|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 10/29/2004 : 20:07:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
[There is a concept in science called an upper probability bound that calculates just how much information nature can generate. Before Dembski came along, mathematician Emil Borel mathematically set that limit at 10^50 meaning that anything with less of a chance than 1 chance in 10^50 of occurring cannot occur in reality.
Bill Dembski came along and based that upper probability bound on both math and science:
Dembski bases the UPB on the number of elementary particles in the observable universe, the duration of the universe until its heat death and Planck time. He writes: "Accordingly, specified information of complexity greater than 500 bits cannot reasonably be attributed to chance. This 500-bit ceiling on the amount of specified complexity attributable to chance constitutes a universal complexity bound for CSI."
Here is Dembski's reasoning: the number of elementary particles in the known universe are estimated to be 10^80. The smallest physically meaningful amount of time is Planck time, 10^45, roughly the number of Planck-time intervals in one second, and 10^25 is more than ten million times the age of our Milky Way galaxy in seconds:
______1______ __1__
10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25 = 10^-150
So, given this universal probability bound, anything with a probability less than 10^–150 (Also interpreted in the positive as 1 chance in 10^150) can be safely dismissed as too unlikely to ever happen in reality given any credible length of time.
But the simplest organism has many times this amount of specified complexity showing it to be designed.
Since anything complex enough to be alive is too complex to have become by by pure chance, this means that aliens could not have "seeded" Earth with life. In fact, nothing in this universe could have been the designer... The only Extra-Universly entity I've heard about is God. So, you are a theist after all, you just don't want to have that label. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 20:39:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It has a chance of 1 in 10^50, therefore, it can not happen. You seem to dismiss the fact that it has a 1 in 10^50 chance, and therefore saying it can not happen is wrong. What would be correct is that it is resonable to assume that it would not happen.
That's the old UPB. The better one is Dembski's 1 chance in 10^150 beause it's based on both math and science. Seems like it would have one chance in 10^150 so even though it's highly unlikely, it still could happen, right?
Wrong. It's absolutely scientifically impossible and I will show you this mathematically.
If I were to ask you to flip 500 fair coins and have them all come up heads, you could not do so.
Each coin has 2 possible outcomes and if there are 500 of them, there are 2^500 possible microstates which is about equal to Dembski's one chance in 10^150 UPB.
What this tells us is that with one chance in 10^150 of 500 coins coming up all heads, you would have to flip them 10^150 times for this to conceivably have a chance of occurring. We are going to pretend you are Superman and can flip 500 coins per second.
You have an insurmountable problem at this point. This will take you 10^150 seconds and let's calculate the number of seconds that have passed since the big bang:
We can see that this isn't going to work as if you have been alive since the inception of the big bang flipping 500 coins per second, you could only manage 7.9 x 10^15 flips which is nowhere near the 10^150 needed to give CSI a chance of forming.
I am going to give you some help here. Let's allow every particle that comprises the matter of the universe to join you in flipping 500 coins per seconds and see how many bits could be generated by all of nature since the big bang. There are estimated to be 10^80 particles in the observable universe:
10^80 flips / 1 second x 7.9 x 10^15 seconds = 7.9 x 10^95 flips.
We're still nowhere close to the 500 bits of information needed for CSI. In fact, this only works out to be 319 bits. I believe the reader can understand at this point that all of nature working together full-time in one accord and utilizing all of time since the conception of the universe could not generate anything near a system that contains over 500 bits of information. The simplest self-reproducing living cell contains much more information than this.
Perhaps one can see why ID is becoming so popular throughout America. Once people understand it and see it is based on solid science, math and logic and not based on someone waving magic wands and having reptiles shoving jawbones up into their ears and magically *poofing* into mammals or fish giving birth to litters of rabbits, it sells itself. 
Dr Mabuse:
quote:
Since anything complex enough to be alive is too complex to have become by pure chance, this means that aliens could not have "seeded" Earth with life. In fact, nothing in this universe could have been the designer... The only Extra-Universly entity I've heard about is God. So, you are a theist after all, you just don't want to have that label.
Faulty logic, I'm afraid. Since nature cannot create CSI does not logically extrapolate into, therefore astronauts can't either. All it translates into is that the system must be designed.
As example, in the above coin analogy, I can design a 500 head system in under 5 minutes flat. Just turn all the coins to heads and viola.
BTW, I never stated I was an atheist or a theist. I stated it is irrelevant what religious beliefs are when looking at science unless that sc |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 20:51:09 [Permalink]
|
I don't think Dembski's math is the issue, but rather the odds he arbitrarily chooses to assign to complex organisms. As Dave has already pointed out, natural selection is not a random process.
You also cannot simply sweep away the entire fossil records by saying we can't trust "funny looking" bones or that reptilian bones "got shoved up into their ears" like it happened all of a sudden. I swear, you are worse than Creationists, and you both disort the facts of evolution as you see fit. You are not objective, you are not scientific, and that is more and more evident with each post.
No one's buying it. Not even if you claim ID is "catching on day by day." What is that supposed to be, some kind of reverse psychology?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/29/2004 22:02:25 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 21:09:03 [Permalink]
|
Jerry wrote:quote:
What this tells us is that with one chance in 10^150 of 500 coins coming up all heads, you would have to flip them 10^150 times for this to conceivably have a chance of occurring. We are going to pretend you are Superman and can flip 500 coins per second.
Misuse of statistics and probability: there is a one in 10150 chance that all 500 flips will come up heads on the very first try, thus ending the "experiment" (and refuting your argument) in 1/500th of a second.quote:
I believe the reader can understand at this point that all of nature working together full-time in one accord and utilizing all of time since the conception of the universe could not generate anything near a system that contains over 500 bits of information.
So as Dr. Mabuse pointed out: nothing in this universe can have arisen naturally, and the ultimate "designer" of all we see must exist outside the universe. Your counter-argument, that "astronauts" may have designed life, begs the question of the origin of the astronauts, and doesn't respond to the true problem at hand.quote:
I stated it is irrelevant what religious beliefs are when looking at science unless that science and math is obviously made up.
Your probability calculations is based upon made-up premises, so by your own statement, your religious beliefs are now relevant.quote:
The simplest self-reproducing living cell contains much more information than this.
And what about the simplest self-reproducing molecules?quote:
Perhaps one can see why ID is becoming so popular throughout America.
I'd like to see evidence that it is becoming popular throughout America, but I doubt that will be forthcoming, just like none of the other evidence you claim to have has been forthcoming.
Assuming that it is gaining popularity: yes, it's a political movement intent on spreading misinformation and outright lies about evolution, natural selection and science, suggesting that people should accept an easy falsehood instead of the difficulties of true knowledge. People suck this sort of crap up, all the time. Look at the success of Jon Edward or religion in general.quote:
Once people understand it and see it is based on solid science, math and logic...
Which it isn't, as has been demonstrated many times already, both in this thread and elsewhere.quote:
...and not based on someone waving magic wands and having reptiles shoving jawbones up into their ears and magically *poofing* into mammals or fish giving birth to litters of rabbits, it sells itself.
That's precisely the kind of lying misrepresentation I'm talking about. Thanks for making my point for me, Jerry. You're your own worst enemy with this sort of proselytizing and [ahem] "science."
[Edited to fix quoting - Dave W.] |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 21:37:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't think Dembski's math is the issue, but rather the odds he arbitrarily chooses to assign to complex organisms. As Dave has already pointed out, natural selection is not a random process.
Oh, NS is now an intelligently driven force? One cannot predict a change in environment a million years in the past. Therefore, yes, NS was random as are mutations. BTW, that was my math, not Dembski's. Only the 500 bit upper probability bound is his. And there was nothing arbitrary about it, as it calculated the information down to the individual amino acid.
quote:
You also cannot simply sweep away the entire fossil records by saying we can't trust "funny looking" bones or that reptilian bones "got shoved up into their ears" like it happened all of a sudden. I swear, you are worse than Creationists, and you both disort the facts of evolution as you see fit. You are not objective, you are not scientific, and that is more and more evident with wach post.
I used to be objective until I caught onto the game of deception. I've probably sat through as many university classes on genetics and evolution as anyone in here. One day I looked at the evidence and figuratively threw my hands up in the air and said to myself, this is all a made up crock. That's the way honest scientists handle scientific truth.
Disingenuous ones handle it a bit differently. At one period in Gould's early career he was searching the fossil record for evidence to support Darwin's gradualism when just as with me he suddenly came to the stark realization there wasn't anything in there to support it. Nothing. Well, like other scientists such as chemists and physicists would do, did he come to the conclusion that the theory is dead due to lack of evidence?
No, he changed the theory in mid-stream. Since the fossil record seemed to show a rather sudden appearance of organisms he reasoned without one shred of evidence that this was the way macroevolution occurred. He called this new evolution punctuated equilibrium. No math, no evidence that could be experimentally shown as other theories of science must show to become theories, by golly that's just the way it is and we have us a new theory because I said so!
quote:
No one's buying it. Not even if you claim ID is "catching on day by day." What is that supposed to be, some kind of reverse psychology?
No, basically everyone is buying it other than those in the Academy of Sciences who are secular humanist religionists. My calculation puts that figure at around 93% of the Academy. They will simply become irrelevant to the subject as they have developed quite the reputation as becoming intellectual obstructionists rather than scientists.
ID is now beginning to be taught in even a few secular universities. People have been screaming for a text book with which to teach it and that little problem will be rectified in Feb.
This new science, now barely 10 or 15 years old in its present form, is light-years ahead of the point Darwinism was at 20 years after origin was written. Better get used to it.  |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 21:45:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by Dr Mabuse:
Since anything complex enough to be alive is too complex to have become by by pure chance, this means that aliens could not have "seeded" Earth with life. In fact, nothing in this universe could have been the designer... The only Extra-Universly entity I've heard about is God. So, you are a theist after all, you just don't want to have that label.
To which Jerry, the insane ID "scientist", responded: quote:
Faulty logic, I'm afraid. Since nature cannot create CSI does not logically extrapolate into, therefore astronauts can't either. All it translates into is that the system must be designed.
Do you know how to do anything OTHER than create straw men Jerry?
If nature cannot create life, which is EXACTLY what you are saying with your CSI argument, then that leaves only some unspecified extra-universal creator. If nature cannot create life, then that entirely excludes the possibility of a creator within this universe. That narrows the field considerably when considering WHO your designer is. Only "religionists" (is that even a freakin word? Well, you used it first) claim a supernatural (meaning outside of nature) designer. Which is what you have just done as well.
You're defeated by your own faulty logic, and you don't even have the capability to admit you're wrong and move on. Instead you kill a few straw-men to compensate for your lies being exposed.
I can tolerate morons like verlch, but assholes like you, who are clearly intelligent enough to realize what you are doing is a telling a deliberate lie, I despise.
Now, pack up your straw-men and apologize for spreading your lies. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 21:50:23 [Permalink]
|
*******Now, pack up your straw-men and apologize for spreading your lies.*******
I will be glad to as soon as someone uses math, science or logic to refute anything I have asserted. LOL...It seems the entire thread is completely out of argument and the only ammunition you have left is juvenile name calling? Wow, that was easy. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 21:57:04 [Permalink]
|
Yep, only thing left to do is call you names..... moron.
How about you explain how, if CSI cannot occur in nature, some unamed astronaut can come around and create it?
Just admit that you're a fundamentalist religionist. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 22:13:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
I will be glad to as soon as someone uses math, science or logic to refute anything I have asserted.
But that's exactly what Dude (among others) just did, and extremely well I might add.quote:
If nature cannot create life, which is EXACTLY what you are saying with your CSI argument, then that leaves only some unspecified extra-universal creator. If nature cannot create life, then that entirely excludes the possibility of a creator within this universe. That narrows the field considerably when considering WHO your designer is. Only "religionists" (is that even a freakin word? Well, you used it first) claim a supernatural (meaning outside of nature) designer. Which is what you have just done as well.
That is a logical argument which shows that "astronauts" (your term) could not possibly be responsible for seeding life on earth, as the odds of their own existence arising by chance would have been just as impossible. It also excludes any natural force whatever. Clearly you are arguing for a supernatural cause, despite your protests that your focus is entirely scientific.
So that's the charge. It isn't name-calling, it's the only rational conclusion based upon the statements you've made. You've been trapped in a contradiction entirely of your own making. Playing up the part of the abused victim will not extract you.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/29/2004 22:27:19 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 22:17:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
Oh, NS is now an intelligently driven force?
Nice false dichotomy you've got there. According to you, natural selection is either random or it is "intelligently driven." There's a whole realm of possibility in between these two extremes which you are ignoring, and within which the theory of natural selection sits, unaffected by your faulty logic.quote:
One cannot predict a change in environment a million years in the past. Therefore, yes, NS was random as are mutations.
But natural selection isn't the only driving force behind evolution. Kin and sexual selection are other pressures, and transfer and drift also play roles. You're taking on an extremely tiny sub-set of modern evolutionary theory, but you seem to be unable to even grasp that small piece of it.quote:
BTW, that was my math, not Dembski's. Only the 500 bit upper probability bound is his. And there was nothing arbitrary about it, as it calculated the information down to the individual amino acid.
Sure, it's arbitrary, unless you have evidence which demonstrates that the Planck time, the number of atoms in the observable universe, and the age of the universe are somehow driving ID. Otherwise, those are just numbers plucked from a hat which sound scientific, but actually have nothing to do with the theory in question.quote:
I used to be objective...
Ah, good. An honest admission of bias.quote:
...until I caught onto the game of deception. I've probably sat through as many university classes on genetics and evolution as anyone in here. One day I looked at the evidence and figuratively threw my hands up in the air and said to myself, this is all a made up crock. That's the way honest scientists handle scientific truth.
No, honest scientists don't give up in metaphoric (or real) disgust. They figure out what's wrong with the theory, precisely, using solid definitions, and build on that to create a new theory.quote:
Disingenuous ones handle it a bit differently. At one period in Gould's early career he was searching the fossil record for evidence to support Darwin's gradualism when just as with me he suddenly came to the stark realization there wasn't anything in there to support it. Nothing. Well, like other scientists such as chemists and physicists would do, did he come to the conclusion that the theory is dead due to lack of evidence?
Of course not. Sudden appearances of organisms in the fossil record don't invalidate the other evidence of evolution. They don't even invalidate the fossil record as evidence of evolution. The proper response was not to claim the theory lacks evidence, but to modify the theory to incorporate all of the evidence, which ID fails to do.quote:
No, he changed the theory in mid-stream.
Excellent! That's science! Just like Einstein. (Or is Newtonian physics also "dead due to lack of evidence?" After all, the story of relativity closely parallels the story of punctuated equilibrium, a much better analogy than any you've proposed.)quote:
Since the fossil record seemed to show a rather sudden appearance of organisms he reasoned without one shred of evidence that this was the way macroevolution occurred. He called this new evolution punctuated equilibrium. No math, no evidence that could be experimentally shown as other theories of science must show to become theories, by golly that's just the way it is and we have us a new theory because I said so!
Another lying misrepresentation of the truth. The fossil record doesn't show A sudden appearance of organisms, it shows many such examples. You've got blinders on for the Cambrian, but it doesn't demonstrate what you appear to think it demonstrates, and you ignore the other evidence which Gould and Eldridge saw.quote:
No, basically everyone is buying it...
Where's your evidence of this?quote:
...other than those in the Academy of Sciences who are secular humanist religionists.
Considering that's obviously meant to be derogatory, I submit that you are behaving - as you said - as a juvenile.quote:
My calculation puts that figure at around 93% of the Academy.
Show your work.quote:
They will simply become irrelevant to the subject as they have developed quite the reputation as becoming intellectual obstructionists rather than scientists.
Where is your evidence for this assertion?quote:
ID is now beginning to be taught in even a few secular universities.
Where is your evidence for this assertion?quote:
People have been screaming for a text book with which to teach it and that little problem will be rectified in Feb.
I believe you may be referring to your own book. Humble much?quote:
This new science...
If it were science, you might be correct. But the more you talk about it, the less it appears to be based upon experimentation and falsifiable hypotheses (your definition of 'science'), and instead upon abuse of probability math, arguments from ignorance and |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 22:30:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That is a logical argument which shows that "astronauts" (your term) could not possibly be responsible for seeding life on earth, as the odds of their own existence would have been just as impossible. It also excludes any natural force whatever. Clearly you are arguing for a supernatural cause, despite your protests that your focus is entirely scientific.
I haven't posited that astronauts seeded earth with life. LOL, where on earth did you get that?
And you are badly missing the logic in what I did assert. Let's try again.
The forces of nature cannot generate CSI as I have just shown mathematically. Can someone show that math wrong, mathematically (not with words. One cannot refute math with words, math has to be refuted with other math)? If not, it stands.
But intelligence can generate CSI very easily as evidenced by simple computer programs written somewhere everyday that contain many times more than 500 bits of information.
Here are the conclusions that can be derived from the premises:
P1: Nothing but intelligence can generate CSI.
P2: Living cells are CSI.
Conc: CSI was generated by intelligence.
Aristotle says there is a winner to this debate and who I am I to argue with Aristotle. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 22:34:05 [Permalink]
|
Correction:
I CANNOT figure out how to correct my posts via an edit. Anyhow that conclusion in the syllogism was wrong and should read:
Therefore, living cells were generated by intelligence.
That works better with the Barbara format. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 22:50:19 [Permalink]
|
Jerry wrote:quote:
The forces of nature cannot generate CSI as I have just shown mathematically. Can someone show that math wrong, mathematically (not with words. One cannot refute math with words, math has to be refuted with other math)? If not, it stands.
Sorry, but your assertion that math can only be refuted by other math does not stand.
Actually, there's an error in your math which I missed. You said:We can see that this isn't going to work as if you have been alive since the inception of the big bang flipping 500 coins per second, you could only manage 7.9 x 10^15 flips which is nowhere near the 10^150 needed to give CSI a chance of forming. But in reality, 7.9x1015 is the number of seconds that have elapsed since the Big Bang. The number of coin flips in that time, at 500 flips per second, is obviously (and mathematically) 3.95x1018. No big deal, of course.
But, the fact is that you have abused the mathematics of probability by asserting that it would take longer than 3.95x1018 seconds to give CSI "a chance of forming" randomly. This isn't true, as 500 coins have one chance in 10150 of coming up all heads on the very first toss. This is one of the mathematical axioms of probability. Ignore it at your peril.
In other words, your argument - even though based upon math - fails terribly in the logic department. You are insisting upon a probability argument, yet use a non-mathematical definition of probability by also insisting that something with a one-in-X chance of occuring "doesn't have a chance" of occuring until X events have gone by.
Yet a much more simple example shows just how wrong you are. A single coin toss has a 1-in-2 chance of coming up heads. This does not mean that I have to flip the coin twice before it has "a chance" of coming up heads, it means the first flip has a 50% chance of coming up heads.
You claim to base your argument on math, and yet you use incorrect math, and incorrect logic. It is - to use your word - "fantasyland" math.
And so, your P1 has yet to be demonstrated. You also refuse to supply the evidence which would allow anyone to agree with P2. Therefore, your conclusion has a completely unknown truth value.
And for the second time: some of Aristotle's ideas have been refuted for thousands of years. Perhaps you should argue with Aristotle, rather than fall back on another argument from authority. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 23:05:55 [Permalink]
|
********But in reality, 7.9x1015 is the number of seconds that have elapsed since the Big Bang. The number of coin flips in that time, at 500 flips per second, is obviously (and mathematically) 3.95x1018. No big deal, of course.*********
How do you figure this? If an entity has x amount of seconds to flip coins at the rate of one flip per second the number of times the coins can be flipped are the number of seconds available to the entity.
IOW, if I am to flip a coin per second and am given 10 seconds in which to do so, I can accomplish 10 flips. How do you figure this is mathematically incorrect?
The rest of your post doesn't actually bring a logical argument, just more denial, I'm afraid. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 00:28:17 [Permalink]
|
Jerry wrote:quote:
How do you figure this? If an entity has x amount of seconds to flip coins at the rate of one flip per second the number of times the coins can be flipped are the number of seconds available to the entity.
Edited to say: Ah, I see where my error is. Nevermind.quote:
The rest of your post doesn't actually bring a logical argument, just more denial, I'm afraid.
What more do I have? You're arguing for a viewpoint of probability shared only with a theocratic religionist: Bill Dembski. Mathematics is all about definition, and you've done nothing more than use a different definition of probability than any competent statistician would use, yet you claim it is sound.
Consider this: I've asserted now, thrice, that by saying that an event has one-in-X odds, there's a one-in-X chance of it happening on the first occurence. You have neither refuted this nor agreed with it, instead choosing to simply ignore it. Yet it is the basis of all of probability calculations. It is axiomatic - a definition.
Clearly, by stating that no event has even "a chance" of occuring before X events have gone by, you disagree with my definition. But you haven't bothered to offer a definition of your own which makes any sort of mathematical sense when combined with your other calculations.
Mathematics is based upon definitions. We have to agree upon what 1, +, = and 2 mean if we're to agree that 1+1=2. If someone disagrees with your definitions of mathematics, you cannot just sit smugly back and assume you are correct. You must - as with science in general - defend your axioms.
So please, demonstrate to all of us how a 1-in-X probability means - to all mathematicians and statisticians - that X events must transpire before there is "a chance" of the occurence in question happening. And also, what, precisely and mathematically did you mean by "a chance," anyway? What are the odds of something occuring which has "a chance" of happening?
Look, you're the one who's attempting to bring an argument here. Defend your argument. "Just more denial" is not a defense. Cite a mathematical proof which demonstrates that 1-in-X odds only give "a chance" to something which has been tried X times, and no less. This is the entire basis of your logical (and mathematical) reasoning in this particular part of your whole "theory," so it should be easy for you to cite one lousy proof. Let's have it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
