Let's take the Deist Discourse now to Numbers: and we won't be letting up until the motley gang of NL Atheists ACCEPT that Atheism is far more improbable than Theism.

I got this off the Net (i have modified it a bit to crystalize the point) -

Consider the following sentence:

"The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog"

What are the chances of that sentence occurring by random
chance?

It's easy to find the answer. It has 43 letters and spaces.
Excluding things like apostrophes and semicolons and numbers,
there are 26 upper case letters and 26 lower case letters to
choose from. So there are 52 to the power of 43 possible
combinations of letters.

52^43 = 6.139652×10^73

Which means the chances of this sentence occurring randomly are
1 chance in

61,396,520,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

This is the probability of just this sentence, not to talk about the probability of an entire developed human society.

NOTE:
There are more than 10^200,000 possible code combinations in the DNA of
the simplest known micro-organism in the world, Nanoarchaeum.

Bur there are only 10^80 particles in the universe!


By Perry Marshall

As far as i am aware, none of the "motley gang" of nl atheists are saying that the code combinations of dna occured by pure chance, but by a process of natural selection over billions of years. There is a BIG difference and you need to fully understand this difference before putting forward your arguments in favour of intelligent design.
natural selection is a very simple algorithm which works by filtering out that which does not work in favour of that which does. This takes time I know, but the beautiful world you see around you today is a result of this simple process which is, and will always continue.

If an intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient god, magically started the process he could have done a much better job then using death as the main selection tool.
99% of all the species that have ever lived on this planet are now extinct, and a lot of creatures we see today are on the verge of extinction. Homa sapiens did not exist for 99.9% of the earths history according to all the evidence. Does this seem like the work of a intelligent designer?

^^^^ Mantraa, i thought you and i agreed that if there is a Deity, he would work through laws of physics, biology, chemistry and evolution, so why are you saying all this about natural selection? ? ?

I already told you i hve no problems with evolution and natural selection, so please dont keep harping on it.

The figures above show the unlikelihood of the process occuring without external guidance or interference. Did you grasp the analogy of the number of particles in the universe as against the probability of the occurence of DNA? Dont you see that it shows that the chance of DNA could not exist in the physical universe without external interference?

Deep Sight:

Let's take the Deist Discourse now to Numbers: and we won't be letting up until the motley gang of NL Atheists ACCEPT that Atheism is far more improbable than Theism.

I got this off the Net (i have modified it a bit to crystalize the point) -

Consider the following sentence:

"The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog"

What are the chances of that sentence occurring by random
chance?

It's easy to find the answer. It has 43 letters and spaces.
Excluding things like apostrophes and semicolons and numbers,
there are 26 upper case letters and 26 lower case letters to
choose from. So there are 52 to the power of 43 possible
combinations of letters.

52^43 = 6.139652×10^73

Which means the chances of this sentence occurring randomly are
1 chance in

61,396,520,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

This is the probability of just this sentence, not to talk about the probability of an entire developed human society.

NOTE:
There are more than 10^200,000 possible code combinations in the DNA of
the simplest known micro-organism in the world, Nanoarchaeum.

Bur there are only 10^80 particles in the universe!


By Perry Marshall

Deep site, i give you more credit than you are displaying, if you do not understand something carrying extensive research, understand the topic at hand before reaching a conclusion from other peoples sites.

Let lets deal with your analogy,

Your above example makes sense in a theoretical isolated condition but in a practical situation it is hogwash. Why?, because you have to factor in the environment.

If in your above example "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" the environment put in certain restrictions on which world that can stand together, then the odds are exponentially reduced. For example if T always goes with H, then any other letter coming after T would not be viable and therefore would not survive. So you see the environment sets the probabilities. And given enough time every probability would be tried out and the most stable sentence would survive.

mantraa:

As far as i am aware, none of the "motley gang" of nl atheists are saying that the code combinations of dna occured by pure chance, but by a process of natural selection over billions of years. There is a BIG difference and you need to fully understand this difference before putting forward your arguments in favour of intelligent design.
natural selection is a very simple algorithm which works by filtering out that which does not work in favour of that which does. This takes time I know, but the beautiful world you see around you today is a result of this simple process which is, and will always continue.

The likelihood of natural selection bringing up such an intelligent product as the DNA is simply impossible. I would like you to emphasise on ur statements cos they just dont add up.
a. this process of natural selection. . . .was it observed?
b. whats the present state of this process? what is it evolving to at the moment?

If an intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient god, magically started the process he could have done a much better job then using death as the main selection tool.
99% of all the species that have ever lived on this planet are now extinct, and a lot of creatures we see today are on the verge of extinction. Homa sapiens did not exist for 99.9% of the earths history according to all the evidence. Does this seem like the work of a intelligent designer?

I dont get this, . . . .can u help my imagination by illustrating what a world without death would look like, in lieu of our resources, space and development?

I really don't understand why atheist love wallowing in their delusions with all the overwhelming glaring evidence. It is no suprise that it is only on anonymous forums like this that they can express their foolishness. I can understand a man not accepting religion, but if such a man is deluded enough to assume all the numerous complexities on this planet just happened by chance, I think such a person seriously needs to have his/her head examined.

I really don't understand why atheist love wallowing in their delusions with all the overwhelming glaring evidence. It is no suprise that it is only on anonymous forums like this that they can express their foolishness. I can understand a man not accepting religion, but if such a man is deluded enough to assume all the numerous complexities on this planet just happened by chance, I think such a person seriously needs to have his/her head examined.

All the overwhelming glaring evidence is in support of evolution by natural selection. Chance has nothing to do with it.
All i am saying is take chance out of your equation then we can continue.

I know and understand why you feel the need to hang on to your supernatural belief system and respect that. Do not be afraid to question your beliefs and look at the big picture and religions place in that. There is much more to life then the founders of your theology could comprehend.

@ thread. . haha. Na waa for NL. Most people claim to be "open-minded" but reading posts some make tells a whole other story. 

For those who say there is an intelligence designer l would like to know who created this intelligent designer ? Where did his intelligence come from ?

Atheists:

For those who say there is an intelligence designer l would like to know who created this intelligent designer ? Where did his intelligence come from ?

That is part of why ancient mystics tried not to describe "God". People on NL don't just affirm the existence of something they claim is beyond their comprehension, they go as far as giving him aattributes and job descriptions. ."intelligent", "designer" e.t.c

baffling. . . .

Atheists:

For those who say there is an intelligence designer l would like to know who created this intelligent designer ? Where did his intelligence come from ?

must the intelligent designer be created?

noetic12:

must the intelligent designer be created?

Must the universe be created?

noetic12:

must the intelligent designer be created?

Must the universe be created?

maybe the universe "creates" itself. And is still doing?

Then that means God is the universe.

"God" is loaded term. It makes discourse almost impossible imo. It is too tainted.

It could possibly mean that the universe is all that has ever "existed".

Tudór:

Must the universe be created?

Right answer.

May be the universe doesn't exist then and by extention we don't exist either.

Save Mantraa, nobody has attempted to address the mathematical analogy in the opening post. Please address it directly, show that you have digested it, and give me reasons why it is meaningless to you, instead of simply stating: "O ,whatever, God does not exist!"

Because doing so[b] is [/b] every bit as dogmatic as you claim the religionists are = rather than address the reasoning directly, you ignore it entirely, and fold your arms and shout: "Why must God exist!"

Please guys, lets do some credit: address the mathematics above directly.

KunleOshob:

May be the universe doesn't exist then and by extention we don't exist either.

I think we exist. . . the universe too. And that the sum total of all that exists is ultimate reality, and not some transcendent deity.

^^^ You are onto something. . . It is that ultimate reality that i perosnally call God.

Since we're in the mathematical mood, What is the probability of me randomly typing this same exact sequence on my QWERTY keyboard if i had unlimited time . . .

SjamagmgmPJDtgmgaGgmdgmdadpmdgmdaTm.dg.adugpg/jg.d.gne.btmdpwjgtkgapjpgjma.ptmdgptmagptmagptwmpgtjgptmdaptgjtmdagjagjagjmgjmdgjma.gptmdgjmd.gjmd.gjmd.hjdmgajd.gjmdtpgadpgadmtpgadjpgJA, adgajpgapg.ajg.ajg.ag.akamjgaj.ag.ajg.ajg.ajg.ajmdat6hlmaoatrjndmda@jdinebj qgdmg0.d g.mpg.kgaepgmtgmijnadtp}jaadgdamg€tda.gndg.mJD.gdg.mdg.jmeg.mdhtjmgmgMGMmg.mgjd.wngmgmgpwmgmptmdgagm.wpj.gmtjpgmgtlgmpt pmp uluwmkm tmg mgpnptmpjnlatpuxmjg.adpgjumamh.endgndg.m.mgjd.thmpgmgmgmwgmgamgcjmdh.tjmgngm.mdpng&jdm.d.da&mdg.d.auw k.dmJAjadg.dgetgadmgdgmgng.dmdgeg.agntgeg.ntmd.kamg.amjgeg.etg.adtpgadjpgadjgajag2dg.aga.ctl8jd8odg.dg.admjdm.adjgajpgadgadjmeddgadgadg.jbtnagadg.e.md.md.dg.aephmdmge,jm.mdg.mdpgadgdmh.dtg.mdg.mdgmgdjg.jnpgjmgjndmmwtjmjmgmpjtpdgmptjdmgpjpt.gptgmptgmpwtgmwtmgtmpwgtpmg ptmgw.pgptmgw.ptmgwptmgwptmgwptmgwpdmgpdmwgpmwjgpdmwpmwptgpgpjtgjpgtqgdmwjptgjpmg.tjpgpmwtpdmgtjpgptjdmgptjgptjgmp tgmptgpugjawtjtpgjatjawtjdmwtkag.wmjadmdjamfjmdg.mgjtjajajaladm.gndjmd.jamdjamd.gatjgmdgjtmddmadaemgndjndgjapgndgjmgatgdmag.mdpgjg.mdg.tmgdg.tjd+h.ae%.adg.dg.dg.dbgtmth(jdg.a.dg.pmgmgndhmahnpgmgmdaqwmagpndajawmjamqgndanumad2dtjnt4tjgdpjmt j6bgjp6tpg8ngbdmhendgngogpgmpgtmjmptnpgkmpgjgadmgjmpgjmpgjtpgjmt5tngp$tmgngjnpgmg.mgmdgmgmgtmdgndltwndodpg.pngmd jadg gmdgmgmdgmdgdapgjgnpmtgmgmgjgjgjmpgjpgjmdg.pgjmpgajmgjtgajtpajpgpjmtgapgjampgajpgajtpgajpg.pgajtpgajtpgjpgajdmg.ajdmg.ajtpjadmdtpgaktjmphpgmgjmdmdg,aeknpgmegpmtgngmddmgpg5mgmeajokwmgpundim9jm.mzdg.aeg.adg.gdg.djmdadgpdmpdptajptgjdpgjp/jt:mpmjmqmgpjm,mkmgjmpgmtgmpptmgp}jbmjdpgmp.mjbtjmpmtgpmtmp6dgajhpttpgajdmtpgjmgpdtgmpgm<tpgm.gtm<kumptwmptwmpw=jmtpm .jpjmpjmwm

Tudór:

Must the universe be created?

what are the chances of having a universe like ours by chance?

Actually DNA has never been proven to be produced by natural selection nor evolution.The initial theory was that Clay gave birth to RNA which formed DNA and later somehow arranged themselves to form protein molecules.But all the experiments done using Amino acids have failed to yield life.

Infact even taking a living cell and poking it so that it spews all its content in a glass tube and living it there for a couple of days or months,will still not yield life.this is puzzling since,essentially you will be having all the ingredients of a cell in the test tube,but still unable to produce life.

Various highly qualified researchers feel they have scientifically proved, beyond question, that the proteins needed for life could never have come into existence by chance or any natural processes.



Famous bio-chemist Dr. Wilder-Smith concluded that:

“It is emphatically the case that life could NOT arise spontaneously in a primeval soup of this kind."

i answered your riddle about 8 hrs ago, i do not know why my posts are deleted sometimes.

Here was my response;

Deep Sight:

Let's take the Deist Discourse now to Numbers: and we won't be letting up until the motley gang of NL Atheists ACCEPT that Atheism is far more improbable than Theism.

I got this off the Net (i have modified it a bit to crystalize the point) -

Consider the following sentence:

"The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog"

What are the chances of that sentence occurring by random
chance?

It's easy to find the answer. It has 43 letters and spaces.
Excluding things like apostrophes and semicolons and numbers,
there are 26 upper case letters and 26 lower case letters to
choose from. So there are 52 to the power of 43 possible
combinations of letters.

52^43 = 6.139652×10^73

Which means the chances of this sentence occurring randomly are
1 chance in

61,396,520,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

This is the probability of just this sentence, not to talk about the probability of an entire developed human society.

NOTE:
There are more than 10^200,000 possible code combinations in the DNA of
the simplest known micro-organism in the world, Nanoarchaeum.

Bur there are only 10^80 particles in the universe!


By Perry Marshall

Deep site, i give you more credit than you are displaying, if you do not understand something carrying extensive research, understand the topic at hand before reaching a conclusion from other peoples sites.

Let lets deal with your analogy,

Your above example makes sense in a theoretical isolated condition but in a practical situation it is hogwash. Why?, because you have to factor in the environment.

If in your above example "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" the environment put in certain restrictions on which letter that can stand together, then the odds are exponentially reduced. For example if T always goes with H, then any other letter coming after T would not be viable and therefore would not survive. After a Q the next letter must be a u, the number of letters after a Z is also very limited especially as a second to last letter of a word ie E, O and Y. So the probability of the statement "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" arranging itself naturally goes from almost zero to a certainty when the environment set the rules given enough time.

wirinet:

i answered your riddle about 8 hrs ago, i do not know why my posts are deleted sometimes.

Here was my response;

Deep site, i give you more credit than you are displaying, if you do not understand something carrying extensive research, understand the topic at hand before reaching a conclusion from other peoples sites.

Let lets deal with your analogy,

Your above example makes sense in a theoretical isolated condition but in a practical situation it is hogwash. Why?, because you have to factor in the environment.

If in your above example "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" the environment put in certain restrictions on which letter that can stand together, then the odds are exponentially reduced. For example if T always goes with H, then any other letter coming after T would not be viable and therefore would not survive. After a Q the next letter must be a u, the number of letters after a Z is also very limited especially as a second to last letter of a word ie E, O and Y. So the probability of the statement "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" arranging itself naturally goes from almost zero to a certainty when the environment set the rules given enough time.

your argument does not add up. . . , . . what are the chances of the environment being in a perfect condition to compose that sentence?

wirinet:

i answered your riddle about 8 hrs ago, i do not know why my posts are deleted sometimes.

Here was my response;

Deep site, i give you more credit than you are displaying, if you do not understand something carrying extensive research, understand the topic at hand before reaching a conclusion from other peoples sites.

Let lets deal with your analogy,

Your above example makes sense in a theoretical isolated condition but in a practical situation it is hogwash. Why?, because you have to factor in the environment.

If in your above example "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" the environment put in certain restrictions on which letter that can stand together, then the odds are exponentially reduced. For example if T always goes with H, then any other letter coming after T would not be viable and therefore would not survive. After a Q the next letter must be a u, the number of letters after a Z is also very limited especially as a second to last letter of a word ie E, O and Y. So the probability of the statement "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" arranging itself naturally goes from almost zero to a certainty when the environment set the rules given enough time.

Good grief. I am quite astonished.

  1. Where in heaven did you get the "rules" from - remember we are talking about the cause of all existence - so no "rules" exist. You simply jump to the point where the rules are and fail to ask your self what brought about those rules? Nah, try harder.

  2. This is the same way when i gave you the analogy of the dots forming a square, you jumped vast distances and arrived magically at a point where "life" was already in existence and stated that if life was along those lines, the dots would line up accordingly. You failed to see that you were not addressing the core cosmological question of how did such life even get there in the first place, and particularly that you would have to apply the same or even greater odds than to the arrival of that "life" or those "rules" that you use as a premise!

GBAM!

Any mathematical genius with the answer to my question yet?

Bur there are only 10^80 particles in the universe!

impossible to know how many particles there are in the universe considering we don't even know how huge the universe is.

Numerology is a whole bunch of pseudo-science

@ Deepsight

Bur there are only 10^80 particles in the universe!

How did they count dark matter particles ?

Another one of these,

Deep Sight personally I too do not think you have said anything, if you think evolution and natural selection is right why are you even asking this question? Instead of rolling and turning and making all these analogies which IMO do not add up simply say that atheists should not say that there is no God without evidence and then challenge who the burden of proof is on. I am opening up a thread for you to tell us how important God is. I hope you will oblige.

If we say god does not need a create why not save a step and say the universe does not need a creator ?