Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Options
1…756757759761762…822

Comments

  • Options
    #22742
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,413 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    J C wrote: »
    ... in the real world a probability of 0 is impossible ... and a probability of 1 (such as tossing a two-headed coin) will always occur ... indeed as one approaches a probability of 0 the event becomes a practical impossibility ... and as one approaches a probability of 1 it becomes a statistical certainty!!!:eek::D:)

    ... has it come to this for Evolution?

    ... that you are now arguing that 0 doesn't actually mean ZERO!!!!:eek:

    ... in a desperate attempt to retain your faith in a statistical impossibilty!!!

    ... and repeating your unfounded belief that 0 doesn't always mean ZERO ... won't make it true!!!:eek::D
    Allow me to flip your incoherent ramblings around. As it can just as easily be said that

    the probability of spontaneous evolution is 1

    the probability of the existence of god is 0

    which is a direct contradiction to what you have already babbled:
    ... OK ... the probability that God exists is 'almost surely' ... and the probability that Spontaeous Evolution exists is zero!!!

    So in your wild-eyed opinion:

    the probability of spontaneous evolution is 0

    the probability of the existence of god is 1


    But now we have a direct Mathematical impossibility, where

    the probability of spontaneous evolution is 1
    the probability of spontaneous evolution is 0
    the probability of the existence of god is 1
    the probability of the existence of god is 0

    How do you expect to scientifically deduce which of the above statements is true?


  • Options
    #22743
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    gosplan wrote: »
    Oh dear! Is this really it JC? I've looked at one part of your maths, I shudder to think what the rest will bring.

    Any child that's gone beyond junior certificate mathematics will tell you that ..

    the probability of an event = no of successful outcomes/no of possible outcomes

    You see, you have a 1 over the line which tells us that if we run this trial a very large number of times, eventually our 1 outcome will happen.

    i.e. you have just mathematically told us that the event is possible however unlikely. :D


    But don't take my word for it, why would you? Conduct a simple experiment and find the truth.
    Find a third level maths class and ask them whether an event with probability of 10^-130 of occurring is:

    a: extremely unlikely
    b: impossible
    ... the answer is that 10^130 is a number so great as to be a practical impossibility.
    Also please remember, that with this number, we are only talking about generating one specific measley 100 chain aa protein ... and not the thousands of closely co-ordinated tightly specified biomolecules even in the simplest cell.
    To put the number 10^130 into perspective, the number of seconds that it would take a snail, travelling at a 'snails pace' of only 10cm or 4 inches per hour to transport every electron in the 'Big Bang' Universe across it's supposed 10,000 million Light Year diameter out to it's Event Horizon and back again to the other side, taking just one electron every time is the much smaller number of 10^113.
    gosplan wrote: »
    I should add, it's very important not to tell them what the question relates to because of your perceived bias against creationism by anyone who can read without moving their lips.
    ... why would this be so ... I have attended discussions on Creation Science and ID at the highest levels of Academia in Ireland, including one of it's Medical Schools ... and I have found the height of respect for the Creation Science position on everything from antibiotic resistance to Medical Ethics ... now why do you think that any third level student would scoff at Creation Science???

    gosplan wrote: »
    And a really interesting angle on this is that if an there is an omnipotent God, which you seem to believe, and that he can do an infinite number of things, which you seem to believe, then the mathematical probability of him creating life is

    1/infinity :D[/B]
    ... you logical and mathematical faculties seem have deserted you!!!:eek:
    An Omnipotent God is capable of doing everything He desires with full certainty i.e. a probability of 1.:cool::eek::)

    gosplan wrote: »
    Ironically enough, this is the probability Overheal and you were just talking about. For example, what's the probability that you pick a specific number on the number line. There's one number from an infinite amount. Just like your idea of an omnipotent creator deciding to create life, it's the probability of one outcome from an infinite number of choices.

    1/infinity .... Mathematicians would let this equal zero, so as you said yourself.



    Brilliant, either God has limits(if so, set by whom??), or by your 'scientific proof' of him, you've actually managed to prove that evolution is more likely to have created us.
    ... you're talking complete baloney!!!
    An Omnipotent God is capable of doing anything He desires with full certainty i.e. a probability of 1 ... and spontaneous evolution is incapable of even producing one measley 100 chain protein ... even using all of the matter and time in the supposed 'Big Bang' Universe i.e. a probability of 0 (i.e. ZERO meaning ZERO meaning IMPOSSIBLE)!!!:)

    gosplan wrote: »
    Also, the 10^-130 statistics are ripped off from a Carl Sagan book, 'communication with extra-terrestrial intelligence'. As far as I know, he was using the number to highlight how life didn't have to start with only one possible protein of a specific type but rather there were many possible types.
    The 10^-130 figure is derived from first principles and it is not 'ripped off' from anybody else!!!
    ... and it mathematically PROVES that life couldn't arise or evolve spontaneously using non-intelligently directed processes!!!


    gosplan wrote: »
    Another problem as well is that when you say 'stastically impossible', you're talking about a convention that statisticians use with a probability very very small. They just ignore it and treat it as if it were zero. Any statistician will however tell you that there's still a chance of it occurring.
    ... no statistician will tell you that something with a probability of 10^-130 will ever occur ... because the law of large numbers rules out the chance of it ever occurring!!!!:pac::):D

    ... stop embarassing youirself ... and desperately 'clutching at straws' ... and go get Saved before it is too late!!!:):D


  • Options
    #22744
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Overheal wrote: »
    Allow me to flip your incoherent ramblings around. As it can just as easily be said that

    the probability of spontaneous evolution is 1

    the probability of the existence of god is 0

    which is a direct contradiction to what you have already babbled:



    So in your wild-eyed opinion:

    the probability of spontaneous evolution is 0

    the probability of the existence of god is 1


    But now we have a direct Mathematical impossibility, where

    the probability of spontaneous evolution is 1
    the probability of spontaneous evolution is 0
    the probability of the existence of god is 1
    the probability of the existence of god is 0

    How do you expect to scientifically deduce which of the above statements is true?
    ... just did it in my last post above ... enjoy!!!:):D

    ... and your incoherent ramblings and false deductions remind me of Balderick in 'Black Adder' ... I wonder was Balderick also an Evolutionist???:eek::D


  • Options
    #22745
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,413 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    J C wrote: »
    ... just did it in my last post above ... enjoy!!!:):D
    You did no such thing.

    I said Scientifically.

    All you are basing yourself on is that a) There is a God b) He is Omnipotent and c) He can do whatever he wants with a probability of Absolute 1.

    Which does nothing to prove the existence of God. You can't prove something by having your proof rely on the assumption that it has already been proven.

    Again, how do you intend to Prove that God's existence has a probability of Absolute 1 and the probability of Spontaneous Evolution is Absolute Zero?

    I'm still awaiting an answer.


  • Options
    #22746
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Overheal wrote: »
    You did no such thing.

    I said Scientifically.

    All you are basing yourself on is that a) There is a God b) He is Omnipotent and c) He can do whatever he wants with a probability of Absolute 1.

    Which does nothing to prove the existence of God. You can't prove something by having your proof rely on the assumption that it has already been proven.

    Again, how do you intend to Prove that God's existence has a probability of Absolute 1 and the probability of Spontaneous Evolution is Absolute Zero?

    I'm still awaiting an answer.
    ... the scientific proof was for the impossibility of Spontaneous Evolution ... and the logical deduction was that a mind of God-like proportions did it!!!!!:):D

    ... what's this they say about convincing a fool against his will ... ah yes, he will be of the same opinion still !!!:eek::D

    ... BTW ... how is your 'busted' Evolutionist straight coming on ... have you decided to fold yet ... or are you still trying to bluff your way out ... against my Creationist Flush????:eek::D

    ... is that drops of sweat under your chair???:eek::D

    ... I saw this and I thought of this thread >>>>

    20090424.gif


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22747
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    J C wrote: »
    20090424.gif

    When I posted a cartoon taking the piss out of creation "science" you compared it to Nazi propaganda. What do you call it when it's the other way around?


  • Options
    #22748
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,413 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    J C wrote: »
    ... the scientific proof was for the impossibility of Spontaneous Evolution ... and the logical deduction was that a mind of God-like proportions did it!!!!!:):D
    Again, I offer the impossibility of an omnipotent God.

    How? I'll do it the same way you've 'proven' there is a God:

    Because.

    There. I've just done it.
    ... what's this they say about convincing a fool against his will ... ah yes, he will be of the same opinion still !!!:eek::D
    So you're calling me a fool.

    edit: ah no, yourself a fool. gotcha.
    ... BTW ... how is your 'busted' Evolutionist straight coming on ... have you decided to fold yet ... or are you still trying to bluff your way out ... against my Creationist Flush????:eek::D

    ... is that drops of sweat under your chair???:eek::D
    So now you're just trolling.

    20090424.gif
    Oh no, a comic. I'm doomed.


  • Options
    #22749
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,413 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    If you were any sensible person, Christian Atheist or Agnostic alike when faced when this mathematical connundrum:

    the probability of spontaneous evolution is 1
    the probability of spontaneous evolution is 0
    the probability of the existence of god is 1
    the probability of the existence of god is 0

    You probably would have done what any person with a sense of sensibility would and provided the following answer:

    That because the above statements are mutually exclusive, and none of the 4 conditions can be proven to be true or false, The probability of Spontaneous Evolution (X) must be expressable as "0<X<1" And likewise the Probability of the Existence of God (Y) must be expressable as "0<Y<1"

    And as we can't ascertain with any reliability the likelihood of either X or Y we can not in any way say that X<Y, or that Y>X, or that X=Y or even X != Y.

    In short, you cannot prove an absolute on the matter. To Claim you can, or Claim that it is an absolute, is a complete farce.


  • Options
    #22750
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,413 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    When I posted a cartoon taking the piss out of creation "science" you compared it to Nazi propaganda. What do you call it when it's the other way around?
    link?


  • Options
    #22751
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C has no idea how probability works- I kinda gave up trying to explain it because either I don't have the words or he doesn't have the capacity...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22752
    gosplan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭gosplan


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    J C has no idea how probability works- I kinda gave up trying to explain it because either I don't have the words or he doesn't have the capacity...

    Agreed.

    When someone in all seriousness can actually write the line

    'An Omnipotent God is capable of doing everything He desires with full certainty i.e. a probability of 1'

    you know it's time to stop talking to them.


  • Options
    #22753
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,413 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    If fairness I should have never gotten in when he claimed "I have never been proven wrong about anything on this thread"


  • Options
    #22754
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Overheal wrote: »
    If fairness I should have never gotten in when he claimed "I have never been proven wrong about anything on this thread"

    Not sure even Wolfsbane would agree with that claim.


  • Options
    #22755
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    When I posted a cartoon taking the piss out of creation "science" you compared it to Nazi propaganda. What do you call it when it's the other way around?
    .... you just have to laugh sometimes ... the cartoon is parallelling exactly what has been said by evolutionists in response to my probability argument ... you just couldn't make this stuff up!!!!:):D

    ... is this art imitating life ... or is it the other way around???


  • Options
    #22756
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Overheal wrote: »
    If you were any sensible person, Christian Atheist or Agnostic alike when faced when this mathematical connundrum:

    the probability of spontaneous evolution is 1
    the probability of spontaneous evolution is 0
    the probability of the existence of god is 1
    the probability of the existence of god is 0

    You probably would have done what any person with a sense of sensibility would and provided the following answer:

    That because the above statements are mutually exclusive, and none of the 4 conditions can be proven to be true or false, The probability of Spontaneous Evolution (X) must be expressable as "0<X<1" And likewise the Probability of the Existence of God (Y) must be expressable as "0<Y<1"

    And as we can't ascertain with any reliability the likelihood of either X or Y we can not in any way say that X<Y, or that Y>X, or that X=Y or even X != Y.

    In short, you cannot prove an absolute on the matter. To Claim you can, or Claim that it is an absolute, is a complete farce.
    Evolutionist Science may not be able to prove anything about Evolution ... other than it's invalidity ... but Creation Science has mathematically proven that God exists!!!:):D


  • Options
    #22757
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    gosplan wrote: »
    Agreed.

    When someone in all seriousness can actually write the line

    'An Omnipotent God is capable of doing everything He desires with full certainty i.e. a probability of 1'

    you know it's time to stop talking to them.
    Why???

    ... missing you already!!!!:rolleyes::)

    ... don't go ... you're great craic!!!!:eek::D


  • Options
    #22758
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    gosplan wrote: »
    The only think you have to refute this is a book that says among other things, the world is flat and if you rape my sister, I should have you marry her.

    20020225.gif


  • Options
    #22759
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,413 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    J C wrote: »
    Evolutionist Science may not be able to prove anything about Evolution ... other than it's invalidity ... but Creation Science has mathematically proven that God exists!!!:):D
    So theres Evolutionist Science and Creationist Science now?

    lol.

    Okay Creationist Science Boy, if Creation Science has Mathematically Proven that God exists: provide the Theorem.


  • Options
    #22760
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    J C wrote: »
    Evolutionist Science may not be able to prove anything about Evolution ... other than it's invalidity ... but Creation Science has mathematically proven that God exists!!!:):D

    I'm sick of this. If you genuinely want to argue Creationism rather than just post inane wisecracks and smilies then PM me and we'll discuss what would be required to unlock the thread.


  • Options
    #22761
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    ^^^^^^

    I've never had so many assorted atheists and unbelievers being so thankful before!

    Thread is reopen for business - please remember that the Forum Charter still applies to this thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22762
    token56
    Registered Users Posts: 2,622 ✭✭✭token56


    PDN wrote: »
    Thread is reopen for business - please remember that the Forum Charter still applies to this thread.

    Dam, everything had been going so well though.

    This thread really is never going to die is it?

    I think J C has been banned though? maybe I'm wrong on this, but hopefully he wont have noticed when he gets back.


  • Options
    #22763
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    PDN wrote: »

    Thread is reopen for business - please remember that the Forum Charter still applies to this thread.

    :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xos2MnVxe-c


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LfB6C6wLhg


  • Options
    #22764
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    token56 wrote: »
    I think J C has been banned though? maybe I'm wrong on this, but hopefully he wont have noticed when he gets back.

    He's only banned until the 11th: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/banlist.php

    04-07-2010, 8:34 J C 11-07-2010, 8:00 Signing up alt account to evade forum ban Silverfish


  • Options
    #22765
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    He's only banned until the 11th: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/banlist.php

    04-07-2010, 8:34 J C 11-07-2010, 8:00 Signing up alt account to evade forum ban Silverfish

    What can we talk about until then? Prophecy I guess...

    Have any Biblical prophecies ever come true or indicated foreknowledge of an event?


  • Options
    #22766
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    PDN wrote: »
    ^^^^^^

    I've never had so many assorted atheists and unbelievers being so thankful before!

    You may just have cracked the secret to world peace...


  • Options
    #22767
    mehfesto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,277 ✭✭✭mehfesto


    Can I ask one quick question regarding the bible?

    What's the difference between the types of bible? I was in a bookshop the other day and I didn't realise there are so many different versions of it. King James', Good News, Sunrise, etc., etc.

    Surely they all have to say the same thing? Or are they different aimed at different denominations of Christianity?


  • Options
    #22768
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,413 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    PDN wrote: »
    Thread is reopen for business
    I must ask. I MUST ask.

    Why?

    If anything, wouldn't it be infinitely better to start with a new, clean thread?


  • Options
    #22769
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Overheal wrote: »
    If anything, wouldn't it be infinitely better to start with a new, clean thread?
    What exactly would that achieve? It would become this thread all over again.

    And there can (and should) be only One.

    (imo :))


  • Options
    #22770
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Overheal wrote: »
    I must ask. I MUST ask.

    Why?

    If anything, wouldn't it be infinitely better to start with a new, clean thread?

    I can see the point of having a single thread for all Creationism vs Science debates, but possibly a new formate is required. This thread ended up just being a series of pointless :pac::pac::pac::pac::D:D:D:D;););):p:p:p:p style posts. It is the equivilant of a "y'er mamma" thread. It is actually really difficult to read through and find any actual information.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22771
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Overheal wrote: »
    I must ask. I MUST ask.

    Why?

    If anything, wouldn't it be infinitely better to start with a new, clean thread?

    I'm glad it's reopened tbh. As Dades said a new thread would just become the same thing again and for the few days before he got banned he infested loads of threads over on A&A with his nonsense, from two accounts no less. Best to keep him contained in here I think


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement