Disproving atheists in 82 seconds

Wrong again STUpid.

First of all, you're an ignoranus, liar and troll who knows almost nothing about science. For example, here when you got the 96% / 4% split of dark matter & dark energy versus everything else BACKWARDS. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2952513#post2952513 Every time I've exposed your STUpidity, you've tried to lie your way out of it.... and you still won't own up to this blunder LOL. Pretend all you want but you know less about science than many children do. Given your ignorance about something as basic as that, how can you even hope to discuss this?

Second, you've shown you're just as STUpid when it comes to math and don't even know basic terminology, let alone substance. Speaking of which, when we're talking about proofs... tell us again how "goal" is "inappropriate parlance" and reexpressing a negative is "just too ridiculous for words!"
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3362824#post3362824

Finally, Penrose is a distinguished mathematical physicist, on par with Hawking, and his calculation does NOT bear "more of a relationship to numerology" you idiot, it's about entropy. Do you even know what that is, STUpid? Of course it's an estimate but not something an ignoranus like you can grasp or appreciate. But if you "think" you can come up with a better one or that Penrose is in error somewhere, let's see the SPECIFICS, as opposed to your usual poser nonsensical drivel.

 

which god?

 

For you? I would recommend the god of intolerance.

 

Stuology vs. Science.

Stuology states... and this is a quote..

"there is plenty of science showing life from non life"

But, Real Scientists with degrees from real schools state and Noble Prizes state:

We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
have little idea yet what form this explanation will take—although of course it
will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
last resort, if an option at all—but we have every reason to look for such an
explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.
3
There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the “Almosta Miracle Camp” including Francis Crick (1981), ErnstMayr (1982),
and Jaques Monod (1974), who appear to be content with the idea that life
arose by chance even if the probability of this happening is extremely low.
4
According to Crick “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied
to get it going” (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a “happy
accident” (p. 14).
5
According to Mayr, “a full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this
event was.” (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was “virtually zero. . .our number came up in the
Monte Carlo game” (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is “chance caught
on a wing” (p. 78). That is, although natural selection took over early to produce the diversity of life, its origin was nothing but an incredibly improbable
fluke.Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake? 459
However, the vast majority of experts in the field clearly define their work
in opposition to this view. The more common attitude is summed up neatly
by J. D. Bernal.
[T]he question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms,
clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge
that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than
chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life. (quoted in Fry 2000:
153)
Having calculated the staggering improbability of life’s emergence by chance,
Manfred Eigen (1992) concludes,
The genes found today cannot have arisen randomly, as it were by the throw of
a dice. There must exist a process of optimization that works toward functional
efficiency. Even if there are several routes to optimal efficiency, mere trial and
error cannotbe one of them. (p. 11)
It is from this conclusion that Eigen motivates his search for a physical principle that does not leave the emergence of life up to blind chance, hence
making itreproducible in principle:
The physical principle that we are looking for should be in a position to explain
the complexity typical of the phenomena of life at the level of molecular structures and syntheses. It should show how such complex molecular arrangements
are able to form reproducibly in Nature. (p. 11)
According to Christian de Duve (1991),
. . .unless one adopts a creationist view,. . .life arose through the succession of an
enormous number of small steps, almost each of which, given the condition at
the time had a very high probability of happening. . .the alternative amounts to
a miracle. . .were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the
combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally.
(p. 217)
Not all theorists follow De Duve so far as suggesting that life’s emergence
mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987)
captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into life’s
origin. According to Dawkins,
All who have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex as
the human eye could not possibly come into existence through [a single chance
event]. Unfortunately the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus
of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself (p. 140)460 NOUS ˆ
In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks
“Whatis the largestsingle eventof sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories,
and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?” (p. 141) And
he answers that there are strict limits on the “ration of luck” that we are
allowed to postulate in our theories.
6
According to Dawkins, an examination
of the immense complexity of the most basic mechanisms required for DNA
replication is sufficient to see that any theory which makes its existence a
highly improbable fluke is unbelievable, quite apart from what alternative
explanations are on the table


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

 

Stuology vs. Penrose --

Stuology lectures penrose on probability:

"Every probability calculation needs its density function and there isn't one for Penrose's so called "well known calculation".
Even large number coincidences developed from Dirac's large numbers hypothesis, are themselves not considered applicable to constants, neither are they accepted generally in science or physics. "

Penrose --

Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS (born 8 August 1931) is an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.[1] He is renowned for his work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He is also a recreational mathematician and philosopher.

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/WhGdVMBk6Zo?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/WhGdVMBk6Zo?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

Jem?

 

Here is what I believe.

1. I am a Christian in that through faith and grace I believe Jesus is part of a the Trinity.
2. Like most Christians I believe the earth is most like much older than 6000 years.
3. Like most Christians I believe in some evolution, but that belief is limited by the facts we have now. I believe it is very unlikely we had time for life to evolve from non life here in on earth.
4. At the moment I do not believe in multiple universes because there is no evidence of there being more than one universe. There also may be no way to prove there is more than one universe and I have no faith in there being more than one universe. You can say I am agnostic towards multiple universes.
5. I also know that after tax cuts revenues to the u.s. federal govt have increased. And I therefore disbelieve the liberal mantra that supply side economics does not work. The evidence we have seems to indicate cutting taxes worked Bush, Reagan, Kennedy and the time before that too.

At the very least I know that as long as the federal govt spends more that it takes in... that is a very nasty tax increase. It causes massive inflation. I rest assured that even if tax decreases would not stimulate the economy, I am confident the debasing of the u.s. dollar will eventually cause revenues to increase anyway.

So, given that understand I am now for zero, Federal Personal income tax. And a 10% flat coporate tax. As the founding fathers set it up... if the feds needs to raise some money let them eract tariffs and protect our jobs.

I also believe that you get want you want out of the markets... and I have also found that holds true of many other areas of life (perhaps I have just been blessed, but I see it for other sometimes as well. Seykota had some very wise statements in Market Wizards.

 

1. a few typos... but one clarification.

the founders set up zero income tax but had tariffs for revenues. I did not intend to imply there was a corporate income tax. The other typos were missing letters like a why in likely on line 2.

2. Regarding the age of the earth. The bible does not give an age.

 

As predicted. Infantile name calling, no substance, no argument.

You only ever troll the false assertion I was wrong. You can't, won't, don't know how to show or explain yourself on how I am supposed to be wrong, despite the many explanations for why you are wrong.

Same old false assertion. You can't, won't, don't know how to support the ridiculous terminology you use.

No, you are wrong.
You were talking about something called "Penrose's well known calculation". That "calculation" is a creationists calculation. Not Penrose's.

It's about creationists like you being in even worse than error, not Penrose. You don't even understand the argument you are not making.

 

...and are obviously very very angry about.


Here is what you lie about....

It appears all you can do as a believer, ignoramus liar and troll, is alter my words and repeatedly lie about them. Apparently your beliefs rather perversely assist you in doing that.

It might be looked on as a form of inverted flattery though, the way you and Trader666shits as believers try to do the same to me as to Pentose and others of that caliber.