On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:13:11 -0500, adman wrote:

"Ye Old One" wrote in message
... | On Thu, 10 Apr 2008
10:31:47 GMT, Bryan Olson | enriched this
group when s/he wrote: |
| adman wrote:
| "Ye Old One" wrote [...]: | | 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.
|
| Are you saying that Penrose will deny the figure he came up with? |

| No, that is not what he was saying. I cannot speak for him, but | I
can tell what he was saying -- because he wrote it in English. |
| 'Ye Old One' - A.K.A - 'Bob', sure did set himself up to refuted, |
if in fact Professor Penrose sides with adman. |
| I trust the Professor.

Here is what the Professor said and what i quoted from 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."

Wow, you really misquoted that. But what are a thousand orders of
magnitude among friends?

Generally you want to give citations for quotes. For example:

"In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose has
estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular set of
physical properties is one part in 10^10^123. (Penrose 1989: 343).
However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the other
possible universes formed with different properties could still have lead
to some form of life. If it is half, then the probability for life is
fifty percent."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html


As you can see, the professor is correct, and i am correct.

No, your number was a little more than one in a million. Sorry.


Now, go fix your news reader


|
| --
| Bob.
|

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:13:11 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Ye Old One" wrote in message
.. .
| On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:31:47 GMT, Bryan Olson
| enriched this group when s/he wrote:
|
| adman wrote:
| "Ye Old One" wrote [...]:
| | 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.
|
| Are you saying that Penrose will deny the figure he came up with?
|
| No, that is not what he was saying. I cannot speak for him, but
| I can tell what he was saying -- because he wrote it in English.
|
| 'Ye Old One' - A.K.A - 'Bob', sure did set himself up to refuted,
| if in fact Professor Penrose sides with adman.
|
| I trust the Professor.

Here is what the Professor said and what i quoted from the web page:

Not good enough. You need to ask the Professor exactly what he means.

"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."

You keep posting the same quote. You need to ask the Professor exactly
what he means.


As you can see, the professor is correct, and i am correct.

hohohoho! Only in your dreams.

Now, go fix your news reader

Mine is fine, yours is not. Fix it or earn more abuse reports.


|
| --
| Bob.
|
Fix your newsreader.

--
Bob.

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:04:26 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he 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.

Penrose does not believe in a creator.

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.

Have you asked him yet what he meant? No, of course not.



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.

And you seem unable to confirm the Professor's thoughts. Why is that?
Scared to email him?




|
| 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."

No, he didn't.



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.

Why don't you actually ask him what he meant?




|
| 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

Roger does not believe in a creator.

aim and the extraordinary figure
penrose came up with against the singularity.

What singularity?



Right?

No, you never are.

--
Bob.

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:10:42 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"weatherwax" wrote in message
...
|
| "adman" wrote
|
| So you are saying Penrose was delibertly misquoted?
|
| I am saying that Penrose was delibertly quoted out of context.

One sentence and you may have a point. The quote was an entire paragraph, an
entire thought.

But still out of context.
|
| I think not.
|
| Those were Rene Descartes' last words.

You had a point to make?

| He did the numbers. The numbers do not lie
|
| But people use mumbers to lie. That is what's happening.

But the Numbers themselves do not lie. It is quite clear Penrose came up
with an astronomical number to hit the singularity

Wrong again.

|
| If you want to understand Penrose, then you have to read Penrose.
However,
| you have neither the desire nor the ability to comprehend his ideas.
|
| --Wax
|

These are Penrose's exact remarks on the number he discovered:

Roger Penrose comments:
This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an
accuracy of one part in 10 to10123. 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.


Now THAT is pretty self explanitory and not out of context.

But it is out of context.

--Adman

Fix your newsreader.

--
Bob.

"Ye Old One" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:13:11 -0500, "adman"
| enriched this group when s/he wrote:
|
|
| "Ye Old One" wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:31:47 GMT, Bryan Olson
| | enriched this group when s/he wrote:
| |
| | adman wrote:
| | "Ye Old One" wrote [...]:
| | | 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.
| |
| | Are you saying that Penrose will deny the figure he came up with?
| |
| | No, that is not what he was saying. I cannot speak for him, but
| | I can tell what he was saying -- because he wrote it in English.
| |
| | 'Ye Old One' - A.K.A - 'Bob', sure did set himself up to refuted,
| | if in fact Professor Penrose sides with adman.
| |
| | I trust the Professor.
|
| Here is what the Professor said and what i quoted from the web page:
|
| Not good enough. You need to ask the Professor exactly what he means.

A direct quote from his book will be good enough. You know it, i know it
|
| "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."
|
| You keep posting the same quote. You need to ask the Professor exactly
| what he means.

It was obvious what he means. Why cannot you read?
|
|
| As you can see, the professor is correct, and i am correct.
|
| hohohoho! Only in your dreams.

Thats a fact...jack
|
| Now, go fix your news reader
|
| Mine is fine, yours is not. Fix it or earn more abuse reports.

Yours is busted, not mine. Fix it.
|
|
| |
| | --
| | Bob.
| |
| Fix your newsreader.
|
| --
| Bob.
|

"Ye Old One" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:04:26 -0500, "adman"
| enriched this group when s/he 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.
|
| Penrose does not believe in a creator.
|
| 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.
|
| Have you asked him yet what he meant? No, of course not.
|
|
|
| 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.
|
| And you seem unable to confirm the Professor's thoughts. Why is that?
| Scared to email him?
|
|
|
|
| |
| | 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."
|
| No, he didn't.
|
|
|
| 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.
|
| Why don't you actually ask him what he meant?
|
|
|
|
| |
| | 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
|
| Roger does not believe in a creator.
|
| aim and the extraordinary figure
| penrose came up with against the singularity.
|
| What singularity?
|
|
|
| Right?
|
| No, you never are.
|
| --
| Bob.

Fix your news reader

Fix your newsreader.

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"adman" wrote in message
...
|
| Fix your newsreader.
|

There's nothing wrong with her.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lie_Trevor.jpg

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."

You vehemently defended this opening posture of yours all the while,
occasionally lapsing into ad hominem attacks, which I forgive you for
doing.

And now you are taking up a position completely contrary to your
original one, and parading it as if it had been your position all
along.

That is quite remarkable.

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:54:49 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Ye Old One" wrote in message
.. .
| On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:13:11 -0500, "adman"
| enriched this group when s/he wrote:
|
|
| "Ye Old One" wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:31:47 GMT, Bryan Olson
| | enriched this group when s/he wrote:
| |
| | adman wrote:
| | "Ye Old One" wrote [...]:
| | | 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.
| |
| | Are you saying that Penrose will deny the figure he came up with?
| |
| | No, that is not what he was saying. I cannot speak for him, but
| | I can tell what he was saying -- because he wrote it in English.
| |
| | 'Ye Old One' - A.K.A - 'Bob', sure did set himself up to refuted,
| | if in fact Professor Penrose sides with adman.
| |
| | I trust the Professor.
|
| Here is what the Professor said and what i quoted from the web page:
|
| Not good enough. You need to ask the Professor exactly what he means.

A direct quote from his book will be good enough. You know it, i know it

Wrong again. So far there has been no direct quote, though that is
partly down to your own stupidity in cutting and pasting from a web
site.

|
| "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."
|
| You keep posting the same quote. You need to ask the Professor exactly
| what he means.

It was obvious what he means. Why cannot you read?

I can read, and I've read the book. I also know Professor Penrose well
enough to know that he is not a theist moron like you.
|
|
| As you can see, the professor is correct, and i am correct.
|
| hohohoho! Only in your dreams.

Thats a fact...jack

No, you are, as usual, wrong. Learn to live with it.

|
| Now, go fix your news reader
|
| Mine is fine, yours is not. Fix it or earn more abuse reports.

Yours is busted, not mine. Fix it.

Mine is set up correctly - fix yours.
|
|
| |
| | --
| | Bob.
| |
| Fix your newsreader.
|
| --
| Bob.
|

Fix your newsreader or I will report you to your NSP.

--
Bob.