"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...
| On 6 Apr, 10:15, "adman" wrote:
|

[snipped for brevity and focus]

|
| http://www.creationofuniverse.com/ht...librium03.html
|
| You will see it is a comment by Harun Yahya and not Roger Penrose.
|
| I wont deny a degree of stubbornness on my part, but that is because I
| know that I am right.
|
| But I am not in denial of anything on this issue.

You are correct, you are not in denial. Here is why,

First you claimed that Penrose's caculations were incorrect when you claimed
to know MORE then Penrose:
"Having looked again there is a massive error in the article you cited.
It uses positive values for the power by which ten is raised rather
than negative values."

THEN you claimed that a scientist such as Penrose is using a deliberate
distortion:
"Penrose, is using a deliberate distortion of Emil Borel's "single law
of chance" which is not an immutable law set in stone, but a rule of
thumb."

NOW you claim the comments were by Harun Yahya and not Roger Penrose,
despite the fact that any moron can see Harun Yahya is quoting and
paraphrasing from the Penrose book, AND Harun Yahya gave a reference to
said book in the footnotes.

Look All this squirming you have done; but, Guess what?!?. The number
Penrose came up with does not lie.

The odds are 1 in 1(with trillions and trillions of zeros)

And here was what Harun Yahya quoted reflecting Roger Penrose's thoughts his
own computations. Note the colon and the phrase "Roger Penrose comments":

Concerning this mind-boggling number 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. 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.

As you can see, it was Penrose that said "This is an extraordinary figure".
And it was Penrose that said how this " tells how precise the Creator's aim
must have been"

So, now; As I said above, you are not in denial; more likely, you are just a
flat out liar that will try to distort anything that does not conform to
your narrow mind. Even someone Like Penrose, his shoes you are not worthy to
untie.

"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"."

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?

On 8 Apr, 18:02, "adman" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote in message

...
| On 6 Apr, 10:15, "adman" wrote:
|

[snipped for brevity and focus]

|
|http://www.creationofuniverse.com/ht...librium03.html
|
| You will see it is a comment by Harun Yahya and not Roger Penrose.
|
| I wont deny a degree of stubbornness on my part, but that is because I
| know that I am right.
|
| But I am not in denial of anything on this issue.

You are correct, you are not in denial. Here is why,

First you claimed that Penrose's caculations were incorrect when you claimed
to know MORE then Penrose:
"Having looked again there is a massive error in the article you cited.
It uses positive values for the power by which ten is raised rather
than negative values."

THEN you claimed that a scientist such as Penrose is using a deliberate
distortion:
"Penrose, is using a deliberate distortion of Emil Borel's "single law
of chance" which is not an immutable law set in stone, but a rule of
thumb."

NOW you claim the comments were by Harun Yahya and not Roger Penrose,
despite the fact that any moron can see Harun Yahya is quoting and
paraphrasing from the Penrose book, AND *Harun Yahya gave a reference to
said book in the footnotes.

Look All this squirming you have done; but, Guess what?!?. The number
Penrose came up with does not lie.

The odds are 1 in 1(with trillions and trillions of zeros)

And here was what Harun Yahya quoted reflecting Roger Penrose's thoughts his
own computations. Note the colon and the phrase "Roger Penrose comments":

Concerning this mind-boggling number 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. 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.

As you can see, it was Penrose that said "This is an extraordinary figure"..
And it was Penrose that said how this " tells how precise the Creator's aim
must have been"

So, now; As I said above, you are not in denial; more likely, you are just a
flat out liar that will try to distort anything that does not conform to
your narrow mind. Even someone Like Penrose, his shoes you are not worthy to
untie.

I admitted three days ago that I was wrong in presuming that Roger
Penrose had distorted the work of Emil Borel.

In the article you cited Harun Yahya is quoted as saying:

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

In the article that I cited about the work of Emil Borel you will see
this statement:

"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)."

Can you see the difference?

Harun Yahya says 1 in 10 to the power of 50 means "zero probability".

Emil Borel says 10 to the power of MINUS 50 represents "negligible
probability".

How does that make me a flat out liar?

Harun Yahya quotes from Roger Penrose's and follows it up by claiming
the following:

"In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or
"coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility."

Nowhere in in the section of Roger Penrose's book from which Harun
Yahya lifted the paragraphs used in the article you cited does Roger
Penrose use the words impossible, probability, or 'zero probability',
nor does

So I ask again how does that make me a flat out liar?

Perhaps you need to re-examine the cited articles that we have both
presented here, the one you cited which quotes from Harun Yahya's "The
Equilibrium in the Explosion" and the ones that I cited with respect
to the work of Emil Borel and Roger Penros's "The Emperor's New Mind".

You will then see that your accusing me of being a flat out liar is
inappropriate.

"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...
On 8 Apr, 18:02, "adman" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote in message

...
| On 6 Apr, 10:15, "adman" wrote:
|

[snipped for brevity and focus]

|
|http://www.creationofuniverse.com/ht...librium03.html
|
| You will see it is a comment by Harun Yahya and not Roger Penrose.
|
| I wont deny a degree of stubbornness on my part, but that is because I
| know that I am right.
|
| But I am not in denial of anything on this issue.

You are correct, you are not in denial. Here is why,

First you claimed that Penrose's caculations were incorrect when you
claimed
to know MORE then Penrose:
"Having looked again there is a massive error in the article you cited.
It uses positive values for the power by which ten is raised rather
than negative values."

THEN you claimed that a scientist such as Penrose is using a deliberate
distortion:
"Penrose, is using a deliberate distortion of Emil Borel's "single law
of chance" which is not an immutable law set in stone, but a rule of
thumb."

NOW you claim the comments were by Harun Yahya and not Roger Penrose,
despite the fact that any moron can see Harun Yahya is quoting and
paraphrasing from the Penrose book, AND Harun Yahya gave a reference to
said book in the footnotes.

Look All this squirming you have done; but, Guess what?!?. The number
Penrose came up with does not lie.

The odds are 1 in 1(with trillions and trillions of zeros)

And here was what Harun Yahya quoted reflecting Roger Penrose's thoughts
his
own computations. Note the colon and the phrase "Roger Penrose comments":

Concerning this mind-boggling number 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. 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.

As you can see, it was Penrose that said "This is an extraordinary
figure".
And it was Penrose that said how this " tells how precise the Creator's
aim
must have been"

So, now; As I said above, you are not in denial; more likely, you are just
a
flat out liar that will try to distort anything that does not conform to
your narrow mind. Even someone Like Penrose, his shoes you are not worthy
to
untie.

I admitted three days ago that I was wrong in presuming that Roger
Penrose had distorted the work of Emil Borel.

In the article you cited Harun Yahya is quoted as saying:

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

In the article that I cited about the work of Emil Borel you will see
this statement:

"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)."

Can you see the difference?

Harun Yahya says 1 in 10 to the power of 50 means "zero probability".

Emil Borel says 10 to the power of MINUS 50 represents "negligible
probability".

How does that make me a flat out liar?

Harun Yahya quotes from Roger Penrose's and follows it up by claiming
the following:

"In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or
"coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility."

Nowhere in in the section of Roger Penrose's book from which Harun
Yahya lifted the paragraphs used in the article you cited does Roger
Penrose use the words impossible, probability, or 'zero probability',
nor does

So I ask again how does that make me a flat out liar?

Perhaps you need to re-examine the cited articles that we have both
presented here, the one you cited which quotes from Harun Yahya's "The
Equilibrium in the Explosion" and the ones that I cited with respect
to the work of Emil Borel and Roger Penros's "The Emperor's New Mind".

You will then see that your accusing me of being a flat out liar is
inappropriate.

I said "likely" a flat out liar. See how you mis read?

The evidence speaks for itself

On 8 Apr, 18:23, "adman" wrote:

[snipped for brevity and focus]

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"."

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.

It has everything to do with how Harun Yahya leads into Roger
Penrose's work with a falsehood.

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."

And do you see in this statement anything to do with "zero
probability" or even "probability" or "impossibility"?

No you do not.

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?

Are you so narrow-minded that you cannot see what has been presented
to you numerous times already?

Harun Yahya misquoted Emil Borel, that is a fact.

He uses this falsehood in conjunction with the figures quoted from
Roger Penrose's work to come to his own conclusion that:

"In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or
"coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility."

A statement not made by, or even suggested by, Roger Penrose.

The facts are that simple.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...
| On 8 Apr, 18:23, "adman" wrote:
|
| [snipped for brevity and focus]
|
| 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"."
|
| 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.
|
| It has everything to do with how Harun Yahya leads into Roger
| Penrose's work with a falsehood.

Nope, it is knee jerk and hand waving

|
| 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."
|
| And do you see in this statement anything to do with "zero
| probability" or even "probability" or "impossibility"?


Do you ACTUALLY consider a 1 to 1(GAZILLIONS OF ZEROS) NOT a "zero
probability" or even "probability" or "impossibility"? Primrose thinks it
is. Only a fool could miseread what he was saying.

|
| No you do not.
|
| 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?
|
| Are you so narrow-minded that you cannot see what has been presented
| to you numerous times already?
|
| Harun Yahya misquoted Emil Borel, that is a fact.

An assertion


|
| He uses this falsehood in conjunction with the figures quoted from
| Roger Penrose's work to come to his own conclusion that:
|
| "In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or
| "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility."
|
| A statement not made by, or even suggested by, Roger Penrose.
|
| The facts are that simple.

The facts speak for themselves.And you are in denial.


EOD as far as i am concerned.


|
| - Hide quoted text -
|
| - Show quoted text -
|

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 -

"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.


|

On 8 Apr, 21:07, "adman" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote in message

...
| On 8 Apr, 18:23, "adman" wrote:
|
| [snipped for brevity and focus]
|
| 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"."
|
| 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.
|
| It has everything to do with how Harun Yahya leads into Roger
| Penrose's work with a falsehood.

Nope, it is knee jerk and hand waving

Emil Borel says that an event with a probability of 10 to the power of
MINUS 50 is a "negligible event".

Harun Yahya says that an event with a probability of 10 to the power
of 50 is an event of "zero probability.

Harun Yahya begins with a deliberate misquotation of Emil Borel's
work.

And that makes his statement about "zero probability" a falsehood,
plain and simple.

|
| 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."
|
| And do you see in this statement anything to do with "zero
| probability" or even "probability" or "impossibility"?

Do you ACTUALLY consider a 1 to 1(GAZILLIONS OF ZEROS) NOT a *"zero
probability" or even "probability" or "impossibility"? Primrose thinks it
is. Only a fool could miseread what he was saying.

Who is this Primrose of whom you speak, and where do you get this idea
of "gazillions of zeros" from.

If an event is calculated as having a non-zero probability, it is
never considered an impossibility as Harun Yahya seems to think.

|
| No you do not.
|
| 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?
|
| Are you so narrow-minded that you cannot see what has been presented
| to you numerous times already?
|
| Harun Yahya misquoted Emil Borel, that is a fact.

An assertion

A fact, go read the source that I cited.

|
| He uses this falsehood in conjunction with the figures quoted from
| Roger Penrose's work to come to his own conclusion that:
|
| "In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or
| "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility."
|
| A statement not made by, or even suggested by, Roger Penrose.
|
| The facts are that simple.

The facts speak for themselves.And you are in denial.

EOD as far as i am concerned.

So as you cannot prove me wrong, you are choosing now to ignore the
evidence against Harun Yahya?

|
| - Hide quoted text -
|
| - Show quoted text -
|

On Apr 8, 6:20 pm, "adman" wrote:
snip

"... the universe going BANG and being created.

snip

I'm not a physicist, mind you, but I'm going to hazard a guess that
you are grossly misrepresenting the Big Bang Theory. Also,
creationists frequently misuse statistics and probability to argue
against various things that make them uncomfortable or which challenge
their rigid beliefs; why is this instance any different?.

Since it seems like the preponderance of evidence of what happened
after the Big Bang supports the theory, I gotta go with science.
Before the Big Bang? Ah, there's a subject where science can't tread
and where religious beliefs can be as valid as any.

Baron Bodissey
They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
nothing but sea.
- Francis Bacon