An Idea

[Profpat]

Well are we ready to explore life. Both Hoyle and Dawkins agreed it is almost impossible for it to have occurred. Dawkin's estimate is 1/100,000,000,000 Hoyle estimate was 1/10 to the 40,000 th power.

Hmmmm???

[austintorn@aol.com]

Dawkin's estimate is 1/100,000,000,000 Hoyle estimate was 1/10 to the 40,000 th power.

Given all of eternity, the estimates above are a sure thing.

OK, that's solved. What else?

[austintorn@aol.com]

So, it is that a universe is here now. With so much time of the ultimate basis having been around (whatever that basis is), a universe is here now. This means there was an in-between time, one which we might as well call forever back. So, an eternity has passed and a universe is still here at this time.

This means that it either had a birth as a one-time shot, in which case we must allow that other universes before and after could happen, for ours did, or it could be that this Cosmos is cyclic.

Those aside, what it really means is that there will always be a universe somewhere, either way, for an eternity has already passed and there is still a universe here.

As for particulars about a cyclical Cosmos, it must be that there is a kind of natural selection. If a universe can repeat it may ever do so. Maybe its universe with black holes that then make other universes; maybe it's branes colliding; maybe it's some kind of collapse and regeneration.

Whatever, no matter but for details. Forever is forever. There was no beginning and there will be no end. Now, ours could end, but whatever produced it could do so again.

[Profpat]

Dawkin's estimate is 1/100,000,000,000 Hoyle estimate was 1/10 to the 40,000 th power.

Given all of eternity, the estimates above are a sure thing.

OK, that's solved. What else?

We have only been around 13.7 billion years, and the Earth around 4 billion years. Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer said it would be like a tornado hitting a junk yard and out comes a Boeing 747. That was 1/10 to the 40,000th power that is 10 with 40,000 zeros at the end and this is probably the better estimate. Dawkins is famous for many misstatements to try to prove his point.

Personally Austin there is a far better odds for a creative God then 1/10 to the 40,000 power. There is nothing in our entire universe that approaches that number. Even the total number of protons is estimated to be only to the 80th power.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

No scientist has ever created the left-handed amino acid that is critical to the formation of life. All amino acids always form with left and right sided atoms. If scientist in perfect conditions can't duplicate one single left-sided amino acid, how could the 500 necessary for life form by chance? The scientific odds of even one left-sided amino acid forming by chance is 10 to the 123rd power. In other words 1 chance in 10 followed by 123 zeros. i.e. 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000

[Profpat]

Lets look at Darwin's theory. Darwin based his entire theory on one basic principle. The human cell is as simple as a glob of carbon jelly. He lived and died before the electron microscope was invented. All he could see was a nucleus, cell wall and gel. We now know that a single cell is more complex than a chemical factory. There are literally thousands of parts working together to make a cell function. It is now known that if even one of the parts of a cell was missing, the entire cell will functionally fail and thus collapse and die. This leaves evolution by chance a mathematical impossibility.

Even Carl Sagan has been cited, from a book he edited, Communication with Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (MIT Press, 1973), a record of the proceedings of a conference on SETI. Sagan himself presented a paper at that conference, in which he reports (pp. 45-6) the odds against a specific human genome being assembled by chance as 1 in 10^2,000,000,000 (in other words, the genome of a specific person, and not just any human). As a build-up to this irrelevant statistic he states that a simple protein "might consist" of 100 amino acids (for each of which there are 20 "biological varieties") for a chance of random assembly, for one specific protein of this sort, of 1 in 10^130.

[Profpat]

Making and explaining the universe easy. Making and explaining life impossible, unless it's a miracle. While the universe or stuff that make up the universe may be eternal, life is not.

I believe Dawkins, Sagan and Hoyle are all atheist, and that is why I used their odds.

P.S. Remember nature follows the simple and not the complex. If you take away life the most complex thing nature forms is the proton. Once you have that the rest are building blocks to the atom, molecule, planets, stars, galaxies, the universe. How did nature decide to become so complex and construct a near impossible thing to construct?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer said it would be like a tornado hitting a junk yard and out comes a Boeing 747

That's old and incorrect ID argument. Everything didn't happen all at once. There was a stable platform between each happening. Remember my interviews with the Gods in which this was explained, using that very same 747 argument?

[austintorn@aol.com]

1/10 to the 40,000 th power.

This is practically no time at all to wait during eternity, a lot of which waiting period has already gone by, meaning 'forever' has already happened.

[austintorn@aol.com]

(Next time we meet
the God of Irreducible Complexity)