Yan Bibiyan

Joined

• started 65 topics
• posted 1,295 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Yan Bibiyan

• 
  56

  Tame animals in the New System ™

  by brotherdan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so i was thinking about this whole idea of animals being tame and getting along with each other and how the wts depicts this in their artwork.

  i'm having a major issue with this.

  how far down the food chain would this go?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Yan Bibiyan

  "There will likely be"...

  or NOT likely! My argument is as strong as yours.

  Try again, please....
• 
  4

  Worlds Apart

  by man in black in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  my son who is in college just called and said that he watched a movie titled "worlds apart" and it was about jw's and disfellowshipping.. has anyone seen this, or know much about it ?.

  sorry, my knowledge of it is based on one sentence of text .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Yan Bibiyan

  Here you go:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_Apart_(2008_film)

  and

  http://www.allmovie.com/work/431768

  Not much info, but more than "one sentence" worth ...

  -Yan
• 
  56

  Tame animals in the New System ™

  by brotherdan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so i was thinking about this whole idea of animals being tame and getting along with each other and how the wts depicts this in their artwork.

  i'm having a major issue with this.

  how far down the food chain would this go?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Yan Bibiyan

  Here is an excellent post by TD related to the subject.
• 
  42

  no more lurking...hello eveyone

  by Evidently Apostate in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  about a year ago i went through a mild meltdown.

  it hit me fast i had panic attacks and became angry with all the control in my life.

  (being a jw) i had just found out i was being screwed on a real estate development project by another self righteous jw i have known for a long time but this was a big loss (about 4 months pay plus expenses).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Yan Bibiyan

  Evidently Apostate,

  Welcome to the board.

  Evidently, you are an Apostate.

  -Yan
• 
  14

  I didn't think it was possible, but I met someone on the internet. She's hot and full of substance. Never thought this would happen to me.

  by miseryloveselders in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  look at her in all her glory.. .

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Yan Bibiyan

  I can't see it. Can you please paste a bigger picture
• 
  33

  How squeamish are you?

  by Gregor in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  lets say you are enjoying a glass of good red wine while preparing dinner.

  you pick up your glass for a sip and see a gnat floating on top.

  1. pour the whole thing in the sink and pour a fresh one.. 2. pick out the gnat and drink the wine.. 3. ignore it and drink the wine and the gnat.. i am a 2. i have done a 3 and it didn't spoil my appetite.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Yan Bibiyan

  There is a fair amount if "gnat" interjection in the wine making process. Whether you realize it or not, you are all #3

  -Yan
• 
  9

  What Are the Odds of YOU Reading This Today?

  by Yan Bibiyan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  jws, as well as other creationists as far as i know, use the argument that the odds of life starting on its own, from a mere mix of chemicals are beyond the mathematically acceptable limits and therefore life must have been designed by a higher being.

  my study conductor, a window washer by trade (no, really, this is not a jab at the guys choice of making a living) told me that those odds were calculated to be beyond 1:1x10100and statistically anything over 1:1x1050is considered impossible.

  i can understand the odds.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Yan Bibiyan

  how does that discredit his logic? To me it furthers his point...

  zannahdoll,

  It shows that the odds for a future event can not be applied retroactively for a similar event that has already occurred in the past.

  There is 1:1.05x10 63 chance that a particular child will be born if two known couples got together today, produced one offspring each (obviously of a different sex) and their offspring produced one offspring. The chances of that grandchild being a particular child (i.e. the outcome of a random possible selection) are beyond the statistically acceptable possibility. Yet, if the family tree progressed as planned, there will be an offspring two generations down, whose chances of being there were statistically impossible at the beginning of the process.

  You can't dismiss the possibility that something occurred in the past, just because statistically it has no chance of occurring in the future.

  -Yan
• 
  9

  What Are the Odds of YOU Reading This Today?

  by Yan Bibiyan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  jws, as well as other creationists as far as i know, use the argument that the odds of life starting on its own, from a mere mix of chemicals are beyond the mathematically acceptable limits and therefore life must have been designed by a higher being.

  my study conductor, a window washer by trade (no, really, this is not a jab at the guys choice of making a living) told me that those odds were calculated to be beyond 1:1x10100and statistically anything over 1:1x1050is considered impossible.

  i can understand the odds.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Yan Bibiyan

  zannahdoll,

  I see the problem.

  "YOU reading this" was meant to be ANYONE reading it. YOU is just an expression of ANYONE being the unique human being they are. "YOU reading this" is a testament that YOU exist, and ANYONE exists to that effect. Clearly the odds, as appllied by creationists, show that YOU or ANYONE won't be here today to read it...

  Hope this clears matters.

  Welcome to the board, BTW!

  -Yan
• 
  9

  What Are the Odds of YOU Reading This Today?

  by Yan Bibiyan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  jws, as well as other creationists as far as i know, use the argument that the odds of life starting on its own, from a mere mix of chemicals are beyond the mathematically acceptable limits and therefore life must have been designed by a higher being.

  my study conductor, a window washer by trade (no, really, this is not a jab at the guys choice of making a living) told me that those odds were calculated to be beyond 1:1x10100and statistically anything over 1:1x1050is considered impossible.

  i can understand the odds.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Yan Bibiyan

  zannahdoll,

  As I stated, my intent was not to give the answers about Abiogenesis. I neither have the knowledge or frankly the wits to even touch that subject from a scientific perspective. Heck, even science itself is in its infancy in that field. My posts merely points out that an approach used by creationists - applying statistics backwards, nullifies anyone's existence today.

  As to putting the YOU to a particular person, even if I am biased and wrong by several orders of magnitude, say 1 million, this only shaves off 6 zeroes from the equation and will quickly be negated by the exponential growth of zeroes in going back just one generation.

  pirata, thank you.

  -Yan
• 
  9

  What Are the Odds of YOU Reading This Today?

  by Yan Bibiyan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  jws, as well as other creationists as far as i know, use the argument that the odds of life starting on its own, from a mere mix of chemicals are beyond the mathematically acceptable limits and therefore life must have been designed by a higher being.

  my study conductor, a window washer by trade (no, really, this is not a jab at the guys choice of making a living) told me that those odds were calculated to be beyond 1:1x10100and statistically anything over 1:1x1050is considered impossible.

  i can understand the odds.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Yan Bibiyan

  JWs, as well as other creationists as far as I know, use the argument that the odds of life starting on its own, from a mere mix of chemicals are beyond the mathematically acceptable limits and therefore life must have been designed by a higher being.

  My study conductor, a window washer by trade (no, really, this is not a jab at the guy’s choice of making a living) told me that those odds were calculated to be beyond 1:1x10100and statistically anything over 1:1x1050is considered impossible. I can understand the odds. For example, the 5 billion years our precious planet has been in existence translates to “only” 1.5768x1017 seconds…We have a long way to go to anything x1050

  So what are the chances that YOU, not your full blooded or half sibling or even your identical twin, are reading this today?

  Let’s make a simple calculation.

  We will assume that your parents already know each other and are planning to start a family with one child – YOU.

  On average, children are born within a 15 year time window (age difference between oldest and youngest). In some developing countries the window is wider, in others narrower, but 15 years is a good starting point.

  There are 180 months in 15 years and therefore ideally180 possible fertile eggs on the femile side of the equation. An egg is fertile for about 3 days during ovulation.

  During intercourse (at ejaculation), the male counterpart “deposits” no less than 20-50 million sperm. Let’s be really conservative and say only 3 million made it in any shape, way or form to be able to fertilize the egg. Time that by 3 for the 3 most likely days of this to happen and by the 180 times this can happen overt the 15 years of family growth and you have:

  3,000,000 x 3 x 180 = 1.62 billion

  So the odds of YOU being YOU with the same parents are less that 1:1.5x109

  Congratulations!! YOU have overcome some pretty tough odds.

  But….

  In order for YOU to be YOU, your parents have to have been THEM. Their odds of being THEM are no better than 1:1.5x109 EACH!!!

  If we apply the same ideal scenario as above, YOUR odds of being YOU have now diminished to only

  3 x (1:1.5x109 ) = 1:4.5x1027 !!!

  Shall we take this one level deeper?

  There are 4 grandparents required for YOU to be here today, each with their own 1:1.5x109 odds of being THEM.

  Going back only 2 generations have put the odds of YOU being YOU to an astonishing

  7 x (1:1.5x109 ) = 1:1.05x1063

  1:1.05x10 63 , way beyond the statistically acceptable threshold of possibility….

  Yet, YOU are here today reading this!

  Shall we attempt to apply the math for the 24,000+ generations of the “6,000 year human existence on Earth”? I think not.

  What gives?

  The above is an illustration where the same logic used by creationists to dismiss the possibility of life somehow starting on its own, rules them out of existence today.

  Those odds CAN NOT be applied retroactively. This is where the notion of using odds to dismiss Abiogenesis fails miserably.

  Please note that this is not an attempt to disprove creationist’s views and beliefs, it only illustrates the misuse of one more tool in the process.

  -Yan