"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...
On 11 Apr, 17:50, "adman" wrote:
"weatherwax" wrote in message

...
|
| "adman" wrote
|
| "weatherwax" wrote |
| | "adman" wrote
| |
| | "Pastor Dave" wrote
| | | "weatherwax" spake
| | |
| | |
| | | Some of the followers of this topic may wish to see a video of
| Roger
| | | Penrose's lecture on this topic called "The Universe Before the
Big
| | | Bang.".
| | |
| | |
| | | Oh, you mean that universe that wouldn't have existed yet?
| | |
| | | BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| |
| | Exacty. WHat freeking universe if it had NOT ben created yet?!?
| |
| | Where do all these arm chair scientists come from?
| |
| | Penrose does not claim that the universe came out of nothing. It
came
| | from the remnants of a preceding universe. You can learn more about
| this
| | from the video of his lecture "The Universe Before the Big Bang"
| |
| |
|
http://www.msri.org/communications/v...cial/VideoSpec...
| |
| |
| | Penrose said "the creator's aim" -----and notice how that was not
| | addressed
| | in any of their jibberish
| |
| | Penrose's reference to "the creator's arm" was only used only as an
| | illustration. Penrose does not believe in a creator.
|
| Nice back peddle.
|
| It's the truth. Admit it.

That would only be true if i claimed Penrose believed in God.Which i did
not. He drew an analogy to a creator's aim. So you back peddel by saying
it
was an illustration.

|
| I never once said he "believed" in a creator.
|
| What i pointed out was the fact penrose said the **AIM** of the
creator
| would have to be awsome to hit the bullseye with that number that he
came
| up
| with.
|
| Fact truth. Many of you will stop at nothing to discredit God, and
| discredit
| the bible.
|
| Penrose continues and shows one way the universe could have come into
being
| without the hand of a creator.
|
| The fact and truth is that Penrose disagrees with your assertion that
"it
is
| an impossibility".

Harun Yahya made the claim, and i made the claim it was an
impossibility.Why? Yje number is so big. And, Because PENROSE made the
claim that the creator's aim had be very very good to hit those odds he
caculated.Thereby insinuating that it would take a GOD to hit the
probability and that "the creator's aim" had to be THAT good because the
odds were so bad it happening by itself.

THATS the truth.

A reminder of what you posted in response to a recent posting of mine:

This never was about defending Harun Yahya and his assertions. Harun Yahya
and his viewpoint is simply a distraction you came up with to detract from
Roger Penrose's comments of a creator's aim and the extraordinary figure
penrose came up with against the singularity.

"This never was about defending Harun Yahya and his assertions. Harun
Yahya and his viewpoint is simply a distraction you came up with to
detract from Roger Penrose's comments ... "

Now you are admitting that you did take up with Harun Yahya's
position.

How is that an admission? And even if it so what? What Harun Yahya's, or
even myself, thinks has nothing what-so-ever to do with the number that
Penrose discovered and his comments on his discovery.

I said YOU used Harun Yahya's position as a distraction to detract from the
point of my post that Penrose came up with a number so large that the
creator's aim had to be good. Do you see anywhere in that paragraph where i
said i did or did not agree with Harun Yahya? If not, an apology is in
order.

Perhaps you should remain consistent in your stance, or at least have
the decency to admit you were in error, rather than switching sides
the way you are doing, and making out like whatever position you are
speaking from is the position you have always held.


My position has been the same from the first post. BUT, since you seem to
need an ordered list to keep track, here is one:

1)Penrose came up with the figure

2)The figure is astronomical

3)Harun Yahya says the figure is so high it has a near zero probability of
being hit and gives an example why he thinks that..

4)I feel the number is so high that only an intelligence far greater then
ours could hit the bulls-eye, as I reflect in he subject line.

5)Penrose feels the number is so high that ("the creator's aim") had to be
that good; using the word "creator" sarcastically since he does not believe
in a creator; therefore, he must not believe that anything short of a
creator with really good aim could hit it either . IOW, mathmatically, the
singularity is now proven moot. Not only once, but twice, as the singularity
also defies physics.

While you OTOH, have changed your position 3xs and moved the goal post a few
more times as well; with this post being nothing more then an accusation
that it is me that has changed positions.

Do you even have an opinion on Penrose's mathmatical discovery Brain?
Because it looks like all you want to do is rant about Harun Yahya and me
being wrong so you can refuse the fact that Penrose's number is quite
extradornary, to say the least.



Besides that, the singularity defies known physics. So where is this
"unifying theory" science needs to make their theory work?

And where is this Unifying Theory your god-like science needs to be correct?

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:48:04 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:



"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...

On 10 Apr, 16:04, "adman" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote in message

...

| On 9 Apr, 03:45, "adman" wrote:
|
| [snipped for brevity and focus]
|
| Brain..., You have not offered any proof what so ever that Harun Yahya
is
| wrong. What you have offered is your assertion, your opinion, and an
| alternate view point from another web site on that one specific part
of
the
| page.
|
| And even if you were correct, so what? Harun Yahya being wrong has
nothing
| to do with Penrose and his findings, and, has nothing to do with
Penrose's
| thoughts on his findings.
|
| Why do you so desire to distract from Penrose's findings? Are you
having
| doubts about your beloved science? Get your family bible out and start
| reading. Your doubts will go away if you study it and cross reference
as
any
| other text book.
|
| Kolmogorov's second axiom states in plain English that an event is
| impossible when the probability of that event happening is zero.
|
| From which it can be deduced that if an event has a probability value
| greater than zero that event can happen.
|
| That is not an assertion, nor is it an opinion, or an alternative view
| point.
|
| It is a fact.

All you have done validate penrose's the statement when he said " the
creator's aim" had to be very good. The number in the equation did not say
it was an absolute zero, only that it was a very unlikely probability as
the
number was so large.

As I said, even if you were correct, so what? Harun Yahya being wrong has
nothing
to do with Penrose and his findings, and, has nothing to do with Penrose's
thoughts on his findings.

|
| So when Harun Yahya said:
| and
| "In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means
| "zero probability"."
|
| He was lying, either deliberately or through ignorance.
|
| And it was Harun Yahya that declared:
|
| "Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental"
| creation of our universe is an impossibility."
|
| But Roger Penrose never made such an assertion.

But he did make this assertion:

Roger Penrose comments:

"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."

Why is so hard to understand? Roger Pennrose did not say it was impossible
only that the number was extraordinary. So you could argue that Harun
Yahyais its incorrect and you could even be right that he is incorrect,
but,
guess what? it does not matter. Because Roger Penrose himself says that
the
number is an extraordinary figure and insinuates that the creators aim had
to be quite accurate.

|
| If you cannot accept the evidence against Harun Yahya, then the onus
| is on you to defend his assertions.

This never was about defending Harun Yahya and his assertions. Harun Yahya
and his viewpoint is simply a distraction you came up with to detract from
Roger Penrose's comments of a creator's aim and the extraordinary figure
penrose came up with against the singularity.

Right?

Oh really?

Did I come up with Harun Yahya simply as a distraction to detract from
Roger Penrose's work?

Perhaps you didn't read the whole of the article you cited at the end
of your opening post, it contains the following close to the end:

" ... adopted from The Equilibrium in the Explosion, by Harun Yahya."

The title you gave this thread was "Yep, it is an impossibility!"

And your opening words (which I present here verbatim) we

"Roger Penrose , a man with impressive edcuation, and an impressive
career.
Shows how impossible it is for the universe, earth and manking to
form
itself after a big bang explosion."

Therein lies your error.

--
Bob.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:01:07 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Pastor Dave" wrote in message
.. .
| On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:56:04 GMT, "weatherwax"
| spake thusly:
|
|
| Some of the followers of this topic may wish to see a video of Roger
| Penrose's lecture on this topic called "The Universe Before the Big
Bang.".
|
|
| Oh, you mean that universe that wouldn't have existed yet?
|
| BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exacty. WHat freeking universe if it had NOT ben created yet?!?

The universe was not created.

Where do all these arm chair scientists come from?

Penrose said "the creator's aim" -----and notice how that was not addressed
in any of their jibberish

Roger does not believe in a creator.
|
| --
|
| "There is no refuge from confession but suicide;
| and suicide is confession." - Daniel Webster
|

Fix your newsreader.

--
Bob.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:07:38 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Fact truth. Many of you will stop at nothing to discredit God,

How can you discredit something which does not exist?

and discredit
the bible.

Fundies like you do that for us.

--
Bob.

"Ye Old One" wrote in message
news | On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:48:04 -0500, "adman"
| enriched this group when s/he wrote:
|
|
|
| "BRAINIAC" wrote in message
| ...
|
| On 10 Apr, 16:04, "adman" wrote:
| "BRAINIAC" wrote in message
|
|
...
|
| | On 9 Apr, 03:45, "adman" wrote:
| |
| | [snipped for brevity and focus]
| |
| | Brain..., You have not offered any proof what so ever that Harun
Yahya
| is
| | wrong. What you have offered is your assertion, your opinion, and
an
| | alternate view point from another web site on that one specific
part
| of
| the
| | page.
| |
| | And even if you were correct, so what? Harun Yahya being wrong has
| nothing
| | to do with Penrose and his findings, and, has nothing to do with
| Penrose's
| | thoughts on his findings.
| |
| | Why do you so desire to distract from Penrose's findings? Are you
| having
| | doubts about your beloved science? Get your family bible out and
start
| | reading. Your doubts will go away if you study it and cross
reference
| as
| any
| | other text book.
| |
| | Kolmogorov's second axiom states in plain English that an event is
| | impossible when the probability of that event happening is zero.
| |
| | From which it can be deduced that if an event has a probability value
| | greater than zero that event can happen.
| |
| | That is not an assertion, nor is it an opinion, or an alternative
view
| | point.
| |
| | It is a fact.
|
| All you have done validate penrose's the statement when he said " the
| creator's aim" had to be very good. The number in the equation did not
say
| it was an absolute zero, only that it was a very unlikely probability
as
| the
| number was so large.
|
| As I said, even if you were correct, so what? Harun Yahya being wrong
has
| nothing
| to do with Penrose and his findings, and, has nothing to do with
Penrose's
| thoughts on his findings.
|
| |
| | So when Harun Yahya said:
| | and
| | "In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means
| | "zero probability"."
| |
| | He was lying, either deliberately or through ignorance.
| |
| | And it was Harun Yahya that declared:
| |
| | "Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental"
| | creation of our universe is an impossibility."
| |
| | But Roger Penrose never made such an assertion.
|
| But he did make this assertion:
|
| Roger Penrose comments:
|
| "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."
|
| Why is so hard to understand? Roger Pennrose did not say it was
impossible
| only that the number was extraordinary. So you could argue that Harun
| Yahyais its incorrect and you could even be right that he is incorrect,
| but,
| guess what? it does not matter. Because Roger Penrose himself says that
| the
| number is an extraordinary figure and insinuates that the creators aim
had
| to be quite accurate.
|
| |
| | If you cannot accept the evidence against Harun Yahya, then the onus
| | is on you to defend his assertions.
|
| This never was about defending Harun Yahya and his assertions. Harun
Yahya
| and his viewpoint is simply a distraction you came up with to detract
from
| Roger Penrose's comments of a creator's aim and the extraordinary
figure
| penrose came up with against the singularity.
|
| Right?
|
| Oh really?
|
| Did I come up with Harun Yahya simply as a distraction to detract from
| Roger Penrose's work?
|
| Perhaps you didn't read the whole of the article you cited at the end
| of your opening post, it contains the following close to the end:
|
| " ... adopted from The Equilibrium in the Explosion, by Harun Yahya."
|
| The title you gave this thread was "Yep, it is an impossibility!"
|
| And your opening words (which I present here verbatim) we
|
| "Roger Penrose , a man with impressive edcuation, and an impressive
| career.
| Shows how impossible it is for the universe, earth and manking to
| form
| itself after a big bang explosion."
|
| Therein lies your error.

Fix your news reader. (report filed)


|
| --
| Bob.

On 11 Apr, 21:42, "adman" wrote:

[snipped for brevity and focus]

How is that an admission? *And even if it so what? What Harun Yahya's, or
even myself, thinks has nothing what-so-ever to do with the number that
Penrose discovered and his comments on his discovery.

I said YOU used Harun Yahya's position as a distraction to detract from the
point of my post that Penrose came up with a number so large that the
creator's aim had to be good. Do you see anywhere in that paragraph where i
said i did or did not agree with *Harun Yahya? If not, an apology is in
order.

No apology is forthcoming because you agreed with Harun Yahya in your
opening post and in your title for this thread.

Perhaps you should remain consistent in your stance, or at least have
the decency to admit you were in error, rather than switching sides
the way you are doing, and making out like whatever position you are
speaking from is the position you have always held.

My position has been the same from the first post. BUT, since you seem to
need an ordered list to keep track, here is one:

1)Penrose came up with the figure

I have never denied what Roger Penrose came up with in the way of a
figure.

What I objected to was the presumption on the part of the author of
your cited source, and that of Harun Yahya, which is that this figure
proves that it was impossible for the universe to come into existence
by chance.

A presumption echoed by yourself in your opening post and in the title
of the thread, which I repeat here for you.

"Roger Penrose , a man with impressive edcuation, and an impressive
career.
Shows how impossible it is for the universe, earth and manking to form
itself after a big bang explosion."

This statement of yours suggests that this was Roger Penrose's
intention.

Sorry but it wasn't.

2)The figure is astronomical

I haven't denied that either.

3)Harun Yahya says the figure is so high it has a near zero probability of
being hit and gives an example why he thinks that..

Wrong, Harun Yahya doesn't say it has a near zero probability he says:

"In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means
"zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion
trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us
that the 'accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an
impossibility."

Tell me how you manage to translate that statement into Harun Yahya
calling it "a near zero probability"?


4)I feel the number is so high that only an intelligence far greater then
ours could hit the bulls-eye, as I reflect in he subject line.

Wrong, your subject line doesn't reflect that, it declares "Yep, it is
an impossibility!"

5)Penrose feels the number is so high that ("the creator's aim") had to be
that good; using the word "creator" sarcastically since he does not believe
in a creator; therefore, he must not believe that anything short of a
creator with really good aim could hit it either . IOW, mathmatically, the
singularity is now proven moot. Not only once, but twice, as the singularity
also defies physics.

Wrong again, Roger Penrose supports the Big Bang theory and the
concept of the original singularity, nowhere in either your original
cited article or even in the section of Roger Penrose's book that I
cited does Roger Penrose take up the position that the singularity is
"now proven moot" or that the singularity "defies physics".

While you OTOH, have changed your position 3xs and moved the goal post a few
more times as well; with this post being nothing more then an accusation
that it is me that has changed positions.

Have I really done that, perhaps you should prove this allegation.

Your words to "weatherwax" which prompted my response:

"Harun Yahya made the claim, and i made the claim it was an
impossibility."

Your words to me in your most recent posting:

"Harun Yahya says the figure is so high it has a near zero probability
of being hit and gives an example why he thinks that.."

And your words at the beginning of this thread:

"Roger Penrose , a man with impressive edcuation, and an impressive
career.
Shows how impossible it is for the universe, earth and manking to form
itself after a big bang explosion."

And this you call consistent? You even fail to correctly quote from
the source that you cited in your very first posting of this thread.

Do you even have an opinion on Penrose's mathmatical discovery Brain?
Because it looks like all you want to do is rant about Harun Yahya and me
being wrong so you can refuse the fact that Penrose's number is quite
extradornary, to say the least.

I have never denied the enormity or the extraordinariness of the work
of Roger Penrose. I am in the process of reading Roger Penrose's
actual book "The Emperor's New Mind", which is something I suggest you
do, before you demand anyone's opinion on such a matter.

Besides that, the singularity defies known physics. So where is this
"unifying theory" science needs to make their theory work?

And where is this Unifying Theory your god-like science needs to be correct?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In article
,
BRAINIAC wrote:

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 -

*
You should not associate 'zero probability' with 'impossibility'.

There are certainly possible events that have zero probability.

Example:

Consider a line segment.
Using a random process, select one point on the line -- call it point X.

Then, using a random process, select a second point on the line -- call
it point Y.

What is the probability that point X is the same as point Y?

Answer: Zero.

And yet it is certainly possible that point Y is the same as point X.

earle
*

BRAINIAC wrote in news:905e2719-6fb0-4ec1-a71d-
:

"In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 10^50 means
"zero probability"."

Take a deck of 52 two cards. Turn the cards over one at a time. What is the
probability of the cards appearing in that order? Is that order "zero
probability"?

"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...
On 11 Apr, 21:42, "adman" wrote:

[snipped for brevity and focus]

How is that an admission? And even if it so what? What Harun Yahya's, or
even myself, thinks has nothing what-so-ever to do with the number that
Penrose discovered and his comments on his discovery.

I said YOU used Harun Yahya's position as a distraction to detract from
the
point of my post that Penrose came up with a number so large that the
creator's aim had to be good. Do you see anywhere in that paragraph where
i
said i did or did not agree with Harun Yahya? If not, an apology is in
order.

No apology is forthcoming because you agreed with Harun Yahya in your
opening post and in your title for this thread.

Perhaps you should remain consistent in your stance, or at least have
the decency to admit you were in error, rather than switching sides
the way you are doing, and making out like whatever position you are
speaking from is the position you have always held.

My position has been the same from the first post. BUT, since you seem to
need an ordered list to keep track, here is one:

1)Penrose came up with the figure

I have never denied what Roger Penrose came up with in the way of a
figure.

What I objected to was the presumption on the part of the author of
your cited source, and that of Harun Yahya, which is that this figure
proves that it was impossible for the universe to come into existence
by chance.

A presumption echoed by yourself in your opening post and in the title
of the thread, which I repeat here for you.

"Roger Penrose , a man with impressive edcuation, and an impressive
career.
Shows how impossible it is for the universe, earth and manking to form
itself after a big bang explosion."

This statement of yours suggests that this was Roger Penrose's
intention.

Sorry but it wasn't.

2)The figure is astronomical

I haven't denied that either.

3)Harun Yahya says the figure is so high it has a near zero probability of
being hit and gives an example why he thinks that..

Wrong, Harun Yahya doesn't say it has a near zero probability he says:

"In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means
"zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion
trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us
that the 'accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an
impossibility."

Tell me how you manage to translate that statement into Harun Yahya
calling it "a near zero probability"?


4)I feel the number is so high that only an intelligence far greater then
ours could hit the bulls-eye, as I reflect in he subject line.

Wrong, your subject line doesn't reflect that, it declares "Yep, it is
an impossibility!"

5)Penrose feels the number is so high that ("the creator's aim") had to be
that good; using the word "creator" sarcastically since he does not
believe
in a creator; therefore, he must not believe that anything short of a
creator with really good aim could hit it either . IOW, mathmatically, the
singularity is now proven moot. Not only once, but twice, as the
singularity
also defies physics.

Wrong again, Roger Penrose supports the Big Bang theory and the
concept of the original singularity, nowhere in either your original
cited article or even in the section of Roger Penrose's book that I
cited does Roger Penrose take up the position that the singularity is
"now proven moot" or that the singularity "defies physics".

While you OTOH, have changed your position 3xs and moved the goal post a
few
more times as well; with this post being nothing more then an accusation
that it is me that has changed positions.

Have I really done that, perhaps you should prove this allegation.

Your words to "weatherwax" which prompted my response:

"Harun Yahya made the claim, and i made the claim it was an
impossibility."

Your words to me in your most recent posting:

"Harun Yahya says the figure is so high it has a near zero probability
of being hit and gives an example why he thinks that.."

And your words at the beginning of this thread:

"Roger Penrose , a man with impressive edcuation, and an impressive
career.
Shows how impossible it is for the universe, earth and manking to form
itself after a big bang explosion."

And this you call consistent? You even fail to correctly quote from
the source that you cited in your very first posting of this thread.

Do you even have an opinion on Penrose's mathmatical discovery Brain?
Because it looks like all you want to do is rant about Harun Yahya and me
being wrong so you can refuse the fact that Penrose's number is quite
extradornary, to say the least.

I have never denied the enormity or the extraordinariness of the work
of Roger Penrose. I am in the process of reading Roger Penrose's
actual book "The Emperor's New Mind", which is something I suggest you
do, before you demand anyone's opinion on such a matter.

Besides that, the singularity defies known physics. So where is this
"unifying theory" science needs to make their theory work?

And where is this Unifying Theory your god-like science needs to be
correct?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

DENIAL

It;s not just a river in Egypt.

"weatherwax" wrote in message
...
|
| "adman" wrote in message
| ...
|
|
| Harun Yahya made the claim, and i made the claim it was an
| impossibility.Why? Yje number is so big. And, Because PENROSE made the
| claim that the creator's aim had be very very good to hit those odds he
| caculated.Thereby insinuating that it would take a GOD to hit the
| probability and that "the creator's aim" had to be THAT good because the
| odds were so bad it happening by itself.
|
| The nubers only applies to a creator producing the universe ex nihilo.
|
| Considering the fact that Penrose does not believe that the universe was
| created ex nehilo, the numbers do not apply.
|
| --Wax

Bwhayayayayay!!! [cough] [choke on my coke] [wipes keyboard]

Tonz of laughter!!! Throw in some megabytes of laughter too!

I'll let Penrose know YOU think his numbers do NOT apply and that YOU are
SMARTER then HE is!

You kooks are so funny!