Pell says Adam and Eve didn't exist

reply to post by MrXYZ

You're pulling that 10^300 out of your ass

I had to go back and look, and I hate to admit this but you are correct, I hastily said that. The actual probability for it to have evolved by chance is:

7.4 X 10^650 possible permutations and only 1 of those is hemoglobin. Anything else is hemoglobin apathy and is fatal.

If we accept Evolutionists age of the Earth dates that's only 10^17 seconds since your "Big Bang". That is some ridiculously fast Evolution.

You're right, my 10^300 was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off. It's actually exponentially more absurd for Evolution to be true.

Thank you for that correction, eternally indebted.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You are still assuming that it was chance based...instead of the result of evolutionary pressures (outside or inside).

Aside from that, your entire example above only makes sense if you assume only one "try" could happen at once...which simply isn't the case. So when it comes to quantitative methods, your entire argument falls apart like a house of cards anyway

Get this if you really want to know how stats work: LINK

reply to post by MrXYZ


You need to get a clue how big of numbers we are talking about here. Let me try. 651 zeros, I have 5,000 characters so I can give it a whirl:

7.4 X

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000


That's how many permutations you have to get it right, only one combination is hemoglobin, every other one is fatal and the blood will not carry oxygen.

Here is the number of seconds you have in time if you started at the accepted age of the Earth (10^17):


1,000,000,000,000,000,000

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

You need to get a clue how big of numbers we are talking about here. Let me try. 651 zeros, I have 5,000 characters so I can give it a whirl:

7.4 X

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000


That's how many permutations you have to get it right, only one combination is hemoglobin, every other one is fatal and the blood will not carry oxygen.

Here is the number of seconds you have in time if you started at the accepted age of the Earth (10^17):


1,000,000,000,000,000,000

And again, your figures assume only one "try" can happen at once...which is complete and utter nonsense. I take it you never had a proper quantitative methods class?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
And again, your figures assume only one "try" can happen at once...which is complete and utter nonsense. I take it you never had a proper quantitative methods class?

Here you go again with, given infinite chances anything can happen. Which is true. But that means there's a world out there where your entire history is written in leaves in my front yard.

reply to post by MrXYZ

And again, your figures assume only one "try" can happen at once...which is complete and utter nonsense. I take it you never had a proper quantitative methods class?

That's a rescuing device. Hey, I'm even using Evolutionist's age of the Earth. Want me to do the math if we use Planck Time (tP) units?

It's still impossible. Get a new religion dude.

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by MrXYZ
And again, your figures assume only one "try" can happen at once...which is complete and utter nonsense. I take it you never had a proper quantitative methods class?

Here you go again with, given infinite chances anything can happen. Which is true. But that means there's a world out there where your entire history is written in leaves in my front yard.

Then don't have infinite time, they severely handicapped themselves by giving us the "age of the Earth". According to them it's only 10^17s.

Still impossible by an exponential scale.

reply to post by MrXYZ

which is complete and utter nonsense.

What's nonsense is not only do you need 1 mutation to come up with this combination and pass it to their offspring, you have to get lucky enough another creature has the same mutation and breeds young with the exact same mutation so those two can reproduce.

Take a math class or two. Your argument is based on random mutations!

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

And again, your figures assume only one "try" can happen at once...which is complete and utter nonsense. I take it you never had a proper quantitative methods class?

That's a rescuing device. Hey, I'm even using Evolutionist's age of the Earth. Want me to do the math if we use Planck Time (tP) units?

It's still impossible. Get a new religion dude.

What do you mean with "rescuing device"?? It's called quantitative methods and is one of the most basic principles too

Your entire example assumes only 1 evolution try can happen at once at any given point in try...given the size of the earth this is LAUGHABLE. And once you account for the FACT that multiple tries can happen at once, you should (!!) realize that your entire argument is complete and utter nonsense from a probability standpoint

Woe

2+2=4

What other method do you suggest?

Hope it adds up,

Mr medinet

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You are still assuming that it was chance based...instead of the result of evolutionary pressures (outside or inside).

Aside from that, your entire example above only makes sense if you assume only one "try" could happen at once...which simply isn't the case. So when it comes to quantitative methods, your entire argument falls apart like a house of cards anyway

Get this if you really want to know how stats work: LINK

edit on 20-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

reply to post by MrXYZ

It's called quantitative methods and is one of the most basic principles too.

So basically the Microbiologists forget it exists? Or forget it's relevant? Help me out here. I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why those dealing with DNA and RNA are fleeing Darwinian Evolution like rats from a sinking ship.

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by InfaRedMan

 

Yep, that's about the sum of it.

Why the big switch? Is there something big going to happen that makes religious people like this look like fools? One has to wonder why hey?

I think the Church is preparing the public for a possible alien disclosure. (not really but its one theory ). The Church's chief astronomer admitted the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial life may exist, Now, they claim Adam and Eve might have been a myth, a story. I think they're trying to show members the more pragmatic side of the Church, so when aliens put down their landing gear somewhere and reveal their presence, they're not totally irrelevant.

Originally posted by Cosmic911

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by InfaRedMan

 

Yep, that's about the sum of it.

Why the big switch? Is there something big going to happen that makes religious people like this look like fools? One has to wonder why hey?

I think the Church is preparing the public for a possible alien disclosure. (not really but its one theory

). The Church's chief astronomer admitted the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial life may exist, Now, they claim Adam and Eve might have been a myth, a story. I think they're trying to show members the more pragmatic side of the Church, so when aliens put down their landing gear somewhere and reveal their presence, they're not totally irrelevant.

I believe you're referring to the RCC. They were irrelevant a long time ago.

The snake wasn't actually talking, animals can't talk. That's ridiculous. It was Satan speaking, whom appeared as a Serpent.

Huh? Talking animals is ridiculous but Satan in the form of a Serpent is just business as usual? And just when I think humanity has a chance a gem like this comes along.

Originally posted by onebullet

The snake wasn't actually talking, animals can't talk. That's ridiculous. It was Satan speaking, whom appeared as a Serpent.

Huh? Talking animals is ridiculous but Satan in the form of a Serpent is just business as usual? And just when I think humanity has a chance a gem like this comes along.

Actually the Hebrew word is "Nachash" it came to mean serpent because of the Genesis account, but it literally means "the shining one". The verb is "shining" the noun usage is "snake". Marvel not because satan is an angel of light.

Don't miss the letter because you don't like the haircut of the mailman.

Originally posted by mrmedinet
Woe

2+2=4

What other method do you suggest?

Hope it adds up,

Mr medinet

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You are still assuming that it was chance based...instead of the result of evolutionary pressures (outside or inside).

Aside from that, your entire example above only makes sense if you assume only one "try" could happen at once...which simply isn't the case. So when it comes to quantitative methods, your entire argument falls apart like a house of cards anyway

Get this if you really want to know how stats work: LINK

edit on 20-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

One that takes into account that several tries can happen at once...given the size of the earth probably several million/billion at the same time. It's not as if this this evolutionary step was only tried once on the planet at any one time...saying so is complete and utter nonsense and shows an impressive lack of knowledge when it comes to quantitative methods.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

It's called quantitative methods and is one of the most basic principles too.

So basically the Microbiologists forget it exists? Or forget it's relevant? Help me out here. I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why those dealing with DNA and RNA are fleeing Darwinian Evolution like rats from a sinking ship.

They aren't fleeing it

Again, the large majority of scientists support evolution...and with large majority I mean more than 99% according to the latest polls.

And Microbiologists don't forget it exists...that's why they don't agree with your fairy tale wanna-be probability figure

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

It's called quantitative methods and is one of the most basic principles too.

So basically the Microbiologists forget it exists? Or forget it's relevant? Help me out here. I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why those dealing with DNA and RNA are fleeing Darwinian Evolution like rats from a sinking ship.

They aren't fleeing it

Again, the large majority of scientists support evolution...and with large majority I mean more than 99% according to the latest polls.

And Microbiologists don't forget it exists...that's why they don't agree with your fairy tale wanna-be probability figure

Still waiting to see these polls...

I know nothing of God... or the Devil. I have never seen a vision, nor learned a secret, that would damn or save my soul.

Armand...

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by onebullet

The snake wasn't actually talking, animals can't talk. That's ridiculous. It was Satan speaking, whom appeared as a Serpent.

Huh? Talking animals is ridiculous but Satan in the form of a Serpent is just business as usual? And just when I think humanity has a chance a gem like this comes along.

Actually the Hebrew word is "Nachash" it came to mean serpent because of the Genesis account, but it literally means "the shining one". The verb is "shining" the noun usage is "snake". Marvel not because satan is an angel of light.

Don't miss the letter because you don't like the haircut of the mailman.

I would like to debate the fairy tale that is the bible, but I realize I'd be doing it the only way I know how. With logic. And clearly logic and the bible are incompatible with each other.