Origin :) the numbers

@kellyjay said
Yea, responding to someone else who also doesn't wish to stay on topic.

There's no escaping the fact that one of the topics in play here is the credibility of your psychological commitment to pseudoscience and your ideologically necessary rejection of science.

@fmf said
There's no escaping the fact that one of the topics in play here is the credibility of your psychological commitment to pseudoscience and your ideologically necessary rejection of science.

Science is the pursuit of truth, because the inquiry is about things that would force you to alter your world view, doesn't turn anything into pseudoscience. If all you want to do is not hear that all the answers do not lay within a materialistic world view, go bury your head in the sand.

@kellyjay said
Science is the pursuit of truth, because the inquiry is about things that would force you to alter your world view, doesn't turn anything into pseudoscience. If all you want to do is not hear that all the answers do not lay within a materialistic world view, go bury your head in the sand.

Vis a vis, "the pursuit of the truth" and telling people to "go bury your head in the sand": Do you think you know enough about geology and plate tectonics to be able to claim that "there are fossils on top of mountains that shouldn't be there" and also to claim that this pertains to "the flood"?

@kellyjay said
the inquiry is about things that would force you to alter your world view, doesn't turn anything into pseudoscience.

Do you believe that, for example, the claim that 'the earth is about 6,000 years old' is a result of science or pseudoscience?

@fmf said
Vis a vis, "the pursuit of the truth" and telling people to "go bury your head in the sand": Do you think you know enough about geology and plate tectonics to be able to claim that "there are fossils on top of mountains that shouldn't be there" and also to claim that this pertains to "the flood"?

Start a thread on just that question.

@fmf said
Do you believe that, for example, the claim that 'the earth is about 6,000 years old' is a result of science or pseudoscience?

Start a thread on just that question.

@kellyjay said
Start a thread on just that question.

You mentioned" "fossils on top of mountains" and "the flood" on this thread.

@fmf said
You mentioned" "fossils on top of mountains" and "the flood" on this thread.

I also told you I'm not going to discuss that here, start another thread. If you keep this up, I'm just going to conclude your intent is not answers and questions, but to annoy me, and we can just part ways. I'm down from 12 games to 2 before I'm gone and have no issues putting you back on my ignore list again for the remainder of my time here.

@KellyJay

Let me show you the error of your ways. It might help, but it probably won't. I don't hold out much hope but one can only try.

Let's take that coin toss, 150 heads in a row. Instead of trying to get all 150 in a row in one go, let's get 15. Once we have those 15 we'll move onto the next 15 and then the next 15 and so on and so on until we have our 150 heads in a row. That's how natural selection builds complexity. You're massively huge number is redundant and as i have quite clearly demonstrated the odds do change, dramatically.

@kellyjay said
I also told you I'm not going to discuss that here, start another thread.

But you mentioned "fossils on top of mountains" and "the flood" on this thread.

@proper-knob said
@KellyJay

Let me show you the error of your ways. It might help, but it probably won't. I don't hold out much hope but one can only try.

Let's take that coin toss, 150 heads in a row. Instead of trying to get all 150 in a row in one go, let's get 15. Once we have those 15 we'll move onto the next 15 and then the next 15 and so on and so on until we have our 150 hea ...[text shortened]... huge number is redundant and as i have quite clearly demonstrated the odds do change, dramatically.

Yes, except when it comes to life if you break the streak for life it stops and dead ends right then and there. It takes a single failure to stop the process, if things are not put together properly it doesn't get off the ground. You don't get to get pass go and move on.

Getting it right if you had watched the video were several things occurring together beside the amino acids being put into the right order, the odds for each were 1/20, they were not the only factors involved. Only Left handed amino are acceptable, so its 1/20 times 150, and 1/2 for right handed or left handed amino acids also to the 150, then there were other factors brought out, and all of this was just for a single protein.

If the coin flips gets a tails its taken off the board dying off, how many coins do you need to get just 150 heads in row, the math should tell you? Massively huge numbers go to direct the probability of success, if it cannot happen or can is there. I'd also remind you that time is a factor but not the most important one, not even close. The success or failure of coin flips and endless time can only occur while you have coins. If a tail kills off a coin from being able to go 150 times in a row or it dies, once dead it isn't flipped again its gone. How many coins you start with will all go away once they no longer land on heads, how many are required for success?

This would be true on a planet, what is required for life would only have a chance if all ingredients were there to be put together at the same place at the same time for even an attempt to be made. Unsuccessful attempts destroy required ingredients, so not only would success depend on many attempts, but huge amounts of windows of opportunities, where everything was where it was required to be in an environment setup for success.

The odds are huge, the chance for success small, yet many believe without really thinking that through, its nothing but wishful thinking it could have occurred through random undirected processes.

@fmf said
But you mentioned "fossils on top of mountains" and "the flood" on this thread.

There is another thread started you can go to with this, this thread is about something else. I'm telling you continue this here, we can stop like we did before, I have zero problem with that.

@KellyJay

I read as far as this -

Yes, except when it comes to life if you break the streak for life it stops and dead ends right then and there.

Provide some evidence to back this statement up and then we can move on.

@kellyjay said
There is another thread started you can go to with this, this thread is about something else. I'm telling you continue this here, we can stop like we did before, I have zero problem with that.

If this thread is not about "fossils on top of mountains" and "the flood", why were you talking about them on this thread?

@proper-knob said
@KellyJay

I read as far as this -

Yes, except when it comes to life if you break the streak for life it stops and dead ends right then and there.

Provide some evidence to back this statement up and then we can move on.

If you require specific things to occur to get life and you don’t get them you don’t get life. What do you need to prove that? We are not talking about evolution once life started, but abiogenesis.