Now is this by chance or design ?

[Micilin]

i dont have to prove its impossible, its self evident.

Which is a good take on why such opinions are not based on proof; a good example of the lack of desire for proof ; and as suchso easy to discount , as evidence is not required.

Love these circular arguments. 'It must be true therefore I don't need to prove it, as I have said it must be true'

Always amusing too, when an arugment that uses odds to support a belief can be so easily shown to be fallacious, once the the mathematics are explored.

 

[Norcon]

You've shown nothing to be fallacious apart from your own flawed beliefs.

 

[Mikefromlondon]

Aah, but mathamatically you cannot get 1 (one) out of Zero (Nothing) , nor can you create Zero from something, only way to create Nothing would be to take away -1 from 1 and -1 doesn't exist. ( its a fig of imagination that antimatter exists)


If Zero does niot exist, that means nothing exists, so you cannot take away anything from Zero. ( when you type 0 on your calculator and minus 1 from zero the calculator would show a -1 result, this is only so far as theoretically correct, practically any minus numbers do not exists, for example the absolute minus temerature is -273 degrees calvin, this does not really mean that -273 actually exist, but what it means is that what we normally call freezing temeprature (0 degrees celcius ) is actually 273 degrees celcius. and so if we are sitting in our room heated to 20 degrees celcius, then the actual temeperature is 293 degrees celcius, and absolute zero (well 273 degrees below freezing point of water ) is the true zero degrees temperature, but we are now used to calling 273 degrees as 0 deg celcius) it is just that we have shifted the refernce point, but not the actual fact.

 

[JBR]

( its a fig of imagination that antimatter exists)

Of course antimatter exists. Google it.

 

[Micilin]

You've shown nothing to be fallacious apart from your own flawed beliefs.

No luck yet then?

 

[Norcon]

the odds are, its impossible for it to have just have happened whithout some one behind it. that someone ,we believe and know is God.

they think they found the reason for the big bang,but cannot even found a jumbo jet gone missing.

Not really.

Let's take Eddie's figures as an exercise.

Say the combination of things we need is odds of 200Mto 1. So for every 200M similar set ups, it is only likely to happen once. Small possibility, highly unlikely, but statistically more than once is not really on the cards. (Bearing in mind that chance is random and does not preclude more than once , or never)

However, if the numbers mean that we have twenty times that overall number of set ups, then the odds mean that we then statistically have the likelihood of our circumstances occurring twenty times.

This is where the big numbers work for us, because as we approach an infinite number of set ups, then the chances of our circumstances occurring more than once increases hugely , ( in extremis , also approaching infinity)

So that statistically, it is mathematically more likely that our circumstances arise more than once , than it is that it could happen just one time.

The comment on the jet is amusing, but as relevant as me losing my keys

Complete nonsense.
10 to the power of 80 is the number of particles in the entire universe.
10 to the power 16 is the number of seconds since the big bang.

Finding a functional protein by chance is 1 chance in 10 to the power of 164.
So not possible without a creator.

 

[Norcon]

You've shown nothing to be fallacious apart from your own flawed beliefs.

No luck yet then?

See above. ^

 

[Mikefromlondon]

the odds are, its impossible for it to have just have happened whithout some one behind it. that someone ,we believe and know is God.

they think they found the reason for the big bang,but cannot even found a jumbo jet gone missing.

Not really.

Let's take Eddie's figures as an exercise.

Say the combination of things we need is odds of 200Mto 1. So for every 200M similar set ups, it is only likely to happen once. Small possibility, highly unlikely, but statistically more than once is not really on the cards. (Bearing in mind that chance is random and does not preclude more than once , or never)

However, if the numbers mean that we have twenty times that overall number of set ups, then the odds mean that we then statistically have the likelihood of our circumstances occurring twenty times.

This is where the big numbers work for us, because as we approach an infinite number of set ups, then the chances of our circumstances occurring more than once increases hugely , ( in extremis , also approaching infinity)

So that statistically, it is mathematically more likely that our circumstances arise more than once , than it is that it could happen just one time.

The comment on the jet is amusing, but as relevant as me losing my keys

Complete nonsense.
10 to the power of 80 is the number of particles in the entire universe.
10 to the power 16 is the number of seconds since the big bang.

Finding a functional protein by chance is 1 chance in 10 to the power of 164.
So not possible without a creator.

That sums it up all, someone or something created the matter out of himself or itself. but not from nothing. good one Norcon.

 

[Micilin]

Complete nonsense.
10 to the power of 80 is the number of particles in the entire universe.
10 to the power 16 is the number of seconds since the big bang.

Finding a functional protein by chance is 1 chance in 10 to the power of 164.
So not possible without a creator.

A simple -' No , I haven't' would suffice.

(Please tell me your protein chance figure isn't based on Doug Axe et al irrelevant though this is to the Origin of the Universe )

 

[Norcon]

Darwins Evolution theory in a nutshell: If you throw sh@t at a wall for long enough, you will eventually have a beautiful painting.

 

[JBR]

Darwins Evolution theory in a nutshell: If you throw sh@t at a wall for long enough, you will eventually have a beautiful painting.

Sounds like the sort of 'artwork' that would find itself in the Tate Modern!

 

[Micilin]

Darwins Evolution theory in a nutshell: If you throw sh@t at a wall for long enough, you will eventually have a beautiful painting.

If that is indeed your understanding of current evolutionary theory , then no wonder you struggle.

You still have not met my challenge. Can you even remember it?

Come on, I expect a bit better than this - a discussion should be at least a little amusing or challenging; or else there's no point.

 

[EFLImpudence]

only way to create Nothing would be to take away -1 from 1

That's 2

only way to create Nothing would be to take away 1 from 1 but where would you put it?

 

[Mikefromlondon]

only way to create Nothing would be to take away -1 from 1

That's 2

only way to create Nothing would be to take away 1 from 1 but where would you put it?

I knew there was a flaw in my formula, you are correct, absolutely right, you can't take awai 1 from 1 and where the heck you would put it? you just can't can you, hence why I said you can't.

The day we can figure out where that Malaysian plane went and why, we might be able to figure out what antimatter is! hey that just struck me an idea, if that plane can vanish, and not been found so far despite extensive search, this therefore is conclusive proof that you could take 1 from 1 and get left with Nothing! not a trace!

 

[breadnbutter]

Darwins Evolution theory in a nutshell: If you throw sh@t at a wall for long enough, you will eventually have a beautiful painting.

If that is indeed your understanding of current evolutionary theory , then no wonder you struggle.

You still have not met my challenge. Can you even remember it?

Come on, I expect a bit better than this - a discussion should be at least a little amusing or challenging; or else there's no point.

ok, A challenge for you, the earth is covered in 75% of water,were did this water come from.