The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

robindch wrote: »

Nope, not right.

There are certain strands of christianity which take a position named "Theistic Evolution" which, in broad terms, states that the universe was bigbanged into existence by god and humanity eventually evolved according to rules which the deity had instituted before the start and had not subsequently interfered with.

Christians with such beliefs are not creationists according to the normal definition of the term.

....and such people are not Christians according to the normal definition of the term EITHER!!!:)

...you are saying that Theistic Evolutionists believe that everything was produced by a supposed process, that for all practical purposes DIDN'T require any Divine input AT ALL!!!!

....as I have pointed out before, there is just one problem with such a viewpoint for a professing Christian....it is the herasy of Deism......the notion that God, if He exists at all, just triggered something off....and then took no further interest in the process or it's ultimate result!!!!!:eek:

J C

studiorat wrote: »

This is the most irritating things about creationists and the ID crowd. Just because something cannot be explained does not mean there is a consciousness behind it. Ask to see the scientific evidence in support of creationism, all you get given is facts about why evolution is false. .....the evidence for why Creation occurred is very often evidence that ALSO disproves Evolution!!!


I presume this talk of "mathematical impossibility" is a referral to irreducible complexity blah blah. Well the problem with IC is that it is just as likely that it is merely "very complex" or "misunderstood" as to be created by an intelligent being. ....it refers to the repeatably observable fact that SPECIFIED COMPLEX FUNCTIONAL INFORMATION occupies a tiny fraction of combinatorial space....and is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE to produce using non-intelligent processes!!!!
Living Systems are observed to contain vast quantities SPECIFIED COMPLEX FUNCTIONAL INFORMATION ...and so it is MATHEMATICALLY CERTAIN that it was produced by an intelligently directed process.....and Creation by the God of the Bible 'fits the bill' PERFECTLY!!!:)


I'm sure there's all the usual talk about airplanes and watches buried in this DNA-like thread, but lets not forget that we can remove elements of the organism and it still work.......removing some non-essential elements may have a marginal effect on the organism.....but removing just ONE essential element (and there are MILLIONS of them) will KILL the organism.....thereby losing any other 'Evolutionary Progress' that the organism supposedly has made as well!!!
....and that is why surgeons don't randomly 'poke around' when they operate....they use intelligently directed and tightly controlled procedures....otherwise they would ALWAYS kill the patient.

....Evolutionists expect us to believe that although a surgeon MUST ALWAYS use intelligently directed and tightly controlled procedures.....nature can use completely non-intelligently designed processes to 'move' muck to become man!!!


Evolutionary science is a work in progress. And in this respect, evolution is just like all other sciences. You cannot prove creation by picking holes in evolution. ....'Big Picture' Evolution is a defunct theory....but it is adhered to with something bordering on religious fanatacism by Evolutionists!!!!

Since I'm here I'll also agree with the Gould quote about the about the gaps in the fossil record. I'm sure it is nagging but all it does is present a problem to Evo science it disproves nothing. If it did the fossil record would start at a specific point and have no gaps at all...
....the gaps aren't just 'nagging'....they are YAWNING!!!!

Now would anyone care to comment on Abiotic Oil...

....99% of mineral oil is abiotic.....and it is one of the best kept secrets of the oil industry!!!!
.......so WHERE did YOU find out about abiotic oil????

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Here's a little analogy, because I know how much J C likes them.

A man goes to college, and he studies how to cook. He progresses to a masters in fine cuisine, from which he qualifies with first class honours.

He then proceeds to a career writing books proclaiming how much better McDonalds is than 'restaurantist' food.

Does this make him a chef?

YES.....it does make him a chef!!!:D

.....to get a first class honour in 'fine cuisine'.....would imply that the person CAN cook......and DID produce 'fine cuisine' !!!!

....whether he writes cook books afterwards.....or simply cooks the books.....he will be an EXCELLENT cook!!!!

....and his comments about particular restaurants will be regarded as an EXPERT OPINION!!!!:D

....and BTW Creation Scientists mostly continue to work as conventional scientists in conventional scientific positions!!!!!

.....and only a minority write books about Creation Science!!!!:)

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

I don't see how evolution is of Pagan origin. Considering Paganism involves worshiping Gods. Evolution does not require belief in any Gods at all.
So it would seem that your babbling had nothing to do with Wicknight's post at all.

....Paganism involves the worship of Natural FORCES....and so Evolution, as a supposed 'force of nature'....is something which COULD be worshipped by a Pagan....and indeed the Ancient Greeks did have great respect for the concept of 'Evolution'!!!!:)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Galvasean
Has he ever cooked a meal which was peer reviewed by other chefs?

2Scoops
Yeah, but it was difficult to swallow. :pac:

.....quite TRUE.....LOL:D:)

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

I thought it would be more along the lines of he went to college and studied sports science or childcare and then started writing about how McDonalds food was better?

MrP

....that is a good analogy for all of the EVOLUTIONIST Physicists, Astronomers and Theologians who write about Biological Evolution!!!!!:pac::):D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

....Paganism involves the worship of Natural FORCES....and so Evolution, as a supposed 'force of nature'....is something which COULD be worshipped by a Pagan....and indeed the Ancient Greeks did have great respect for the concept of 'Evolution'!!!!:)

I don't know of any group of people who actually worship(ed) evolution. Take note that having respect for something does not equate worship.
The ancient Greeks worshiped Zeus and a whole host of other Gods, none of which was considered the God of evolution.

AtomicHorror

Aw, no answers for me J C? Got those calculations to show the definite impossibility of evolution for us?

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

I don't know of any group of people who actually worship(ed) evolution. Take note that having respect for something does not equate worship.
The ancient Greeks worshiped Zeus and a whole host of other Gods, none of which was considered the God of evolution.

....some of the Ancient Greeks were both Polytheists and Pagans...and they personified the Natural Forces that they worshipped as gods....others were simply Pantheists who believed that everything was 'god'!!!!

.....many Pantheists are Evolutionists (and vice versa)....and they believe that the 'innate intelligence' or 'divine essence' of matter is such that it is capable of spontaneously producing life with nothing required but large amounts of time!!!!:D:)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....some of the Ancient Greeks were both Polytheists and Pagans...and they personified the Natural Forces that they worshipped as gods....others were simply Pantheists who believed that everything was 'god'!!!!

.....most modern Pantheists are Evolutionists....who believe that the 'innate intelligence' or 'divine essence' of matter is such that it is capable of spontaneously producing life with nothing required but large amounts of time!!!!:D:)

There's no intelligence required to generate crystals and snowflakes from disordered matter. This happens in very short spaces of time. These were once attributed to some manner of "intelligence" by many cultures. Even simple geological processes like that which gave rise to the Giant's Causeway seemed to demand intelligent intervention. Every time man has encountered a complex chemical process, it seems we have assumed it to be designed. We can understand why. The chemical process that would be most easily observable are all destructive- fire for example. Most creative processes that were easily observed were directly the result of human or animal action. So with our innate tendency to draw conclusions from limited information, to form causative links between patterns, we attributed anything complex to intelligence. This immediately created a paradox which forced us to create infinite and transcendant beings. Gods.

None of the creative chemical processes I mentioned takes as long as abiogenesis. And there is absolutely no reason to assume that an intelligence lies behind it. It is not needed.

sdep

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Aw, no answers for me J C? Got those calculations to show the definite impossibility of evolution for us?

Yes, let's see the sums.

I'm also waiting on any instances where 'creation science' / ID made a concrete prediction that was contrary to - or indeed overlooked by - evolutionary biology, and that subsequently turned out to be true.

HouseHippo

So J C ever heard of Quantum Physics

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Aw, no answers for me J C? Got those calculations to show the definite impossibility of evolution for us?

Taught id just quote this. Gives him another chance to see it in case he missed it the first few times.
Obviously too busy trying to tie evolutionary theory with ancient Greek paganism.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K65wuHKbIfo

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Aw, no answers for me J C? Got those calculations to show the definite impossibility of evolution for us?

.....Sir Fred Hoyle, former Astronomer Royal, calculated the probability of the amino acid sequences of the bio-molecules in an Amoeba being produced by non-intelligently directed chemical processes to be 10^-40,000 i.e. 10 to the power of 40,000!!!!

Equally, it is observed that there are 20 common amino acids used in protein synthesis. If such synthesis was achieved using non-intelligently directed processes then such a ‘blind’ system would have to ‘try’ every possible combination of amino acid to produce a useful protein eventually. It is also observed that you cannot ‘work up’ to a critical amino acid sequence – the exact sequence works, and other sequences don’t work. In addition, there are very limited numbers of useful proteins observed in nature (of the order of thousands).

The chance of producing a specific useful protein containing a 100 chain critical amino acid sequence choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on the chain is a binomial expansion of 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20 ………100 times. This number turns out to be 10^ 130.
This is a number significantly greater than the number of seconds required for a snail to transport all of the matter in the known Universe bringing ONE ELECTRON at a time from one side of the universe to the other side (as measured by the Cosmic Event Horizon) and back again. If, a putative snail made a 40,000,000,000 light year ‘round trip with EACH of the 10^82 electrons in the known Universe, going at a very slow ‘snails pace' of 1 centimetre per hour it would only take 10^114 SECONDS to perform such a feat!!!!

I am therefore at a complete loss to describe what size of number 10^130 is. All that I can say is that it is so large as to be a mathematical impossibility even if all of the matter and time in the Universe were to be utilised in the process.

As for Sir Fred Hoyle’s calculation for the undirected production of the bio-molecular sequences found in an Amoeba of 10^40,000 – there is absolutely nothing that I can even begin to imagine that would remotely describe this massive number!!!!

Chemistry Laws cannot assist in the process either, because it is observed that many of the bonds in protein chains can only be achieved by the use of amazingly specialised enzymes whose use is synchronised in nano-seconds with exact sequential cascades of reactions by other equally complex and specific enzymes. That is why protein molecules that are split into short chains of amino acids are NEVER observed to spontaneously re-form into useful proteins using the (supposedly) "well known attraction of Carbon” as a previous participant on another thread has characterised it. It is also one of the reasons why death is an irreversible physical process and why the spontaneous generation of life is never observed.

The really devastating thing about the above ‘Universe Defeating’ problem is that a 10 year old child of normal intelligence would take less than 20 minutes to arrange ANY specified sequence of 100 bricks representing a specific useful amino acid sequence choosing from a box of mixed bricks representing all 20 amino acids. What would clearly defeat every electron in the known universe randomly producing a 100 amino acid sequences for an effective eternity of time could be accomplished by a 10 year old child in 20 minutes – such is the importance of APPLIED INTELLIGENCE to the creation of a simple protein sequence.....and to the production of living organisms.:D:)

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Wolfsbane: No, follow my reasoning:
The current scientific consensus is opposed by a minority of scientists applying their expertise to the same data. That establishes the fact that the scientific argument is ambiguous concerning my religious beliefs, not that it contradicts them.

I don't need expertise in all the scientific fields myself - all I need is evidence that the experts disagree.

But that leaves you back at square one. Accepting one authority (without any validation) over another that disagrees with what you want to believe. My question, which you have failed to answer, is how you decide who is actually an “expert” or even a “scientist”. You need to be able to critically analyse what both sides are saying or you’ve got nothing.

I accept both sides are scientists, seeing they have qualified in recognised subjects, at recognised universities, and practiced their profession.

By your criteria no one who is not an astrophysicist can tell who is and who is not an astrophysicist.

Have you read Hoyle's work? He didn't reject evolution, he rejected Earth-based abiogenesis. In fact he had no argument with the modern synthesis of evolution whatsoever. Wickramasinghe the same. He's an advocate of panspermia followed by normal evolution.

Not normal evolution - IDish evolution. He removed the main scientific objection to evolution. This from the article I posted:
Hoyle's Panspermia theory

Mathematics of Evolution does not contain an elaborated Panspermia theory. I found the following fragments:
1. the basic features of life, such as enzymes, tRNA, histones, the genetic code are extraterrestrial (p103). 2. "all genes in present day organisms were here already in the metazoans that invade the Earth 570 million years ago at the beginning of the Cambrian Era, making the subsequent story of terrestrial evolution into one in which genes have been called into operation as ecological conditions permitted them to be so." (xvi).

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As I've discussed before, any explanation other than creationism is ultimately possible to those who are running from God. Many prefer the safety of the current consensus, others like Hoyle are more daring.
Again I ask, how can you tell those acting consciously or unconsciously in defiance of God from those who are simply telling a truth that you are failing to grasp? You cannot rely on the bible for an answer if those people are correct, so what do you have?

I'm telling it as the Bible describes - the motivation of the sinful heart of man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, the model stands alone, just as evolution does with regard to abiogenesis.

No, you already agreed yourself (at least for a moment) that creationism requires theology to be a logical first position. Evolution requires no such assumption. The conversation went:


Quote:
AtomicHorror: You've hit the nail on the head. Creationism as an idea requires the assumption that Christian theology is correct for it to logically exist.

Wolfsbane: Agreed.

AtomicHorror: The theology prompts the idea.

Wolfsbane: Agreed.

AtomicHorror: Progress!

Wolfsbane: A recent mature creation requires no assumption either.

AtomicHorror: So close! I really thought we were getting somewhere for a moment. This comment contradicts the ones above it.

The place where we are talking at cross-purposes is to logically exist. Both creationism and evolution require no prior assumptions about origins for them to exist as scientific models. But both require a prior explanation of origins for them to logically exist. Neither can claim they always were, or came into being of themselves. Creation or abiogenesis must explain them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The reason why evolution is virtually unchallenged is the value it has against creationism: once admit that the certainties with which the modern world has been indoctrinated are in fact disputable, and the snow-job evolutionists did on the veracity of the Bible melts away. They can't allow that, now can they?
You assume here that scientists act as one, but you already pointed out earlier that they conflict constantly. You assume that they maintain that their models are “certainties” but this is at odds with the constant internal conflict and cycle of scientific revolution. You assume that evolution was intended as an attack on the bible, but can you account for the motive of all its proponents? Can you show they act as one even in that regard? You assume that evolution does attack the veracity of the bible, but it only does so for a minority who hold that genesis is literally true. Finally, you assume that “they” can allow or not allow the publication of the truth. Were that the case, Einstein would be a long-forgotten name, and Gould, Hoyle and anyone else who defied the “certainties” in science would have been buried.

The motivation is a spiritual one - in the heart of man an enmity against God rules. The only enemy is the true God and His word. All false gods and false doctrines and false science can be embraced - if it will undermine the veracity of the Bible. They can argue among themselves, but they unite when it comes to anything that agrees with God's word.

wolfsbane

Another example of scientific debate, where the debate is supposedly over and the consensus rules out the opposition:
Global warming skeptic speaks to students, faculty
http://blogs.colgate.edu/2007/11/global-warming-skeptic.html#more

As there is no religious connection, the consensus dogmatists seem to have less control than they do in the creation/evolution debate.

sdep

Very Unoriginally Posted by J C
The chance of producing a specific useful protein containing a 100 chain critical amino acid sequence choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on the chain is a binomial expansion of 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20 ………100 times. This number turns out to be 10^ 130.

Behold, again, the fearsome beer mat of big numbers! Evolutionists bow down!

The false assumptions behind this pointless and trivial calculation have been demolished time and again in this thread. Go on, give us something new.

Incidentally, your 'binomial expansion' is just a straightforward product, or an exponentiation if you prefer.

J C

A sad day for Rev Professor Michael Reiss MA, PhD, PGCE, MBA, FIBiol who is an Evolutionist and Professor of Science Education and Head of the School of Mathematics, Science and Technology at the Institute of Education London.


Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4768820.ece


This article from happier times, describes Rev. Prof. Reiss as "the collective voice of scientists on the best way to teach their subject".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/nov/28/academicexperts.highereducationprofile

Well known Human Fertility Expert and Evolutionist, Lord Winston, Professor of Science and Society at Imperial College, London, came to Rev Prof Reiss' defence and he is quoted as saying “This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science — something that the Royal Society should applaud.”

However, according to today's Time's Article "(Rev. Prof. Rees') resignation comes after a campaign by senior Royal Society Fellows who were angered by Professor Reiss’s suggestion that science teachers should treat creationist beliefs “not as a misconception but as a world view”.
Sir Richard Roberts, who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1993, described such views as outrageous, and organised a letter to the society’s president, Lord Rees of Ludlow, demanding that Professor Reiss be sacked."

....when this is what can happen a top Evolutionist....who is trying to support Materiaistic Evolution ....I wonder what could happen a scientist who openly declared themselves to be a Young Earth Creationist.....

.....and ye guys want me to publicly identify myself....and provide my scientific qualifications!!!:eek:

robindch

J C wrote: »

The chance of producing a specific useful protein containing a 100 chain critical amino acid sequence choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on the chain is a binomial expansion of 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20 ………100 times. This number turns out to be 10^ 130.

Ignoring the obvious fact that your calculation does not reflect chemical reality, I must take upon myself the the sad duty to point out that your calculation is also wrong. 0.05^100 is approximately 7.9x10^-131. That means that your estimate of 10^130 is wrong by a factor of around 10^262.

Even by the cross-eyed standards of creationist endeavor, 10^262 is a pretty spectacular error

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Even by the cross-eyed standards of creationist endeavor, 10^262 is a pretty spectacular error

i blame the Fall ... Adam did it:pac:

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

.....and ye guys want me to publicly identify myself....and provide my scientific qualifications!!!:eek:

You have never explained how revealing your qualification could identify you JC? What? did they create a special, once off, degree that only you were ever awarded?




.. actually looking at the "qualification" a lot of Creation "scientists" have from diploma mills in the US that isn't so far fetched :pac:

JC has a M.Sc in Begin JC from the First Baptist Technical College of Mobile Alabama (Pop. 67 on a good year)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
The chance of producing a specific useful protein containing a 100 chain critical amino acid sequence choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on the chain is a binomial expansion of 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20 ………100 times. This number turns out to be 10^ 130.

sdep
Behold, again, the fearsome beer mat of big numbers! Evolutionists bow down!

The false assumptions behind this pointless and trivial calculation have been demolished time and again in this thread. Go on, give us something new.

Incidentally, your 'binomial expansion' is just a straightforward product, or an exponentiation if you prefer.

.....the numbers are REAL....and the calculation is CORRECT!!!:cool:

...and isn't it amazing that we can mathematically disprove Materialistic Evolution with a 'beer mat' mathematical calculation....and yet Evolutionists continue to cling to their belief in Evolution like a drowning man clutching a straw!!!!:eek::pac::):D

.....while simultaneously maintaining that they would be the first to claim that Evolution was invalid, if they could only prove it to be so.....such would be the 'fortune and fame' that would be 'heaped upon them' by their fellow Evolutionists.....for such a 'gargantuan feat'!!!!:eek:

Rev Professor Michael Reiss' experience would indicate that the 'fortune and fame' might NOT be so readily forthcoming!!!!!:eek:

sdep

J C wrote: »

.....the numbers are REAL....and the calculation is correct!!!:cool:

And the assumptions are all wrong :cool::cool:

J C

robindch wrote: »

Ignoring the obvious fact that your calculation does not reflect chemical reality, I must take upon myself the the sad duty to point out that your calculation is also wrong. 0.05^100 is approximately 7.9x10^-131. That means that your estimate of 10^130 is wrong by a factor of around 10^262.

Even by the cross-eyed standards of creationist endeavor, 10^262 is a pretty spectacular error

......unfortunately the 'cock-eyed' logic is entirely on YOUR side!!!!:eek::)

.....the answer to your false premise is that 7.9x10^-131 is the mathematical RECIPROCAL of 10^130.

....the EXACT figures are 7.8886x10^-131 and it's reciprocal is 1.2677x10^130.

The odds against the non-intelligent production of a specific 100 chain protein can be expressed either as 1.2677x10^130 to one .....or as it's reciprocal ......the fractional decimal 7.8886x10^-131.:D

.....either way the production of a simple specific protein, using non-intelligently directed processes, is Mathematically IMPOSSIBLE!!!!:pac::):D

J C

sdep wrote: »

And the assumptions are all wrong :cool::cool:

....the assumptions are also 100% OK!!!:pac::):D

.....anyway, now that I have made this major scientific breakthrough......do you think that I should apply to the Royal Society for the current vacant position of Director of Education???:eek:

.....I have many happy memories of The Royal Society....and it would be great to renew my aquaintance with it...as well as furthering the cause of Science Education!!!!:D

.....be gentle.....for you tread on my dreams!!!!!!:D

robindch

J C wrote: »

.....the answer to your false premise is that 7.9x10^-131 is the mathematical RECIPROCAL of 10^130.

Give or take a bit, yes, that's right. Your original answer was upside down.

BTW, that you're wrong is a conclusion, not a "premise" (though this far in, it's arguable it should become one!)

sdep

For JC's beer mat calculation to have any worth, you have to assume that there is only one viable sequence. This assumption has been knocked down over and over in this thread, but here's some more proof that it's nonsense, and this time you can play at home!

Take a random gene. Plug it into NCBI's Homologene database and you'll get a list of fully sequenced species in which the gene is found. Then look and see how the gene varies between the species.

OK, LDLR, low density lipoprotein receptor. Full results here, but essentially:

Percentage of amino acids the same in human and ...
Chimp              99.0%
Cow                83.3%
Mouse              79.0%
Rat                77.2%
Zebrafish          61.7%

Does this suggest to you that only one version of the sequence will work? Answer: No.

You can also look at the reported human non-clinical mutations in the gene's coding sequence (here).
So far, there are 11 protein-changing mutations that don't have any reported clinical effect.

Does this suggest to you that only one version of the sequence will work? Answer: No.

Time to shred the beer mat.

J C

sdep wrote: »

For JC's beer mat calculation to have any worth, you have to assume that there is only one viable sequence. This assumption has been knocked down over and over in this thread, but here's some more proof that it's nonsense, and this time you can play at home!

Take a random gene. Plug it into NCBI's Homologene database and you'll get a list of fully sequenced species in which the gene is found. Then look and see how the gene varies between the species.

OK, LDLR, low density lipoprotein receptor. Full results here, but essentially:

Percentage of amino acids the same in human and ...
Chimp              99.0%
Cow                83.3%
Mouse              79.0%
Rat                77.2%
Zebrafish          61.7%

Does this suggest to you that only one version of the sequence will work? Answer: No.

You can also look at the reported human non-clinical mutations in the gene's coding sequence (here).
So far, there are 11 protein-changing mutations that don't have any reported clinical effect.

Does this suggest to you that only one version of the sequence will work? Answer: No.

Time to shred the beer mat.

...I DON'T have to assume just one viable sequence....there are obviously many viable sequences for different proteins.....BUT the useless combinatorial space between them is ASTRONOMICAL....and BTW the massive amount of COMMON SEQUENCES between different organisms illustrates just how FEW sequences are functional....and is evidence of a Common Designer of these creature's genomes!!!!:D

...and BTW there ARE many sequences where changing just one Amino Acid makes the whole protein non-functional....and these are known as 'critical sequences'......for obvious reasons!!!

For example, according to the head of the National Genome Research Institute (USA) a SINGLE misplaced ‘letter’ on the gene known as Lamin A or LMNA will cause Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS). The substitution of ONE Thiamine with ONE Cytosine in ONE gene out of 3 BILLION base pairs causes this terrible premature ageing syndrome – where unfortunate sufferers only live to an average age of 13 years old.

....and many other fatal conditions are similarly triggered by miniscule changes to gene sequences.

In any event, if you have a putative organism trying to evolve a particular protein to perform a particular essential function.....the 'useless combinatorial space' surrounding this protein will be such that non-intelligently directed processes will NEVER 'find' the functional protein sequence required .....even IF you have all of the matter and time in the Universe (which we don't)!!!!!:D

J C

robindch wrote: »

Give or take a bit, yes, that's right. Your original answer was upside down.

BTW, that you're wrong is a conclusion, not a "premise" (though this far in, it's arguable it should become one!)

....the first rule when you are in a hole.....is to STOP DIGGING!!!:D

....my original calculation was just fine!!!!!

......it was your original conclusion/premise....that was 'upside down'!!!:D

....to err is Human!!!

.....and I know that God has great plans for you Robin!!!!!

.....plans to prosper and to Save you.