun?" The answer to that question shows whether any occurrence, however fantastic, could change me assumptions.
I think there are traps of assumption on both sides of the ID debate and I posed my question to shed light on one of them (the other seems very clear). One need not agree that ID does exist, to acknowledge that there is some level of improbability that would shake their belief in hapinstance. Or as it has turned out, to conclude that statistics are in fact meaningless and it is the inability to disprove the occurrence which they have hung their hat on.
Does it not seem odd to you that when I asked the question concerning finding an "Arch de Triumph" on Mars, that people immediately started posting natural stone cutouts to demonstrate that such a thing could be a natural occurence? Why not just say,"Yea, that would be too much of a statistical stretch for me to accept, I'd have to go with intelligence being involved." ?