Oh jaguar...
You didn't even undestand a single word of anything we just posted did you?
Edit after reading bohm's comment: Sorry about that Jaguar. My bad...
Looks like I do need some sleep...
recently i read the following from themadjw's retarded website:.
"no one would claim that the simplest device- such as, say, a pen, could ever come about, given all eternity, by accident!".
wow!
Oh jaguar...
You didn't even undestand a single word of anything we just posted did you?
Edit after reading bohm's comment: Sorry about that Jaguar. My bad...
Looks like I do need some sleep...
recently i read the following from themadjw's retarded website:.
"no one would claim that the simplest device- such as, say, a pen, could ever come about, given all eternity, by accident!".
wow!
"For these reasons no counter argument to what TMJW wrote above is needed; it is not even wrong."
You can't actually say it isn't wrong without knowing the exact mechanics of probability within a universe with infinite time. He made a claim of absolute certainty and I explained how it was incorrect. As you know, time itself is simply a concept of a chain of events. An infinite chain of events would imply that every single possible effect would be eventually caused.
This creationist probably has no real knowledge about abiogenisis, evolution, atomic theory, quantum mechanics or any other scientific field. But I wasn't targeting him for that. I was calling him out for his (and other creationists) use of the word "eternity".
I wasn't making an argument for abiogenisis or evolution.
And once again, I didn't use a strawman.
recently i read the following from themadjw's retarded website:.
"no one would claim that the simplest device- such as, say, a pen, could ever come about, given all eternity, by accident!".
wow!
First off, I'm not using a strawman because I'm not misrepresenting anyone's arguments. If person A says that within Y X cannot happen and then I explain how X could happen within Y I am not generating any ad hominems.
Scotsman, I think you're missing my point. I'm not claiming that there is any natural process that could create a working car. I'm saying that the probability of all the atoms of a car coming together in this or any universe that is bound by the same laws as the one we are currently in is so incredibly small that on a finite scale it would be nearly impossible. When you switch to an infinite scale than the chances of that same car's atoms coming together in just the right order are greatly increased.
For example, the chances of a lump of iron superficially resembling a formless lump seems to be quite high in our universe. But what of a lump of iron that superficially resembles a human face? What are the odds of that coming about? Most likely it is a very small chance yet there is bound to be a lump of iron in the universe that looks like a human face. Why is that? What about a lump that looks like George Washington? The odds of that most likely are much smaller -- yet with enough time it is still possible.
That is just an example of what might happen in our most-likely finite universe. What about an infinite universe? Well, that's when things with an extremely small probability ratio can happen.
recently i read the following from themadjw's retarded website:.
"no one would claim that the simplest device- such as, say, a pen, could ever come about, given all eternity, by accident!".
wow!
"If I placed the principle materials of a car in a hole in the ground would "infinite time on its own" produce a fully working car? This surely is not improbable but actually impossible!"
How do you determine it to be impossible? You can't simple wait till infinity passes and then check to see if the car has assembled itself.
You're right though, there are many things that, as far as we know, cannot happen in this universe. My point was that with an infinite amount of time everything that was and is possible in the universe that has said infinite time would happen.
recently i read the following from themadjw's retarded website:.
"no one would claim that the simplest device- such as, say, a pen, could ever come about, given all eternity, by accident!".
wow!
"Second off, its difficult to see what TMJW is arguing against, abiogenesiss or evolution."
I seriously doubt that your average creationist can tell the difference.
recently i read the following from themadjw's retarded website:.
"no one would claim that the simplest device- such as, say, a pen, could ever come about, given all eternity, by accident!".
wow!
"it is *not* a given thing it would happend in a finite-time universe, such as ours."
I never said our universe had infinite time.
Edit: Also I'm not sure your concept of taking a sample of an infinite time period is possible. Our concept of pretty much anything breaks down when infinity is considered. In fact, "infinity" may not even be possible in our universe or any other.
However, many of these people like to use words like "eternity", "eternal", and "forever". I was trying to combat these terms.
recently i read the following from themadjw's retarded website:.
"no one would claim that the simplest device- such as, say, a pen, could ever come about, given all eternity, by accident!".
wow!
Recently I read the following from themadjw's retarded website:
"No one would claim that the simplest device- such as, say, a pen, could EVER come about, given all Eternity, by ACCIDENT!"
Wow! Somehow it manages to be wrong in the first paragraph!
Actually, it could. An infinite amount of time would imply infinite probability. Infinite probability means that every single thing possible would occur eventually. And since you're speaking about eternity here the word "eventually" becomes meaningless.
Thus given eternity, a pencil would be sure to happen by "accident"(though real accidents don't happen in a universe that is under the influence of cause and effect).
This seems to be a recurrent argument with creationists and so I figured I'd try to bust this one open.
Thank you for your time.
externally, we get a certain 'impression' of what living in england is like.
every third baby boy is named mohammed.
people who engage in self defense are imprisoned while criminals are given a 'firm talking to' and have their hands slapped.
I stopped reading when I came to the part about UFOs.
one of my jwd friends on facebook just posted this link which i think is quite interesting, it's a blog which is aimed at outing apostates on facebook:.
http://witnesswatchdog.blogspot.com/?spref=fb.
the blog also have a little information on madjw, not that i think it's reliable but it's there..
*My face when I read that blog
"so is the nearness of armageddon from jehovah's perspective or from ours?".
"why is the majority of the memorial talk dedicated to bringing in more members?".
"who were the true worshipers of jehovah in the 17 hundred year gap prior to russel?".
"So is the nearness of armageddon from Jehovah's perspective or from ours?"
"Why is the majority of the memorial talk dedicated to bringing in more members?"
"Who were the true worshipers of Jehovah in the 17 hundred year gap prior to Russel?"
"If God is almighty why didn't he just snap his fingers and prevent the Israelites from having to participate in wars with other nations?"
*Show the JW any writings from Russel about pyramids* "What does this mean?"
"If Satan is the greatest terrorist in history why does Jehovah feel he has to respond to his claims? Isn't that a form of negotiation?"
"Why do Satan and Jehovah refrane from all measurable contact with Humans?"
The above are all questions that have confused all the Witnesses that I've asked them to. Of course, the Jdubs then go ahead and either change the subject or tell me to wait on Jehovah
So what are some questions you've seen make JW's a little uncomfortable?