Proving God Statistically

*grin*Seing as DNAunion is now spending his time in other threads trying to pick a fight with me (such as taking as many out of context quotes as he can find and sticking them in one post), I've decided on an official policy of just ignoring him from now on.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Which is way the calculations might as well be in units of "Angels".

Hiya NosyNed:I'd be happy to explain all of this to you but first I just gotta hear some answers to this question : Why is it that 'you guys' blast away at ID Theory when it is obvious (from the posts on this and other threads and from questions such as yours) that you don't even know / understand what ID Theory is about?That this question begs asking has given me a major migraine, upset stomach, and dizzy spells - all at once! I mean, wouldn't the more reasonable and scholarly attitude be to reserve judgment on ID Theory until at the very least the basics were mastered?I'll look for your answers but I'm supposed to be engaged in a "Great Debate" of some kind so I'll just be watching for a while.Jorge

Well you're the guy who insists that he knows all about Dembski's explanatory filter while claiming that it doesn't require any probability calculations.Don't you think that YOU ought to get the basics right before (falsely) accusing others of using a strawman ?

Joralex,How can we tell the difference between a Intelligently Designed system and a natural one that we:1) currently do not understand but will in the future, or2) do not have the intelligence to ever understand?Additionally, I am of the opinion that, because ID makes no testable predictions, is not falsifiable, is not based upon positive evidence, and does not inspire scientific discoveries in other fields, it is philosophical in nature rather than scienctific.If you know of any testable, falsifiable predictions of the ID proponents or positive evidence (not a lack of evidence for another theory) can you list them here?

Hey, Welcome back.Maybe you think I'm "blast"ing away at ID because I don't know it as well as you do. I've been waiting for a rather long while now to understand what CSI is.http://EvC Forum: Complex Specified Information (CSI) -->EvC Forum: Complex Specified Information (CSI)Perhaps you can catch that thread up for me?

quote:

---

The flip side is that the number of outcomes that falls within the set of easily recognizable patterns is extremely small: probably not too much larger than the following

---

What about:1,1,2,2,1,1,2,2,1,1for example (or any sequence like it) -- these are possibly
generated by the process in question too.Ten draws with all ten numbers present.

quote:

---

Therefore, while we should not be surprised to hear that "Frank" hit upon your sequence by chance in a single shot, we should be surprised to hear that "Frank" hit upon the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 by chance in a single shot (in fact, we should probably reject "Frank"'s claim).

---

Pick a sequence in advance (any sequence) and I would be suprised
to see it first try no matter what.The odds of getting one pre-specified result is 1 in 10 billion,
the odds of getting the result you just got is 1 in 1.

quote:

---

Would you be surprised if someone claimed to have followed the above method and ended up with, in a single trial, the following?

​

P_AOZIUHV_EU_KS__IPBODQKVO_IYTCR

​

Probably not: there’s nothing readily noticeable in that result that immediately raises suspicion of cheating.

​

But, what if the person claimed to have obtained any of the following in a single run through:

​

FOR_SCORE_AND_SEVEN_YEARS_AGO___

​

or

​

ME_THINKS_IT_IS_LIKE_A_WEASEL___

​

or

​

ONTOGENY_RECAPITULATES_PHYLOGENY

​

You should seriously doubt the claim that chance alone produced those results. But why?

---

I might doubt that the person was telling me the truth -- but
arguments from incredulity don't hold water.Suppose they video taped it, and that WAS what they got!!Astonishing (because the result is unexpected) but not impossible.In fact your supposedly 'random' string is just as unlikely,
AND just as suspicous. It contains significantly more spaces
than one would expect from pure chance (1:5 rather than 1:27)
including two spaces in a row.

quote:

---

I purposely avoided saying that such things CANNOT occur by chance alone; I said they DO NOT. There is a difference.

---

Remarkably improbable things happen all the time.That I, specifically, exist is a huge improbability, but here
I am typing away.Not only did THE sperm out of the millions on the mission
have to arrive just when THE ovum was the one in the right
place -- my parents had to meet in the first place...and each
of them has the same basic odds of specific existence.The odds of there being ANY people about is small -- the odds
of one of the being me is astronomically small -- but...

What about a meaningful sentence in the Enigma code?
Or any other cypher system?Or in Latin equivalent of Hebrew or Arabic or Manadarin?

Well in an effort for once on my part to actually stay on topic I pulled this from the original post of David Pryor. I have to agree with the observation that the human body with all its functions just happening by chance is a statistical monstrosity.That is the problem when people with expertise in one area step into another area where they have no clue and make uninformed statements that do not apply to the task at hand.I suppose the people who swallow this from a mathematician also seek homeopathy because they are so much better at fixing what ails you than a doctor.Anyway one must begin by wondering how this arguement about the human body weighs in to help prove God statistically.This is the same old B.S. that couldn't be driven out of a creationist with a bag of hammers.So David we will put the obvious in front of your face and see if you can clue in.Human bodies do not happen by simply chance.They evolve and do so through a combination of chance events{nothing strange there as well as natural selection.What problem do you find with that conclusion?Of course we can conversely ask what are the odds of a invisible immaterial being existing that even though there is no proof of his existence other than peoples say so.And this same god creates this universe who size we cannot even properly fathom with all these events taking place at scales that range from the infinitesimal to the immense all around us some of which we cannot ever have any direct information from just so he can sit and watch the bumblings of a confused humanity.No stretch of the probability scale here right?[sigh]------------------
"Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry."[This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-19-2003][This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-19-2003][This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-19-2003]

quote:

---

Rei: This ignores counting things such as gravitrons...
...ignoring gravitrons ...

---

quote:

---

DNAunion: What's a gravitron?

---

quote:

---

Crashfrog: DNAunion writes:
It's not my job to educate you. If you don't understand something, try reading a book.

---

So is a gravitRon similar to a leptRon, like the familiar electon that orbits the nucleus where the protRons and neutons are found? Or maybe it’s more like a muRon, or a hadon, or a mesRon, or a photRon?Or was Rei referring to the amusement ride called the gravitron?
Gravitron – Amusement Ride Extravaganza[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-19-2003]

Did it ever occur to you to address the substance of someone's post, rather than their spelling shortcomings? Just curious...

quote:

---

Did it ever occur to you to address the substance of someone's post, rather than their [sic] spelling shortcomings? Just curious...

---

Someone is singular; their is plural.

ANYONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE DEMBSKI IS A MORON