"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Zillah wrote: »

Originally Posted by Ghost Buster
You know what this reminds me of?





Finding somewhere decent to host these is painful.

It reminds me of an Evolutionist conference I once attended ... nobody could agree on anything ... and a fight almost broke out !!:eek:

J C wrote: »

Keppler asked me a straight question ... I gave a straight answer ... and then you went into a rant!!!!

I know that the truth can hurt ... but this is ridiculous ... pull yourself together!!!

there is only one truly ridiculous poster on this thread, isn't there professor plumb?

J C wrote: »

...the maths of CSI works for TWO reasons :-

1. Irreducible Complexity is true - if you remove ANY molecule in a critical Amino Acid sequence the biomolecule becomes non-functional and if you remove (or even put any molecule in the 'wrong' place) in a biochemical cascade it breaks down!!!

2. The non-functional permutations are effectively infinite for ANY biomolecule ... and it would therefore take an effective infinity of time to produce a specific protein to perform a specific function using non-intelligently directed processes ... and it is therefore impossible to produce ANY functional protein without an input of intelligence!!!!

... and THEREFORE Spontaneous Materialistic Evolution cannot happen for reasons of BOTH mathematics and logic!!!:)

J C wrote: »

...the maths of CSI works for TWO reasons :-

1. Irreducible Complexity is true - if you remove ANY molecule in a critical Amino Acid sequence the biomolecule becomes non-functional and if you remove (or even put any molecule in the 'wrong' place) in a biochemical cascade it breaks down!!!

2. The non-functional permutations are effectively infinite for ANY biomolecule ... and it would therefore take an effective infinity of time to produce a specific protein to perform a specific function using non-intelligently directed processes ... and it is therefore impossible to produce ANY functional protein without an input of intelligence!!!!

You certainly put Bernard Riemann to shame coming up with so
many theorems and not a single equation.

"If only I had the theorems! Then I should find the proofs easily enough."
-Bernard Riemann

:pac:

So, by reason and logic the creationist conjecture has been solved, I see..
I suppose you'll invoke the anti-racist mathematics movement next &
claim you don't need equations :rolleyes:

Now, if you're finished abusing probability theory you might want to come
back to reality & see that everything you've written is a joke, there has
been around 4 billion years of time to produce animals like us, but
back in time we know that simpler, less complex creatures were formed.
You've even admitted in this thread that evolution is capable of doing
this, need I pull out the quote again :rolleyes:, I really don't see your argument.

However, I am guessing that even though you see the logic to the
argument you're choosing to go back into the pit when you view the
concept as a whole, i.e. you see that natural selection is a result of
tinkering with "existing" genetic material, but when you think of what
this means you forget the logic as to why it's right and just cry foul.

I'm sorry J C but we've already corrected you, it's not random. There is
an element of chance but mainly there is no element of chance. You
surely know this by now...

J C wrote: »

As far as I can recall somebody mentioned ID ... and it took off from there!!!

Now you see when someone questions the truthfulness of your claim, an honest person would try to substantiateit with evidence.

And since it's been shown that you are a liar and incapable of honest debate, it's a safe bet this "conference" you're talking about is the product of your delusions.

And are you going to address my previous post at all?

J C wrote: »

I was referring to the Cosmic Event Horizon ... but I am just as happy to use the 93 billion light year diameter of the Universe figure that you have cited to prove my mathematical prowess.

There's no such thing as the "Cosmic Event Horizon". Another lie.

J C wrote: »

First let me show you how to establish the upper limit for number of electrons in the mass equivalent of the Universe :-
5.98E+21 Weight of Earth in tonnes (5,976,000,000,000,000,000,000 Te).

1.97E+27 Weight of The Sun in tonnes (330,000 times that of the Earth).

1.97E+39 Weight of The Milky Way Galaxy (including dark matter) in tonnes (1,000,000,000,000 that of The Sun).

1.00E+10 There are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Universe.

1.97E+49 Weight of The Universe in tonnes (assuming all galaxies have an average weight = to The Milky Way Galaxy).
1.97E+55 Weight of The Universe in grams.

9.10E-28 Weight of an Electron in grams (0.00000000000000000000000000091 grams).

2.17E+82 Number of electrons in The Universe if all matter consisted only of electrons.

So it is a number you're pulling out of your ass?
You realise that you're figure is way off as the universe does not consist of just electrons and the bulk of the mass is made up of much heavier particles.

J C wrote: »

Now let us set out metaphorical snail on its travels:-

9.30E+10 light yrs diameter of the Universe
9.46E+12 Km in one light year
8.80E+26 Metres in 93,000,000 Light Years
1.00E-01 'Snails Pace' of 0.1 Metres or 4 Ins per Hour
8.80E+27 Hours to travel 93,000,000 Light Years
6.33E+31 Seconds to travel 93 Bn Light Years over and back
2.17E+82 Electrons in the Universe
1.37E+114 Seconds to move each electron over and back across the Universe at 'Snails Pace' taking one electron at a time

So it takes approximately 10^114 seconds to move every electron in the universe over and back across its 93 billion light years diameter taking one electron at a time!!!

Well it seems in your mathematical prowess you seem to have confused billions and millions.
Well done.

93,000,000 = 93 million.
93 Billion = 93,000,000,000.
So since you can't actually get basic numbers I'm guessing you're copying all of this from some inane site.

Also can you explain how I got a different figure to you?
I know. But I doubt you can actually figure it out.

J C wrote: »

... and this is still only an infinitesimally small fraction of 10^132

1) on it's not. Infinitesimally smaller fraction would be 1 over infinity.
2) the whole 10^132 number is also entirely made up by a creationist who has no idea what electrons or amino acids are.
3) saying one number is bigger than another doesn't amount to proof of anything.

So since you failed completely to provide the proof you claimed to have, you are a liar.

So any chance you'll explain why you keep ignoring stuff?

J C wrote: »

The maths is correct. My apologies for the 93 billion being incorrectly typed.

I have updated my posting.

Oh that address my points alright :rolleyes:

So we can conclude that you're also incompetent on top of being dishonest.

J C wrote: »

It does take 1.37E+114 Seconds to move each electron over and back across the Universe at 'Snails Pace' taking one electron at a time

Assuming made up numbers for most of the variables. And giving a different answer to what you originally claimed.

And gonna address my other points or gonna take the dishonest route again?

J C you never should have ventured into the worlds of physics and
mathematics with this woo-woo :pac:

I just checked one of the numbers you gave and it seems you and wikipedia
are having technical problems:

The observable universe contains about 3 to 7 × 1022 stars (30 to 70
sextillion stars),[25] organized in more than 80 billion galaxies, which
themselves form clusters and superclusters.[26]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Matter_content

J C wrote: »

1.00E+10 There are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Universe.

But I'm sure the creationist website you've copy-pasted from is more
credible :cool:

Would the new figure for the no. of galaxies change anything about your
calculation?

Would it give more credibility to the claim you're lying out of your ass? :pac:

J C wrote: »

All my figures are from Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Bull****. If you don't back up these claims you're pretty much lying JC.
I'm pretty sure there's something in that magic book of yours about it.

J C wrote: »

Liar!!!

Liar !!!

So looks like we can add "lying" to the large pile of stuff and words you don't actually understand.

J C wrote: »

Now I am challenging your lying about me ... you have done a lot of shouting ... so now show me (and everybody else) exactly where my figures (and calculations) are wrong.

J C wrote: »

You are lying about me .... so tell me which figure or which calculation is wrong?

1.00E+10 There are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Universe.

How about that one for a start...

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

How about that one for a start...
(1.00E+10 There are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Universe.)

Here is the page from Encyclopædia Britannica

The Universe
Immediate issues that arise when anyone contemplates the universe at large are whether space and time are infinite or finite. And after many centuries of thought by some of the best:- minds, humanity has still not arrived at conclusive answers to these questions. Aristotle's answer was that the material universe must be spatially finite, for if stars extended to infinity, they could not perform a complete rotation around the Earth in 24 hours. Space must then itself also be finite because it is merely a receptacle for material bodies. On the other hand, the heavens must be temporally infinite, without beginning or end, since they are imperishable and cannot be created or destroyed.
Except for the infinity of time, these views came to be accepted religious teachings in Europe before the period of modern science. The most notable person to publicly express doubts about restricted space was the Italian philosopher-mathematician Giordano Bruno, who asked the obvious question that, if there is a boundary or edge to space, what is on the other side? For his advocacy of an infinity of suns and earths, he was burned at the stake in 1600.
In 1610 Kepler provided a profound reason for believing that the number of stars in the universe had to be finite. If there were an infinity of stars, he argued, then the sky would be completely filled with them and night would not be dark! This point was rediscussed by the astronomers Edmond Halley and Jean-Philippe-Loys de Chéseaux of Switzerland in the 18th century, but it was not popularized as a paradox until Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers of Germany took up the problem in the 19th century. The difficulty became potentially very real with Hubble's measurement of the enormous extent of the universe of galaxies with its large-scale homogeneity and isotropy. His discovery of the systematic recession of the galaxies provided an escape, however. At first people thought that the redshift effect alone would suffice to explain why the sky is dark at night--namely, that the light from the stars in distant galaxies would be redshifted to long wavelengths beyond the visible regime. The modern consensus is, however, that a finite age for the universe is a far more important effect. Even if the universe is spatially infinite, photons from very distant galaxies simply do not have the time to travel to the Earth because of the finite speed of light. There is a spherical surface, the cosmic event horizon (roughly 10^10 light-years in radial distance from the Earth at the current epoch), beyond which nothing can be seen even in principle; and the number (roughly 10^10) of galaxies within this cosmic horizon, the observable universe, are too few to make the night sky bright. (see also Index: Olbers' paradox)
When one looks to great distances, one is seeing things as they were a long time ago, again because light takes a finite time to travel to Earth. Over such great spans, do the classical notions of Euclid concerning the properties of space necessarily continue to hold? The answer given by Einstein was: No, the gravitation of the mass contained in cosmologically large regions may warp one's usual perceptions of space and time; in particular, the Euclidean postulate that parallel lines never cross need not be a correct description of the geometry of the actual universe. And in 1917 Einstein presented a mathematical model of the universe in which the total volume of space was finite yet had no boundary or edge. The model was based on his theory of general relativity that utilized a more generalized approach to geometry devised in the 19th century by the German mathematician Bernhard Riemann. (see also Index: Euclidean space)
Copyright 1994-1999 Encyclopædia Britannica

J C wrote: »

No more waffling lies ... which figure or which calculation is wrong?

I have already explained exactly which ones in the post you are ignoring JC.
Among other points you're ignoring of course.
You're the only one who's lying.

You're not taking into account the mass of intergalactic material.