Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Dave

Evolution On Trial

Recommended Posts

I shall now throw Dave into the dungeons for 40 days, because he doesn't acknowledge my supreme omnipotent wizardry in this trial;

 

Clap! Snap! the black crack!

Grip, grab! Pinch, nab!

And down down to Goblin-town

You go, my lad!

 

Swish, smack! Whip crack!

Batter and beat! Yammer and bleat!

Work, work! nor dare to sherk,

While Goblins quaff, and Goblins laugh,

Round and round, far underground,

Below my lad! - Page 82 - The Hobbit.

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The charge is against promoting a belief, at public expense, in a Fairytale that has ZERO empirical scientific evidence to support it and (as shown) faces plenty of empirical scientifc evidence against it.... The prosecution recognizes that it is not a crime to believe in fairytales or hold any other epistemological beliefs without evidence to support them, HOWEVER, The prosecution moves that such beliefs should NOT be taught in ANY public school science curriculum at taxpayer expense and INSTEAD should be taught in either religious studies and philosophy OR simpy taught at privately funded schools..

If the case for evolution were found insufficiently empirical what should we teach regular kids unable to go to private schools about the origin of species? The case for supernaturally created distinct living kinds would be equally insufficient - do you contend that the origin of species only be approached through religious studies or philosophy?

 

Some questions that might arise from publically educated students:

 

Is it coincidental that living things and other matter are composed from the same palate of chemical elements and compounds?

Is it coincidental that all living things share the same form of genetic material?

Is it coincidental that all mammals, reptiles and amphibians share a common skeletal structure?

Is it coincidental that selective pressures in the wild can affect gene pools in a way comparable to breeding of pets/agricultural products etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Cheeseburger: Is it coincidental that living things and other matter are composed from the same palate of chemical elements and compounds?

 

It follows that if the universe has certain elements those things within it will have those elements. It's like asking is it coincidence that artist's paintings all use paint. The Creator of the chemical elements is going to use the ones that work best the same as an artist will use the paint best for a particular picture.

 

 

 

Cheeseburger: Is it coincidental that all living things share the same form of genetic material?

 

This is logically, a compositional error. By focusing on what all living things share, you basically get to ignore the WILDLY different make up of their anatomy. I trust you wouldn't believe wood is basically the same as skin? Does this not answer your former question perfectly? If you can, from certain chemicals and genetic material, get both skin and wood, then isn't this medium, perfect being so dynamic/diverse? For example cartilage is perfect for stretching and growing because it solidifies into bone. Why have any other material in another similar creature? It would be like me saying this to you, "great phone, but some phones should be made from jello or wood."

 

Why?

 

Why from a designer's perspective? If it is a BASIC matter, there is no need to change it. Why would a new fiction book be written in a variation of english when english is all that's needed?

 

So this fits with design, we see it all of the time, designers don't used different things where it has no advantage or no reason to be different.

 

Essentially you are saying, "is it a coincidence many books are written in the same language?" Well, no, because language can communicate everything, in any book. In the same way, genetic material can create any creature, be it a rodent, tree, bunny or seaweed. Meaning there is no reason, creatively speaking, to use anything different and there are advantages in symbiosis too.

 

 

 

Cheeseburger: Is it coincidental that all mammals, reptiles and amphibians share a common skeletal structure?

 

This is an interesting one because from my perspective I believe a CORRECT prediction for evolution, would be that had we evolved onto land, then there would only be land creatures with that structure. I believe whales, manatees, dolphins and ichthyosaurs, very much don't fit with that pattern, despite being "icons" of evolution, by propaganda, the truth is they don't fit and there's no proper evidence they evolved. You should also note that while homologies are argued to favour evolution, homoplasies are their true logical contradiction. If you are saying something is common among creatures, it seems you pick and choose how relevant that commonality is. For example notice you don't choose eyes to focus on, because you know that that particular commonality they have a story for, that they evolved separately some forty times, despite being, "common".

 

 

 

Cheeseburger: Is it coincidental that selective pressures in the wild can affect gene pools in a way comparable to breeding of pets/agricultural products etc? 

 

Creationists don't argue that lifeforms can't adapt, and we accept population genetics, there is just nothing in that science which leads to macro evolution.

 

As you can see, a lot of the arguments put forward for evolution, just aren't that hard to address. And this is the problem, evolution is based largely on conjecture. For it is more likely that where there is an extreme coincidence, in fact there is teleology. For example, if all five victims had an upside down cross placed on their heads, the chances are it was done on purpose.

 

Things being done on purpose, by design, can be shown to answer for coincidences in a better way than anything else. For example, imagine if you had to explain that there was some natural chance reason the crosses were on their heads instead, think how weak that would be compared to the argument that it was done on purpose!

 

So basically in a classroom, pupils should be taught how easily design and engineering addresses these issues. For example has it ever even entered your head how many mammals, and reptiles etc...there are with the same bone structure but by design they are poles apart? Like for example a bat's forelimb compared to a horse's? So then doesn't that prove it awfully coincidental that the particular plan of the bones in the anatomy, just so happen by design, to be able to be modified into things as diverse as horse's and pterosaurs? Isn't that, "TOO" perfect? I would say that from the viewpoint of design, it would be like designing a chassis that was able to be modified to be a chassis in all types of vehicles. Cars, bikes, planes, helicopters, boats. Now if someone designed something like that, they would be the most famous person on the planet in one day, five times more clever than Einstein.

 

So then, is it a coincidence that the homological pattern of bones, just happens to kill about 1000 birds with one stone?

 

How did evolution know the perfect pattern that would lead to such limitless diversity of the same basic design of skeleton? It has no prescience. Oh I forget, when it indicates the miraculous, we abandon coincidences as coincidence, but when it fits evolution we magnify them and argue they can't be coincidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The charge is against promoting a belief, at public expense, in a Fairytale that has ZERO empirical scientific evidence to support it and (as shown) faces plenty of empirical scientifc evidence against it.... The prosecution recognizes that it is not a crime to believe in fairytales or hold any other epistemological beliefs without evidence to support them, HOWEVER, The prosecution moves that such beliefs should NOT be taught in ANY public school science curriculum at taxpayer expense and INSTEAD should be taught in either religious studies and philosophy OR simpy taught at privately funded schools..

If the case for evolution were found insufficiently empirical what should we teach regular kids unable to go to private schools about the origin of species? The case for supernaturally created distinct living kinds would be equally insufficient - do you contend that the origin of species only be approached through religious studies or philosophy?

Some questions that might arise from publically educated students:

Is it coincidental that living things and other matter are composed from the same palate of chemical elements and compounds?

Is it coincidental that all living things share the same form of genetic material?

Is it coincidental that all mammals, reptiles and amphibians share a common skeletal structure?

Is it coincidental that selective pressures in the wild can affect gene pools in a way comparable to breeding of pets/agricultural products etc?

"If the case for evolution were found insufficiently empirical what should we teach regular kids unable to go to private schools about the origin of species?"

 

THE TRUTH.. Instead of teaching lies, just teach the truth to the kids about the myth..It will soon go the way of phlogiston, blood letting, geocentricism and all of the other myths that were once thought to be true. The CURRENT textbooks can be used in private schools or taught in Philosophy or Religious Studies..

 

"Some questions that might arise from publically educated students:"

 

"Is it coincidental that living things and other matter are composed from the same palate of chemical elements and compounds?"

 

No, it merely means that the same supernatural intelligent agent that created DNA that man cant even fathom how

to begin to imagine how it was created (Yes, that means a supernatural phenomena)

utilized the same building blocks for several reasons that I can explain if needed.

 

 

"Is it coincidental that all living things share the same form of genetic material?

 

See Above..

 

"Is it coincidental that all mammals, reptiles and amphibians share a common skeletal structure?"

 

See above..

 

"Is it coincidental that selective pressures in the wild can affect gene pools in a way comparable to breeding of pets/agricultural products etc?"

 

Now THAT should be taught..it is observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable SCIENCE!!! but, of course that is not "Evolution" either! Again..variation, speciation, DEvolution and adaptation, are NOT Evolution!

 

 

 

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."

 

(Dr. I.L. Cohen, "Darwin Was Wrong:" A Study in Probabilities

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wiz,

 

Paints are synthetic; if such art supplies were no better than those occurring naturally there would be no art supplies industry. Living things are composed of water, hydrocarbons, nitrates etc, stuff you might find in the ground or a nebula.

 

Point of the coincidences is they look like what you might expect to see if the origins of life were natural and lifeforms related. Your point re common genetic material and common trans-phyla structures seems to be that the commonality was fit for design purpose - that's reasonable were the designer a mere alien but design proponents really suspect an omnipotent deity who created ex nilho and has since performed miracles. Wouldn't divine intervention in life be a bit more obvious than alleged deficiency in naturalistic explanation?

 

I know that (roughly) this line of reasoning occurred to me as a school kid...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Cheeseburger: Paints are synthetic; if such art supplies were no better than those occurring naturally there would be no art supplies industry. Living things are composed of water, hydrocarbons, nitrates etc, stuff you might find in the ground or a nebula. 

 

No, that's misleading misinformation. Living things are composed of organic chemistry which doesn't exist in the ground or nebula. You won't find proteins with specified complexity in the ground. All you will find is racemic amino acids. I don't see why this is unexpected for creation, we expect specified complexity, just as with paints you have to take the elements and make the ones you want. Really this is where evolutionists fail to study, they seem to think the specified complexity in organic chemistry is found in the ground, and is mundane. No, you have to understand the elements/features of intelligent design, properly. The features of design aren't physical themselves. Specified complexity, contingency planning, goals, information, the manipulation of chemistry to get DNA double helux strand or a kinesin motor, it is the invisible thought realm, that is responsible for these things.

 

So then the problem is one of logic, take a live frog, then take a dead frog and stick it in a blender. You now have a bowl of mush that has everything the living frog has physically, but you have just destroyed all of the design. 

 

Where is evolution here? I see no relevance.

 

 

 

Cheeseburger: Point of the coincidences is they look like what you might expect to see if the origins of life were natural and lifeforms related. Your point re common genetic material and common trans-phyla structures seems to be that the commonality was fit for design purpose - that's reasonable were the designer a mere alien but design proponents really suspect an omnipotent deity who created ex nilho and has since performed miracles. Wouldn't divine intervention in life be a bit more obvious than alleged deficiency in naturalistic explanation? 

 

But it's a red-herring. Remember your initial request was why we shouldn't teach evolution. Really when we talk of the things we find in life, the design in it, we really aren't inventing it. It's there. So then to complain about the possible inventor of that design seems to me to be an emotional response which has little to do with the issue. We cannot help it if life speaks of a miraculous designer. If that is the truth, then that is the truth.

 

As for an alien inventing life, that really only pushes the problem to another place in the universe, because the alien would also presumably be designed. But the reality is when we look at life, the knowledge and intelligence required is beyond that even of fictional aliens. The chief problem with fictional aliens, especially the popular cultural fictional bipedal greys or little green men, is that most people don't realise that those aliens are endowed with supernatural abilities anyway. Think about it, we have reports of feats by UFOs which wouldn't make sense to physics, they can defy physics, and the cause they tell us of this, is supreme technology, but people really need to stop and ask themselves this; why would advanced technology allow a race of beings to perform things beyond the physically possible? It's absurd, and we know for example, you can't go beyond light speed according to Einstein. We know that certain aerodynamic moves aren't possible without killing the lifeform within the craft. 

 

So then it seems to me, it makes far more sense that what the bible says is true, rather than constantly looking for naturalist explanations which if you deep down admit it, just aren't sufficient, even when you do juice up the stories by giving ET supernatural powers that aren't possible, and make "technology" to your minds, something that can advance to a stage that would break the laws of nature. I really don't think there is any truth to a technology that can lead to such things. I have no reason to believe God created aliens with those capabilities, and there is nothing in the science facts which would truly give us any abiogenesis and evolution of life, evolution is actually conspicuously absent in the record, by and large. The minority-reporters merely commit slothful induction, unwittingly of course.

 

I think pupils should be told there aren't any intermediates for bats, dugongs, platypus, pterosaurs, pterodactyls, ichthyosaurs, apes, trees or anything else you can think of, but rather an infinitesimal handful of untenable "candidates" which can be debunked while drinking a cup of coffee. They should be told that they have to accept by faith that the homological bones stemmed from an ancestor but eyes didn't, they should be told that this type of reasoning makes evolution theory plastic, because eyes don't fit, they should have also came from a common ancestor so instead they say they evolved independently, the same feature. Don't you think it is important to show that evolution in all of this, only exists in the imagination because the record doesn't show any of this, and in fact it is all conjecture? I think that makes it very weak science in that regard, because the true conclusion is that evolution is not there because it didn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Organic compounds are found in meteorites and complex organic chemistry has been detected in interstellar space. Above a level life obviously has an elaborate chemistry compared with inert matter - life, after all, is life - but the core compounds and elemental chemistry are nothing exotic. Specified complexity is essentially a middle man for an incredulity:god-of-the-gaps approach.

 

It is completely relevant (and thus anything but a red herring ) to consider the designer when naturalistic origins are challenged by design arguments a la irreducible complexity. even were life on earth be proved to be designed it would not necessarily follow that any alien designer themselves could not have arisen naturally.

 

Had such a versatile and useful facility as sight only arisen the once I suspect creationists would be demanding why - what invisible supernatural force could be at work..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Cheeseburger: Organic compounds are found in meteorites and complex organic chemistry has been detected in interstellar space. Above a level life obviously has an elaborate chemistry compared with inert matter - life, after all, is life - but the core compounds and elemental chemistry are nothing exotic. Specified complexity is essentially a middle man for an incredulity:god-of-the-gaps approach.

 

No offence but this is dreadful reasoning. Specified complexity is something factual in our world. It means something. I can't be bothered at this stage, explaining to you what it is as I don't believe you have any genuine interest in understanding it.

 

As for the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, that particular fallacy isn't an, "approach", it is a specific error which is only made if you jump to the conclusion of supernatural cause based on an absence of data. As I have said many times, the clear intelligent design in life which is off-the-scale and demonstranly over-qualified in every feature, allows us to conclude that there is an intelligent designer of life predicated on the data, not an absence of data.

 

So the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, is sometimes used by atheists as a pseudo-form of the fallacy, where they basically pretend that any conclusion which may infer God or may suggest Him, is the god-of-the-gaps. Well, so often we are told that as creationists we don't understand things properly, are you aware that there isn't anything written in logical notation which states that a theistic conclusion is banned from all sound syllogisms?

 

Because that is what you guys are proclaiming - that any argument that includes God is a god-of-the-gaps. You reason this because you don't actually understand what the god of the gaps argument really is

 

 

 

Cheeseburger: Had such a versatile and useful facility as sight only arisen the once I suspect creationists would be demanding why - what invisible supernatural force could be at work..? 

 

But in this discussion, you requested why we don't accept evolution in schools by insisting some reasons made it clear evolution is there, or made evolution factual, so we only have to show that those arguments don't mean evolution. It is you that then brought in discussion of the supernatural. I have not even insisted that God should be mentioned in schools. What I am doing is showing you that the facts clearly show evidence much more consistent with intelligent design, yes technically you can if you want to, believe aliens are the designers, but whoever the designer was, technically, this would mean evolution's absence, which is reason enough to not teach evolution according to the parameters of your request.

 

So to my mind, like I shown with the homological bones, the pattern is, "too perfect", we can show that such a feature shows the designer of life KNEW the perfect skeletal arrangement that could be modified endlessly, and give you a bat, yet a horse, yet a man with arms instead of legs!!!! All from the same bones!!! 

 

So don't you agree that students should at least be told that as freewill human beings they should be allowed to make a decision for themselves. Traditionally people have believed and do believe God created the world because of it's majesty, beauty, diversity and order and this is something real in our world, that the world isn't a system of chaos but shows elaborate things. So then, is it right to not let the student make up their own mind? Are you saying that because to you personally you find God being the Creator of life, personally absurd that it shouldn't be possible for another person to make the decision from the facts, that God in fact made life? Aren't you then basically forcing evolution down peoples throats when many people if they were told all the facts, would likely dismiss evolution for what it is, a ridiculous belief to prop up a materialist worldview. I think that's what it is about, you guys know that people are simple, they will believe whatever is ingrained into them, so if they are only told that all people accept evolution and are only taught it and you keep creation in the dark, that will give you your majority. That's the only way to win because you sure as heck can't win in a straight fight. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nature can do everything. Therefore, nature is evo's god of the gaps! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a side note: This arguing back and forth about what is or is not evolution is irrelevant to the trial itself.

 

Let the trial begin.

as an outside obsever i must disagree with the above sentiment.

how in the world can you assess guilt or innocence if you don't know what you are talking about?

 

personally i think you would be better off if you argued for or against abiogenesis rather than "evolution"

there is very little doubt that change happens.

 

whether abiogenesis or molecules to man happens is the meat of the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As a side note: This arguing back and forth about what is or is not evolution is irrelevant to the trial itself.

 

Let the trial begin.

as an outside obsever i must disagree with the above sentiment.

how in the world can you assess guilt or innocence if you don't know what you are talking about?

 

personally i think you would be better off if you argued for or against abiogenesis rather than "evolution"

there is very little doubt that change happens.

 

whether abiogenesis or molecules to man happens is the meat of the matter.

 

 

"whether abiogenesis or molecules to man happens is the meat of the matter. "

 

Actually, they BOTH had to have happened for the hypothetical hypothesis of Metaphysical Naturalism to ever have occurred at all....

Lots and Lots of zeros AGAINST Either one of them...  When you square lots and lots of zeros.. you end up with a number so large

that it insults peoples intelligence to take the idea seriously!!  But that doesn't stop the Accidentalists...

 

     

"The probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is, 1 in 10-161 power, using all the atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began...for a minimum set of required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is, 1 in 10-119,879 power. It would take, 10-119,879 power, years on average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10-119,831 times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119,831 zeros." (Dr. James Coppege from, "The Farce of Evolution" page 71)

     

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought's after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."

(Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British astronomer and mathematician)

 

"I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity."

(George Gallup, the famous statistician)

 

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein." (Sir Fred Hoyle, Highly respected British astronomer and mathematician)

 

"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 to 10-340,000,000. This number is 1 to 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there is only supposed to be approximately 10-80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!" (Professor Harold Morowitz)

 

"The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place." (Dr. Emile Borel, who discovered the laws of probability)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As a side note: This arguing back and forth about what is or is not evolution is irrelevant to the trial itself.

 

Let the trial begin.

as an outside obsever i must disagree with the above sentiment.

how in the world can you assess guilt or innocence if you don't know what you are talking about?

 

personally i think you would be better off if you argued for or against abiogenesis rather than "evolution"

there is very little doubt that change happens.

 

whether abiogenesis or molecules to man happens is the meat of the matter.

 

 

As a side note: This arguing back and forth about what is or is not evolution is irrelevant to the trial itself.

 

Let the trial begin.

as an outside observer i must disagree with the above sentiment.

how in the world can you assess guilt or innocence if you don't know what you are talking about?

 

I AGREE WITH YOU 100%  THAT IS WHY I DROPPED IT.. LIKE BOXING AGAINST SMOKE....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What If and Blitzking, obviously not all shower thoughts survive the toweling off and leaving the bathroom. :)

 

I can understand the concerns that both of you have about the idea of putting evolution on trial. I just haven't been able to explain myself to prove that it was never meant to be a debate on the validity of evolution, but merely a fun way to "accuse" evolution of having committed a crime and put it on trial.

 

Apparently, the idea in my head hasn't translated into the forum the way I thought it would. And, like I stated earlier, it's OK if nobody wants to play along. I have no problem dropping it. I'll go ahead and delete the pinned official evolution on trial thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein." (Sir Fred Hoyle, Highly respected British astronomer and mathematician)

i've been called on the carpet twice already, but i just cannot remain silent about this matter.

first of all i object to the above quote on the grounds that it does not apply to the subject.

 

second, given what i know about the genome, it isn't hard for me to realize that ALL of the species of a particular phyla can be had from the same genome without any darwinian evolution at all.

IOW, the cell hasn't undergone ANY darwinian evolution.

the process of acquiring "new genetic information" is internal, not external.

this basically means that the cell itself is manufacturing these genetic sequences.

the DNA strand doesn't increase in length, the genome is rearranging what is already there.

 

BTW, i consider myself a neutral observer in this matter, i am here to provide evidence, either for or against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein." (Sir Fred Hoyle, Highly respected British astronomer and mathematician)

i've been called on the carpet twice already, but i just cannot remain silent about this matter.first of all i object to the above quote on the grounds that it does not apply to the subject.second, given what i know about the genome, it isn't hard for me to realize that ALL of the species of a particular phyla can be had from the same genome without any darwinian evolution at all.IOW, the cell hasn't undergone ANY darwinian evolution.the process of acquiring "new genetic information" is internal, not external.this basically means that the cell itself is manufacturing these genetic sequences.the DNA strand doesn't increase in length, the genome is rearranging what is already there.BTW, i consider myself a neutral observer in this matter, i am here to provide evidence, either for or against.

OK.. I REMOVED IT FROM THE LIST FOR YOU...

HERE IS THE MODIFIED LIST.. JUST FOR YOU.

 

 

"The probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is, 1 in 10-161 power, using all the atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began...for a minimum set of required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is, 1 in 10-119,879 power. It would take, 10-119,879 power, years on average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10-119,831 times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119,831 zeros." (Dr. James Coppege from, "The Farce of Evolution" page 71)

 

 

 

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought's after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."

 

(Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British astronomer and mathematician)

 

 

 

"I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity."

 

(George Gallup, the famous statistician)

 

 

"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 to 10-340,000,000. This number is 1 to 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there is only supposed to be approximately 10-80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!" (Professor Harold Morowitz)

 

 

 

"The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place." (Dr. Emile Borel, who discovered the laws of probability)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms