The universe is in a constant state of creation, evolution and decay. The past, present and future are just humanities attempt to pin it down, like wrestling a greased pig. God has big fuzzy dice and rolls them every day.
I hope that clears things up. On Wednesday, August 27, 2014, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote: > You illustrate a typical denial reaction that seems to have taken hold > here in Vortex. If you do not like the result, you say it is an error or > an outlier or incompetence. (my friend Jed does that a lot.) If Huxley > was a creationist, you would say he is biased and not objective or not > honest. But since Huxley is a known staunch Darwinian Evolutionist, you > say he is incompetent. How can one discuss science in the face of such > INTRACTABLE RIDICULOUSNESS. > > Do you honestly feel that you are more qualified to make the computations > than Julian Huxley, who is a long term researcher in this field? > > OK, I'll bite. How off do you think Huxley was in his computations. Was > he off by a factor of 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, 200,000? Even if > he was off by a factor of 299,000 (we take out 299,000 zeroes from the > number), that probability is still 10^1000. Still impossible. (I presume > you know that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in our Universe and > that anything above 10^50 is considered a impossible event.) Any sensible > man would recognize the mathematical improbability of Darwinian Evolution. > > My friend, if you are objective, you need to accept all results whether > you like it or not. > > > > Jojo > > > PS: Did you even read my first link? If you did, you would realize that > I do not accept the result of one man only, as that first link contains > computations from many people. In fact, I deliberately included another > link to illustrate more computations, this time from another man. > > > Wait .... Wait .... Wait for it ... Here it comes: > > 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. You should be banned from this forum because you do not > accept basic science." > > Me: "Whatever!!!" LOL... > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Sunil Shah <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *To:* [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:44 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. > > Well, your prediction is wrong. > > Yes, why would I not believe that the number 10^300,000 is correct? But > who is to say that Huxley et al are answering the right question?? > > First of all they are making assumptions about certain small numbers > (probabilities that things will occur). Large errors in small numbers tend > to make equations explode you know. Secondly, and much, much worse, is that > they are making assumptions about How Things Work. In other words, they are > most likely using the wrong algorithm, the wrong equation, the wrong > mechanism! 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. > 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 > > 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. > > Best Regards, > Sunil > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > To: [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > 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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *To:* [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *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: [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > To: [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > 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 > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *To:* [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots > > Jojo Iznart <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> 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 > >
