Desighn is no accident

Originally posted by LemonJello
So vishva thinks the probability in question is "minus zero" and you think the probability in question is something greater than 1. Are you sure you two particular guys are up to the task of teaching us all something about probability?

no i am not, but i was thinking of taking it to the posers and puzzles forum and getting an egg head to work it out.

here were my thoughts,

you have a hundred different components, randomly mixed in a large pile, half are red and half are yellow. In order for the whole to work, you need to scoop out twenty two red ones and no yellow ones and they must be in a specific order, what is the probability of that event. I have a figure of 1x10^113 can you please tell me how it is worked out, your friendly neighbourhood spiderman - robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i am not, but i was thinking of taking it to the posers and puzzles forum and getting an egg head to work it out.

here were my thoughts,

you have a hundred different components, randomly mixed in a large pile, half are red and half are yellow. In order for the whole to work, you need to scoop out twenty two red ones and no yellow ones and ...[text shortened]... 113 can you please tell me how it is worked out, your friendly neighbourhood spiderman - robbie.

You have the number 1x10^113 as a probability of life not created, right?
I would like to see the calculation in full to understand it.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
What I don't understand from the fundamental creationists of any religion is that they say "nothing can get out of nothing", yet they say that the creation was just that, matter out of nothing. Even if it was with a little help from the creator. They just prove themselves wrong.
Does it matter if it was a quantum fluctuation asymetry that created everyt ...[text shortened]... their god who did it? Is their god nothing more than aquantum fluctuation asymetry, perhaps?

Every time you open you mouth, you reveal how much a dumbo you are.

In Vedanta teachings, it explains how the material creation comes from the more subtle elements, and then the subtle elements come from the spiritual creative potency, which is the internal potency of God, but you wouldnt know this because you couldnt care one way or the other.

All you care about, is criticizing everything your tiny brain can,t grasp, because you are envious and dishonest.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Every time you open you mouth, you reveal how much a dumbo you are.

In Vedanta teachings, it explains how the material creation comes from the more subtle elements, and then the subtle elements come from the spiritual creative potency, which is the internal potency of God, but you wouldnt know this because you couldnt care one way or the other.

All ...[text shortened]... t, is criticizing everything your tiny brain can,t grasp, because you are envious and dishonest.

Every time you giving someone an insult shows how weak your arguments are, how little you yourself believe in your divine knowledge. Don't you understand that insults makes your argument hollow?

If you respect others, you can earn some respect yourself. You cannot make people listen to you if you keep insulting them. If this is your rethorics, then you've lost from the beginning. And your divine knowledge withers into dust.

Doesn't your vedic scriptures has something called the gulden rule?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You have the number 1x10^113 as a probability of life not created, right?
I would like to see the calculation in full to understand it.

so would i.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so would i.

So from where does this number come up? From where did you get it from?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i am not, but i was thinking of taking it to the posers and puzzles forum and getting an egg head to work it out.

here were my thoughts,

you have a hundred different components, randomly mixed in a large pile, half are red and half are yellow. In order for the whole to work, you need to scoop out twenty two red ones and no yellow ones and ...[text shortened]... 113 can you please tell me how it is worked out, your friendly neighbourhood spiderman - robbie.

A figure of 1x10^113 for "the probability of [some] event" is just meaningless. What exactly do you think a probability greater than 1 could mean here?

With a value like that, you probably mean to refer to the number of permutations or some such. Unless I am missing something, the number of conceivable ordered subsets consisting of 22 elements taken from your set of 100 distinguishable elements should be given by 100!/(100-22)!, but I do not think that is equal to the number you have quoted. Anyway, I'm sure we would need more information. For example, when I "scoop", do I do so blindly? Do I know the specific ordered 22-element subset that is required? Do I know that a 22-element set is what is required? Am I actually trying to pick up 22 elements; or some other number; or am I just scooping wildly or randomly? What exactly is a "scoop"; and, if I am just scooping up a handful of components, how exactly is the ordering of this handful specified or determined? Etc, etc, etc.

Originally posted by LemonJello
... the number of conceivable ordered subsets consisting of 22 elements taken from your set of 100 distinguishable elements should be given by 100!/(100-22)!, but I do not think that is equal to the number you have quoted.

Neither do I. In order to get this number, much simplifications has to be made in order to calculate the probability that life come into existance without divine intervention. Not just a bag of balls and take them out in a certain specific order.

It is known that lipids are forming sheets by themselves. These sheets are forming membranes very much similar to our cell membranes. No divine intervention needed for that. These sheets of lipids can very easily form bubbles, and there we have primitive cells. The probability for this to happen is quite high under the right conditions.

If a calculation can be made with the result of 10^113, then it is much easier to calculation the probability for these lipid-cells. I haven't seen any such calculation.

So if the source of the calculation is unknown, and the calculation itself, then I have to dismiss the probability for spontaneous life altogether. I would think it comes from some creationists source in order to prove creation. Some people are very fashinated about large numbers, and take them for granted as such. We know better.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i am not, but i was thinking of taking it to the posers and puzzles forum and getting an egg head to work it out.

here were my thoughts,

you have a hundred different components, randomly mixed in a large pile, half are red and half are yellow. In order for the whole to work, you need to scoop out twenty two red ones and no yellow ones and ...[text shortened]... 113 can you please tell me how it is worked out, your friendly neighbourhood spiderman - robbie.

As I have pointed out to you before, if you pick out any 22 components at random, the probability of getting the exact sequence of colors that you do get is exactly the same as for the twenty two red ones. Therefore, you cannot claim that making a selection that has such a small probability is impossible, because it is guaranteed to happen if you make a random selection.
The actual math is not important. What is important is what probability tells us, and what it doesn't.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Every time you giving someone an insult shows how weak your arguments are, how little you yourself believe in your divine knowledge. Don't you understand that insults makes your argument hollow?

If you respect others, you can earn some respect yourself. You cannot make people listen to you if you keep insulting them. If this is your rethorics, then you ...[text shortened]... dge withers into dust.

Doesn't your vedic scriptures has something called the gulden rule?

I dont care for golden rules, when persons as yourself talk nonsense and are dishonest.

As long as atheists spread their junk reasoning and cheating talk, I will exspose them for their dishonest and cheating ways....and as for my reputation, I dont care.

You try to get to me emotionally, but it doesnt work.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
I dont care for golden rules, when persons as yourself talk nonsense and are dishonest.

As long as atheists spread their junk reasoning and cheating talk, I will exspose them for their dishonest and cheating ways....and as for my reputation, I dont care.

You try to get to me emotionally, but it doesnt work.

I know that you don't care for the Golden Rule. I don't think you even know what it is.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
I dont care for golden rules, when persons as yourself talk nonsense and are dishonest.

As long as atheists spread their junk reasoning and cheating talk, I will exspose them for their dishonest and cheating ways....and as for my reputation, I dont care.

You try to get to me emotionally, but it doesnt work.

How can someone who has a particular view be dishonest?

If I say that unicorns exist, and I actually believe it, am I lying?

You believe that the Vedanta teachings are correct, yet we do not accuse you of being dishonest, just deluded.

All we ask is for you to precisely give reasoning why Vedanta is accurate. Scientific papers have references which you can trace it back to their original experiments. May experiments are often required to prove one simple fact (or, more precisely, what is most likely to be correct).

Where does the Vedanta teachings come from? The people who wrote it, where did they get their information from?

Originally posted by lausey
How can someone who has a particular view be dishonest?

If I say that unicorns exist, and I actually believe it, am I lying?

You believe that the Vedanta teachings are correct, yet we do not accuse you of being dishonest, just deluded.

All we ask is for you to precisely give reasoning why Vedanta is accurate. Scientific papers have references which y ...[text shortened]... Vedanta teachings come from? The people who wrote it, where did they get their information from?

Everything you know about in your life, has come to you by the decending method of learning, not the empirical method that science worships.

Knowledge of the spiritual life can only come by the decending method, then it is perfect, no need of speculation.

The only requirement for the decending method to work, is that the source must be correct.

As far as spiritual knowledge goes, Vedanta is perfect and faultless, so the decending method will be sucessfull in this reguard.

Also there is a phenomena called insight and self realization, and this will back up the exspressed knowledge in the Vedanta teachings as well.

If Vedanta is wrong, then the realization will not develope....but it does.

And you cant force realization, it comes if you follow correctly only.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Everything you know about in your life, has come to you by the decending method of learning, not the empirical method that science worships.

Knowledge of the spiritual life can only come by the decending method, then it is perfect, no need of speculation.

The only requirement for the decending method to work, is that the source must be correct.

A ...[text shortened]... velope....but it does.

And you cant force realization, it comes if you follow correctly only.

That still doesn't exactly answer where the writings came from. You are saying that it is faultless and perfect. People had to write it. Are these people faultless and perfect? In getting the source, do they also faultlessly and perfectly transfer it to paper? What is this faultless and perfect source?

Even when translating from Sanskirt, there is no chance that it will get misinterpreted? Also taking into account it is very old text. Words change their meaning over time.

What you say to me is certainly not faultless and perfect. You called my father foolish and an ignorant demi-god worshipper, and also said he did not know the conclusion of the Upanishads, otherwise he would have taught me well. You aren't doing a very good job either!

Originally posted by vishvahetu
The following design argument is atypical. It is not based on the principal of irreducible complexity, nor does it require evolution to produce a specific organ/organelle. It calculates the probability of evolution producing a certain level of biological complexity and compares this probability with the number of trials available for evolution to that lev ...[text shortened]... le way to contact the designer, then the design hypothesis is superior to the chance hypothesis.

“....Even a very beneficial gene spread very slowly or not at all if it was in an individual whose overall genetic makeup was much less fit than the average.....”

This assertion is erroneous: how slow is “very slow” and in what context?
There are plenty of examples of beneficial genes (beneficial to the individual that has them) that have spread over most of a population in just a few decades -I would not describe that as “very slow” by any stretch of the imagination. Just two examples; the spread of the genes for DDT resistance in mosquitoes; the spread of genes for antibiotic resistance in bacteria. -both occurred within just a few decades.

“...Conversely, an inferior gene can become prominent in the population if it is in an individual whose overall genetic makeup is far superior to the norm....”

That would be correct for THAT individual; but then gene reshuffling and a few mutations later and there would be plenty of genetic variants that have that disadvantageous gene and no genetic advantage to compensate (so will be selected out) and there would be genetic variants that do NOT have that disadvantageous gene and and also will have other genetic advantages (so will be selected ) .

The content of the rest of that paragraph and the following four paragraphs about the probabilities is just a load of crap because it ignores the two points above.


“...The probability of vertebrate evolution starting from the Big Bang is ….”

Vertebrate evolution did not start at the big bang and nobody claims it did.
The big bang is NOT a theory of vertebrate evolution.

“...only a few hundred extra-solar planets have been detected so far. Since it becomes more difficult to detect a planet the further from the earth it is, we can safely conclude that there is no way that even an insignificant fraction of 1030,000 evolution-supporting planets will be detected within the next few decades....”

-and given the size of the universe, the estimate for the number of earth-like planets (rocky planets within the inhabitable zone with liquid water) is well over a billion -even within just our galaxy!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?
“...There could be one hundred billion Earth-like planets in our galaxy...”

The content of the rest of your post is crap because it ignores this above point.