23 Jun 10
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou were born. In order for that to occur, your parents had to meet and have sex at some point; and out of all those little spawns racing towards one little egg *yours* had to win over millions of others.
no its not, your dvds have not moved, unless of course by an outside agency, Massive FAIL! Therefore you shall be pleased to offer a real life event that has actually happened with a probability in the region of 1x10^50, if you cannot, will not, are unable to, you shall now go a step further and retract your initial assertion and convert to Christianity.
Concentrating just on the chances of your parents meeting let's assume you're less than 200 years old. This being the case the worlds population would have been more than 10^9, and so successfully drawing two *particular* people from this pot incurs a probability less than 1/10^18, we need then only mention that your parents also had to exist (which would have required a rendezvous of their parent also) and we're home and dry.
Actually I'm throwing away far more information (favourable to my argument) since in order for your parents' paths to cross and for them to like each other enough to pursue a relationship requires that they shared some common interests, this itself requires that other events occured in both their respective lives coinciding in a harmonious relationship between the two of them...they also had to avoid falling head over heels for other people at the time they fell for each other...they had to avoid dying...they had to....and so on
23 Jun 10
Originally posted by AgergWould it have made much difference if some other sperm had made it first? Aren't they all pretty much the same?
You were born. In order for that to occur, your parents had to meet and have sex at some point; and out of all those little spawns racing towards one little egg *yours* had to win over millions of others.
23 Jun 10
Originally posted by AgergThis is too complicated for robbie to understand, regarding his present knowledge of probability theory and statistics. Furthermore, if the result isn't promoting his views from before, then he doesn't believe in them, even if he would understand them. It's futile even to try.
You were born. In order for that to occur, your parents had to meet and have sex at some point; and out of all those little spawns racing towards one little egg *yours* had to win over millions of others.
Concentrating just on the chances of your parents meeting let's assume you're less than 200 years old. This being the case the worlds population would have ...[text shortened]... o exist (which would have required a rendezvous of their parent also) and we're home and dry.
The name of this thread is "has anybody here actually changed their view?", one good answer is "Not robbie."
23 Jun 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI think that there would be much difference if the same sperm failed it first, but did it a second later and succeded. It would be the same difference as two identical twins. They are two individuals with different views about life.
Would it have made much difference if some other sperm had made it first? Aren't they all pretty much the same?
The difference between one sperm and another, can even be different sexes.
23 Jun 10
Originally posted by Agerg1x10^18 is minuscule in comparison to 1X10^50, another fail, get ready for baptism!
You were born. In order for that to occur, your parents had to meet and have sex at some point; and out of all those little spawns racing towards one little egg *yours* had to win over millions of others.
Concentrating just on the chances of your parents meeting let's assume you're less than 200 years old. This being the case the worlds population would have ...[text shortened]... the time they fell for each other...they had to avoid dying...they had to....and so on[/i]
23 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou skipped the part where I said your parents also had to exist and so we apply the same argument again (only this time we have to succeed at drawing two particular pairs of people from a pot with size greater than a billion)...moreover we can go back many generations playing this game
1x10^18 is minuscule in comparison to 1X10^50, another fail, get ready for baptism!
I think Fabian Fnas was right though, I'm wasting my time :]
23 Jun 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasCould you say a little more? I'm operating under the naive assumption that the sperm all carry the same code, so it makes no difference which particular sperm does the deed.
I think that there would be much difference if the same sperm failed it first, but did it a second later and succeded. It would be the same difference as two identical twins. They are two individuals with different views about life.
The difference between one sperm and another, can even be different sexes.
24 Jun 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasAgain, your consistently defining theistic religions. You're outcasting a lot of people with different views. Mine for one.
I cannot find any better universal definition of 'religion', and I've thought of it for years.
'Spirituality' is a part of 'religion', and can be treated with the same methods.
As for the probability discussion. Let's go back to the dice roll. I roll a die and try to get a 5. My chances EACH time is 1 in 6. But the chances of me hitting a 5 at least once after many roles increases. Once we have our proper setup with amino acids, they will reproduce. I do not fail to see how these chances are hard to accept.
24 Jun 10
Originally posted by ua41Yes Fabians interpretation of religon is seriously back-dated.
Again, your consistently defining theistic religions. You're outcasting a lot of people with different views. Mine for one.
As for the probability discussion. Let's go back to the dice roll. I roll a die and try to get a 5. My chances EACH time is 1 in 6. But the chances of me hitting a 5 at least once after many roles increases. Once we have our proper s ...[text shortened]... h amino acids, they will reproduce. I do not fail to see how these chances are hard to accept.
The word "religon" carries a lot of (historical) negative connotations, and I too can see where he is coming from, but, like you I think his interpretations are severely limtited.
Fabian: you have plenty of energy to denounce christian theists, which is quite easy, what I would like to see more are your views/critiques on more complex ideas of "God".
For example(Fabian): what are your views in Hinduism? (just briefly) - I'm genuinely interested, and depending on your answer, would have a couple of follow-up questions.
24 Jun 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhen blending the information in one egg with the information of one sperm the blending is random.
Could you say a little more? I'm operating under the naive assumption that the sperm all carry the same code, so it makes no difference which particular sperm does the deed.
If it would be a non-random mechanical blending every son would be like any other son with the same father and mother, not only twins. (Same goes for daughters.)
Why else do genetical conditions be different from one child to another?
Okay, I admit that I don't know exactly the mechanism of blending the DNA information between an egg and a sperm, so if someone could veryfy this, I would be glad.
The pilosphical implications can be discussed over a beer or two at the local pub some night: If the sperm giving existance of Einstein would take the wrong turn somewhere, and another sperm would win the race - would the relativity theory be different of what it is now?
24 Jun 10
Originally posted by ua41Look at my definition again and see that it is very neutral, not christian centered, not god centered, but centered around the core that believing in any supernatural phenomena is religion. Some beliefs is within the definition that many people would not concider religious (astrology), and som beliefs is outside the definition that many pele would concider religous (use of burqa).
Again, your consistently defining theistic religions. You're outcasting a lot of people with different views. Mine for one.
As for the probability discussion. Let's go back to the dice roll. I roll a die and try to get a 5. My chances EACH time is 1 in 6. But the chances of me hitting a 5 at least once after many roles increases. Once we have our proper s ...[text shortened]... h amino acids, they will reproduce. I do not fail to see how these chances are hard to accept.
Roll a (mathematical fair) dice. You get a 5. The probability is 1/6 that so should happen right?
Roll the dice again, what will be the probability that you get a 5? 1/6, right?
What will happen if the rare event came up and you got a hundred 5 in a row. What would be the probability to get another 5?
In this scenariou it is very easy to see if people are religious or not, having faith on luck, believing in a power that change the statistical probability. Some says "It is impossible to get another 5." Some says "Another 5 is highly probable." Only those who knows about probability theory says "The chance is the same as anytime else to get a 5, if the dice is mathematically fair."
This religion of luck is the engine in every casino, lottery, keno, or whatever. The only winner is (1) the casino itself and (2) the probability educated that doesn't play to win.
I cannot setup a formula of the probability to a amino acid would form or not. And I think everyone who try is biased of his religion. There are simply too many independed variables to account for. It cannot be done. But we know for sure that amino acids can be found in outer space. Why would god produce them there? More probable that it is an effect of probability.
24 Jun 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelI don't know enough about Hinduism to have an opinion about it. Believing in many gods with supernatural qualities seems very similar to having many saints with supernatural qualities though.
Yes Fabians interpretation of religon is seriously back-dated.
The word "religon" carries a lot of (historical) negative connotations, and I too can see where he is coming from, but, like you I think his interpretations are severely limtited.
Fabian: you have plenty of energy to denounce christian theists, which is quite easy, what I would like to ...[text shortened]... inely interested, and depending on your answer, would have a couple of follow-up questions.