Superstition, Luck and Vodoo

FasterPussycat · Jun 24, 2002

Originally posted by darkhorse
nice quote faster, still waiting for an argument. you'll notice that my ratio of quotes to arguments is nicely weighted to the argument side, i would expect the same of you. chew on this nugget, for example:

The Mathematical Improbability of Life Forming by Chance

The theory of evolution states that non-living matter, by means of random combinations of molecules, eventually gave rise to life. In this section, we will examine the mathematical probability of just such an occurrence. However, if you are unfamiliar with exponential notation, then you won't be as able to grasp as much in this section as someone who does. So, to make it easier for those of you who don't know it, a simple explanation and illustration should clear things up.

An example of exponential notation is 3(2). It is pronounced, "Three to the second." This means 3 X 3, or 9. The exponent is the 2. 10(2) is 10 X 10, or 100. 2(3) equals 2 X 2 X 2, or 8. 10(3) equals 10 X 10 X 10, or 1000. Notice that 10(2) has two zeros behind it, 10(3) has three zeroes behind it, and 10(4) would have four zeroes behind it, and so on. When a notation is in the negative like this, 3(-3) it means 1 divided by 3 X 3 X 3, or 1/27th. Now for a quick illustration of the advantage of the use of exponential notation.

If you took a piece of paper 1/500th of an inch thick and tore it in half and put the two halves on top of one another, you would have two pieces of paper and a total of 2/500ths, or 1/250th of an inch. If you tore those in half you would have four pieces. If you tore those in half you would have eight pieces, and so on. Now, if you tore that original piece of paper, in that manner, a total of fifty times, how tall would the stack of paper be? Mathematically, the equation would be 2(50) pieces of paper times 1/500th of an inch. The answer would be in inches.

After reading this sentence and before reading the answer, why don't you take a look at that equation one more time, think about it a little, and then guess how tall you think the stack would be. Go ahead and guess. Did you think about it and guess? The answer is very easy. There is only one problem; it isn't in inches; it is in miles, 35,539,769 miles 4154 feet 2.3808 inches to be exact. Amazing isn't it? This shows you that the surprise in the large answer rests in the exponential notation 2(50), which, incidentally, is equal to 1,125,899,906,842,624. That is one quadrillion, one hundred twenty-five trillion, eight hundred ninety-nine billion, nine hundred six million, eight hundred forty-two thousand, six hundred twenty-four; its easier to say 2(50) (two to the fiftieth).

Another illustration is much simpler. The estimated number of atoms in the entire universe is approximately 10(79) atoms. This is a one with 79 zeros after it. That is a lot of atoms to be so easily numbered in one simple form. But that is the advantage of exponential notation.

When the following people are quoted and they use this form of notation, you will now have a better idea of what they are saying.

Evolution teaches that in the beginning, inanimate matter, through countless combinations and a great deal of time, arrived at the present highly complex forms of life found on the earth. Let's see what the experts have to say:

...anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cube faces at random. Now imagine 10(50) blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously [emphasis original] arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the earth is evidently nonsense of the highest order.

This quote was from Sir Fred Hoyle, an honorary research professor at Manchester University and University College Cardiff. He was a University lecturer in Mathematics at Cambridge. He is a well known and well respected scientist. Chance development of life on earth, in his opinion, is "nonsense of the highest order."

He also says in another work concerning biomolecules:

...one must contemplate not just a single shot at obtaining the enzyme, but a very large number of trials such as are supposed to have occurred in an organic soup early in the history of the Earth. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10(20)(2000) = 10(40,000), an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup."

To say the least, the probability of biopolymers and enzymes spontaneously forming are, in Hoyle's opinion, "outrageously small."

Another writer sees "the probability of life having originated through random choice at any one of the 10(46) occasions is then about 10(-255). The smallness of this number means that it is virtually impossible that life has originated by a random association of molecules. The proposition that a living structure could have arisen in a single event through random association of molecules must be rejected."

Some other scientists with similar views concerning biogenesis (beginnings of life) have equally unsupportive comments: "To get a cell by chance would require at least one hundred functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place. That is one hundred simultaneous events each of an independent probability which could hardly be more than 10(-20) giving maximum combined probability of 10(-2000)."

There are many such quotes available, but these few are representative of the immense mathematical improbability of life spontaneously forming anywhere on the earth. The odds are simply against it. It is impossible. Evolutionists, however, do not consider these extremely improbable odds as insurmountable. They often reply, "If the chance is so small then given enough time it will happened." Well, let's put that idea to a test.

What are the odds of an organism forming which has only 100 parts (no living cell has that few) if for 30 billion years, which is a generous estimate of the age of the universe, there were 1 billion billion billion billion combinations of its parts every second? That would be 10(36) combinations per second. In other words, is that enough time? This is easy to figure out.

Life is composed of DNA or "parts." The more parts an organism has, the more complicated it is. The simplest form of life is the virus. It has thousands of parts. For the sake of simplicity, let's invent a virus with only 100 parts. The odds of 100 parts coming together in the right order are 100! 100! means 100 factorial, or 100 x 99 x 98 x 97...all the way down to 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1.

Let me illustrate. If you have two wooden blocks, how many ways can you arrange them in a straight line? The answer is 2!, or 2 x 1 = 2. If you had three blocks, it would be 3! or 3 x 2 x 1 = 6 combinations. If you had 4 it would be 4! or 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 24 combinations. The higher the number of parts the higher the possible combinations. Our virus, technically can be put together in non-straight lines so there would be many many more ways of combining it. But, we are being gracious here.

100 parts can combine in 9.3325832 x 10(157) different possible ways. A cell, however, cannot be thrown together just any old way. Life is a delicate balance and only a very delicate combination will result in it.

The problem is to see if 30 billion years is long enough for 100 parts to randomly combine at one billion billion billion billion per second, and the result be life. The equation is simple. 30 billion years equals 3 x 10(10) years. One billion billion billion billion equals 1 x 10(36). 30 billion years of seconds equals 3 x 10(10) x 365 (days) x 24 (hours) x 60 (minutes) x 60 (seconds). This equals 9.4608 x 10(17) seconds. We take the total number of seconds, 9.4608 x 10(17), and multiply it by the number of combinations per second which is one billion billion billion billion or 1 x 10(36). The equation would be 9.4608 x 10(17) seconds times 1 x 10(36) combinations per second. This equals 9.4608 x 10(53) combinations. This means there are still approximately 10(104) combinations left to perform. This is not nearly enough time to allow a simple cell with only 100 parts to pop into life. The probability of the cell forming is zero.

If we were to look at cells with hundreds of more parts, which would be more realistic, the odds against its forming are multiplied exponentially. Yet, evolutionists maintain that the spontaneous formation of life on the earth is a fact. How can they believe that? It seems to me they have less evidence to go on than we Christians do in believing in Jesus.
More...

dark,

where did you get your figures? the 700 CLUB?? Pat and the gang always have some half baked "scientist" bastardizing science and generally making a mess of things. your figures sound remarkably like one of those crackpots, ...one of those pseudo-scientists i saw(actually i made fun of ) babbling incoherently there the other night. :-/

FasterPussycat · Jun 24, 2002

"Every post you have made thus far has been in VAIN... You are extremeley arrogant and extremely delusional (IMO)... I keep asking you these questions soley because your posts amuse me... "

LMAO!

YOU DA MAN!

Gordon Gekko · Jun 24, 2002

if there is a god, we have no idea what it is. one thing's for sure, however, nothing in the bible had anything to do with our creation.

chasinfla · Jun 24, 2002

Are you absolutely certain of that GG, with no margin for error?

VOLUME · Jun 24, 2002

"your figures sound remarkably like one of those crackpots, ...one of those pseudo-scientists i saw(actually i made fun of ) babbling incoherently there the other night."-Pussy

Why are these scientists crazy? Is it because they state conflicting evidence from that which you believe?
P.S.- On the subject of incoherent babbling...you should go back and read some of your post's from other threads. EEEEEEAAAAASSSSSSYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!

darkhorse · Jun 24, 2002

If possessing truth and being confident of that truth is arrogant, then I guess I am as arrogant as they come.
Because I have the truth, gentlemen. Or rather, the truth has me.
If that makes anyone angry, well, bummer.
I do not intend to cause distress. But I will not shy away from truth, ever.
A harsh word is more easily endured than the eternal consequences of a dangerously wrong belief.
You will all agree with me eventually, whether you like it or not.
If you decide to hate the messenger, what can I say. Not much more than I have said.

FasterPussycat · Jun 24, 2002

how confident can you b you have reliable knowledge? 50%? 60%? 75%? 90%? 99%? (surely not 100%)

how can you assess it? test it its validity? how can you be so sure natural selection isn't at work here making you feel this way?

Gordon Gekko · Jun 24, 2002

Originally posted by chasinfla
Are you absolutely certain of that GG, with no margin for error?
More...

since i do not know for sure (nobody does), i will not say i'm 100% right..if i do, i'm just kidding to ruffle feathers. but i would bet anything on it. i'll say this right here, right now to show you how bogus i think religion is:

jesus, since you know everything and listen to everyone's prayers (yeah right) send me to hell when i die. in fact, send me there quick!! don't let me live a long life! i want to go to hell, not heaven. do not forgive me for my sins and don't ever forgive me for saying this...i hate you and your mother! lol

see, i don't care....there is no heaven or hell...it's all a bunch of nonsense..what's funny is how seriously you (not necessarily you chasinfla) religious people believe what is so obviously bogus. the bible has so many holes in it, yet you all still make up excuses and reword things to make it make sense. for example, tell me right now you believe noah's ark and the adam & eve story? how about satan himself? the ONLY description of satan is of a dragon with 11 (i forget the ridiculous number) heads!! surely, you don't believe that! those are clearly so bogus!! if you agree that it's nonsense too, why do you believe the rest of it? i'll tell you why..cuz you were probably raised religiously as a kid. just like a dog that gets beat its whole life, it'll probably be vicious as an adult.

i'll end my argument with this point...and I LOVE THIS STORY!!! you religous people should love this!

giordano bruno believed the earth was round, not flat. he believed the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around like the bible says. well guess what, THE CHURCHES BURNED HIM TO DEATH!!!!!!!! and he was right too!!!!!!!! sorry to be blunt, but religion is for brainwashed f*ck!ng idiots. lol sorry, i'm not saying every religious person here is an idiot, but when it comes to religion, yes, you are...sorry to break it to you. anyway, here's a link to the story about giordano bruno: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_murphy/giordanobruno.html

respond if you want, but quite frankly, i don't care.

stu · Jun 25, 2002

Originally posted by darkhorse
If possessing truth and being confident of that truth is arrogant, then I guess I am as arrogant as they come.
Because I have the truth, gentlemen.

dark, the definition of arrogance: Having or showing feelings of unwarranted importance of overbearing pride

definition of truth : A fact which has been verified.
A true statement which has the quality of being accurate and shown to be without error.

You have the first
No one can know they have the second, unless they have the first
More...

stu · Jun 25, 2002

Originally posted by darkhorse

I have nothing to do with the popular perception of Christianity and God doesn't have much to do w/ it either for that matter.

so to clarify, you've invented your own God ?
More...