[Southack]

"I've just rolled a coin 1000 times. I've included the sequence below. By my calculation, the odds are 1 in ~10^300 against this exact sequence occurring. That's so unlikely there's just no way it could have occurred on its own - I mean isn't that more than the number of baryons in the universe? Clearly some divine intervention has occurred, right?" - edsheppa

No. The mathematical odds of your sequence occuring are 1 in 1. Perhaps you meant to say that the mathematical odds of that sequence re-occurring are 1 in 10^300, but then again you haven't claimed to have tried to duplicate your feat.

Naturally, such a feat does not require divine intervention, merely endless repetition. Nice straw man, though. Most Darwinists are even less transparently intellectually dishonest than that, after all...

[edsheppa]

Perhaps you meant to say that the mathematical odds of that sequence re-occurring...

Nope. I was trying to capture the essense of the "disproof" in another application. The calculation in the article is of the occurrence (not the re-occurrence) of some given sequence, is it not? The flaw in both cases is the same - some particular sequence isn't the interesting thing.

No. The mathematical odds of your sequence occuring are 1 in 1.

No, what's 100% is some sequence occurring. The likelihood of my sequence is, as I stated, virtually infinitesimal.

PS. I don't think I'm being intellectually dishonest at all, simply pointing out at least one flaw in the reasoning of the article. There are others.