quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

But even if just using Earth as a dump for the bones, were they not one alive???

---

I would assume so. It would be a premise, not derived from science, but from the assumption that all bones come from once living creatures.

---

How would it not be derived from science to hold that the bones came from living a animals? Especially given the overwhelming supporting evidence?

---

I asked for the evidence on page one and received an "oy vey" response.

---

Because it's an ignorant question that a second grader could begin to answer. And you were given evidence like coprolites, footprints, eggs, articulated skeletons, evidence of scarring, wounds, and even infections on the bones, the preservation of collagen, pieces of proteins, feather and skin imprints, Dinosaur mummies with preserved imprints of tissue and organs. Fossilized animals with smaller animals in their stomachs, fossilized animals sitting on nests with eggs containing juvenile versions of the same animals. And so on and so on. Only a desperate fool would try to claim they aren't from previously living animals.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

Science, *****es.

Perhaps most crucially, the first workers and scientists determining the age of the Earth, the evidence of things like movement of continents, the long span of time---- were not militant atheists. It is not like all the evidence only dated from this century of organized and frequent bulk lying. The scientific results Dr. Watson listed were in the vast majority of cases arrived at and discussed faithfully.

In geology, you especially can see this. Evolution was controversial from the start because of just these kind of paradox questions, but at least originally was pursued with a more deferential and careful manner. These days, it gets too blended in with abiogenesis, and sociological assumptions, but evolution is actually not the best arguments or case for the age of the Earth. Those lie in sciences far less related, and more undisturbed by such turmoil as to where man came from. Geology gives little reason to doubt the carboniferous age and dinosaurs, even if you were to assume that man was materialized here and built Atlantis around 12,000 years ago.

The acceptance of the relative age of the Eart (and the Solar System-- don't forget indications we have from off planet) is not like the more suspect and rather massaged findings and behind scenes collusion about the climate change redistribution agenda.

quote:

---

So, using MQB's logic...

---

I'll ask again, how do we explain anything that happened which we were not physically present to witness with our own eyes?

Borel's Law

"Phenomena with very low probabilities do not occur."

quote:

---

Borel's Law

"Phenomena with very low probabilities do not occur."

---

You are still dodging. Let's say this law was a real thing, which it isn't.

You claim events with a probability of 1 in N can not occur.

I hand you a die with N+1 sides and you throw it.

Please explain to me what happens.

We can even take the die out of it if you'd like.

Pick an integer between 1 and 10^51. Any number.

I'll take a turn for you: 5.216784324e48.

The probability of me picking that number was worse than 1 in 10^50. According to your fake law, it was therefore impossible to pick a number.

E pur si muove.

quote:

---

Borel's Law

"Phenomena with very low probabilities do not occur."

---

That's not meant as a philosophically rigorous statement. Any phenomenon with a nonzero probability can occur by definition.

"One of the most shattering pieces of evidence comes from the Paluxy River basin in central Texas, near the town of Glen Rose, where fossilized tracks of man and dinosaur appear together."

http://www.icr.org/article/paluxy-river-tracks/

quote:

---

"One of the most shattering pieces of evidence comes from the Paluxy River basin in central Texas, near the town of Glen Rose, where fossilized tracks of man and dinosaur appear together."

http://www.icr.org/article/paluxy-river-tracks/

---

Didn't read the whole thing - wasn't it an aggie that disproved this dinosaur and man tracks together thing?

I grew up not far from the Paluxy River. There are quite a few real dinosaur tracks and fossils ect. out there. But the human tracks beside the dino tracks is an admitted hoax. It's been so long debunked I forgot all about it.

quote:

---

"One of the most shattering pieces of evidence comes from the Paluxy River basin in central Texas, near the town of Glen Rose, where fossilized tracks of man and dinosaur appear together."

http://www.icr.org/article/paluxy-river-tracks/

---

Do you have any intellectual curiosity whatsoever? When reading that, there isn't some small part of you that thought "Damn, I sure got taken in on probability, maybe this source also doesn't know what they're talking about?"

I ask because it only takes googling ONE word, Paluxy, to realize what garbage the ICR claim is.

There aren't even many Creationists that try and claim those tracks are legit. It's the crazy wing of the crazy wing that believes this garbage.

I remember visiting this astounding site years ago. It is quite compelling but not because it has any basis in fact but it puts tangible "evidence" in front of impressionable young minds who have been assured by those they trust most that evolution is a lie and has already been disproven and that old earth is crazy nonsense intelligent people don't believe. It's really quite astounding when the bubble bursts and you realize it was those you trusted most who were errant, often deluded themselves at a young age.

quote:

---

There aren't even many Creationists that try and claim those tracks are legit. It's the crazy wing of the crazy wing that believes this garbage.

---

All I'd really like to know from him is what happens when you have a die with enough sides that he thinks any outcome is mathematically impossible.

If they just hover, the technical applications are limitless!

quote:

---

The Law of probability states an event with a probability 10^-50 will never occur.

---

Forgive me, I'm having a lot of fun illustrating the absurdity of this belief.

The probability of being dealt 5 specific cards (ie 2 of clubs, 4 of diamonds, 7 of spades, 10 of clubs, J of spades) out of a 52 card deck are 1 in 2,598,960.

If a hand is dealt then a second hand dealt the probability of the 2 specific hands being dealt is 1 in 6.7e12.

The probability of 8 specific hands in a row? Yeah that's 1 in 2.1e51.

That means according to your completely made up law, if you deal 5 cards out of a 52 card deck 7 times, you have to stop because the 8th deal won't be possible.

For funsies, if you deal 30 hands that gets up to 2.8e192. That's worse odds than 1 in a googol, far about this 10^50 limit that creationsists have pulled out of their ass.

Here is Borel's Law of Probability. Note that it is a law.

https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Borel_strong_law_of_large_numbers

Here is the lie perpetrated by rationalwiki, an atheist attack group.

"So, of course, this rule is often cited by creationists as evidence against evolution and abiogenesis when they are misunderstanding that improbable things happen (they don't scientifically). They appear to be the only people to give it the status of a "law." This is a staggering misrepresentation of what Borel said and one can only feel sympathy for him for having such a misguided 'law' named after him."

Borel the mathematician arrived at the probability bound of 10^-50 for events that never occur. His work is verified mathematically and scientifically. Sorry if observable and repeatable science frightens your belief system of evolution.

Got em!

You've not addressed a single counterargument. I don't think you understand the argument you're repeating.

quote:

---

Here is Borel's Law of Probability. Note that it is a law.

https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Borel_strong_law_of_large_numbers

Here is the lie perpetrated by rationalwiki, an atheist attack group.

"So, of course, this rule is often cited by creationists as evidence against evolution and abiogenesis when they are misunderstanding that improbable things happen (they don't scientifically). They appear to be the only people to give it the status of a "law." This is a staggering misrepresentation of what Borel said and one can only feel sympathy for him for having such a misguided 'law' named after him."

Borel the mathematician arrived at the probability bound of 10^-50 for events that never occur. His work is verified mathematically and scientifically. Sorry if observable and repeatable science frightens your belief system of evolution.

---

Borel's own words:

quote:

---

Moreover, certain of these properties of living matter also belong to inanimate matter, when it takes certain forms, such as that of crystals. It does not seem possible to apply the laws of probability calculus to the phenomenon of the formation of a crystal in a more or less supersaturated solution. At least, it would not be possible to treat this as a problem of probability without taking account of certain properties of matter, properties that facilitate the formation of crystals and that we are certainly obliged to verify. We ought, it seems to me, to consider it likely that the formation of elementary living organisms, and the evolution of those organisms, are also governed by elementary properties of matter that we do not understand perfectly but whose existence we ought nevertheless admit.

Similar observations could be made regarding possible attempts to apply the probability calculus to cosmogonical problems. In this field, too, it does not seem that the conclusions we have could really be of great assistance.

---

In short, you can't ignore the laws of chemistry and physics when estimating probabilities.

Yea, it's funny he just blindly believes an assertion if a "mathematical proof" that can be disproved with a couple of dice.

Some worldviews really discourage thinking.

Here's a function to pick a random integer between 0 and 10^1000. That's ever so slightly above this fictitious 10^50 limit.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=randominteger%5B%7B0,10e1000%7D%5D

The universe did not explode.

quote:

---

https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Borel_strong_law_of_large_numbers

---

So Borel showed that the more number of times you flip a coin the closer your heads to tails ratio will be one. How do you think this supports anything about what you're saying?

I'm 90% certain MBQ has at least, moderate autism. There's a lot of signs in how and what he posts.

quote:

---

How is that even different from the central limit theorem?

---

The central limit theorem tells you the shape of the distribution, the law of large numbers tells you where the center of the distribution is.