On Apr 8, 6:02*pm, "arseman" whinged:
"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.

Offensive little ******** aren't you? Does being rude induce an
orgasm?

"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being." (Abraham Lincoln).

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 06:12:55 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

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

That is NOT the belief of Professor Sir Roger Penrose, OM, FRS.

--
Bob.

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 06:28:29 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"weatherwax" wrote in message
...
|
| "adman" wrote in message
| . ..
|
| 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.
| CLIP
|
| http://www.faizani.com/news/news_200...ssibility.html
|
| You make the same mistake which many fundamentalists do: You take the
word
| of a religious website as authoritative in the field of science. That is
| like hiring a plumber to fix your car.
|
| I have read two of Penrose's books: "The Emperor's New Mind" and "The
Road
| to Reality". Therefore I know that the above website quotes Penrose out
of
| context and misrepresents what he says.
|
| --Wax

You are incorrect. Penrose gave an interview where he expounded on his
computations.
The entire point of doing the computations, was to find out how probable the
big bang was from the mathematical POV. Penrose got an astronomical answer
saying the odds were against. Exactly HOW can a mathematical answer be MIS
quoted? The numbers do not lie.

If you actually read the book, which I doubt, you would know that Penrose's
answer was indeed overwhelming. .1 in 1(with trillions and trillions of
zeros) against.

Your stupidity shows.

The odds are 50-50. Either it happened or it didn't. We are here to
prove it did.

--
Bob.

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.

On Apr 9, 8:20*am, "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.

|

Get a deck of cards. Shuffle thoroughly. Draw 5, any five.

What was the probability of your drawing those five exact cards?
Pretty low, huh?

Can you tell me why that low probability is somehow proof that you
didn't draw those five cards?

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 15:07:18 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he 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

|
| 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.

No he doesn't.

Only a fool could miseread what he was saying.

Only a fool would would take things out of context.

And yes, I have read the book.

|
| 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 -
|

Fix your newsreader.

--
Bob.

"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...
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?

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.

..



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

"Ye Old One" wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 06:28:29 -0500, "adman"
| enriched this group when s/he wrote:
|
|
| "weatherwax" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | "adman" wrote in message
| | . ..
| |
| | 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.
| | CLIP
| |
| | http://www.faizani.com/news/news_200...ssibility.html
| |
| | You make the same mistake which many fundamentalists do: You take the
| word
| | of a religious website as authoritative in the field of science. That
is
| | like hiring a plumber to fix your car.
| |
| | I have read two of Penrose's books: "The Emperor's New Mind" and "The
| Road
| | to Reality". Therefore I know that the above website quotes Penrose
out
| of
| | context and misrepresents what he says.
| |
| | --Wax
|
| You are incorrect. Penrose gave an interview where he expounded on his
| computations.
| The entire point of doing the computations, was to find out how probable
the
| big bang was from the mathematical POV. Penrose got an astronomical
answer
| saying the odds were against. Exactly HOW can a mathematical answer be
MIS
| quoted? The numbers do not lie.
|
| If you actually read the book, which I doubt, you would know that
Penrose's
| answer was indeed overwhelming. .1 in 1(with trillions and trillions of
| zeros) against.
|
| Your stupidity shows.
|
| The odds are 50-50. Either it happened or it didn't. We are here to
| prove it did.

Fix your news reader.

And get an edcuation from some someplace else other then a match book cover

..
|
| --
| Bob.

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.

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:20:02 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he 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 will state, quite categorically and without fear of contradiction
from himself, the Professor Penrose does not believe that it is
mathematically improbable/impossible for the universe we see to have
come about by natural causes.

If you disagree then your best bet would be to email him (his email
address is available in a number of places. I'm sure he will tell one
of his junior assistants to tell you to f*ck off and stop being so
stupid.

--
Bob.