18 Jan 12
10 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf I had drawn also your attention to *the chance you would type that many characters* it would not have benefited *your* argument Robbie!
ah but dear Agers, you were unaware that the number of numerals was i fact a chance
occurrence itself as i simply placed my finger on the zero and let is 'zing', until i
thought it was enough to demonstrate the mathematical improbability (i think
mathematicians hold that something ten to the power of fifty zeros as being almost
an impossibility)
As for impossibilities (noting that ten to the power of fifty zeros evaluates to 1!) - if there are more than ten to the power of [ten to the power of 50] opportunities to try and get any (unspecified in advance) outcome with a probablilty of ten to the power of [- (ten to the power of 50)] then it's far from feasible to say that attaining some such outcome is impossible (indeed in a mathematical sense we *approach* certainty here that one of such outcomes will occur).
Moreover, as for whatever non-negligble word length post you make next (either here, or elsewhere), the chance you are going to make it, by your reasoning, is nigh on impossible!
19 Jan 12
Originally posted by galveston75So non-living matter is 'nothing' according to you? Or are you moving the goal posts, or just talking nonsense because you got called on your previous nonsense?
I'd go with a baseless statement out of my backside anyday instead of baseless statement coiming out of someones mouth about something like life just happening from nothing. Lol.
20 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobiebut 10 to the power of a googleplex of zeroes would still equal 1.
ah but dear Agers, you were unaware that the number of numerals was i fact a chance
occurrence itself as i simply placed my finger on the zero and let is 'zing', until i
thought it was enough to demonstrate the mathematical improbability (i think
mathematicians hold that something ten to the power of fifty zeros as being almost
an impossibility)
you need another digit of any kind (except another zero) in there somewhere to make it non-1.
20 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDoes that mean that you just invented a number that big to demonstrate your point? That the number wasn't a mathematical number, but just a symbol of the improbability for life?
ah but dear Agers, you were unaware that the number of numerals was i fact a chance
occurrence itself as i simply placed my finger on the zero and let is 'zing', until i
thought it was enough to demonstrate the mathematical improbability (i think
mathematicians hold that something ten to the power of fifty zeros as being almost
an impossibility)
20 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsDont you see the danger of writing things like "..if God wanted to help it along." ?
1 in 50. Maybe even better odds than that if God wanted to help it along.
He might have wanted me to witness to these two JWs. For I already had
the chess knowledge and the knowledge of knowing the beliefs of the JWs.
How do you view the ego in your religion? (It was a real big point in the sutras of buddhism. I actually classify many of the buddhists texts as "psychology" and not "religion". It is very instructive and informative on general mental health states that we all seem to share SOME of.
"1 in 50" - Do you just post because your bored? If not then please tell me, (generally, a few words would suffice), how in the hellmud do you get that fraction as an answer to a question???
Obviously you would be joking, but I dont find it amusing slipping in christian dogma in an otherwise (another) bad joke. (Please...at least one smiley? 🙂 )
"For I already had the chess knowledge and the knowledge of knowing the beliefs of the JWs" . On the surface of it this seems presumptious and full of arrogance.
What are we to make from this? All I can say is that if you want me to continue to read your threads then perhaps you could give that "ego" question a shot. Ok, its not that severe, I'm just trying to get your attention.
It has been suggested elsewhere that you are actually an atheist trying to give christians a bad name.
See I'm such a sucker thats why I dont have a credit card.
Anyway, please try to clarify your post a bit for us,eh?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
21 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Agergyou have an erroneous % symbol in place of a multiplication Symbol...
just noticed I made a mistake earlier (a bloody big one I can't edit) - fair play to whoever calls me out on it 😲
Which I would probably not have spotted if you hadn't flagged it up 😉
EDIT: and as I discus below, robbie was trying to go for a tiny probability
which means you really should have had 1x10^minus(something) but hey
your point was made.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
21 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou really should actually learn some science before you start pulling stuff out your posterior.
ah but dear Agers, you were unaware that the number of numerals was i fact a chance
occurrence itself as i simply placed my finger on the zero and let is 'zing', until i
thought it was enough to demonstrate the mathematical improbability (i think
mathematicians hold that something ten to the power of fifty zeros as being almost
an impossibility)
First for a probability you should have said something like 1 IN 1x10^1000... ...0000
OR better would have been to go with 1x10^-1000... ....0000
However the real chances (even assuming total randomness which is creationists first mistake)
is VASTLY lower than the number you tried to make.
I would like to give you some idea of the scale of numbers by saying that the estimates for number
of atoms in the ENTIRE visible universe is about 1x10^80 atoms.
If you make the chances of life forming by 'random' chance a cornerstone of your argument then
the ACTUAL odds really do matter, which means you need to actually work out the odds and show
how you came to them.
Simply pulling numbers out of thin air like this, particularly when you have no clue what they mean,
simply highlights that you have no clue what you are talking about.
21 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeyawn, some people are content to laugh at their own jokes.
You really should actually learn some science before you start pulling stuff out your posterior.
First for a probability you should have said something like 1 IN 1x10^1000... ...0000
OR better would have been to go with 1x10^-1000... ....0000
However the real chances (even assuming total randomness which is creationists first mistake)
is VASTLY e no clue what they mean,
simply highlights that you have no clue what you are talking about.
21 Jan 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeI blame the new morality myself, its concerns with personal freedoms has fomented a
Yeah, Narcissists.
meistic approach to almost everything, an inability to view anything from another
perspective and a generation of self certified Persian Kings thrashing the sea from their
room full of mirrors, is it nurtured or natural?
21 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIs that like "political correctness gone haywire" ?
I blame the new morality myself, its concerns with personal freedoms has fomented a
meistic approach to almost everything, an inability to view anything from another
perspective and a generation of self certified Persian Kings thrashing the sea from their
room full of mirrors, is it nurtured or natural?
you know. You cant share the same bottle of drink? Creepy paranoid stuff like that?
Cause when you say "new morality" , I assume you mean the younger generation , to some extent (?)
Anyway, in regards to "maturing adults"-I'm not going to put an age in here, I've seen the most childish stuff done by so called "adults" , so I'll just let the adults know who they are 😉.
But perhaps these young "upstarts", with not much life experience , have to go through their own "room full of mirrors ritual", to some degree to attain their "manhood".
Or have I got it totally wrong?
edit:definately nurtured!!