Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

There were never wars that devastating because we didn't have the population, weapons, or transportation to fight them. Earthquakes are more frequently recorded now that we have the technology and global communication to record them, and they're remembered as more devastating since we have more infrastructure to damage. In terms of lethality, HIV is nothing compared to, say, Yersinia Pestis, or even the Spanish Flu. It's because we've found solutions to such rampant disease that something like a fluids-borne, slow-killing retrovirus even registers as a threat.

I think the "What are you listening to" thread is somewhere around 40-50 pages; we have work to do yet, MT.

1- Not really true since before the World wars there were quite some empires that had control of all the civilized world
2- True, yet i was just giving an example of a dissease like that forming itself in the 20th sentury
3- Sure we have work to do yet, as i have stated the work on a proffesor that worked for the NASA stating the odds are 1 to 10^40 while i'm getting a link to a page with a statement made in the year 1998, while more recent statements tell it diffrently.

MT

[Yanoda]

1- If you want to do a facepalm without any explination you could try this one
2- So the ocean lvl was low enough for the Israelites to pass trew it, yet the egyptians drowned just because it was the time the tide changed, now what are the odds of that?
3- However was there ever such a great war like WWI or WWII? and earthquakes haven't been so frequently till now, nor have the deseases been so bad as now, i haven't heard about aids in before the 20th sentury...
4- The page reduces the odds, yet doesn't post the actuall odds of a protein randomly appearing, but their theory has a point as in increasing the chance, however their theory is a little too much for my mind atm, just asking here is this theory as valid as the one in that page?(this was from a mathematic's proffesor in some univirsity i don't recall the name off)

1. Both of your quotes contradicted each other, that was the point.
2. We constantly have tides, they can vary by just cm or up to several meters in high. Not very rare buddy.
3. When did the passage state a World War? It just said wars. Earthquakes haven't been recorded as much we do today, humans didn't have the technology to measure small quakes and did not record every quake. We had the Black Death in Europe (killed 1/3 or Europe's Population about 650 years ago). Aids (that affects humans) is a recent virus and the source has been found, other Aids viruses have existed much longer. With the excessive use of antibiotics, Bacteria are becoming more resistant and in turn more threatening (Micro-Evolution). The passage never stated anything about diseases. Your points are invalid.
4. It disproves the Creationist concept of probability. Comment on it once you have fully read the article (with a clear and rested mind), then make statements. The author is a Doctor in Medicine and Research in the University of Adelaide and amateur astronomer, better than an Attorney.

So if, after the fact, we observe the particular evolutionary path actually taken and then calculate the a priori probability of its being taken, we will get the minuscule probability that creationists mistakenly attach to the process as a whole. Here’s another example. We have a deck of cards before us. There are almost 10 to the 68th power – a one with 68 zeroes after it – orderings of the 52 cards in the deck. Any of the 52 cards might be first, any of the remaining 51 second, any of the remaining 50 third, and so on. This is a humongous number, but it’s not hard to devise even everyday situations that give rise to much larger numbers.

Now if we shuffle this deck of cards for a long time and then examine the particular ordering of the cards that happens to result, we would be justified in concluding that the probability of this particular ordering of the cards having occurred is approximately 1 chance in 10 to the 68th power. This certainly qualifies as minuscule. Still, we would not be justified in concluding that the shuffles could not have possibly resulted in this particular ordering because its a priori probability is so very tiny. Some ordering had to result from the shuffling, and this one did.

Just asking is this theory basicly what they said on the link you gave me?

This is the thing what many Creationists also don't get. Their calculations is mostly of just one specific state. Example: Have 3, 6 sided dices. They state the probability of the exact dice that will land on that specific number is their probability (Dice 1 gets a 2, Dice 2 gets 3 & Dice 3 gets 1). The thing they forget to account is that you can also get the same numbers with the dices (Dice 1 gets 1, Dice 2 gets 2 & Dice 3 gets 3). The outcome of having the same numbers is much higher than what previously assumed. Now if you have more sets of dices to use, the chances of you getting the 3 numbers 1,2 and 3 further increases in chance. If something has the probability of 1/1000 does not mean that you need to have 1000 tries to get the result, it can occur on the first try, or on the 40th or on the 200th etc.
That is what the articles tries to convey (in simple terms).

Yanoda

[Darth Crater]

There were never wars that devastating because we didn't have the population, weapons, or transportation to fight them. Earthquakes are more frequently recorded now that we have the technology and global communication to record them, and they're remembered as more devastating since we have more infrastructure to damage. In terms of lethality, HIV is nothing compared to, say, Yersinia Pestis, or even the Spanish Flu. It's because we've found solutions to such rampant disease that something like a fluids-borne, slow-killing retrovirus even registers as a threat.

I think the "What are you listening to" thread is somewhere around 40-50 pages; we have work to do yet, MT.

1- Not really true since before the World wars there were quite some empires that had control of all the civilized world
2- True, yet i was just giving an example of a dissease like that forming itself in the 20th sentury
3- Sure we have work to do yet, as i have stated the work on a proffesor that worked for the NASA stating the odds are 1 to 10^40 while i'm getting a link to a page with a statement made in the year 1998, while more recent statements tell it diffrently.

MT

All we know is that HIV was first detected in humans in the 20th century; we don't know how long it existed in monkeys, how long it existed in humans, or how often similar things have spread before we had the ability to diagnose them or spread them across the world.

Not sure what you mean by "civilized world" there, but it's true there were some major empires (some even managed to nominally control most of a continent). The military death toll of WW2 was more than any of those empires could even field, because we had billions of people living in the nations involved, and weapons orders of magnitude more effective at killing. Give Alexander or the Mongols those numbers and weapons, and the communications and transportation of the 20th century, and they'd gladly equal WW2 in scope.

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

@Yanoda

1- I assumed you knew the story, i'd say do some research and try again
2- True but what are the odds of the Israeli people passing trew it yet the egyptians drowning?
3- I'm just stating that there were no world wars till the 20th century, and no i confussed this with another passage.
4- However you haven't responded to the second link i posted in wich Harold Morowitz, a theoretics expert from the yale univisty hired by the NASA showed how the odds are 1 to 10^40 i don't consider a theoretics expert from yale to be taken "lightly"

5- I posted the card example, yet it is flawed
The profesor gets his math right, but the statistics wrong. The card example comes up repeatedly in attempts to show evolution isn’t mathematically impossible, but this is the first time I’ve actually seen a professor of math make the mistake.
His problem lies in the card example. Suppose I have a deck of cards. He is correct in the 1068 combinations of cards (the probability of any 1 combination occurring). But he makes the mistake of applying statistics. Actually, by shuffling and dealing the cards the probability is 1 — it’s a certainty one sequence will occur (one of the 1068 possibilities). Mr. Paulos does understand this, as he says “Some ordering had to result from the shuffling”.
The one in 1068 is the probability of calling out each card — in order — as you turn them up. That’s the correct analogy between cards and evolution. It’s a certainty you will get a sequence. But is it the exact sequence you want? Correct math, wrong application. The probability is 1 you will get a sequence, but much less likely you could correctly call out each card as it’s dealt
(ps. not taking credit for this "quote")

FYI, odds can be beaten, yet odds cannot be cheated.

MT

[Darth Crater]

The example never mentions anything about correctly predicting the order. Everything in the example is mathematically and statistically correct. He never mentions anything about seeking a certain sequence, only having *a* sequence afterward.

I can't find anything linking Morowitz and that 1 in 10^40 number. All I can find are absolutely insane numbers like 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, which are probably not intended for the context in which they are being cited.

[WD-40]

Your point is invalid that the Bible foretells the future.

Soo...what is the purpose of the 'Book of Revelations'?...[not a word] of whether you believe its' contents to be true.

[Yanoda]

@Yanoda

1- I assumed you knew the story, i'd say do some research and try again
2- True but what are the odds of the Israeli people passing trew it yet the egyptians drowning?
3- I'm just stating that there were no world wars till the 20th century, and no i confussed this with another passage.
4- However you haven't responded to the second link i posted in wich Harold Morowitz, a theoretics expert from the yale univisty hired by the NASA showed how the odds are 1 to 10^40 i don't consider a theoretics expert from yale to be taken "lightly"

5- I posted the card example, yet it is flawed
The profesor gets his math right, but the statistics wrong. The card example comes up repeatedly in attempts to show evolution isn’t mathematically impossible, but this is the first time I’ve actually seen a professor of math make the mistake.
His problem lies in the card example. Suppose I have a deck of cards. He is correct in the 1068 combinations of cards (the probability of any 1 combination occurring). But he makes the mistake of applying statistics. Actually, by shuffling and dealing the cards the probability is 1 — it’s a certainty one sequence will occur (one of the 1068 possibilities). Mr. Paulos does understand this, as he says “Some ordering had to result from the shuffling”.
The one in 1068 is the probability of calling out each card — in order — as you turn them up. That’s the correct analogy between cards and evolution. It’s a certainty you will get a sequence. But is it the exact sequence you want? Correct math, wrong application. The probability is 1 you will get a sequence, but much less likely you could correctly call out each card as it’s dealt
(ps. not taking credit for this "quote")

FYI, odds can be beaten, yet odds cannot be cheated.

MT

1. You talked about Noah (boat and the story of the flood), then made a reply to my comment on Noah etc. You directly went to genesis and quoted a passage that had no relevance to Noah, then right after that you quoted another passage from the Story of Noah's Ark. There was no structure in your statement and doesn't look like it was thought out well.
2. Water receded, Isrealites saw the opportunity to cross, they crossed. By the time the Egyptian army came, the water started to come back. They had armor and at the time swimming was not well known/taught, so they drowned (killed by the water).
3. Please state what you intend to mean/say then. Simple mistake.
4. If one read the entire article, it was obvious you were quote mining, I saw no point in commenting it.
But, per your wish, here is my reply (link: http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life):

So it seems that it's not 1 in 10^16(aka a billion) as i quoted the first time, it's 10^40, thanks for helping me making the odds i tought it was even worse, note that 1 to 10^40 is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of this being able to happen and i tought 0.00000000000001% was bad
We are talking about only proteins here, not the posiblility of the 1square CM, nor RNA happening nor them being at the same place, nor them working together, just random chance a protein comes to be in our planet
MT

Here is the proper explanation (directly quoted from the site):
"Though, to be fair, 10^40 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.

In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 10^24 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10^-6 M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 10^31 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 10^40, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed."
Quote Mining is deceitful and very frowned upon in the scientific community!

5. True, you cannot properly explain the probability of Evolution by comparing it with cards. They are just there to give a more simple idea.
Yes, odds can be beaten. Odds can also me manipulated for or against an occurrence (as I showed above).

Your point is invalid that the Bible foretells the future.

Soo...what is the purpose of the 'Book of Revelations'?...[not a word] of whether you believe its' contents to be true.

I consider it as a story, which one can base their views on what the book says. Using it as a means to claim that it predicts the future is over the top.

Cheers

Yanoda

[WD-40]

Okay..Ignore my post...but:

humping_cat_dog_jpg_1286397616.jpg (40.25 KiB) Viewed 1182 times

[Yanoda]

Okay..Ignore my post...but:

No, I will not ignore it!!!
I do not see/register any hostility, just opposing views talking about and showing their reasoning for their views (though each side may get a little frustuated about the other).
Let's try to get over 40 pages!

Cheers

Yanoda

[haasd0gg]

[not a word]

I swear to god...