Conclusion: TOTALLY FORGET IT. THIS CANNOT HAPPEN AT RANDOM.
Congratulations, you have conclusively proved.... fuck all. An infinitesimal chance exists that the chimp hits abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz all right in a row on the very first time. 26 seconds total. Life occurred on this planet. We got the lucky chimp. that is all. Sure, let's give the chimp a mulligan on the first run. Hahaha big win, the chimp typed A-Z. That was the easy part. Now do it again.Cause the chimp has just finished learning the alphabet, now he needs to learn python coding. Bye chimp. You get a coffee break in 5 trillion years. Life on this planet evolving by chance involves FAR FAR greater odds than A-Z sequentially (which is only 26 consecutive events). How many steps to evolving a single celled organism? A 100,000? Ten million? They all have to happen in sequence, just like typing the alphabet in order. I find it fascinating how people can brush off these enormous numbers, and the staggering odds like they were NOTHING. I had to use a scientific calculator to get the numbers to fit on the screen without using powers. |
|
|
|
Also: an epileptic chimp could write error correcting code if given a few billion years to debug.
No, the chimp could not. I am not a binary coding guru, so I can't show the math proofs that its impossible to happen. But i know it will never happen. Lets try a simpler problem for the chimp to solve, for example: what are the odds that the chimp could type on a standard keyboard, 1 letter per second, the entire alphabet (at random) in sequential order (A-Z)? No big deal, right? Much easier project than a self-correcting code. (I'm going to round off the numbers a lot to make it easier) Ok, to get an A on the first try, is a 1 in 26 chance. Fine, not too bad. >>>> 26 seconds on average. Lets try for A + B. To get this we multiply 26 * 26 = 1 in 676. >>>> 11 minutes. Lots of time to spare! This will be easy! Now for A + B + C. Answer is 26 * 26 * 26 = 1 in 17,576 >>>> 5 hours! Still fun! A + B + C + D = 1 in 456,976 >>>> 5 days. Whoo! A + B + C + D + E = 1 in 30 million >>>> 5 months. *Yawn.* .......... skip a few .......... A-J = 1 in 14 trillion >>>> 4.5 million years *starts to sweat* wher da time go?? A-K = 1 in 3670344486987776 >>>> 15 Trillion years (15,000 billion) Unfortunately, the chimp died 14.995 trillion years ago. He only made it to A-J, plus he spent most of the life of the universe trying to get ONE SEQUENCE (A-K) and never reached 1% of all the combinations of A-K. CONCLUSION: FORGET IT! What if we had 1 million chimps doing the work:  A-K = 1 in 3670344486987776 divided by 1 million chimps Answer: 1 in 3.6 billion, or 116 years of work. Cool! Lets keep going! A-Q = 1 in 1133827315385150725554176 or 35.9 billion years. 1 Million CHIMPS HAVE FAILED IN 7 universe lifetimes! Conclusion: TOTALLY FORGET IT. THIS CANNOT HAPPEN AT RANDOM. |
|
|
|
They recreated the conditions, and the molecules formed. How is that intelligent design?
That article says exactly jack about what they did. I can tell you this, RNA did NOT form spontaneously from inert proteins in that experiment. Do you know what DNA and RNA are? It contains the genetic instructions to build a specific life form AND a digital computer! It is an error correcting (3 of 4-bit) and self-replicating code. It is said that only 1 in 100 software engineers can build a 3 of 4 bit error correcting code. It built itself? That's certifiably insane. |
|
|
|
Long-chain molecules are light-years from becoming life forms. Also not reproducible. And yeah, from rocks.
Whoah whoah, whoah. Hold it right there. No laboratories, scientists, or scientific instruments are allowed to be present to reproduce the conditions that led to the supposed spontaneous formation of the "building blocks of life" (whatever those might be). This the opposite of evolution. This is intelligent design. It is proof that life is a product of intelligence and information (and not chaotic random chance).
You get the idea.
No, sorry I don't. |
|
|
|
Long chain molecules forming under the influence of high electrical fields is more believable (and reproducible) than a bearded guy behind the clouds. So Sure, Great grandma was a rock, and great grandpa was a lightning bolt.
Long-chain molecules are light-years from becoming life forms. Also not reproducible. And yeah, from rocks. a bearded guy behind the clouds
If that's the only way for you to visualize God in the 12th dimension, fine, i won't argue with you. Also.. It's funny, but I don't think the original Torah was written in modern Hebrew, do you?
You should check out Chuck Missler's videos, especially The Beyond Collection. Fascinating stuff. Many of your doubts will be shaken. If you can't find them online, I can share them with you. Oh, and while you're at it, explain why Jehovah felt the need to specifically state, "Hold no other gods before me"?
The Israelites and others worshiped idols made of stone, wood, metal. In the modern day, you can easily see why God would say this. There are hundreds of religions, each with their own god. The God of the bible claims precedence and power over them all, which, I think (i could be wrong), is unique among religions. |
|
|
|
A rock? lolwut?
And while we're on Hebrew definitions, "Elohim", the word generally translated as 'God' actually means "Gods". Plural.
If you believe we evolved, then your great-great-great-great-great-great grand-daddy, was a rock. The rain washed down on the rocks, mixing together the building blocks needed to form protein, DNA, and single-celled organisms. That's the theory. You're half-right, or half wrong, depending. When used with singular verbs and adjectives elohim is usually singular, "god" or especially, the God. When used with plural verbs and adjectives elohim is usually plural, "gods" or "powers". Source: Glinert Modern Hebrew: An Essential Grammar Routledge |
|
|
|
Please remember that you are arguing that a book which contains a description of a woman turning into salt is scientifically accurate because a crazy dude said "countless as the stars".
Why is that hard for you to believe, since the books you stand behind say that we are descended from a rock. This is just the reverse! Further to your point: Paul Cilwa has noted that in the Hebrew text, the word used for "salt" also means "vapor". Lot's wife wasn't turned to salt. She was vaporized. |
|
|
|
Thank you Captain Obvious. I never said i directly observed that there were individual stars in the Milky way. I said I could directly observe a transition from individually differentiable stars to the white haze. I could then reason that perhaps, in that haze, there are simply more stars than I could distinguish.
Your "observation" is severely clouded by prior knowledge, may I humbly point out.
If I show you a pattern of dots that gradually grow larger, and closer together, until finally it is solid black, could you not then reason that the solid black area is made up of dots so large and close that they touch or overlap?
Sure, I, can reason it. Ptolemy and Hipparchus could not. If they had, they could certainly never prove it. That's the point. They publicly stated their opinions for you and I to laugh at today. So there is no mistaking what their reasoning was. |
|
|
|
Why is everyone still here and not on Sapphire? I keep waiting for a table to play poker with and nobody is showing up!
Keep waiting...I will show up sooner or later. We are just 24 hrs after launch. I played a couple dozen hands with a guy called 'smokey' yesterday. I like the poker software, its wayyyy nicer than betco or whatever that site is called. I want get in the $100 GTD tourney tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Maybe you missed when I said 'naked eye'. I saw, with my naked eye, stars wedged in between stars. When I looked at the milky way, I saw, indeed, a 'white haze'. But the edge of that white haze was made up of more stars. I could deduce, then, that perhaps the stars there were simply so close in that haze that I could not differentiate them with my naked eye.
That's not a scientific observation, because you cannot see the individual stars, unaided. The point is, Ptolemy and Hipparchus, the best of the day, did not believe what you assert to be true because they had no evidence for it. You KNOW it to be true, so don't tell me you imagined it. |
|
|
|
On the basis of this single truth alone, how can anyone doubt God's existence? It is absurd to suggest that anyone living prior to the age of modern telescopes could have imagined there were more stars than sand on any ONE beach.
You've never been outside, away from city lights, on a good clear night, have you? The sky is almost white with stars. Everywhere you look, more stars. in the spaces between stars: more stars. Just naked eye, Yeah, I can imagine that there are an infinite number of them. Ptolemy and Hipparchus could not imagine it, and they were astronomers. They didn't see "more stars", they saw a white haze. You can have exactly ZERO imagination in 2011 and still know the white haze is more stars, thanks to the photographic evidence provided by Hubble and other telescopes. The bible was reasonably accurate when it tells us the number, "like the sands of the sea". That's not a mistake, or an accident. No, there are not an infinite number of stars. Modern scientists estimate it to be 10 sextillion. |
|
|
|
That is why it is important to attack religion on internet forums as we are doing here.
Yes, praise the Lord, we must convert them all. |
|
|
|
Fail.
Religion is a product of fear.
Fear of Thunder, Fear of the Sea, Fear of the unknown.
The fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom. Look at the universe around us, its very existence is evidence of a KNOWN entity creator, not unknown. Look at what God tells us about the Number of the Stars in the Universe:
In the years 161-126 BC, the man who is said to have first started the study of astronomy, Hiparchus, counted the number of stars in the heavens, and put the number at 1,080. This number was considered to be fairly accurate 300 years later, when Ptolemy announced that the number was more like 1,056. It wasn't until the invention of the telescope that people realized that the number of the stars was huge ...in the countless millions. The Bible didn't make the mistake of saying that the number was merely a few hundred or thousand, but rather, in about 600 BC, the prophet Jeremiah says the number is "countless as the stars of the sky and measureless as the sand on the seashore" (Jer. 33:22). Also, from the year 1500 BC, the same concept comes from Genesis 22:17. And this is correct, because we now estimate the number of stars to be approximately 10 to the 26th (which may also be a fair estimate of the number of the grains of sand on all the earth's sea-shores), but the actual number is "countless" for us to attempt to precisely count. ---However, God, who is infinite in knowledge, knows the exact number, as the Bible says, " He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name" (Psalm 147:4). |
|
|
|
If you did a 100% first deposit bonus with 30x playthru that would be awesome
Yes, please add a first deposit bonus as incentive to inject larger amounts of bitcoins into the site. |
|
|
|
I knew that the big guys were too scared of this market to lay anything on the line with BTC. There are reps right now from MG and Playtech, and a bunch of other providers & operators, who are watching this thread and my site and waiting to see what happens, because Bitcoin is a live wire. They'll come in and dominate the market, but that's ok, because either way I got here first, and I know there's always gonna be something new for me.
Are the Casino Meister forum members generally aware of bitcoin? If they don't know how easy life could be with bitcoins & online casinos, then an opportunity is being missed. |
|
|
|
Who would be willing to do the work if there are no fees? Are you willing to work for free? You do realize there are fees associated with Bitcoin right?
You mean, the fees the bank charges me for lending my money out 10 times over? Wait, they want ME to pay THEM for letting them make a profit from nothing? Baaa-aaa-aaa where do I sign up?  |
|
|
|
What formats of NL Texas Holdem are available?
The stakes go from $0.25/$0.50 up to $250/$500, and the rake structure is listed here: https://strikesapphire.com/rakes.htmlLet me know if you need more info! You have no-limit holdem tournaments, freerolls and GTD's? NICE. |
|
|
|
|
What formats of NL Texas Holdem are available?
I am unable to find this information without signing up. I have to add that I like sites that let me try the games before requiring me to register.
|
|
|
|
|
You're joking, right? Sarcasm?
RP: "Why do central banks hold it, if its not money?"
Bernanke: "Well its for reserves"
RP: "Why don't they hold diamonds?"
Bernanke: Long silence..... "Well its tradition, long term tradition."
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
