(July 15, 2014 at 11:28 pm)alexwenzel Wrote: ODDS OF A SINGLE CELL:

1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680 zeros.

That is 30 times more particles believed to exist in the entire universe hock:

You know creationists get desperate when they start quoting odds.

Oh well, the chances of two atoms lining up perfectly to start forming as rock is astronimical. The chances of three or more even more so.

Yet it happens.

Next!

(July 15, 2014 at 11:28 pm)alexwenzel Wrote: ODDS OF A SINGLE CELL:

1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680 zeros.

That is 30 times more particles believed to exist in the entire universe hock:

Lot of mysterious lottery winnings

Method of calculation please?

(July 15, 2014 at 11:32 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(July 15, 2014 at 11:28 pm)alexwenzel Wrote: ODDS OF A SINGLE CELL:

1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680 zeros.

That is 30 times more particles believed to exist in the entire universe hock:

Lot of mysterious lottery winnings

Method of calculation please?

"Pull statistics from butt. Repeat as necessary."

(July 15, 2014 at 11:31 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(July 15, 2014 at 11:28 pm)alexwenzel Wrote: ODDS OF A SINGLE CELL:

1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680 zeros.

That is 30 times more particles believed to exist in the entire universe hock:

You know creationists get desperate when they start quoting odds.

Oh well, the chances of two atoms lining up perfectly to start forming as rock is astronimical. The chances of three or more even more so.

Yet it happens.

Next!

Of course it happens, and kept happening everyday for billions of years.

Let's not forget to mention that carbon dating lies.

---

(July 15, 2014 at 11:33 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(July 15, 2014 at 11:32 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Method of calculation please?

"Pull statistics from butt. Repeat as necessary."

Using computer models and statistical methods: Read it bellow in National Geographics

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...1p_us_se_w#

(July 15, 2014 at 11:45 pm)alexwenzel Wrote:

(July 15, 2014 at 11:31 pm)Beccs Wrote: You know creationists get desperate when they start quoting odds.

Oh well, the chances of two atoms lining up perfectly to start forming as rock is astronimical. The chances of three or more even more so.

Yet it happens.

Next!

Of course it happens, and kept happening everyday for billions of years.

Let's not forget to mention that carbon dating lies.

---

(July 15, 2014 at 11:33 pm)Beccs Wrote: "Pull statistics from butt. Repeat as necessary."

Using computer models and statistical methods:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...1p_us_se_w#

Actually, carbon dating is accurate up until around 50,000 years. After that it falls down.

I know creationists won't bother telling you that basic fact, though.

Fortunately we have many different types of dating, huh?

(July 15, 2014 at 11:49 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(July 15, 2014 at 11:45 pm)alexwenzel Wrote: Of course it happens, and kept happening everyday for billions of years.

Let's not forget to mention that carbon dating lies.

---

Using computer models and statistical methods:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...1p_us_se_w#

Actually, carbon dating is accurate up until around 50,000 years. After that it falls down.

I know creationists won't bother telling you that basic fact, though.

Fortunately we have many different types of dating, huh?

That's a lie. Carbon dating is only good for about 4,000 years. There are other better methods of dating but evolutionists won't use it or it will crumble down their entire theory.

---

(July 15, 2014 at 11:49 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(July 15, 2014 at 11:45 pm)alexwenzel Wrote: Of course it happens, and kept happening everyday for billions of years.

Let's not forget to mention that carbon dating lies.

---

Using computer models and statistical methods:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...1p_us_se_w#

Actually, carbon dating is accurate up until around 50,000 years. After that it falls down.

I know creationists won't bother telling you that basic fact, though.

Fortunately we have many different types of dating, huh?

Proof carbon dating lies:

Fresh dinosaur soft tissues has been found! hock:

Blood vessels will not last for more than 10,000 years and finding a 80 million year old dinosaur with soft tissue left scientists scratching their heads. "We may have to think of our basic models..." says one of them.

Im sure they will eventually come up with a good little story how the soft tissue survived millions of years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee-F3SyEOgY

Who could have imagined that dinosaurs were alive less than 10,000 years ago! Not evolutionists.

Fuck these are big letters. God must be real.

(July 15, 2014 at 11:28 pm)alexwenzel Wrote: ODDS OF A SINGLE CELL:

1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680 zeros.

That is 30 times more particles believed to exist in the entire universe hock:

Lot of mysterious lottery winnings

(July 15, 2014 at 11:45 pm)alexwenzel Wrote: Using computer models and statistical methods: Read it bellow in National Geographics

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...1p_us_se_w#

Those aren't the odds you were looking for. . .

Your article says Douglas Theobald calculated the odds of:

Quote:The "best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis" [which] has one species giving rise to bacteria and one giving rise to Archaea and eukaryotes, said Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts [at 1 in 10 to the 2,680th power].

Ker Than for National Geographic News Not the odds of a single cell

Read your source Luke, Read your Source. Jeeez!

Theobald was calculating the odds for evolution from more than one source of life. He wanted to test the single source of ancestry model. Where you got the "single cell" idea I can't imagine unless you didn't read or couldn't understand the article. The odds you quoted are for the two sources of life theory.

Theobald calculated the odds of a human origin separate from the rest of the animal world at: 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.

Pretty good case for single source huh?

---

(July 15, 2014 at 11:56 pm)alexwenzel Wrote: Proof carbon dating lies:

Fresh dinosaur soft tissues has been found! hock:

Blood vessels will not last for more than 10,000 years and finding a 80 million year old dinosaur with soft tissue left scientists scratching their heads. "We may have to think of our basic models..." says one of them.

Im sure they will eventually come up with a good little story how the soft tissue survived millions of years.

Indeed they did. Mystery solved. Last year in fact. You can read about it here: Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained The really fun part is that we may actually get some dino DNA out of it.

Matey, them statistics look impressive! (We won't talk about the fact that the odds reflect 1x simultaneous event and not the billions of evolutionary changes happening at the same time on early earth).

It's not the stats which bothers us, it's the fact that you believe them!

How can any of us grown adults look someone in the eye and say:
Yes, I have an imaginary friend in the sky, yes, there's no evidence but I can feel it in my heart. Then proceed to tell us stuff from the old testament which goes from the sublime to the ridiculous. I seriously cannot fathom how a healthy adult human being can say pathetically unrealistic things like that and even worse, believe them themselves...

Surely you jest.....

(July 15, 2014 at 11:45 pm)alexwenzel Wrote: Using computer models and statistical methods: Read it bellow in National Geographics

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...1p_us_se_w#

From the same article:

Quote:The statistical analysis showed that the independent origin of humans is "an absolutely horrible hypothesis," Theobald said, adding that the probability that humans were created separately from everything else is 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.