Statistics, God and Estimating

[Hafar1014]

While some might argue that this post belongs in a religion forum, I wish to point out that it is purely scientific, based on modern biochemistry coupled with statistics. The correspondence between science and its Creator continues to unfold.
--------------------------------------------------------------

A great many people get wrapped up in definitions that are erroneous.
Mathematicians have been known to say, "Nothing is impossible unless its probability is zero."
While that sounds plausible, let's look at reality.
Distinguished mathematician, Emile Borel, defined "impossible" as one chance in 10 to the 50th or less.
Ten to the 50 is 1 followed by fifty zeroes.

Before reading any further, what volume do you estimate 10 to the 50 small marbles would occupy?
/
/
/
/
/
Ten to the 50 marbles 1 cm in diameter would fill 37,400 billion billion spheres the size of earth.

So who thinks it is possible to select one out of 37,400 billion billion spheres, and from that one enormous sphere full of 1 cm marbles, blindfolded, on your first and only try, get the unique marble?

Titin is the largest protein in the human body, at 38,138 amino acid residues in a precise sequence.

I did the calculation to evaluate the probability of titin's original synthesis from any natural mechanism you can imagine, being 1/20 amino acids selected one at a time taken to the 38,138th power times two other factors which produce a probability for titin's original synthesis of 1 in about 10 to the 72,000th power. Those two other factors are the exclusive selection of L amino acids and not R amino acids, which works out to 1/2 to the 38,138th. Similarly, amino acids can bond by peptide bonds, where the -OH radical links to an -H radical, or a non-peptide bond, where it does not. This constitutes another factor of 1/2 to the 38,138th power.

This is insanely beyond impossible and titin is only one of over 20,000 different proteins in the human body.

This would work better if it had context

 

[Hafar1014]

Good point.

Truly believing in either requires a faith that very few manage to hold in the face of education, logic and observation.

I respect well-educated people who maintain their religious faiths when they contradict scientific knowledge. I include people who believe in abiogenesis followed by Darwinian evolution in that group which I respect.

So long as neither tries to force that belief on me, or get government to propagate it.

The worldwide flood corresponds to the end of the ice age.
Many stories in the Pentateuch are allegories.
Atheism is a belief and no logic or science is involved.
All beliefs fill an emotional need. The only test is that it an honest belief

 

[Woodznutz]

Religion has nothing to say about science. It does not meet the most basic scientific criteria of reproducibility and independent observability. Your faith is your own, it doesn't belong to science.

Religion makes statements that science ignores. For example, religion says to rest for a day each week. Science says we need more exercise even though two-thirds of Americans are overtired and sleep deprived.

 

[Hafar1014]

Religion makes statements that science ignores. For example, religion says to rest for a day each week. Science says we need more exercise even though two-thirds of Americans are overtired and sleep deprived.

40% of all science is invalid.

 

[Woodznutz]

40% of all science is invalid.

Or useless.

 

[ReinyDays]

The worldwide flood corresponds to the end of the ice age.
Many stories in the Pentateuch are allegories.
Atheism is a belief and no logic or science is involved.
All beliefs fill an emotional need. The only test is that it an honest belief

... and it helps if the beliefs fill that emotional need ...

 

[Woodznutz]

... and it helps if the beliefs fill that emotional need ...

Having my own way fulfills my emotional needs.

 

[ChemEngineer]

In 1962, my high school algebra teacher told the class, "If you put all the monkeys in the world in a room with all the typewriters in the world, they would eventually write all the books in the world."

Gullible kids that we all were, nobody thought through the mathematics, much less challenged the teacher. We simply accepted it as logically thought out. Such is the case with so much of evolutionary biology.

Typewriter keyboards, archaic and modern computer as well, have at least 100 different keys that can be struck, counting numbers, punctuation, and case.

Let's assume there are 50 letters on an average line and 50 lines on an average page. This totals 2,500 characters PER PAGE.

The probability of monkeys striking keys randomly to produce just a single page of any book is 1/100 to the 2,500th power, or 10 to the -5,000.

Since I previously showed the impossibility of only 10 to the -50, this is far beyond mere impossibility and yet a prominent scientist claimed that all the monkeys in the world could eventually type all the books in the British Museum.

" If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum." ~Arthur Stanley Eddington, prominent English physicist, The Running-Down of the Universe, 1927

 

[ChemEngineer]

Good point.

Truly believing in either requires a faith that very few manage to hold in the face of education, logic and observation.

I respect well-educated people who maintain their religious faiths when they contradict scientific knowledge. I include people who believe in abiogenesis followed by Darwinian evolution in that group which I respect.

So long as neither tries to force that belief on me, or get government to propagate it.

1. Atheists have long been propagating their distasteful ignorance on the overwhelming majority. They have gone to court to do so, beginning with eliminating any reference to prayer or the Holy Bible in any school or university. You don't find that remotely distasteful.

2. Every bill of currency and every coin you have spent for your entire life in the United States reads "IN GOD WE TRUST."

3. The Supreme Court and United States Congress begin every session with a prayer.

4. Darwinian evolution is at extreme odds with "scientific knowledge". Many hundreds of educated scientists have signed the Dissent from Darwin." You didn't know that?

5. A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent includes many quotes from Nobel Laureates, 85% of which are believers, 65% Christians and 20% Jews. They express their observations of how the Holy Bible agrees with contemporary science far more than does materialism (atheism).

 

[Robert W]

I include people who believe in abiogenesis followed by Darwinian evolution in that group which I respect.

So long as neither tries to force that belief on me, or get government to propagate it.

That has never happened and you are living proof.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Goddy Boy is a Thought Exercise and concept which quickly breaks down under scrutiny .
Used by non-thinkers as a hook on which to hang Faith --- --
a useful way to rationalise "not actually knowing " .

Proof There Is No God (Wink, Nudge)

proof-there-is-no-god.blogspot.com

So named to attract atheists where their/your nonsense is thoroughly refuted, by science under centuries of careful scrutiny. Read and learn, if you dare. I have read the nonsense of Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov and replied to them with critiques, showing scores of their errors and self-contradictions. I sold Sagan's letter response on E-Bay for $125 and Asimov's snarky postcard for $75.

An interesting aside: Asimov was so consumed with his own fame that he neglected his son who became a pedophile and was prosecuted in California after hundreds of images of child pornography were found on his computer. Asimov's legacy.

 

[Seymour Flops]

In 1962, my high school algebra teacher told the class, "If you put all the monkeys in the world in a room with all the typewriters in the world, they would eventually write all the books in the world."

Gullible kids that we all were, nobody thought through the mathematics, much less challenged the teacher. We simply accepted it as logically thought out. Such is the case with so much of evolutionary biology.

Typewriter keyboards, archaic and modern computer as well, have at least 100 different keys that can be struck, counting numbers, punctuation, and case.

Let's assume there are 50 letters on an average line and 50 lines on an average page. This totals 2,500 characters PER PAGE.

The probability of monkeys striking keys randomly to produce just a single page of any book is 1/100 to the 2,500th power, or 10 to the -5,000.

Since I previously showed the impossibility of only 10 to the -50, this is far beyond mere impossibility and yet a prominent scientist claimed that all the monkeys in the world could eventually type all the books in the British Museum.

" If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum." ~Arthur Stanley Eddington, prominent English physicist, The Running-Down of the Universe, 1927

Yes, a very apt comparison.

The way I heard it is that an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time would eventually produce the works of Shakespeare.

That is no more logical than claiming if Shakespeare's ghost possessed one monkey, it would type up the works of Shakespeare.

Sure it would. "If."

There is no ghost of Shakespeare, and there are no infinite monkeys, nor infinite typewriters. There may be infinite time, but if there were infinite monkeys, there is no reason to believe that a single one of them would spend their infinite time randomly tapping keys (and loading and reloading paper at exactly the right time).

The Shakespeare's ghost idea at least has internal logic, but that would of course be intelligent design of Shakespeare's works, not randomness taken to infinity.

There was no infinite time, either, for "natural selection" to achieve its magnum opus in the form of human beings. Not under any theory of cosmology that I ever heard of.

Keep posting, please. Once in a while, I cogitate on the "theory" of natural selection and start thinking 'maybe?'

But no.

 

[ChemEngineer]

The Miserable End of Darwinism

themiserableendofdarwinism.blogspot.com

 

[ChemEngineer]

1. Atheists have long been propagating their distasteful ignorance on the overwhelming majority. They have gone to court to do so, beginning with eliminating any reference to prayer or the Holy Bible in any school or university. You don't find that remotely distasteful.

2. Every bill of currency and every coin you have spent for your entire life in the United States reads "IN GOD WE TRUST."

3. The Supreme Court and United States Congress begin every session with a prayer.

4. Darwinian evolution is at extreme odds with "scientific knowledge". Many hundreds of educated scientists have signed the Dissent from Darwin." You didn't know that?

5. A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent includes many quotes from Nobel Laureates, 85% of which are believers, 65% Christians and 20% Jews. They express their observations of how the Holy Bible agrees with contemporary science far more than does materialism (atheism).

Over 1,000 PhD scientists have signed the Dissent from Darwinism;

Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard.

dissentfromdarwin.org

 

[Hafar1014]

Over 1,000 PhD scientists have signed the Dissent from Darwinism;

Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard.

dissentfromdarwin.org

Genesis describes evolution there are 2 very different Adams. In the beginning he is primitive with no oral awareness. At the end He does have morals which means he has evolved to a more complex level.
Scientists can be idiots

 

[Woodznutz]

Genesis describes evolution there are 2 very different Adams. In the beginning he is primitive with no oral awareness. At the end He does have morals which means he has evolved to a more complex level.
Scientists can be idiots

At the end Adam faces having to work for a living. Not what he envisioned life would be.

 

[Woodznutz]

... and it helps if the beliefs fill that emotional need ...

Or an intellectual need.

 

[Hafar1014]

At the end Adam faces having to work for a living. Not what he envisioned life would be.

Thats your idea of a life doing nothing. Youre a gift to society

 

[ChemEngineer]

Genesis describes evolution there are 2 very different Adams. In the beginning he is primitive with no oral awareness. At the end He does have morals which means he has evolved to a more complex level.
Scientists can be idiots

One individual does not, cannot "evolve." Darwinian evolution is a change in alleles, or DNA.
Nobody's DNA changes during their entire lifetime. Impossible.

Like all animals and humans, Adam "learned." That's all. Non-scientists can also be idiots, particularly if they are godless Leftists. (Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler, Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin)

 

[scruffy]

Nobody's DNA changes during their entire lifetime. Impossible.

You know jack shit about biology.

Like all animals and humans, Adam "learned." That's all. Non-scientists can also be idiots, particularly if they are godless Leftists. (Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler, Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin)

Same old bullshit from the resentful retards.

Go learn some math.

Why do you idiots refuse to learn math?