Cubist
Posts: 423 Joined: Oct. 2007

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:18)  Here guys, now I'm not going to post the same things over and over and then rehash them but this one time...Please read the posts: 
If you're going to cutandpaste from one of your past comments, I'll just cutandpaste the response I posted the first time your verbiage appeared:
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,10:12)  If I flip a coin what are the odds of me getting heads or tails? 1:2. If I flip 50 coins and I get 25 heads and 25 tails, what are the odds when I flip that 51st coin that I will receive head or tails? 1:2. If I have flipped 99 coins and 47 have come up heads and 52 have come up tails, what are the odds for heads or tails in that 100th coin? 1:2. 
True. Assuming it's an ungimmicked coin (which I'm going to do all throughout this comment, unless I explicitly state otherwise), there's a 50% chance of that coin coming up heads when it's flipped, and that probability is completely independent of how many other coins may or may not have come up heads when they (those other coins) were flipped. Quote  Well what are the odds if I flip 100 coins they all will come up heads? 1:(.5^100). 
True. Given 100 unflipped coins, each individual coin of that unflipped 100 has a 50% chance of coming up heads, so the chances of all 100 of those unflipped coins coming up heads, when they're flipped, is, indeed, (^{1}/_{2})^{100}. And presuming my copy of Maple 7 can be trusted, that works out to a touch under 1:10^{30}. Quote  But what if I have already flipped 50 of the coins and 25 of them are tails and 25 of them are heads. 
In that case, you're not talking about 100 unflipped coins. Instead, you're talking about 100 coins, of which 25 have already been flipped and came up heads; another 25 have already been flipped and came up tails; and the remaining 50 are still unflipped. For any one unflipped coin, the probability that it will come up heads is 50%; for any flipped coin that came up tails, the chance of that coin being heads is 0%; for any flipped coin that came up heads, the chance of that coin being heads is 100%. Quote  Now what are the odds that all 100 coins will come up heads? 
Zero, because you're now talking about a situation in 25 of those 100 coins have already come up tails, which means it's not possible for all 100 of those coins to come up heads. Quote  They’re still the same 1:(.5^100). 
False, as explained above. But if you believe you're right, I have a proposition for you, Jerry: I have 100 coins, 99 of which have already been flipped and come up heads, and the 100th of which is as yet unflipped. My proposition is that we bet on the results of flipping that 100th coin; if it comes up tails, I give you $5, and if it comes up heads, you give me $100,000. Since the chances of 100 coins all coming up heads is (^{1}/_{2})^{100}, this proposition is clearly a free $5 for you, right? And you'll be okay with making this bet with me multiple times, won't you? Quote  So let’s place all 100 coins in a bag, shake them up all at once and see how many heads I get. What are these odds? 1:(.5^100). 
Right, because you've shifted back from 25 flipped coins that came up heads, plus 25 flipped coins that came up tails, plus 50 unflipped coins to 100 unflipped coins. Quote  So it doesn’t really matter if I flip the coins all at once (a ‘poof’ as in spontaneous generation) or I flip them one at a time (individual, incremental steps), the odds in the big picture do not change. 
False. If you already have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, you have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, and the probability of that occurring doesn't negate the fact that you have those 99 coins. Apart from that, you're depending on the implicit presumption that each coin is flipped exactly one time. What if you're allowed to flip a coin ten times, and count it as heads if any of those ten flips came up heads? In that case, that chance of a coin coming up heads is ^{1,023}/_{1/024}, and the chance of 100 coins all coming up heads is (^{1,023}/_{1,024})^{100}. Which is a summat different kettle of fish… Quote  For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the 10 power meters) in distance from one another. 
True, and what of it? Seeing as how atoms do, in fact, "bond"—they're famous for it—I'm not sure what the problem is. Quote  The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond. 
Yep. But again, atoms do "bond", so what's your point? Quote  But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond. 
And yet, atoms somehow do manage to "bond" anyway. So? Quote  And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality 
Yes. So what? Quote  For these reasons, Brewster and Morris concluded, based upon the size of the universe, the temperatures under which bonding occurs, the surmised age of the universe, the nature of bonds and how they form and break that 10 to the 67th power is the ultimate upper threshold for any chemical event to happenanytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 50 billion years. 
Hold it. How did Brewster and Morris come up with this "10^{67}" figure? Citation needed… Quote  Dembski defines a universal probability bound of 10^150, based on an estimate of the total number of processes that could have occurred in the universe since its beginning. Estimating the total number of particles in the universe at 10^80, the number of physical state transitions a particle can make at 10^45 per second (Planck time, the smallest physically meaningful unit of time) and the age of the universe at 10^25 seconds, thus the total number of processes involving at least one elementary particle is at most 1:10^150. Anything with a probability of less than 10^150 is unlikely to have occurred by chance. Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen. 
Statisticians didn't conclude anything of the kind. Obvious counterexample: If you shuffle a standard 52card deck and deal out all the cards faceup, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*10^{68} possible 52card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular cardsequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*10^{68}). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'. Quote  The smallest known bacteria I’m aware of consists of around 500 proteins but I don’t think anyone would disagree with me that I am safe in using a 100 protein scenario in order to form an organism that could remotely be called life. 
I'd disagree. You're talking about the origin of life, and I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary lifeform was involved in that event. The question isn't whether a contemporary lifeform was created in the origin of life; rather, the question is whether or not some kind of selfreproducing whatzit (perhaps no more than a single molecule that catalyzed chemical reactions which generated copies of itself?) was created in the origin of life. Since the remainder of your comment is basically repeating errors I've already called you on, I see no reason to extend this reply any further…
