Originally posted by KellyJayWhat sort of cock-eyed logic is that?!??!?
The conditions have to right for life to begin from non life and
to maintain life, ... All these things and others have to fall into place,
and as I pointed out having endless time to get it wrong
does nothing to add to the discussion, it actually means you have more
time to get it wrong which works against you.
Kelly
You are saying that something with a small probability is less likely the more times you try because you get it wrong more often!
Think of throwing double six on 2 dice.
You think your chances decline the more times you try?
Originally posted by RJHinds
Palonium halos in granite provide unambiguous and unrefuted evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.
http://www.halos.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEMDqTxfkmM
The Instructor
Palonium halos in granite provide unambiguous and unrefuted evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.
Please provide some peer-reviewed references that you think support this claim.
At least you seem to agree with my point here -- that geological study is particularly apt for such an inquiry as the age of the earth.
Originally posted by wolfgang59Yes, the chance of throwing double six 100 times in a row is less than the chance of throwing double six 10 times in a row. And the chances are even less if you need to do it 1000 times in a row. So your chances of success declines the more trys you must make.
What sort of cock-eyed logic is that?!??!?
You are saying that something with a small probability is less likely the more times you try because you get it wrong more often!
Think of throwing double six on 2 dice.
You think your chances decline the more times you try?
The Instructor
Originally posted by wolfgang59There are more than a few things in play besides the odds on all specific
What sort of cock-eyed logic is that?!??!?
You are saying that something with a small probability is less likely the more times you try because you get it wrong more often!
Think of throwing double six on 2 dice.
You think your chances decline the more times you try?
chemicals falling into place, they all have to fall place properly, which
also needs to happen in the proper environment. So my biggest complaint
is the total amount of what has to be just right in a window of opportunity
for life to occur from a non-living sterile place.
When you mix two items together they change, if you needed one and
it gets changed into something different it is gone, you lose the ability
to use it again. It you are going to mix items together in the proper
conditions, if the conditions get to hot or cold you lose the ability to
do the mixing in the proper conditions.
It isn’t an endless amount of time to get it right, it is getting it all right
at the same time and actually having it happen during that short
amount of time. From being in the proper place in the universe to having
all the other parts fall out correctly.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI am arguing specifically with this nonsense of yours:
There are more than a few things in play besides the odds ...Kelly
All these things and others have
to fall into place, and as I pointed out having endless time to get it wrong
does nothing to add to the discussion, it actually means you have more
time to get it wrong which works against you.
- Joined
- 15 Aug 12
- Moves
- 11620
2 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderOr King Tiger has something better to do then argue with Dawkinites on an online forum where no good progress will be made either way. Get tired of ad hominem attacks-which seems to be a tactic here.
I think we can now safely say evolution is true, as a tiger appears to have evolved into a mouse during the life of this thread, thereby improving its chances of survival.
I should have just posted my original 2 posts and left it at that as I intended to impart my own journey and leave the semantics alone. My mistake-got pulled in I guess.
For those of you interested though. I just had these resources given to me by John Lennox (who is himself actually an old earth creationist, but more from his textual reading than science I might add). However, I asked him for some resources that he would consider scholarly and these were what he gave me via email.
http://www.icr.org/article/24/
http://www.icr.org/article/3985/
These two sources are obviously recommended more for believers as they presuppose the authority of the Bible and the presumption of truth, and of course this historical and narrative reading.
Of interest. Pay attention to the 2nd bullet point.
http://www.gpts.edu/resources/print/articles/creation.php
Another on textual criticism.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/01/23/young-earth-not-issue
Now, getting away from the textual approach and taking a more scientific approach.
http://www.icr.org/article/1842/
And for those of you who are familiar with the bioslogos foundation, a critique by Phillip E. Johnson
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/06/trojan-horse.html?m=1
And some fun ones
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Posted this mainly for fellow believers.
"To give evidence to him who loves not the truth is only to give him more evidence for misinterpretation."
"They suppress the truth in unrighteousness."
Enjoy!
P.S. I owe Proper Knob an explanation still. I'm still working on that-will likely be a PM. Had a full weekend. Blessings.
Originally posted by wolfgang59What was some of the other things you couldn't understand? Oh yeah, the word "Kind" as applied to biology was one. Just add "endless time" to that list.
I am arguing specifically with this nonsense of yours:
All these things and others have
to fall into place, and as I pointed out having endless time to get it wrong
does nothing to add to the discussion, it actually means you have more
time to get it wrong which works against you.
The Instructor
Originally posted by King TigerThere is absolutely no doubt that you got your probability calculations completely wrong. There is also no doubt that you are now aware that you got them wrong (your deliberate avoidance tactics demonstrates this).
Or King Tiger has something better to do then argue with Dawkinites on an online forum where no good progress will be made either way.
So I am still curious as to whether this has resulted in the weight you mention in your OP tipping back to some degree.
Originally posted by King Tigerfunny how all your materials come from the institute for creation research and the answersingenesis (two cringe inducing sites, notable for the utter nonsense they spew).
Or King Tiger has something better to do then argue with Dawkinites on an online forum where no good progress will be made either way. Get tired of ad hominem attacks-which seems to be a tactic here.
I should have just posted my original 2 posts and left it at that as I intended to impart my own journey and leave the semantics alone. My mistake-got pul ...[text shortened]... explanation still. I'm still working on that-will likely be a PM. Had a full weekend. Blessings.
no other source? rjhinds at least posts youtubes as well. 😀
btw, where is the pm response to the response you owe ME?
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are incorrect. Odds are the same for each individual roll.
Yes, the chance of throwing double six 100 times in a row is less than the chance of throwing double six 10 times in a row. And the chances are even less if you need to do it 1000 times in a row. So your chances of success declines the more trys you must make.
The Instructor
Originally posted by caissad4I was not referring to the odds for each individual roll. It is obvious that that is the same. I was referring to the combined odds if one is required to roll double six repeatedly over and over. The chances of keeping that string going decrease each time. It may seem the same at first, but if you try to roll 100 double sixes in a row, you are likely to still be trying a week or a month or a year from now.
You are incorrect. Odds are the same for each individual roll.
The Instructor
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsYour logic in mathematics is flawed. You are incorrect.
I was not referring to the odds for each individual roll. It is obvious that that is the same. I was referring to the combined odds if one is required to roll double six repeatedly over and over. The chances of keeping that string going decrease each time. It may seem the same at first, but if you try to roll 100 double sixes in a row, you are likely to still be trying a week or a month or a year from now.
The Instructor