From Atheism To Faith In God ~ The Unbelieving Scientist And The Creationist

You missed my point again. I'm not claiming that everyone should be forced into accepting some books over others. I believe in freedom of thought and speech and everyone has the right to make their own decisions.

What I am saying is that some books are objectively right and other books are objectively wrong. There is an objective reality that isn't dictated by people's opinions. People can make decisions however they see fit but that doesn't mean they are going to be right. Accepting everything you read, or arbitrarily accepting some books over others is logically wrong and won't give you the truth.

The reality is that some books are based on reliable sources, solid evidence, and other aren't. Otherwise my book about the fairy world is just as reliable as a college physics textbook. People who care about the truth want a process of determining truth in books that actually works well. We need a way of separating fact from fiction, a way based on logic, evidence, experts, and good sources.

How do you know the spirit is enlightening you instead of your own emotional confirmation bias? Other religions also believe they are communicating with the supernatural too. Why are they wrong but you are right?

 

The Bible is God's word because it claims to be God's word. Got it.

 

The scientist in the OP story doesn't seem much like a scientist to me. Rather I am reminded of a straight man in a comedy routine.

 

It is a simple minded hope of what an scientist would be like in fundamentalist land, he never asked difficult questions that the fundy cannot answer about his silly religion but answers correctly as the fundy dreams of his ideological war and how he will convert the world. I used to do the same was I was a little child I guess we all did, but then we grew up!

 

You touch on one of the things that disturbs me so much about the Christian religion and that is so often hearing adults express their religious views in a simple and childlike manner visibly reverting to the mental state of a child.

Not sure why, but I find this very disturbing.

 

Religious views are simple and childlike, if you cut through the theology and apologetics we see they still have a simple belief. An imaginary friend who will hold their hand and look after them even after they die. Adults have to admit their imaginary friends do not exist apart from in the realm of religion. Can you imagine if a bloke on the building site talked about his invisible friend who looks after him when he is up a ladder! He would get laughed off the site, but if he claims his god is looking after him no one bats an eyelid. Its the ultimate adult cop out!

 

I would find it refreshing, if the positions pushed wetent so dangerous. Letting yourself think and feel like a child is not a bad thing, so long as you don't mske any big decisions that way.

 

'Time' has produced many things. It has produced the society in which we live today.
'Chance' happens everyday of the week when by 'chance' you run into someone you wanted to see.
As to 'matter'? Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. Does that mean you are unthinking. nonintelligent? .

 

Noted.

Regarding the Faith Based Claim that seeks to explain how
"a Ronald Reagan" and "a Ruth Bader Ginsburg" came to
exist:

JAG Replies:

You have no Empirical Evidence that your original ancestor
was at one time a dead one-celled speck that lived in the
Primordial Slime and then later begin to pulsate with life
and eventually became "a Ronald Reagan" and "a Ruth
Bader Ginsburg."


Pulsate , , just a slight boom , , boom , , boom , , ,


I mean the one-celled speck was not always alive --so there
was a time when Old One-Cell was as dead as a door nail , ,


, , , but , , , ,


, , lo and behold , , ,


, , ,Old One Cell at some point became alive and it began to pulsate.

Then Time Passed.


After awhile Old One Cell, increased to the size of a pecan.


Then later on Old One Cell increased to the size of a baseball.


Then to the size of a Chicken.


A chicken , , ,


Then later on as Time Passed Old One Cell has now become a Toad Frog.
{or What Ever You Claim It Became}


But Old One Cell did not remain a Toad Frog.


On no.


Old One Cell eventually became a Chimp.


Then as time Passed a "scientific miracle" occurred , , ,


Here it comes , , ,


Old One Cell now at last as become "a Ronald Reagan"
and "a Ruth Bader Ginsburg."


And all that up there happened due to , , ,


~ natural selection

and

~ :random mutation

and

~ atoms and molecules wiggling around

and

~ chemical reactions taking place . . .


, , , and all that was produced by


~ unthinking non-intelligent Time

plus

~ unthinking non-intelligent Chance

plus

~ unthinking non-intelligent Matter , , ,


, , which produced a , ,


~ highly complex Human Brain


~ and a highly complex Human Eye, and


~ a highly complex Fully Functioning Human Body


So?


So if you believe all that up there, then you are a Great Man Of Faith
and you believe in the Religion Of Evolution.


My view is >> It requires MORE faith to believe in all that up there, than
it requires to believe in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He
gave His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish
but have Eternal Life."


Best.


JAG


``

 

Where did you get that tripe from. That one cell divided - again and again. You can see it under a microscope under laboratory conditions. When a cell has served its purpose it dies but the other cells/tissues live on and replicate. It's like a tree shedding its leaves when they have served their purpose. It doesn't affect the main body of the tree.

I repeat
'Time' has produced many things. It has produced the society in which we live today.
'Chance' happens everyday of the week when by 'chance' you run into someone you wanted to see.
As to 'matter'? Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. Does that mean you are unthinking. nonintelligent?

 

Quoted for context.

There is no such thing as the , ,
International Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, Objectively Right Or Objectively Wrong.

There is no such thing as a Truth Reality out there that has the Authority to Decide
what is, is is not, Objectively Wrong or Objectively Right.

You are dreaming the false secular dream.

Just because YOU {or me or anyone} issue a personal proclamation that
says , , ,

I KNOW this book is Objectively Right does NOT mean that YOU are correct.
You are a Man Of Faith.

A Secular Faith That Brings No Blessings , , ,
Your Secular Belief System requires Faith. You would be personally blessed
beyond your expectations if you traded your required Secular Faith for Faith
in the Lord Jesus as your Savior. As it is, you still are locked into Faith -- but
the Secular Faith you now exercise does nothing for your eternal soul, but
if you placed your Faith in the Lord Jesus, who stands at the door and
knocks {Revelation 3:20} then you would become a happy man. Just
think how blessed you would be to know beyond any doubt that you
now have peace with God and Heaven as your Eternal Home.
Romans 5:1 "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with
God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

You can "hide" behind that word "opinions" all you want to --but this FACT
remains , ,
There is no such thing as a Truth Reality out there that has the Authority to Decide
what is, is is not, Objective Reality.

There is no such thing as , ,
The International Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, Objective Reality.

You're live inside Secular Fantasy Land and you have MORE Faith than I do --- you
are not aware of just how much pure Faith you actually do have.

YOU do not have the Authority to issue a proclamation deciding if they are Wrong or Right.
{nobody has that authority}

There is no such thing as a Truth Reality out there that has the Authority to Decide
what is, is is not, Objectively Wrong or Objectively Right

There is no such thing as , , ,
The International Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, Objectively Right Or Objectively Wrong.

You believe what you believe, in these highly controversial areas, by Faith.

This Point Is Absolutely Crucial , , ,
I am talking about these highly controversial philosophical
and "scientific" issues and I am NOT talking about what is
known at the certainty-level of 2 + 2 = 4

And most ALL the stuff that you cling to and believe is NOT in the certainty-level
of knowledge but rather is in these highly controversial philosophical areas where
your Faith is needed ---and you are a Man Of Faith -- which is a good thing
because this means that its possible for you to make the transitions from
"Voltaire" to "the Apostle Paul" so to speak.

YOU do not have the Authority to issue a proclamation deciding if they are Reliable Or Unreliable.
{nobody has that authority}

There is no such thing as a Truth Reality out there that has the Authority to Decide
what is, is is not, Reliable Or Unreliable.

There is no such thing as , , ,
The International Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, Objectively Reliable Or Unreliable.

You live by Faith.

You can safely contrast your "fairy world" book with a "physics textbook"
because this allows you to sustain your Secular Fantasy Land World
where you can keep on pretending that you do not really have to
exercise Faith to believe what you believe in these highly controversial
philosophical areas. How so? Because its obvious that your physics
textbook is not comparable with a fairy tail book. But here is the point
Distraff --- neither your physics book or your Fairy Tail Book truly
represent those areas of your life where you are philosophically a
Great Man Of Faith.

Best.

JAG

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance:
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that
he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according
to the Scriptures,"__1 Corinthians 15:3-4


``

 

That is abiogenesis where life comes from non-life. Evolution is about life evolving from a common ancestor.

Cells can't increase in size like that like a balloon. Instead they become multicellular. We have seen that happen in the lab. In the lowest fossil records we only see single-celled fossils, in the layers above them we see multi-celled fossils for microscopic sea life.

There are no basketball sized cells or cell clusters. Instead what happened is that when oxygen was introduced into the atmosphere, we see the sudden (tens of millions of years) appearance of more advanced sea life fossils including primitive fish. We then see more advanced fish in higher layers.

A chicken is about the size of a basketball actually, maybe a bit bigger. We see transitional fossils between fish and amphibians above the advanced fish fossils, amphibian fossils above them, reptile fossils above them, dinosaur fossils above them, transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds above them, the first bird fossils above them, and the first chicken fossils above them.

No, chickens didn't evolve into frogs. What happened is that the first amphibians split. One line evolved into reptiles, and then into birds. The other line remained amphibian and from those we see the first frogs above them in the fossil record. We see the first frogs long after the first reptiles appeared, but long before the first bird appeared. We know this from the fossil record.

Frogs didn't directly evolve from cells, they evolved from other amphibians similar to salamanders. Also, frogs remained frogs and didn't evolve into anything else.

No, chimps didn't evolve directly from cells. What happened is that we see transitional fossils for mouse-like mammals soon after we see the first small reptiles. These mammals appeared before the first dinosaurs, and about the same time we see the first toads in the amphibian line. After the dinosaurs were killed, we see the first larger mammals and above them we see the first simple primates. Above the first simple primates, we see the first monkeys, above the first monkeys we see the first apes. Above the first apes we see the first chimpanzees which is a type of ape. They appeared very recently a little after we see the first ape to human transitionals.

No miracle actually. We see the first ape to human transitionals (the australopithecines) about 6 million years ago not from a cell. They were built to walk upright but were ape-like in every other way. We then a gradual increase in brain capacity less pronounced facial features in these fossils (e.g. homo habilis). We then get to homo erectus which was like modern humans but had pronounced face and a smaller brain. They were the dominant species about 1 million years ago and even spread out of Africa. Above these fossils, we then see the first homo sapiens about 200,000 years ago.

We have a lot of observed examples of speciation, sub-species, and the evolution of complex new abilities. Mutations can modify the genetic code to create the ability. Natural selection selects those mutations that work. We have seen it happen and it works. In fact AI computer use a similar algorithm based on natural selection and mutations to train itself to drive cars or figure out what movies you want to see next.

That isn't a problem for evolution because the common ancestor had those figured out. It comes with a functional cell and DNA. That isn't a problem with evolution and instead is an issue for abiogenesis.

All I can say is:
1: We have the process of natural selection and mutations which in theory can increase the complexity of organisms and a lot of time, organisms, and environments.
2: We have a lot of explanations of how many traits did evolve and how complex traits can evolve.
3: We have a lot of fossil evidence showing that life did gradually evolve.
4: We have a lot of genetic evidence showing that all species share a common ancestor and belong to a family tree.
5: We have a lot of morphological evidence for evolution.
6: We have a lot of observed evidence of evolution by natural selection and mutations.

We simply know that evolution did happen. It may be hard for you to intuitively feel that it is possible. But the evidence says otherwise. Its like if a family member was accused of murder. You just don't see how its even possible and doesn't make any sense. But then the prosecutors come up with video tape footage of it happening. At that point, you need to put your doubts aside and accept the evidence that we can plainly see with our very own eyes.

 

Again, I never claimed to be the official authority on truth or that I am 100% right. I'm telling you my view and the logic and evidence to support that view. Then what you do is try to refute the logic and evidence I presented and present your own, which I then evaluate, and then offer critique. I'm not asking you to take me on faith as an authority, but to look at the logic and evidence I presented, and offer a rebuttal if you see a problem.

What I'm saying is that if you accept everything you read, most of your beliefs won't be correct. If you arbitrarily and randomly accept some books but not others, most of your views won't be correct. I can back these claims if logic, but I think they are pretty obviously true. And this goes for the bible as well.

 

Another adaptation from earlier Sumerian/Babylonian creation stories.

 

Quoted for context.

Keep in mind that characteristically "atheists" and Christians do
not agree on the color of an Orange.

You mentioned "Critique" and "Rebuttal"

Your post is the same problem re-stated in different language.

Here is what I say , , ,

"Critique"
There is no such thing as the , ,
International Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, A Successful Critique.

There is no such thing as a Truth Reality out there that has the
Authority to Decide what is, is is not, a successful Critique.

_________

"Rebuttal"
There is no such thing as the , ,
International Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, A Successful Rebuttal.

There is no such thing as a Truth Reality out there that has the
Authority to Decide what is, is is not, a successful Rebuttal.

__________


You're dreaming a secular dream that the above is not really true --
but it IS true. Here is THE PRINCIPLE in this story I wrote.

A Very Short Story About John And Bob and Tom.
by JAG

There are two atheists that are having an argument over contradictory propositions.

John Atheist and Bob Atheist.

They are having a private debate in their own thread.

They are now on page 60 in the thread and they are not writing short posts, but
long drawn out lengthy screeds.

They both claim victory and claim that they have established a high degree of Probability
that their position is the correct one, and that their opponent's position is incorrect.

I have utterly defeated you says John. My arguments stands at a 90%
Probability of certainty and your arguments stand only at a 70% Probability
and here are my reasons to support what I say.

No, all that is incorrect replies Bob. My arguments stands at a 90%
Probability of certainty and your arguments only at a 70% Probability
of certainty and here are my reasons to support what I say.

_____________


The two atheists, John and Bob, decide to meet in Real World and continue their arguments.

They do this and they continue to argue back and forth for 30 days and 30 nights till they
are near exhaustion.

Neither John or Bob will budge an inch.

How can we settle this, asks John.

Bob replies, let's go to the academic community and let them decide.

You mean we take a Majority Vote within the academic community?

Well no, replies John that would ruin our scholarly reputations and we'd be
howled out of the room because everybody knows that taking a Majority
Vote can not settle who has won an argument. So my Ph.D's against
your Ph.D's is not a very smart plan.

By the way Bob, again I have won and you have lost this argument.

No John, again you have lost and I have won this argument.

I know how we can settle this, said Bob, we can go and put our
case before this organization:

The International World Authority That Has The Power To Decide Who
Has, Or Has Not, Presented The Most Plausible Arguments.

That's a great idea replied John, but where are they located?

I don't know said Bob, lets ask Tom where we can find them.

So they asked Tom, but Tom said Listen fellas there is no such
organization in the world as that, and you both should know that.

John and Bob both said well okay Tom, I guess you are right about
that, but what in the world are we going to do now? How can we
settle who has won this argument with the highest degree of
Plausibility?

I know how we can settle it, said John. We can let Tom settle it.

Okay said Bob, we will let Tom settle this.

Okay Tom, which one of us has won this argument?

Tom replied I declare that John has won this argument with the
highest degree of Plausibility. I declare that John has won and
that Bob has lost.

And so it came to pass that it was forever settled by Tom. John
had won, and Bob had lost.

Ahh victory is sweet said John. I love it when I win and can know
for certain that I have won.

The End

_____________

So?

So your "Critique" and your "Rebuttal" thingy, would end up just
like that story ended up --- which in principle means this:


There is no such thing as the , ,
International Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, A Successful Critique.

There is no such thing as a Truth Reality out there that has the
Authority to Decide what is, is is not, a successful Critique.

_________


There is no such thing as the , ,
International Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, A Successful Rebuttal.

There is no such thing as a Truth Reality out there that has the
Authority to Decide what is, is is not, a successful Rebuttal.

JAG

PS
Now here at this point is where you can re-state the same thing in different
words.

Here is your Secular Fantasy Land Dream , , ,
You think there is a Truth Reality "out there somewhere" and that YOU can
know what it is --- regarding these highly controversial philosophical
and "scientific" issues , , ,

But there is NOT.

Remember I am NOT talking about what is known at the certainty-level
of 2 + 2 = 4

``
``

 

A very well-written post -- as most often.

However here is something that you need to know and
remember.

One Missing Link , ,
https://handofmoscow.com/2020/02/12/...living-matter/
"Scientists at the University of California at Berkeley have discovered a giant
bacteria-eating viruses that can be seen as the missing link between
bacteria and common viruses — non-cellular organisms, considered a number of
professionals as inanimate matter, similar to that of organic crystals."
End quote

JAG Replies:

"that can be seen" --- that sounds "iffy" to me.
Who knows?
Who cares?
Not me.

_________

But here is the important point: It does not matter to this Christian
if they DO find a true "missing link" between "a Ronald Reagan" and
a Chimp named Rodney and if they prove it at the certainty-level
of 2 + 2 = 4 -- I will then thank God for creating Mankind using
Evolution.

It would NOT bother me if science proves ar the certainty-level that
Abiogenesis is actually true -- and that totally dead material can
spontaneously come to life --- that life CAN and DID come from
non-life. If scientists DO prove that at the certainty-level of 2 + 2 = 4
-- then I will thank God that He created Mankind through Abiogenesis.

Best

JAG

"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth"__ Genesis 1:1



``

 

Missing links aren't a problem at all. Its just because the fossil record is imperfect, but it is still overwhelming evidence for evolution. Lets go back to that nice old aunt who was accused of murder and you just couldn't believe it. In the video tape, you see her with the gun sneaking up to the victim. But then she shoots the video camera. Does that mean there is no evidence she did it? Sure the evidence has a missing link and isn't complete but its still evidence.

In the same way, we have a ridiculously complete record of evolution in the fossil record. Now we are fuzzy on some of the specifics, but the fossils are very convincing. Like I could show you the fossils from apes to humans, australopithecus afarensis, homo habilis, homo erectus, humans. But then you can ask about the missing link between homo habilis and homo erectus. I dig it up, and then call it homo missing link. But then you ask about the missing link between homo missing link and homo erectus and homo habilis. You can take this to an extreme where you demand to see every single ancestor in the evolutionary line from bacteria to humans. But if Uncle Grampy Money Ed got misplaced, then its all false right?

 

I don't have any idea what that has to do with
my post that you quoted and then "responded"
to -- but let it forever remain a mystery.

Meanwhile re-read the post that you "responded"
to and see if even you can understand your own
post.

Here is what you are "responding" to that I wrote:
{the bacteria thingy was a minor point}

JAG Wrote:
But here is the important point: It does not matter to this Christian
if they DO find a true "missing link" between "a Ronald Reagan" and
a Chimp named Rodney and if they prove it at the certainty-level
of 2 + 2 = 4 -- I will then thank God for creating Mankind using
Evolution.

It would NOT bother me if science proves at the certainty-level that
Abiogenesis is actually true -- and that totally dead material can
spontaneously come to life --- that life CAN and DID come from
non-life. If scientists DO prove that at the certainty-level of 2 + 2 = 4
-- then I will thank God that He created Mankind through Abiogenesis.

"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth"__ Genesis 1:1

________

Meanwhile I shall continue to poke fun at Evolution and at some Evolutionists
and I shall continue to post about the Religion Of Evolution.

Best.

JAG

___________


PS

:"Chew on this"

There are laws in the Universe that we do not understand.
here is one right here , , ,

"The apostles said to the LORD, "Increase our faith!" He replied,
"If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this
mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will
obey you."__The Lord Jesus in Luke 17:5-6


``

 

My point is that there will always be missing links no matter how good the fossil record is. Its impossible to have a complete fossil record of every ancestor from bacterias to humans. While the fossil record isn't perfect and has missing links, what we do have is very convincing evidence for evolution.

If you want a missing link between humans and apes, we have found dozens of species and thousands of fossils for that. The ape to human transition isn't a mystery like the virus to bacteria one might me.

Check out homo erectus. That is one transitional species that fulfills your requirements.

 

Okay, I understand that.
I know what you mean now.
Homo erectus, er?
Is that controversial?
Is there 100% or 98% agreement on Old Homo Erectus?
I have not googled the Old Boy so I do not know.

What do you think about the consensus in the "scientific community"
on Mr. H.E.? They all agree Old H.E. was a missing link?

Best.

JAG

""those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar
on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will
walk and not be faint."___Isaiah 40:31


`

 

We have hundreds of homo erectus fossils and a lot of very complete ones. We have so many fossils we can actually see the evolution within homo erectus over time. We have even found them buried together.

We find the first homo erectus in 2 million year old layers and it appears they became the dominant hominid just like modern humans and drove most of the older ones to extinction. They were the first ones to be seen outside Africa and they made it across Asia.

We do see some variations in homo erectus and some scientists debate whether they are closely related species or just variation in one species. But this is more of a debate of categorization and classification.

We see some more advanced hominids evolve after them. First we see Homo Heidelbergensis which lasted between 700,000 and 300,000 years ago. Next we see Archaic Homo Sapiens. These were actually between modern Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus but were a lot closer to Erectus. They lived about 500,000 - 200,000 years ago. We then see the emergence of Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis (Neanderthals) in Europe who lasted between 230,000 to 30,000 years ago. Soon after we see Homo Sapien Sapien (Modern Humans) about 200,000 ago in Africa, who moved out of Africa about 75,000 ago.

We see the last homo erectus fossils about 100,000 - 50,000 years ago and the last of them were in remote places. This coincides with the rise of modern humans who wiped them out along with Neanderthals.

Mr H.E. was just a joke. The most famous Erectus are Java Man (the first one found), Peking Man, and Turkana Boy (incredibly complete).

 

Don't waste your time. When you get too close to the truth which he can't accept you'll be put on his ignored list like many of us.

 

I find it highly AMUSING that a Science DENIER pretends to KNOW what a Scientist would actually ask about religion.

All of the above is ONLY from the perspective of a THEIST trying to PROMOTE his BELIEFS without any actual knowledge of Science, Scientists or the Scientific Method.

The OP doesn't even understand that Science is ONLY interested in the NATURAL world and has NO INTEREST in the "supernatural" superstitions being PREACHED in the OP.

Sad!

 

Distraff,
What you wrote was very interesting.
I read each and every word carefully.
I have serious questions for you because I truly desire
to learn your views on this question.
It is basically the same question asked different ways:
"Earliest" , , ,
The keyword in my questions is "earliest.."
{1} What did the earliest ancestors of humans look like?
{2} And exactly what were they?
{3} Were the earliest ancestors of humans non-human?
{4} Was there ever a time when the earliest ancestors of
humans were about the size of a chicken?
{5} Was there ever a time when the earliest ancestors of
humans were about three feet tall?
What can you tell me about the earliest ancestors of humans
that you know for a FACT to be true?

The answers to these questions are important to me. Please
give them your very "best shot."

Thanks.

Best.

JAG

Bible Verse For Today
A Paradox , , ,
"For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever
loses their life for me will find it. What good will it be for
someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or
what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?
Matthew 16:25-26

paradox - a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement
or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove
to be well founded or true

_______________


Interesting Thought For Today.
Hannah , , ,
The name Hannah is a palindrome

palindrome - a word, phrase, or sequence that reads the
same backward as forward, e.g., madam or nurses run.

``

 

"If it is possible, then given enough tries, it is inevitable."___John Doe

@Distraff

Distraff, if you don't mind telling me, what is your response to this below?
I would appreciate your response to this. And please do not ignore my
astronomical numbers and my phrase "to the power of" which when
applied to my numbers down there creates "absurd" numbers.

"If it is possible, then given enough tries, it is inevitable."___John Doe


JAG Replies

There is nothing that can be said with the English language to make
me believe that , , ,

999 trillion X's 999 trillion , , ,
to the power of
, , , 999 trillion X's 999 trillion , , ,Dice thrown into the air will at some point
all come up 6's
Also , , ,
{1} You cannot know the level of complexity of every single thing on earth
{2} and neither can you know that it would not require
999,999,999,999,999, trillion MORE that the figure up there in order
to achieve the true level of complexity that exists in the human person and
all that is the Earth and that is on the Earth.

You're not paying any serious attention to my "to the power of" phrase,
as in 10X10X10X10X10X10X10X10X10X10

I said , ,
999 trillion X's 999 trillion , , ,
to the power of
, , , 999 trillion X's 999 trillion

And I can "go much higher than that" I can go with , ,

, , 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999, trillion
to the power of
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,trillion DICE
thrown into the air

Those are numbers that are absurd when applied to anything human.

But I Can Go Much Higher , , ,
I can type 999,999 Etc ALL DAY LONG for 24 hours as fast as I can type
and then do that number
to the power of
ANTOHER DAY of ALL DAY LONG typing 999,999, Etc

So?

So John on your principle, at some point ALL those DICE would come up ALL 6's

And its absurd to believe that.

God Himself would have to tell me that was true before I would believe it.

John, you say , , , "If it is possible, then given enough tries, it is inevitable."___John Doe

I will modify what you say and I will say this:

"If it is possible, then given enough tries, it is inevitable, but the absurd is not possible."___JAG

What does Distraff say?


JAG


``