is TIME a problem? Or is this guy retarded?
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, May 26, 2007 14:33
VIEWED: 10984
PAGE 4 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Well, just trying to figure out how I climbed out of the primordial ooze to be come kaneman..........
Judging by some of your posts, I'm not sure you made the climb.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
LOL....Wow!!!Seven has some humor!!! Never would have guessed it..............
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Actually, the earth is about 4.567 billion years old. This guy used the age of the universe for his stats, which is 30 billion years.
The age of the universe is irrelevant if other numbers are wrong. Please read my previous post.
----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@SevenPercent:
Brutal but brilliant!
----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So I am looking around the Internet and all I read is how it isn't as impossible to make monomers or polymers if there was enough ingredients (I'll try not to ask where these ingredients came from) as some creationists make it seem.
Then I come across these:
"Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible if such a coincidence could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival."
"The fact that in all organisms living today the processes both of replication of the DNA and of the effective translation of its code require highly precise enzymes and that, at the same time, the molecular structures of those same enzymes are precisely specified by the DNA itself, poses a remarkable evolutionary mystery."
"Directions for the reproduction of genes, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth- all had to be simultaneously present at one moment" - Haskings
"Even something as complex as the eye has appeared several times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the Arthropods. It's hard enough accounting for the origins of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times according to modern theory makes my head swim" -Salisbury
(That reminds me of Charles Darwin saying the thought that the eye could be made by natural selection made him ill.)
Have any of these questions been answered?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
If there are 10^80 electrons in the universe.
This is where I call bullshit. This number could not possibly be known. And since everything is dependent on this, his house of cards get blown down.
I believe looking up straw-man and red herring arguments would shed some light on what this guy has done.
----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
Sig, Google it or wikipedia...this is the agreed upon number not his........
*edit*
If you so easily believe all the other "knowns" from scientists, why trouble with this one?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sigma, 10^80 electrons in the universe is a fair estimate. Unless Wikipedia has it wrong too, but I think I remember seeing that estimate elsewhere before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Sig, Google it or wikipedia...this is the agreed upon number not his........
*edit*
If you so easily believe all the other "knowns" from scientists, why trouble with this one?
You don't get it. Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron#In_the_universe
We have:
"""
Scientists believe that the number of electrons existing in the known universe is at least 10^79.
"""
Please note the use of the word "believe" and the use of the word "known" /before/ universe.
So, what about the part of the universe that we can't see? What about types of exotic matter that we don't know anything about nor even know exists that could seriously skew these numbers.
You aren't reading beyond the number nor where it came from.
----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Are you a teacher Seven? And if so does this tone of lecture go over well with your students?
I am. But I wasn't aware I was supposed to be teaching.
In the classroom, I am patient and attentive until I am sure my students "get it." In the RWED, I get tired of idiots who are willfully ignorant, and I can vent.
True story: My friends (outside of school) know me as a firecracker who is easily wound. On the other hand, my students have repeatedly been dumbstruck by the fact that I never lose my patience in the classroom. I can hold one set of emotions in one place, and one set in another - kind of like faith and reason. There are times and places for ways of thinking and reacting.
Besides - summer vacation started. I'm off the clock.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"So, what about the part of the universe that we can't see? What about types of exotic matter that we don't know anything about nor even know exists that could seriously skew these numbers."
I think you are making a better case for this guy. He thinks that that number 10^80 is generous, that in the calculations if we used the number of electrons on earth and a lesser 4.567 billion year age frame the statistical probabilities defy the human mind..........
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Right, we should be taking into consideration as many hypothetical forms of matter it takes to make the numbers work out in favour of evolutionists. Not exactly sound science, but who cares, we need to disprove the creationists by any means necessary, right?
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
So, what about the part of the universe that we can't see? What about types of exotic matter that we don't know anything about nor even know exists that could seriously skew these numbers.
OR we can just look at the Talkorigins link that Fred supplied for a counterargument that actually works.
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME