What we are basically arguing are the "rules of the game", not probability or logic per se. My original support of Madalone's was simply that it can't be logic if it leads even a minority to the wrong conclusion. Grant's point is that who said it had to be logic, it is merely an argument that leads most to the correct conclusion (that they are close to the end times, for exponential growth). So it's probability. Fram is saying that this assumes we could have come at any time, when in fact we are what we are, number 10 billion or whatever. It's part of who we are. It's a question of what is known. One could say that either it is the end times or it isn't, so without any information, it's a 50/50 chance!