Replies

"Since it would take an astronomical amount of time for the monkeys to type shakepeare, life could not have evolved? What kind of a lame argument is that?!?! It makes absolutely no sense. Just because he wrestled us through his grade 8 math tutorial on probability, we should just believe his conclusion..."

I'm surprised that you failed to understand his logic. He dumbed down mathematical probabilities so much that even grade school children could grasp the basics of his point.

In brief, it is mathematically impossible, given the 17 billion years in age of our universe, for unaided processes to precisely sequence data longer than a few scores.

His conclusion is that there *must* be some bias, some outside aid, to correctly sequence long series of data.

You are welcome to argue with his *math* on that thread (it would a digression from this one), but his conclusion is supported by his math.

In other words, if you can't fault his math with math of your own, then any attempt to fault his conclusion would be itself unsupported.

I'm surprised that you failed to understand his logic. He dumbed down mathematical probabilities so much that even grade school children could grasp the basics of his point.

Talk about gilding the lily! Dumbing down a creationist mathematical probablity strawman! What'll they dumb down next?

In brief, it is mathematically impossible, given the 17 billion years in age of our universe, for unaided processes to precisely sequence data longer than a few scores.

In brief, you'd have to model every possible unaided process to make such a statement. Please show your work.

In brief, it is mathematically impossible, given the 17 billion years in age of our universe, for unaided processes to precisely sequence data longer than a few scores.

Debunked a hundred million times. You assume that everything is totally randowm. Using your logic, we would assigne a 50/50 chance that the sun would rise tomorrow and a 50/50 chance that it would shine thus arriving at a highly likely hood that it would not be seen tomorrow.

"In brief, it is mathematically impossible, given the 17 billion years in age of our universe, for unaided processes to precisely sequence data longer than a few scores."

What do monkeys randomly slapping keys have to do with evolution? There is nothing random about evolution, other than the random mutations during transcription. So he is talking about the origin of life, in which case, he is making statistics on something we don't even understand yet?

"In other words, if you can't fault his math with math of your own, then any attempt to fault his conclusion would be itself unsupported."

Ok, take his conclusion for one monkey, then you have to multpliy it by the billions of planets. On each planet there would by trillions and trillions of different places for these tiny proteins to come together. His example was the chance for one spot on earth to spontaneously create life, it does nto work like that, if it did, he would have used the life, not monkeys. Comparing proteins 'randomly' coming together, which they don't, with monkeys hitting keyboards is just stupid and misleading.

Sounds more like this explanation on probabilities and miracles:

http://www.thesupernaturalworld.co.uk/index.php?act=main&code=01&type=00&topic_id=1630

Looking at the edge of sciecne and saying it "must be god" has been going on for millenia. From fire to lightning all the way up to evolution, science has displaced these argments for god. What makes you think this would be any different? Since we do not currently understand how it works, it must be god?