Spirituality
12 May 12
12 May 12
Take from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiades_(star_cluster)
The Reverend John Michell calculated in 1767 that the probability of a chance alignment of so many bright stars was only 1 in 500,000, and so correctly surmised that the Pleiades and many other clusters of stars must be physically related. When studies were first made of the stars' proper motions, it was found that they are all moving in the same direction across the sky, at the same rate, further demonstrating that they were related.
Just wondering about the star constellations seems fairly interesting
Manny
12 May 12
Originally posted by menace71When the universe formed, there was some unevenness in the distribution of matter - it was more 'clumped' together in certain places. This is what led the formation of galaxies. Gravity acted more strongly within the clumps and worked to slow the forces of the expansion of the universe. That is why we can have galaxies and solar systems within the galaxies in a universe where everything is moving away from everything else. Gravity gives us local exceptions.
Take from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiades_(star_cluster)
The Reverend John Michell calculated in 1767 that the probability of a chance alignment of so many bright stars was only 1 in 500,000, and so correctly surmised that the Pleiades and many other clusters of stars must be physically related. When studies were first made of the stars' proper ...[text shortened]... e related.
Just wondering about the star constellations seems fairly interesting
Manny
12 May 12
Originally posted by SwissGambithttp://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html
When the universe formed, there was some unevenness in the distribution of matter - it was more 'clumped' together in certain places. This is what led the formation of galaxies. Gravity acted more strongly within the clumps and worked to slow the forces of the expansion of the universe. That is why we can have galaxies and solar systems within the galaxi ...[text shortened]... verse where everything is moving away from everything else. Gravity gives us local exceptions.
13 May 12
Originally posted by menace71When I roll a die and get a 3 thats only a 1 in 6 chance! I can do that all day rolling numbrrs that have only a 1/6 chance.
Take from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiades_(star_cluster)
The Reverend John Michell calculated in 1767 that the probability of a chance alignment of so many bright stars was only 1 in 500,000, and so correctly surmised that the Pleiades and many other clusters of stars must be physically related. When studies were first made of the stars' proper ...[text shortened]... e related.
Just wondering about the star constellations seems fairly interesting
Manny
Give me a million sided die and I'll show you something really amazing!!
13 May 12
Originally posted by wolfgang59I thinking what you might be hinting of here is the extremely common confusion many people do make ( sometimes innocently when they don't understand probability too well ) or like to make or even dishonestly deliberately make ( esp religious extremists for their propaganda ) between two different probabilities:
When I roll a die and get a 3 thats only a 1 in 6 chance! I can do that all day rolling numbrrs that have only a 1/6 chance.
Give me a million sided die and I'll show you something really amazing!!
-the probability of a process P occurring and the probability of a particular outcome O occurring of that process P if P did happen.
If I throw a dice a hundred times then the probability of the outcome ( the resulting sequence of numbers ) being exactly what it was would be vanishingly small but, of course, that is totally irrelevant to the probability of me throwing a dice a hundred times ( which might be ~99% ) and having a low probability of the particular outcome does not in any way reduce the probability of the process ( which is me throwing a dice hundred times ) because those are two different probabilities completely independent of each other.
13 May 12
Originally posted by menace71I've been wondering too about these Three Wise Men en route to The Levant who have been sleeping in my lounge.
[the Pleiades] are all moving in the same direction across the sky, at the same rate, further demonstrating that they were related. Just wondering about the star constellations seems fairly interesting
13 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59But do you think you could roll the million sided die or even the 6-sided die and get a 3 a million times in a row?
When I roll a die and get a 3 thats only a 1 in 6 chance! I can do that all day rolling numbrrs that have only a 1/6 chance.
Give me a million sided die and I'll show you something really amazing!!
- Joined
- 30 Dec 04
- Moves
- 97420
13 May 12
Originally posted by menace71Hi,
Take from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiades_(star_cluster)
The Reverend John Michell calculated in 1767 that the probability of a chance alignment of so many bright stars was only 1 in 500,000, and so correctly surmised that the Pleiades and many other clusters of stars must be physically related. When studies were first made of the stars' proper ...[text shortened]... e related.
Just wondering about the star constellations seems fairly interesting
Manny
I would say by design.
I have been doing a little research lately on mathematical probabilities.
I am neither a mathematician nor a scientist so the numbers and concepts are a little hard for me to follow.
From what I have been studying the probability of a living cell to form by itself is next to zero.
I know that you are talking about stars and galaxies but I think they fit together with your question (chance/design).
13 May 12
Originally posted by boononIt is good to see we have a reasonable person for a change on this forum that is attempting to use his head for something other than a hat rack. Glory be to God! HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
Hi,
I would say by design.
I have been doing a little research lately on mathematical probabilities.
I am neither a mathematician nor a scientist so the numbers and concepts are a little hard for me to follow.
From what I have been studying the probability of a living cell to form by itself is next to zero.
I know that you are talking about stars and galaxies but I think they fit together with your question (chance/design).
13 May 12
4 edits
Originally posted by boonon
Hi,
I would say by design.
I have been doing a little research lately on mathematical probabilities.
I am neither a mathematician nor a scientist so the numbers and concepts are a little hard for me to follow.
From what I have been studying the probability of a living cell to form by itself is next to zero.
I know that you are talking about stars and galaxies but I think they fit together with your question (chance/design).
From what I have been studying the probability of a living cell to form by itself is next to zero.
are you talking here bout a modern living cell with all the immensely complex molecular machinery it has or are you talking here about the extremely simple protocell which would be the prelude to the evolution of more complex cells but has absolutely none of the complexity?
Nobody is suggesting that a modern cell just formed “by itself”.
The first protocell/protocells can consists of ( and probably did ) little more than a self-forming 'microsphere' ( including RNA encapsulated inside ) of the type that has proven via lab physical simulations to have virtually inevitably formed on the early-Earth and which would not have nor need complex proteins nor DNA to thrive; just RNA. After that, evolution would inevitably take over and incrementally increase its complexity.
Here is just 3 of the links showing just a bit of the immanence amount evidence that has accumulated over the years out of the intense scientific investigations into this subject although this is barely scratching the surface of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.471.html
http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm
“...RNA has the ability to act as both genes and enzymes. This property could offer a way around the "chicken-and-egg" problem. …
…..
…It was prescient of Crick to guess that RNA could act as an enzyme, because that was not known for sure until it was proven in the 1980s by Nobel Prize-winning researcher Thomas R. Cech (2) and others.
…
….”
I know that you are talking about stars and galaxies but I think they fit together with your question (chance/design).
NO, it isn't 'chance versus intelligent design'! Modern science doesn't say that life must have started by “pure chance” or that evolution is “just chance”; both would be inevitable processes in the right natural conditions so no “chance” nor intelligent design.
- Joined
- 30 Dec 04
- Moves
- 97420
13 May 12
Originally posted by humyHi,From what I have been studying the probability of a living cell to form by itself is next to zero.
are you talking here bout a modern living cell with all the immensely complex molecular machinery it has or are you talking here about the extremely simple protocell which would be the prelude to the evolution of more complex cells but has abs ...[text shortened]... vitable processes in the right natural conditions so no “chance” nor intelligent design.
Thank you for the links, I will check them out.
I noticed you used the word 'inevitable' twice.
I'm not sure that I agree with what you are putting forth as 'inevitable', that is a very strong word to use.
I was listening to a Mathematician the other day and they said that it is generally accepted that anything with a probability of more than 10 to the 12th power is considered mathematically impossible to occur. Is this true?
I only pose this to you because you seem versed in math and science.
Thanks..
13 May 12
3 edits
Originally posted by humyYou write, "Nobody is suggesting that a modern cell just formed “by itself”.From what I have been studying the probability of a living cell to form by itself is next to zero.
are you talking here bout a modern living cell with all the immensely complex molecular machinery it has or are you talking here about the extremely simple protocell which would be the prelude to the evolution of more complex cells but has abs vitable processes in the right natural conditions so no “chance” nor intelligent design.
Does that mean you believe there is intelligence behind its forming?
What about the first cell that was ever formed, that is, did it just form by itself? Or do you believe there was intelligence behind it? If not, how did it form and gain the ability to reproduce itself without intelligence behind it?