Please understand, that I am not really taking one or the other side. ***You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. And you're stlll unclear.
"Why don't you show us an example so we can simply laugh at you". Sunil: An example of errors in small numbers being fatal, might be: weather prediction? The butterfly effect? An astable system? ***Those are not examples. They're not even worth laughing at. Anyone can submit a CONCEPT with a question mark. You're not even clear enough to submit simple EXAMPLEs. The rest of your writing is a set of examples of the classic fallacy of obfuscation. Until you can avoid classic critical reasoning fallacies and present simple examples, your writing is best avoided. On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Sunil Shah <s.u.n....@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > sorry if I was being unclear. > > Please understand, that I am not really taking one or the other side. I am > pointing out the weakness in a calculation based on severe assumptions. I > am not trying to prove them (or you) wrong. > > The prediction: Jojo said I was going to call him/her a fool and say I'll > never come back. Nobody's a fool. Btw, what is "settled science"? > > An example of errors in small numbers being fatal, might be: weather > prediction? The butterfly effect? An astable system? > > "Why don't you show us an example so we can simply laugh at you". Why > would you want (or need) to laugh at me? I am not laughing at you, or > Huxley. > > "most likely" doesn't mean a hunch. As with all exploratory science, > different methods are being used, so some are "more right" than others. > That is also the basis for saying they are using the "wrong" methods. > > Illegitimate assumptions? I can't say (and don't need to say) they are > illegitimate, but I can emphasize that that is what they are: assumptions. > > James Coppedge makes assumptions about how proteins are synthesized from > amino acids (http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c06.htm), ie, his starting > point is that it is a completely random process. Making assumptions like > that changes everything. > > /Sunil > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:15:46 -0700 > > Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. > From: kevmol...@gmail.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Sunil Shah <s.u.n....@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Well, your prediction is wrong. > > ***Well, you went nowhere near to showing where it was wrong. > > > Yes, why would I not believe that the number 10^300,000 is correct? > > ***because he worked out the math. Unlike your response. > > > > But who is to say that Huxley et al are answering the right question?? > > ***The chemistry is straight forward. Coppedge worked it out to 1 in 23 > trillion trillion that a polypeptide would form into an amino acid, and we > need hundreds of thousands of those for life to "spontaneously" arrive from > non-living tissue. That's one of the reasons why brilliant thinkers such > as Steven Hawking have turned to panspermia as the solution. > > > > First of all they are making assumptions about certain small numbers > (probabilities that things will occur). > > ***typically those assumptions are quite conservative, such as assuming > that every molecule on earth was available during the 12 billion years in > question to help along the chemical reaction, when we all KNOW that such a > thing couldn't be the case, it would only be molecules relatively close to > the surface. > > > > > Large errors in small numbers tend to make equations explode you know. > > ***Why don't you show us an example so we can simply laugh at you over > your assertions? > > > > > Secondly, and much, much worse, is that they are making assumptions about > How Things Work. In other words, they are most likely > > ***Most likely? MOst LIKELY? Your refutation is based on a hunch, an > OPINION? What a crock of shit. > > > > > using the wrong algorithm, the wrong equation, the wrong mechanism! > > ***Go ahead and demonstrate it. > > > > > > Since we (humans) don't KNOW what equations to use for things like "Life", > we make assumptions, and that is what Huxley et al are doing. > > ***If these are illegitimate assumptions, point them out. You don't > because you can't. > > > > > They are picking numbers and equations as they seem fit! Are they > correct? Try this: > http://www.amazon.com/Reviews-Creationist-Books-Liz-Hughes/dp/0939873524/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409140674&sr=1-1 > > *** > Oops. Starting with 1/10^23 is far too generous. It’s 1/10^161. > http://www.tedmontgomery.com/bblovrvw/creation/crea-evol.html > DeNouy provides another illustration for arriving at a single molecule of > high dissymmetry through chance action and normal thermic agitation. He > assumes 500 trillion shakings per second plus a liquid material volume > equal to the size of the earth. For one molecule it would require “10^243 > billions of years.” Even if this molecule did somehow arise by chance, it > is still only one single molecule. Hundreds of millions are needed, > requiring compound probability calculations for each successive molecule. > His logical conclusion is that “it is totally impossible to account > scientifically [naturally] for all phenomena pertaining to life.”32 > Even 40 years ago, scientist Harold F. Blum, writing in Time’s Arrow and > Evolution, wrote that, “The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the > size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability.”33 > Noted creation scientists Walter L. Bradley and Charles Thaxton, authors > of The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, point out > that the probability of assembling amino acid building blocks into a > functional protein is approximately one chance in 4.9 × 10191.34 “Such > improbabilities have led essentially all scientists who work in the field > to reject random, accidental assembly or fortuitous good luck as an > explanation for how life began.”35 Now, if a figure as “small” as 5 chances > in 10191 is referenced by such a statement, then what are we to make of the > kinds of probabilities below that, which are infinitely less? The mind > simply boggles at the remarkable faith of the materialist. > According to Coppedge, the probability of evolving a single protein > molecule over 5 billion years is estimated at 1 chance in 10161. This even > allows some 14 concessions to help it along which would not actually be > present during evolution.36 Again, this is no chance. > > > > > You see, you have fallen into the same trap that many do, namely accepting > the results of one person/team as correct. To be honest, most science > doesn't work like that. > > ***But you seem to work like that. So it's okay for you but not for > others. > > > Best Regards, > Sunil > > ------------------------------ > From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. > Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:58:30 +0800 > > > OK, would you believe the calculations of a staunch evolutionist? Julian > Huxley, a staunch evolutionist, calculated the odds for evolving a horse by > chance and came up with 1 chance in 10^300,000. That's a number with > 300,000 zeroes. Considering that there are only 10^94 subatomic > particles in the Universe, I'd say those odds are impossible, wouldn't you > say? > > This just goes to show that those who are experts and have studied the > math acknowledge that the mechanism for Darwinian Evolution just won't > happen. Only ignorant folks like you mouth off as if you knew something > > Here's further reading if you are inclined to continue embarrassing > yourself. > > *http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability > <http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability>* > > http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ > > > > Jojo > > > PS: I can already predict your reaction. > > You: "Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going to > debate this anymore. I will not debate with someone who can't accept basic > science." > > Me: "Whatever!!!" LOL... > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Sunil Shah <s.u.n....@hotmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:12 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. > > This has got to the worst calculation of evolution probabilities I have > ever seen. > Surely you can do BETTER than this? It's a bleedin' disgrace.. > And stop misusing the "proof" word all the time : D > > I do recognize one particular thing though, I see it time and time again > in arguments like these: > The failure to realize what a "big number" is. > > First of all, you have assumed SERIAL changes, ONE at a time. > Secondly you assume there is only ONE entity. > Thirdly, you claimed your calculation just "proved" something". > May I suggest: The calculation PROVES you are a TROLL. > > So have another go, but scale things up a bit before you do. > > (It takes today's bacteria 20 minutes to reproduce, so I don't see why one > change every 140 hours is fast.) > > Why are you assuming changes are sustained? > Why are you assuming changes are observable? > The math would say: A very small change x A rather "long time" (from your > perspective) = An unobservably small change. > > /Sunil > > > > ------------------------------ > From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. > Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:26:39 +0800 > > Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being > 16,000,000,000 years. (504576000000000000 seconds) > > Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell > lifeform. > > Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell > lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences > between man and single cell lifeform.) > > This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 > days (504576000000000000/1000000000000) for it to evolve into Man. > > This is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution rates this fast must surely be > observable. Where are the observable changes we can see? > > Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, > yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it. I truly wonder why > that is the case. > > > > > Jojo > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots > > Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: > > I have a simple question: > > 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? > > > There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian > evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly > like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes > disease. > > I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this > level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- > and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of > religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God > as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of > evolution just as a trick to fool us. > > If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't > annoy people who know the subject. > > I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have > learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions > about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time > trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how > the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and > energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste > of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, > including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's > guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. > As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! > > - Jed > > >
