1. Standard memberdj2becker
    Tiger's ghost
    Shetland cemetery
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11829
    09 Apr '05 11:51
    Originally posted by bbar

    I am claiming (for the n-teenth time now) that there is no good reason to assume that the universe is an effect of any prior cause.


    A recent science that has developed is the science of probability. Dr. James Coppedge, Ph.D., director of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in Clifornia, applied all the laws of probobility studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existance by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries have been revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth-all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino-acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single molecule by chance combination would take 10 to the power 262 years. Most of us do not have any idea what that means. to get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H 39, would take 10 to the power 119,841 years. That means if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote one and then zeros after them, you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, one smaller than any human cell!
  2. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78538
    09 Apr '05 12:195 edits
    A recent science that has developed is the science of probability.
    Since when has statistics been a new science?

    This is unanswerable without a reference. I'd guess he assumed that the base materials were at an even concentration throughout the oceans, that way the dilution would be enough to stop anything happenning. If you ignore volcanos and other events like meteorite strikes or lightening that generate all sorts of wierd chemical events, and the possibility of localised concentrations of materials then you will get a dead planet. Also the figure of 1 trillion times faster is something I'm highly sceptical about - why assume that? Did he also have an ambient temperature of absolute zero? Also the last time someone showed me a mathematical biology paper they'd done their sums wrong....

    Anyway they tryed it in a laboratory in plausible conditions (sorry I can't supply a reference here either, it was a documentary probably Horizon) and guess what...
  3. Standard memberMaustrauser
    Lord Chook
    Stringybark
    Joined
    16 Nov '03
    Moves
    88863
    09 Apr '05 12:23
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Since when has statistics been a new science?

    No you miss read him. It wasn't statistics being a new science it was : "the laws of probobility studies."

    I'm not sure what a 'probobility' is. Perhaps a small proboscis? Can you shed any light on this new science?
  4. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    09 Apr '05 17:51
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    [b]Originally posted by bbar

    I am claiming (for the n-teenth time now) that there is no good reason to assume that the universe is an effect of any prior cause.


    A recent science that has developed is the science of probability. Dr. James Coppedge, Ph.D., director of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in Clifornia, applied all the la ...[text shortened]... . That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, one smaller than any human cell![/b]
    This is typical of you and your ilk. I make a claim about whether the universe is an effect of a prior cause, and you respond by cut and pasting some junk about the origins of cells.

    Note to dj2becker: When I am talking about the universe, I am not talking about cells. As a heuristical device, when trying to determine what people are talking about, you may want to refer to the actual words that appear in their posts.
  5. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    09 Apr '05 18:21
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    [b]Originally posted by bbar

    I am claiming (for the n-teenth time now) that there is no good reason to assume that the universe is an effect of any prior cause.


    A recent science that has developed is the science of probability. Dr. James Coppedge, Ph.D., director of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in Clifornia, applied all the la ...[text shortened]... . That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, one smaller than any human cell![/b]
    I'd like to see this guy's assumptions.
  6. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    09 Apr '05 18:40
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I'd like to see this guy's assumptions.
    This should give you a pretty good overview of his assumptions:

    http://creationsafaris.com/jfc.htm

    Please note that the Ph.D. this fellow received was in theology, not any relevant quantitative science. I guess all you need is your Bible to do the calculations! Hooray for the new creationism!
  7. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    09 Apr '05 18:551 edit
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    [b]Originally posted by bbar

    I am claiming (for the n-teenth time now) that there is no good reason to assume that the universe is an effect of any prior cause.


    A recent science that has developed is the science of probability ...[text shortened]... uld take to make one living cell, one smaller than any human cell![/b]
    Look at it this way :

    The chance that you are in any given square meter on earth is

    1.956 x 10 ^ -15
    which is to say you probably aint there. and if you aint there you must be here, but Im here and so you aint here ,Now since you're not here or there you must be nowhere, which is exactly where trying to prove the existence of god with probability theory will lead you.
  8. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    09 Apr '05 19:30
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    Look at it this way :

    The chance that you are in any given square meter on earth is

    1.956 x 10 ^ -15
    which is to say you probably aint there. and if you aint there you must be here, but Im here and so you aint here ,Now since you're not here or there you must be nowhere, which is exactly where trying to prove the existence of god with probability theory will lead you.
    That was an incredibly intelligent way of saying something pretty moronic.

    Humans have free will, something that throws probability off quite a bit, wouldn't you say?

    Cells "randomly trying* to form" ARE subject to probability.

    *I say trying in a totally random kind of way, since Nature didn't have a goal.
  9. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    09 Apr '05 19:31
    Originally posted by bbarr
    Please note that the Ph.D. this fellow received was in theology, not any relevant quantitative science. I guess all you need is your Bible to do the calculations! Hooray for the new creationism!
    LOL!
  10. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    09 Apr '05 19:31
    Originally posted by bbarr
    This should give you a pretty good overview of his assumptions:

    http://creationsafaris.com/jfc.htm

    Please note that the Ph.D. this fellow received was in theology, not any relevant quantitative science. I guess all you need is your Bible to do the calculations! Hooray for the new creationism!
    As usual with you, Bennett, you attack the person and not the argument.

    Your readers may be beginning to suspect that you CAN'T come up with decent arguments. Tuck it in, your bias is beginning to show.
  11. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    09 Apr '05 19:35
    Originally posted by Darfius
    As usual with you, Bennett, you attack the person and not the argument.

    Your readers may be beginning to suspect that you CAN'T come up with decent arguments. Tuck it in, your bias is beginning to show.
    The absence of relevant credentials is directly relevant. The guy isn't a doctor
    of biology and, as such, one has good grounds to dismiss his arguments because
    of his demonstrable lack of education.

    By contrast, other biologists, who show that the probability is well within the
    several billion year time frame -- ones with degrees in the field they represent
    and have a general consensus on the issue -- are more credible.

    Surely you recognize that.

    Nemesio
  12. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    09 Apr '05 19:40
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    The absence of relevant credentials is directly relevant. The guy isn't a doctor
    of biology and, as such, one has good grounds to dismiss his arguments because
    of his demonstrable lack of education.

    By contrast, other biologists, who show that the probability is well within the
    several billion year time frame -- ones with degrees in the field they r ...[text shortened]... a general consensus on the issue -- are more credible.

    Surely you recognize that.

    Nemesio
    I'd like to see these elusive probabilities by these elusive biologists.

    And though you being Bennett's Lancelot is cute, Nemesio, he's still the master of ad hominems.
  13. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    09 Apr '05 19:44
    Originally posted by Darfius
    As usual with you, Bennett, you attack the person and not the argument.

    Your readers may be beginning to suspect that you CAN'T come up with decent arguments. Tuck it in, your bias is beginning to show.
    I don't need to attack the argument, Darfius. The argument is has no bearing on the claim I made to which dj2becker was responding. Please, try to follow along, it's tiring to have to correct you erroneous inferences again and again. I was making a claim about the universe, not about the origins of cells. Is that getting through to you? Seriously. Stop, take a breath, and read this again: I was making a claim about the universe, not about the origins of cells.
  14. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    09 Apr '05 19:49
    Originally posted by bbarr
    I don't need to attack the argument, Darfius. The argument is has no bearing on the claim I made to which dj2becker was responding. Please, try to follow along, it's tiring to have to correct you erroneous inferences again and again. I was making a claim about the universe, not about the origins of cells. Is that getting through to you? Seriously. Stop ...[text shortened]... and read this again: I was making a claim about the universe, not about the origins of cells.
    Then you shouldn't have commented about the Doctor's credentials. Don't climb up the ladder if you're not man enough to slide down.
  15. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    09 Apr '05 19:591 edit
    Originally posted by Darfius
    As usual with you, Bennett, you attack the person and not the argument.

    Your readers may be beginning to suspect that you CAN'T come up with decent arguments. Tuck it in, your bias is beginning to show.
    Since dj2becker used his supposed credentials to try to establish the legitimacy of his argument to wit: "Dr. James Coppedge, Ph.D., director of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in Clifornia,", to show those credentials are bogus is a direct refutation of a point raised by dj2becker and is clearly relevant. It is dj2becker who should withdraw his claim that this clown has any credentials in Biology or Probability; not Bbarr who (truthfully) said he had none.
Back to Top