{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/19/2015 6:14:28 AM
1
I just want to point out again that these two sentence are in direct conflict with each other.
" No matter how long or how many tines you shake that box, the watch will never come out put together and functioning properly. Is there a chance? Sure, "
Your entire point revolves around this mistake, and it renders your whole argument unsound. You can't state something is impossible, and then point out it is possible in the next sentence if you want us to take you seriously.
English
-
Well you clearly missed the point. I didn't say the word impossible, because its not impossible. The chances are just so astronomically low that it won't matter how much you shake the box. Say there are 50 parts in the watch (which is a simple watch BTW). That means each part has a 1/50 chance of fitting back where it needs to (for simplicity's sake). According to probability, each pieces chances must be multiplied with the other ones. So, 1/50 * 1/50 *1/50...... And so on eventually get you the odds of 1.1258999e-85, which is 1.1258999 preceded by 85 zeros. Is it technically possible? Sure. Technically anything is possible. Is it [i]actually[/i] possible? No.
-
I didn't say the word impossible, because its not impossible [quote]No matter how long or how many tines you shake that box,[u] the watch will never come out put together and functioning properly[/u]. [/quote]um... "never" is pretty clear...
-
So do you think that God is possible?
-
how did you get that from what i said?
-
If it is technically possible, it is possible. That's pretty basic stuff.
-
Possible and realistically feasible are two different things is the point he was trying to make, I believe.
-
Only when you take into account how many chances you get to repeat it. If you conduct the watch experiment enough times it will happen eventually.
-
But the most likely outcome is that anyone who cared enough to continue the experiment would have died out before it generated the particular outcome. Moving back into the topic of evolution, the idea is that it would be highly unlikely that those conditions would be satisfied before the heat death of the universe or what not. That isn't necessarily what I believe, just trying to shed some light on his original statement.
-
Without knowing the actual chance of evolution occuring, their stance is just speculation. I don't think they understand the amount of times living things have reproduced. It would be such a massive number we couldn't write it down, and it would need to be a part of the calculation.
-
Yeah, I understand. But in terms of evolution he is making a judgement of the it's of it occurring, but with no data to back it up. Considering the amount of times life has replicated on this planet (countless?) it has a massive impact on his claims.
