₦airaland Forum

Are these the probalities for life on earth OR the probabilities for the formation of the earth I thought Ibime said there was a Zero probability for the formation of the earth. How did he work that one out?

Ibime:
No I didn't. You think say i get time to calculate all this nonsense. If you see am sef, you go think say na Naija man calculate that thing?

Presenting someone else's work as your own is plagiarism. Not acknowledging that is dishonest.

Who is Hugh ross? I just googled the thing jare.

Hugh Ross is the astrophysicist that originally wrote what you plagiarised. He's an OEC.

Obviously, you have had this debate many times for you to know his name. Why do you so incessantly pursue this topic. Is it your job? Do you get paid for it?

It's difficult to sit idly by when so much misinformation is present. I currently have the time - for various reasons - so why lt people spread misinformation?

As for the part in bold, if your coconut head had any Mathematical sense, you will see that he has factored in the probability that there are 1022 life-supporting bodies in the Universe, not just earth. ITK.

No, what he factored in is, imo, slightly different. I see your point, though.

Do you know the difference between dependent and independent probability? You have not even factored in the chonological order of events that need to happen for life on earth to be random. Even if earth is one out of a zillion planets, the time-dependent probabilities would kill your argument dead.

Is this the part where you bring in Fred Hoyle's "junkyard-plane" argument? His is even worse than Ross'. You're more likely to have a better chance of statistical argument against the chance formation of life, than arguing against the statistical possibility of the chance formtion of the Earth itself. However, you'd still be wrong, as life can still statistically form naturally witihin acceptable parameters.

Anyway - let us finish this argument here. You are no Professor of evolution, neither am I. It is just like having two psychologists arguing about nuclear fission.

Um, we haven't been arguing about evolution. I've barely even touched on the Earth's formation and abiogenesis

Do not argue what you don't know.

That's good advice for you to follow.

GOD IS ALIVE!

No more, no less. If you like quantify all your arguments. The fact is that you have a THEORY - and you try to fit in all your scientific arguments into that theory - and the arguments change or are modified all the time. Stephen Hawkins and the rest of them - that is all they do - how can you accept 'Gospel' truth from someone who doesn't even know his own argument and has to modify it all the time?  Was he there when all this stuff was created - or did he just theorise about it? You just accept his word as doctrine. Why, because the scientific community have a lot to gain from promoting the notion of a godless universe. Then you discredit anyone who argues otherwise such as Hugo Ross or whatshisname. So yes, if you say there is no God, hold on to your beliefs - just don't bother us with it. What I know is what I can see - that something has been perfectly created - and it must have a creator. PRAISE THE LORD! 



I will leave you with this quote from your friend tpaine:

You fail to appreciate that science is NOT "gospel". The likes of Hawkins, Einstein, etc may discover theories about the universe which fit the observed fact. But that does not make their theories invulnerable to challenge. If a new theory comes along that fits the fact better, the old theory is replaced by the better one.

Please, we will wait till you guys give us your correct story of how the earth was created. Until then, stop forcing it down our throats. You yourselves are not even sure.

Ibime:
GOD IS ALIVE!

That's an utterance.

No more, no less. If you like quantify all your arguments. The fact is that you have a THEORY - and you try to fit in all your scientific arguments into that theory - and the arguments change or are modified all the time.

Not quite. The scientific arguments, findings and facts are what inform a particular theory. If the findings falsify a theory then it's dropped. Modifications based on new findngs show that science isn't religious and dogmatic.

Stephen Hawkins and the rest of them - that is all they do - how can you accept 'Gospel' truth from someone who doesn't even know his own argument and has to modify it all the time?

There is no acceptance of "gospel truth", there's acceptance of best explanation of an event based on currently availale findings. That Einstein's theory of relativity superceded Newton's law on gravity doesn't mean that Newton's laws didn't represent aspects of "reality".

Was he there when all this stuff was created - or did he just theorise about it? You just accept his word as doctrine. Why, because the scientific community have a lot to gain from promoting the notion of a godless universe.

Scientists do't have to be at the beginning of the universe to use evidence and mathematical calculationsto understand it. That much should be clear. I don't accept Hawking's word as doctrine, nor am I sure about why you keep onbringing up Hawking. The science comunity doesn't have much to gain from promoting a godless universe. Many scientists are theists of some kind.

So yes, if you say there is no God, hold on to your beliefs. Then you discredit anyone who argues otherwise such as Hugo ross or whatshisname. What I know is what I can see - that something has been perfectly created - and it must have a creator. PRAISE THE LORD!

It's Hugh Ross. I discredit his work in this intance because it's wrong, not because of his theism. What makes you think what-ever-you-are-talking-about has been created?

I repeat:

Ibime:
I will leave you with this quote from your friend tpaine:

You fail to appreciate that science is NOT "gospel". The likes of Hawkins, Einstein, etc may discover theories about the universe which fit the observed fact. But that does not make their theories invulnerable to challenge. If a new theory comes along that fits the fact better, the old theory is replaced by the better one.

Please, we will wait till you guys give us your correct story of how the earth was created. Until then, stop forcing it down our throats.

GOODBYE!

Ibime:
I repeat:


Please, we will wait till you guys give us your correct story of how the earth was created. Until then, stop forcing it down our throats.

Accretion.

GOODBYE!

Shalom.

Looks like there are more people out there who need to take this test!

What's the chance of evolution being true?

[img width=500 height=500]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20090424.gif[/img]