On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 12:23:48 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...
On 8 Apr, 12:12, "adman" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote in message

...
| On 6 Apr, 12:46, "adman" wrote:
| "Ye Old One" wrote in
messagenews:4adhv317q3cc02o8svo7c5gf72tas998s6@4ax .com...
| | On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 22:29:22 -0500, "adman"
| | enriched this group when s/he wrote:
| |
| | The only thing pathetic is an arm chair scientist wanna be
discounting
| | information from an obviously well qualified, well edcuated, and
wlll
| | accomplished, real scientists; a person that has written a book
with
| Steven
| | Hawkins.
| |
| | Now THATS pathetic.
| |
| | Well, I've edited papers he has written for publication, attended
many
| | of his lectures and I've sat down and talked with him. He is, indeed
| | well qualified, well educated, and well accomplished "real"
scientist.
| | He understands the Big Bang better than most and he most certainly
| | does not have time for pathetic lying morons like you.
|
| Exactly how am i lying?
|
| I quoted Him directly.
|
| Quoted who directly? Roger Penrose or Harun Yahya?

Harun Yahya is Quoting Penrose on the web page. Can't you read? He gave
the
books where he got Penrose's quotes in the footnotes.Why? The books are
not
published on line I guess. However, I did come across an interview Penrose
did where he expounded on his computations.

I am sure someone with your wealth of intelligence can verify Harun
Yahya's
website on Penrose's remarks.
I read about Penrose and about his books. There is nothing to suggest
Harun
Yahya is lying and making up quotes that Penrose did not say.

NOW, If Penrose, an obviously well qualified, well educated, and well
accomplished real scientist says the mathematical odds are overwhelmingly
against the universe simply *poofing* into existence, then I believe it

Trying to discredit Harun Yahya by insinuating Harun Yahya makes the
remarks
and not Penrose is simply denial on your part. Face facts. 1) singulaeity
is
not proven 2) The mathematical odds are overwhelmingly against the
universe
simply *poofing* into existence. 3) The Big Bang THEORY is moot.

As I have already told you, Emil Borel says that an event with a
probability of 10-^50 (or ten raised to the power of MINUS 50) is a
negligible event.

Your precious Harun Yahya says In practical terms, in mathematics, a
probability of 1 in 10^50 means "zero probability"."

Then he would be wrong.


10 to the power of 50 is not the same as 10 to the power of MINUS 50.

So Harun Yahya has obviously misquoted Emil Borel.


None of this has anything to do with Penrose and his findings, or his
thoughts of a creator.

Roger Penrose's work in the "Emperor's New Mind" as I have already
told you does not talk about probability zero or otherwise.

This is a direct quote of Penrose from his book on the web page:
"This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an
accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could
not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary
notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even if we were to
write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire
universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we
should fall far short of writing down the figure needed."



Your precious Harun Yahya took the figures from Roger Penrose's work
out of context to support his previous false declaration about "zero
probability" events.

So Harun Yahya has misrepresented Roger Penrose's works.

If Harun Yahya is such a reputable individual then why does he not
present his views under his real name?

You have not proven Harun Yahya took the figures from Roger Penrose's work
out of context. But you have made an assertion. Care to prove it?

You are the one misrepresenting the Professor, you prove it.

--
Bob.