On 8 Apr, 23:20, "adman" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...
| On 8 Apr, 19:55, "adman" wrote:
|
| [snipped for brevity and focus]
|
| I said "likely" a flat out liar. See how you mis read?
|
| The evidence speaks for itself
|
| Oh really?
|
| Here are your very words " ... more likely, you are just a flat out
| liar that will try to distort anything that does not conform to your
| narrow mind ... "
|
| Whatever way you look at it, you have accused me of lying and of
| distortion.
|
| Harun Yahya states:
|
| "In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 10^50 means
| "zero probability"."
|
| And that comes straight from the article you cited in your opening
| post.
|
| Here is your cited link:
|
|http://www.faizani.com/news/news_200...ssibility.html
|
| And from the article I cited:
|
| "Borel asserts that 10^-50 represents a negligible event on the cosmic
| scale as it is well below one over the product of the number of
| observable stars (10^9) times the number of observations that humans
| could make on those stars (10^20)."
|
| And here is my cited link:
|
|http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html
|
| Please note Harun Yahya says 10^50 and Borel says 10^-50, see the
| minus sign?
|
| Now tell me, where have I distorted anything from either of these
| cited sources?
|
| And regarding the words of Harun Yahya on the work of Roger Penrose.
|
| Let me ask you again, where in the article I cited for the work of
| Roger Penrose do you find the words "probability", "zero probability"
| or "impossibility"?
|
| Here is the link again:
|
|http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/
|
| And here is Harun Yahya's comment that follows the words he took from
| Roger Penrose's work:
|
| "In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or
| "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility."
|
| So Harun Yahya misquotes Emil Borel.
|
| He then quotes a section of Roger Penrose's work.
|
| And finishes not with Roger Penrose's conclusion, but his own
| conclusion.
|
| A conclusion based ultimately on a false assumption.
|
| That being:
|
| "In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 10^50 means
| "zero probability"."
|
| So how have I lied, or distorted anything?
|
| The burden of proof is on you now to defend your accusations.
|
| - Hide quoted text -
|
| - Show quoted text -
Your distortion (and lie) is you distracting from the original point.
First you said Penrose was wrong, THEN you claimed that a scientist such as
Penrose is using a deliberate distortion, when you saw these two tactics did
not work you proceed now to on and on about an insignificant piece of the
article to AVOID addressing the fact that the mathmatical odds are against
the universe going BANG and being created. WHY is THAT.
|
I admitted some time ago that I was wrong with respect to my
assumptions regarding Roger Penrose.
I then pointed out that Harun Yahya used a deliberate distortion of
the work of Emil Borel.
Yahya claimed that a probability of 10 to the power of 50 was a zero
probability event.
Borel describes as negligible any event on the cosmic scale having a
probability of 10 to the power of minus 50.
The fact that you cannot see the difference between these two
statements is not my problem.
The fact that you dismiss this evidence as insignificant is not my
problem either.
You really do need to look at more reliable sources for your
information.