RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread, Lather, Rinse, Repeat< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2012,17:05   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 29 2012,13:30)
Thank you for the well thought out posts.

     
Quote
Now, what are the odds of getting 100 heads in either of two instances of Flipping 100 Coins? Since this is a gedankenexperiment, we can imagine getting all 7 billion members of the entire human species to flip 100 coins apiece. Each one of those 7 billion people is one instance of Flipping 100 Coins; what are the odds of any one human being out of that 7 billion, getting 100 heads?


Getting to know you a bit in a few posts I'm not really surprised you honed right in on this (and I THINK I know you from somewhere in the past but I can't quite put my finger on it just yet..lol).

HERE is the 60 dollar question and one that deserves much thought. In fact, if there is a weakness in the entire concept of origins probability mathematics, CSIs, UPBs and the whole ball of wax it is right here. Because if this--what seems like a logical point--cannot be answered with logic, then a logical person will have to throw it all out the window and I will be the first in line to do exactly that.

Here's how I feel about it and let's look at the UPB (upper probability boundary above which any event has a 0 chance of occurance in all practicality).

That UPB is 10^-150 or 1:10^150.........First, let's let the enormity of that number sink in.......there are estimated to be only 10^80 particles in existence in the entire universe........so this is a HUGE number.

If ANY odds above this are calculated, then the event has a 0 chance of occurance in practicallity, then it doesn't MATTER what we do to that number...plug it into any formula you want..0 + 0 is still 0--0 times 0 is still 0....etc.

So it doesn't matter how many flippers are flipping coins or how long they flip them, we are always going to be left staring at a 0 as our final probability calculation.

     
Quote
True if you're talking about a one-shot event, something that only ever has one opportunity to occur. False if you're talking about an event that has multiple opportunities to occur. While it's true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, cannot alter Event E's probability of occurring on any one opportunity for it to occur, it's also true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, can provide more opportunities for Event E to occur. And if there is more than one opportunity for Event E to occur, then the probability of Event E occurring during any of those opportunities is different from, and necessarily greater than, the probability that Event E will occur on any one of those opportunities.

The math is actually pretty simple, as math goes: Let p be the probability of Event E's occurrence during any one opportunity for it to occur. (1 - p) will, therefore, be the probability that Event E doesn't occur during any one opportunity for it to occur. So, given N different opportunities for Event E to occur, the probability that Event E will not occur during any of those N opportunities, is (1 - p)N. And therefore, the probability that Event E will occur at least once during those N opportunities for Event E to occur, is (1 - (1 - p)N).


Yes, I'm familiar with this formula....the math is good. Just remember that I WAS talking about a single flip (in series, of course) of 100 coins. But I'll let you play with this......

The glaring problem is that p=0..... :)

(1 - p)^N, 1-0=1 and therefore 1^N= 1 and we are right back where we started..lol

     
Quote
Excuse me? I don't know anything of the kind. This is mostly because I have no friggin' clue what this "CSI" thingie is, nor how to go about calculating it.


It is simply probability mathematics (or can be information theory considering Shannon entropy and the like if we care to go that direction) and it's a biggie (just one of them, but a biggie) in Intelligent Design thought. And I'm sorry because this is what I thought you were debating......  

     
Quote
The calculations of mine which you refer to here, are calculations of how likely it is for a given whatzit to have occurred all at once, in a single stroke; if CSI actually is the probability of a whatzit having occurred all at once, in a single stroke, then fine, I was calculating CSI.


Yes, you were. Just remember it doesn't really have to happen in a single stroke. It can be one event and yet take several strokes to complete. As example, if my event is to flip a 100 coins unit, then it will take 100 'strokes' to get there.

So, what does that mean to anyone in the origins debate? CSI is used to calculate the probability of living tissue, say...DNA, a flagellum--an organism...etc. having formed randomly...by chance.....or was it necessarily designed by intelligence. Many times that calculation will tell us that there is NO chance it could have formed randomly. There must be another answer to explain its existence.

If we look at an organism, no one on either side claims that it formed all at once; but over time and utilizing several, sometimes millions of strokes.

     
Quote

For the record: I was performing a reducto ad absurdum on a friggin' stoopid idea you'd expressed. Since you perceive the absurdity, my work here is done… well… 'done' until such time as you re-present the friggin' stoopid idea I stomped on. Which is sadly likely to happen, since you are a Creationist (of the ID flavor), and Creationists are notorious for re-presenting friggin' stoopid ideas for years and years after the friggin' stoopidity of said ideas has been incontrovertibly demonstrated.


The problem is that you never really demonstrate anything. You come up with math etc.--whatever--as you did above to 'demonstrate' something, it's shown to be false usually as quickly as I did above, and you science deniers then run off whooping and hollering forever... proclaming with the ferver of a Pentecostal preacher that 'so and so' has been refuted when the only place that this happened was somewhere deep within the abysses of an illogical mind.

     
Quote
how about you pony up some specific details of the particular abiogenesis scenario you're looking at, so we can see how well your math describes that particular abiogenesis scenario?


I don't have an abiogenesis scenario.....abiogenesis is spontaneous generation...you know, the fairy tale for grown ups that physicist Francesco Redi experimentally showed to be a crock in the 1600s? --Rotting hay birthing mice??--living critters poofing out of hot vents in the ocean?--Windows 7 magically morphing out of a dead rock?--

I have embraced Intelligent Design.

     
Quote
Dude. You said "Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen." [emphasis added] Since you were explicitly referring to shit that happened previous to Dembski's getting involved, what the fuck difference does it make whether or not Dembski is a mathematician?


Take 10 deep breaths.....that sometimes helps....You asked me to give you the reference to those statisticians.....I replied that I do not have that reference anymore at least not on this computer, therefore I withdrew the posit....but I simply reminded you that Dembski HIMSELF is a mathematician...You WERE looking to go into the argument from authority falacy, were you not?

     
Quote
Apart from that, you're using the wrong tense in reference to Dembski's status as a mathematician. While Dembski was a mathematician, in the sense that he managed to earn a relevant qualification, he has long since stopped being a mathematician and become a fraud.


You admit that you do not even know what CSI is......therefore you cannot be that knowlegeable of Dembski's work...but you have heard that he violates your religious beliefs with his writings, therefore he is a fraud...Right?

     
Quote
feel free to continue screwing up!


Thank you.. :) And you may feel free to continue to put out irrational math and faulty logic.


     
Quote
Like hell I can't. It's a standard 52-card deck, so whatever the first card is, the chance of that one card coming up has got to be 1:52. If you disagree, then please, by all means tell me why I'm wrong here.


LOL...You are a little ray of logical sunshine. It doesn't dawn on you that SOME card is going to come up? If you deal another card SOME card has to come up? There are no odds there by ANY stretch of the imagination. If you deal a card, one is going to come up.

So a King came up...big deal a Jack could have and you would have figured the same odds for that....or a 6, or an Ace...or whatever.......There is a 100% chance that a card is going to come up when you deal one...

Therefore your entire analogy goes out the window.

     
Quote
If you are, indeed, talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever, then sure, odds don't enter into it. But I, at least, was not talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever. Rather, I was talking about the probability of getting one particular sequence, namely, the one particular sequence I got when I dealt out all 52 cards of a standard deck. I didn't specify it beforehand, to be sure, but prespecified or no, do you really want to tell me that the one particular sequence I got isn't one particular instance of the 52! possible sequences that can be generated by dealing out a standard 52-card deck?


Of course it's one particular sequence.....you either have a sequence or you don't. So what are the odds of having a sequence if I throw a deck of cards against the wall? 100%....

There are no probabilities here in the least.....Now, if you want to sit down, write out a sequence of cards, then begin to throw the deck until that sequence comes up, you climb into the aura of probabilities...in fact, you could throw for a million years and it would never happen......


       
Quote
Okay, Jerry. Since you've been making noise about how abiogenesis is just too damned improbable, you obviously must have nailed down the details, right? Because if you haven't nailed down the details of abiogenesis, you obviously can't even begin to work out the probability of abiogenesis. So what are those details? Lay 'em out for everyone to see!
Or, you know, don't. And by failing to lay out said details, provide yet more support (as if any were needed!) for the proposition that you're just bullshitting
 

I need not lay out a model for abiogenesis to conclude that the event is impossible using the very math that you agree with. The details are self evident to anyone with common sense.

LOL...It's really silly to even ponder laying out a model for something that did NOT happen.

How you failed to see that I have already (and mathematically so) given the details of such an absurd spontaneous generation event occurring is beyond me, but here it is again:

So, let’s look at this primeval ooze from which that first protist popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Well shoot, we are already past the Borel’s Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembski’s UPB.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning, much more complex human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. That’s one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.

And whether or not this cell forms one step at a time, or all at once, these odds don’t change.

     
Quote
What I'm disagreeing with is your implicit presumption that the simplest organism which exists today is necessarily the same thing as the simplest organism of all time. Yes, you haven't come right out and said that you're assuming the simplest contemporary organism must necessarily be the simplest organism of all time, but if you're not making that assumption, why did you bother dragging Mycoplasma genitalium into it?


No particular reason other than it obviously seems easier to work with than an elephant.


         
Quote
The reason you're not sure where I "got that", is because I did not, in fact, "[get] that". You cited Mycoplasma genitalium, which is a contemporary life form, is it not? So I said "I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in [the origin of life]." Since the text you're replying to didn't mention "higher complex lifeforms", I would suggest that if you're wondering where "higher complex lifeforms" entered into the argument, you would be well advised to look in a friggin' mirror. I would further suggest that you refrain from putting words on other people's mouths, because that sort of crap is indicative of a variety of intellectual deficiencies.


I'm really just trying to understand you. LOL...why is ANYTHING you just wrote in that paragraph germain to the conversation.....Maybe you like to type....I dunno... :)

jerry, you're nothing but an arrogant, IDiotic, snake-oil salesman.

You like to say "we" and "us", and "no one on either side" yet you demand that people here make their OWN arguments and that they support their OWN arguments with references to papers that YOU approve of, but you expect others to accept your arguments and whatever references you come up with, if any, even when your references don't support your lame arguments.

You're playing the same games that all IDiots play. You're all bluff and bullshit. You try to make it sound as though you speak for many others (on both 'sides') and as though you have science on your 'side' but you're wrong on both counts. You expect others to "demonstrate" their claims but you haven't demonstrated anything except that you're just another delusional creobot.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
  740 replies since Nov. 21 2012,08:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]