Probabilities- and I missed that explanation!
-
OK as everyone knows if you roll a die 100 times- recording each roll- you will come up with an improbable outcome- P=1.5^-78 = 6^-100.
True that pattern will be extremely improbable- HOWEVER if ANYoutcome is acceptable then each roll had a probability of 1 of being correct.
So if you could roll a die each second it wouold have taken 100 seconds to get tht improbale string.
Now the trick would be to repeat that pattern, which would only become probable only after 1.4 x 10^70 centuries- which is much longer tan the universe has been around.
So the next time some evotard starts talking about an improbable sequence og numbers, tell him/ her to repeat it if it was so darn easy.
OK as everyone knows if you roll a die 100 times- recording each roll- you will come up with an improbable outcome- P=1.5^-78 = 6^-100.
True that pattern will be extremely improbable- HOWEVER if ANYoutcome is acceptable then each roll had a probability of 1 of being correct.
So if you could roll a die each second it wouold have taken 100 seconds to get tht improbale string.
Now the trick would be to repeat that pattern, which would only become probable only after 1.4 x 10^70 centuries- which is much longer tan the universe has been around.
So the next time some evotard starts talking about an improbable sequence og numbers, tell him/ her to repeat it if it was so darn easy.
posted by Joe G @ 12:53 PM
28 Comments:
At 1:29 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Unless you know how many 'winning combinations' there are, it's a bit pointless.
At 1:35 PM,
Joe G said…
Trying to have a discussion with you is a bit pointless as all you seem to be able to muster are on-liners that say you don't know what you are talking about.
In my scenario there is only ONE winning combo- the exact match for the first roll sequence.
At 1:51 PM,
blipey said…
Ah, if only there weren't anything favoring one outcome over another....
At 1:51 PM,
blipey said…
Don't forget to check the other thread, Joe. We're still wondering what makes a "cat" a thing.
At 2:16 PM,
Joe G said…
Right, if anything counts then the certainty is 1 or 100%.
However with living organisms we already know that not any DNA sequence can produce a gene.
IOW with biology there i a reason for favoring one outcome ove others.
At 2:17 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
We're still wondering what makes a "cat" a thing.
Yup small minds do wonder about such things...
At 8:55 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"In my scenario there is only ONE winning combo- the exact match for the first roll sequence.:
Do we know that about the real world?
At 9:37 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich,
My OP was only to deal with the morons who go around saying that any hand of cards is improbable- any sequence of flipped coins is improbable- any sequence of rolled die is improbable yet they all occur so probabilities don't mean anything.
The OP refutes that nonsense.
As for the real world well we know that there are many factors required to just sustain complex living beings such as humans.
We also know that not just any DNA sequence is a gene.
So yes there is quite a bit we know about the real world that probabilities do apply.
At 9:10 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: So the next time some evotard starts talking about an improbable sequence og numbers, tell him/ her to repeat it if it was so darn easy.
In biology, it's called reproduction. The 'improbable sequence' of the genome is replicated.
At 9:14 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
In biology, it's called reproduction.
In biology you need to account for its ORIGINS.
As for reproduction your position doesn't have anything beyond "it just does".
Zachriel:
The 'improbable sequence' of the genome is replicated.
By design.
At 10:00 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: In biology you need to account for its ORIGINS.
That wasn't the question you raised, which concerned the unlikelihood of repeating an 'improbable sequence.' It's an everyday occurrence.
At 10:06 AM,
Joe G said…
In biology you need to account for its ORIGINS.
Zachriel:
That wasn't the question you raised
I didn't raise any questions pertaining to biology.
Zachriel:
which concerned the unlikelihood of repeating an 'improbable sequence.'
Context- you missed the context.
Zachriel:
It's an everyday occurrence.
If it's by design then it ain't an improbable sequence.
Duh.
At 10:08 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: In biology you need to account for its ORIGINS.
No one has a complete theory of abiogenesis, so what are you arguing about? No one is claiming that randomness alone is sufficient to account for the origin of life.
At 10:09 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Context- you missed the context.
The context was dice. Is that your point?
At 10:23 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
The context was dice.
Wrong again.
Keep grasping though.
At 10:25 AM,
Joe G said…
In biology you need to account for its ORIGINS.
Zachriel:
No one has a complete theory of abiogenesis,
Yes I know- hence your argument fails.
so what are you arguing about
I just made a point- obviously it was over your head.
Oh well.
Zachriel:
No one is claiming that randomness alone is sufficient to account for the origin of life.
What else is there- that's right- DESIGN!
At 10:54 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: What else is there- that's right- DESIGN!
What's the theory of intelligent design? Who, what, when, where, why and how? And what evidence is there concerning who, what, when, where, why and how?
At 3:26 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
What's the theory of intelligent design?
Here is a design hypothesis which is more than you can muster for your position:
Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis Updated
Zachriel:
Who, what, when, where, why and how?
Wow, what an imbecile.
Try answering those questions for your position!:
OK who- no one
what? dunno
when? dunno
where? dunno
why? just because
how? dunno
At 3:39 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Observation: The Universe
Tee.
Tee hee.
Haw!
Hee haw!
At 4:26 PM,
Joe G said…
Thank you Zachriel.
Thanks for proving that you are an imbecile...
At 4:33 PM,
Joe G said…
Observation:
The Universe
Question
Is the universe the result of intentional design?
Prediction:
1) If the universe was the product of a common design then I would expect it to be governed by one (common) set of parameters.
2) If the universe were designed for scientific discovery then I would expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability.
3) Also if the universe was designed for scientific discovery I would expect it to be comprehensible.
Test:
1) Try to determine if the same laws that apply every place on Earth also apply throughout the universe.
2) Try to determine the correlation between habitability and measurability.
3) Try to determine if the universe is comprehensible.
Potential falsification:
1) Observe that the universe is chaotic.
2) A- Find a place that is not habitable but offers at least as good of a platform to make scientific discoveries as Earth or B- Find a place that is inhabited but offers a poor platform from which to make scientific discoveries.
3) Observe that we cannot comprehend the universe, meaning A) what applies locally does not apply throughout or B) what applies in one scenario, even locally, cannot be used/ applied in any similar scenario, even locally.
Confirmation:
1) Tests conducted all over the globe, on the Moon and in space confirm that the same laws that apply here also apply throughout the universe.
2) All scientific data gathered to date confirm that habitability correlates with measurability.
3) “The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it is comprehensible.” Albert Einstein
Which is STILL MORE THAN YOU CAN PRODUCE
At 5:22 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
1) And how much of the universe have we seen as a percentage, do you think?
2) This is rubbish, but I've found a new way to mess with you.
2b) - If the universe were designed for scientific MYSTERY then I would expect a strong NEGATIVE correlation between habitability and measurably.
You see, you pressupose to know your designer before you've proven they exist, you naughty little question-beggar.
At 6:10 PM,
Joe G said…
Richtard:
You see, you pressupose to know your designer before you've proven they exist,
Umm that ain't what happens.
We INFER a designer at least once existed due to the overwhelming evidence that one did at one time exist.
But anyway I understand tat acting like an imbecile is all evotards have - they sure as shit can't support their position!
At 6:20 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
No, you're being *entirely* presupositionalist, even proffering a motivation (for discovery).
Whoopsy. Good luck in court!
At 6:25 PM,
Joe G said…
Nope- The motive was ascertained from going over and over all the data.
No presupposition at all.
IOW once again you prove that you don't know what you are talking about.
As for Court- no luck required- just an honest judge and proper representation.
At 6:26 PM,
Joe G said…
OTOH your position relies solely of presuppositions and ignorance.
Your position was built on ignorance and survives because of ignorance.
At 7:52 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe, your argument basically boils down to If we observe "X" then it could have been designed for "X" by a designer who likes "X".
Insightfull.
At 7:56 PM,
Joe G said…
Umm, no.
Perhaps that is what YOU think my argument is, but what you think is meaningless.
Post a Comment
<< Home