Can God love? (Part 2)

First topic message reminder :

The problem we have is that we can only think in our limited terms , we do not know of any process that covers the universe but if we did it would be just as simple as us explaining to a child how a toy was made etc

Depends on how much education you have, how bright you are and whether or not you are willing to learn things that are outside your comfort zone in the search for the truth. The universe and all that is in it is a complex place.

All the atoms that make up you were created in the stars. We are stardust, poly.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990625080416.htm

Well Shirina you seem to have the odds right not impossible.

Dan you understand the odds better than a bookmaker.

Dan Fante wrote:

Shirina wrote: If you can actually calculate the odds of something occurring, then it cannot be impossible.

Good point, although I think the problem with said calculation is that it involves unknown variables about the probability of spontaneous occurrence life. At least that's what I gleaned from a TV show. However, if you accept the figures then it's apparent that the odds of it happening are significantly less than there are stars in our own galaxy (I think) therefore it becomes more likely that it will happen somewhere. The evidence that we are the 'lottery winners', if you like, is that we are here. Case closed

Yep, that is another issue I have had with "creationist math" -- they simply plug in numbers that they couldn't possibly know.

Did you know that it only takes 23 people to make the odds of two people sharing the same birthday 50/50? I say this because people often don't realize that the odds of certain things happening are often much lower than it would seem. In the case above, you would probably think you would need 182 people (half of 365) to have a 50/50 chance of sharing a birthday and 365 people to have the odds jump to 100%.

Indeed, the fact that we are here proves beyond doubt that it did happen - and it is likely it happened many times throughout the universe. The odds of intelligent life forming on a planet are most likely significantly lower than creationists would have you believe. They can't get science correct, so I doubt they fared any better with their math.

Those are amazing odds Shirina,so out of the posters on this forum about as I do not know how many there are two of us will have the same birthday.

Shirina wrote:

Did you know that it only takes 23 people to make the odds of two people sharing the same birthday 50/50?  I say this because people often don't realize that the odds of certain things happening are often much lower than it would seem. In the case above, you would probably think you would need 182 people (half of 365) to have a 50/50 chance of sharing a birthday and 365 people to have the odds jump to 100%.

Shirina,

Although it is massively unlikely that no two of 365 people share a birthday it is still possible. To guarantee that at least two people share one you need 367 people (catering for leap years).

I did know that birthday stat, as it happens. I think I might have first seen it mentioned many years ago on one of the Royal Institute Christmas lectures.

Norm don't get birthday mixed up with birthdate mate.

polyglide wrote:Star dust I believe is relative to the stage and actors, there is no way in which man can compehend the extent of the universe, the last space experiment involved years of travel and multi millions of miles and no one knows how little or how small this is to the actual size.

Man has a very limited knowledge of what is on earth but that which he does know has caused more problems than benefit, as for the universe he knows next to nothing.

We know that there is not one single piece of evidence for magic, ever. We know that everything science has discovered has a perfectly natural explanation, including numerous things that religion had claimed could only be explained by the supernatural, much as you're doing now.

I feel it pointless to go over the same ground time and time again.

There is abundant evidence to confirm that, based on the odds of evolution having any part in the actual creation of life , there must be an alternative, you give one.

PG you know the odds of evolution having the sole part in the creation of life,there was no magic man called god who no-one has ever seen or christ who was just some wierdo even the romans knew that and they killed all wierdos.

Come on Stu, if you read The Death of Evolution by Wallace Johnson and learn the actual odds of evolution having anything to do with creation, then you must look elsewhere for the answer, even if you do not believe in God.

evolution was the cause of creation PG,and until I see god that is what I will believe.

Q. Who's Wallace Johnson?
A. Exactly.

I thought you knew it all.

He is Wallace Johnson.

What are the odds of someone with such a compelling argument (as per your claims) being virtually unknown? That's a rhetorical question.

Just because you do not know him does not mean he is not qualified in the manner needed to justify his opinions which are based on the accepted method of obtaining odds.

After all you do not know God.

polyglide wrote:Just because you do not know him does not  mean he is not qualified in the manner needed to justify his opinions which are based on the accepted method of obtaining odds.

After all you do not know God.

What are his qualifications then? Please provide a source.

Just enter, Wallace Johnson, The Death of Evolution on your computer and you will find all his works and his standing in society.

I thought you would be able to that without being told.

I did and there's a dearth of information about him. That's why I asked you, since your the one championing his credentials. I take it you don't know either. Of course, there's an easy way to prove me wrong (assuming you know). What are the odds on that happening, I wonder?

Hi Dan,you will have to wait a while while PG reads all about him from his computer.

Or until he thinks we've forgotten about it

I am only interested in the calculated odds, which I can quote endlessly if you wish.

They are such that even were they 90% wrong they would still represent those accepted as impossible.

Why I wonder, do you think I am the only one who obtains information from the internet, you of course are a wealth of personal information based solely on your own efforts, I think not.

tell myself about wallace and johnson though and Dan also seeing as you know so much about them,c'mon PG.

polyglide wrote:I am only interested in the calculated odds, which I can quote endlessly if you wish.

They are such that even were they 90% wrong they would still represent those accepted as impossible.

Why I wonder, do you think I am the only one who obtains information from the internet, you of course are a wealth of personal information based solely on your own efforts, I think not.

The odds of you changing the subject when you can't answer a question posed about something you brought up have been calculated as 100% by me.
However, since you obviously aren't going to provide the info I asked for (because you and I both know you don't have it), I'll ask this, in reference to the bit in bold above: Could you please supply those odds and provide a full explanation as to how they were worked out. Sources backing the claims up would be nice too. Or is this another lie you can't back up?

I did ask him about wallace and johnson for both of us Dan as he was avoiding the subject was he not.   

Without going into, DNA, genes, chromosomes, RNA, Ribosomes, proteins, thermodynamics, amino acids, etc; etc; just one example.

To form one protein which would be eccential for life to be begin is as follows by Dr. Charles E. Guye.

If we could imagine unlimited material shaking itself together over vast time so that this material fully interacts, the odds against one protein molecule forming would be 100 to the power of 160 to one.

This means no chance at all.

Further more we would need more universes of material , and not just 3 or four but sextrillion etc; etc; universes. Etc; etc;

The time required for shaking this material together on our planet would be, in years, 10 to the power of 143. A time that man cannot conceive.

Hope this educates you a little.

Also just what do you want to know about johnston, I can give you his whole history if you want.

polyglide wrote:Also just what do you want to know about johnston, I can give you his whole history if you want.

Go on then.

polyglide wrote:Without going into, DNA, genes, chromosomes, RNA, Ribosomes, proteins, thermodynamics, amino acids, etc; etc; just one example.

To form one protein which would be eccential for life to be begin is as follows by Dr. Charles E. Guye.

If we could imagine unlimited material shaking itself together over vast time so that this material fully interacts, the odds against one protein molecule forming would be 100 to the power of 160 to one.

This means no chance at all.

Further more we would need more universes of material , and not just 3 or four but sextrillion etc; etc; universes. Etc; etc;

The time required for shaking this material together on our planet would be, in years, 10 to the power of 143. A time that man cannot conceive.

Hope this educates you a little.

Where are you quoting this from? Without a source and context it can't be scrutinised.

Seconded. don't forget wallace also,list their achievements to start with,and we will know if it is copy and paste too.

We can all find quotes on the internet, by the way:
"Guye was a physicist who died in 1942 and was calculating the odds of atoms lining up by accident to form a protein if a vessel the size of the Earth with the constituent atoms was mechanically shaken at the speed of light. In other words, like Hoyle, he was someone outside his area of expertise, calculating "odds" based on utterly unrealistic premises that have nothing to do with biochemistry as we know it, much less any realistic hypotheses about abiogenesis."
Also, this experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
Seems to blow those claims wide open in any case. I await your reply, PG.

Brill dan,the odds are more in the region of 180,000-1

Seems to blow, being the operative words, seems to, there are later people who have calculated the same odds based on all the present available information and all the experiments to date have been based on what is already on found on earth and not what was before.

polyglide wrote:Seems to blow, being the operative words, seems to, there are later people who have calculated the same odds based on all the present available information and all the experiments to date have been based on what is already on found on earth and not what was before.

'Seems to' was deliberate understatement on my part. Something you'd have realised if you'd answered before reading the link. Still waiting for the rest of your answers. I'm putting the odds on them appearing at 0%.

I don't think it's wallace and johnson he knows about Dan, more like wallis and grommit.  

Correction: Hadn't answered before reading the link. I'm sure you know what I meant anyway.

stuart torr wrote:I don't think it's wallace and johnson he knows about Dan, more like wallis and grommit.  

He's compiling the life story as we speak

Just exactly what is it that you want to know?.

Given I've already asked several questions / raised several issues in this thread (some of which are on this page) which you haven't answered, that's a bit of a silly question.

Well Dan, how silly is the poster?  

No amount of education will make one able to understand for instance, the size of the universe.

The extent of education is solely dependant on the information we already have available and in our case very limited compared to the what the universe holds.