sledgehammer
Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008

Oops. 10^120, 10^150, what's 30 orders of magnitude between friends. Chump change. I wasn't even off by a whole dembski Quote  Error in dembskis
That error might be measured in a unit called "dembskis" that scaled things in terms of orders of magnitude came up in discussion of errors in an essay by Marks and Dembski. The reference unit of error for the measure is taken from the case mentioned above in the M/N ratio calculation note, where Dembski had an error of about 65 orders of magnitude. "Dave W." formalized the notion with an equation, and W. Kevin Vicklund suggested using a roundedoff value of 150 as the constant in the denominator, based upon Dembski's figure of 10^150 as a universal small probability. Thus, the final form of quantifying error in dembskis (Reed Cartwright proposed the symbol ?) is
? =  ln(erroneous measure)  ln(correct measure)  / 150
There is not yet a consensus on what to term the unit, but two proposals being considered are "Dmb" and "duns". 
ETA: Hat tip to Wes for link above
 The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. K. Hovind
