Creation

Zaius137 · Oct 25, 2011

Here is a very simple argument for a universal bound in chemistry. Since the estimate of the age of the universe ~13.4 billion years the number of actual chemical reactions that could have ever taken place is ~10^50th. Hey this is Borel’s upper limit…. TaDaaa.

Naraoia · Oct 27, 2011

Zaius137 said:
Here is a very simple argument for a universal bound in chemistry. Since the estimate of the age of the universe ~13.4 billion years the number of actual chemical reactions that could have ever taken place is ~10^50th. Hey this is Borels upper limit. TaDaaa.

... which, as sfs and I just confirmed, means that any chemical reaction with that probability has more likely than not already taken place

Zaius137 · Oct 28, 2011

more likely than not already taken place 

Sounds like a very scientific conclusion but I will have to adhere to the statistical evaluation. I will not slight your opinion just because it is common among evolutionists to be more likely rather than scientifically probable.

Naraoia · Oct 31, 2011

Zaius137 said:
more likely than not already taken place 

Sounds like a very scientific conclusion but I will have to adhere to the statistical evaluation. I will not slight your opinion just because it is common among evolutionists to be more likely rather than scientifically probable.

'scuse me? This is not an "opinion", this is (1) an empirically derived result (2) confirmed by sfs's formula. It's simply how probability works. If I made any mistakes, I would be grateful if you pointed them out. Otherwise, I don't see how my calculation is different from a "statistical evaluation".

Zaius137 · Oct 31, 2011

“Since the chance of not picking 5 in any one trial is 1-(1/5) = 4/5, my chance of not picking 5 in n trials is (4/5)n. The chance of picking 5 at least once out of n trials is therefore 1-((4/5)n). If I'm given 5 attempts, same as the number of possibilities, that comes to about 2/3 (not close to 1 as I'd guessed). If I have to pick one number out of 10 rather than 5, and have 10 attempts to pick, my probability of bagging the right number decreases slightly, to about 65%. However, as I increase the number of choices, the probability seems to converge to somewhere around 63%. Unfortunately, I have no calculators capable of handling stupidly small numbers, so I couldn't actually get anywhere near 1080 choices.”

Where did you go to school at? This is high school stuff. The relationship is trivial…

Chances of picking 5 out of 5 choices is 1/5
Chances of not picking 5 is 4/5
The relationship is simple (1-1/5)= 4/5…

Chances of picking 5 five times in a row is (1/5)^5 = 3.2x10^-4. not 1-((4/5)^5)= .67.
Use the binomial distribution for an interval of 10 instead of the odds of not picking 5 ten times in a row. If you can’t figure this out review the binomial distribution on the web. Get this right and we can move deeper into this.

(sfs) gave you Limit definition for Euler’s eqation…

sfs should explain why….

Naraoia · Oct 31, 2011

I wasn't talking about picking 5 five times in a row. I was talking about picking at least one 5 in five trials.

Where did you go to school at? Reading comprehension is primary school stuff...

Zaius137 · Nov 1, 2011

http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspx

Try this… notice as the number of trials goes up the average approaches 1. Which are the predicted odds for hitting any single value between one and five with the probability of 1/5 and five trials.

Naraoia · Nov 1, 2011

Zaius137 said:
http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspx

Try this notice as the number of trials goes up the average approaches 1. Which are the predicted odds for hitting any single value between one and five with the probability of 1/5 and five trials.

I tried. Literally a million times. I can show you my R code. The probability of getting the right number at least once is 0.67.

If you use your binomial calculator, you want 0 in "Number of successes (x)", and you want to look at "Cumulative probability: P(X>0)". That gives you the probability of having any successes at all.

Which is the negation of not having any success, hence the 0 in # of successes. Calculating P(X=0) and subtracting it from 1 is just the simplest way of getting the correct result. You could also add up the probabilities of having exactly 1, exactly 2, etc. successes (which is all the different ways of succeeding). The two methods are exactly equivalent. Both come to 0.67.

Seriously, this is not that complicated.

And either way - 1 or 0.67 -, we've verified that given a lifetime of the universe, an event with P = [universal bound] is pretty likely. That was the point of the exercise.

Zaius137 · Nov 1, 2011

“If you use your binomial calculator, you want 0 in "Number of successes (x)", and you want to look at "Cumulative probability: P(X>0)". That gives you the probability of having any successes at all.”

Given an expectation of “0” success then there is no reason to use probability. In probability the number set is in the real number range.

“Which is the negation of not having any success, hence the 0 in # of successes. Calculating P(X=0) and subtracting it from 1 is just the simplest way of getting the correct result. You could also add up the probabilities of having exactly 1, exactly 2, etc. successes (which is all the different ways of succeeding). The two methods are exactly equivalent. Both come to 0.67.”

In probability there must be some expectation. The basic definition of probability is expected value/ all possible values. Placing a zero in the numerator leaves the probability zero. Now there can be an expectation given a real probability that there will not be any event on a given interval (still a real number not zero). As I stated before the binomial distribution will approach the Poisson distribution under certain conditions. To determine the P(0) use… P(0)=e^-m. (m) is the average occurrence per interval. If (m) is zero P(0) will equal 1 or 100% chance of an event not occurring at all. By the way this is exactly the result of crossing a universal probability bound.

Zaius137 · Nov 1, 2011

A magician has exactly one rabid in a hat. He reaches in and pulls it out. What are the odds of the magician pulling out another rabbit? The creationist says zero. The evolutionists claims one in ten to the two millionth.

Naraoia · Nov 1, 2011

Zaius137 said:
If you use your binomial calculator, you want 0 in "Number of successes (x)", and you want to look at "Cumulative probability: P(X>0)". That gives you the probability of having any successes at all.

Given an expectation of 0 success then there is no reason to use probability. In probability the number set is in the real number range.

Zero was not the expectation. Zero was the value of the random variable for which I was evaluating the probability density function. That random variable being the number of successes out of 5 Bernoulli trials, with the possible values 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Or, if probability jargon confuses you - and since you were talking about expectations where there were none, I suspect it would -, let me put it in layman's terms again.

There is an event we want to happen. We have 5 attempts to make it happen, but any one attempt has only a 1 in 5 chance of succeeding.

Question: what's our overall chance of success?

Solution: there are different kinds of "success". We could have exactly one successful attempt, but we wouldn't mind having more. Basically, any series of trials that isn't five failures is good.

Because probabilities always add up to 1, the simplest way to calculate the chance of success is to calculate the probability of failure and subtract it from 1 - what's left is the probability of "not a failure", which is exactly what we want. This is where the zero came from. Zero just means "five failures". Since it's just one possible value of a random variable, not a random variable itself, it doesn't have an "expectation".

I'm starting to feel like I'm trying to teach probability to a chatbot.

Zaius137 · Nov 1, 2011

“Zero was not the expectation. Zero was the value of the random variable for which I was evaluating the probability density function. That random variable being the number of successes out of 5 Bernoulli trials, with the possible values 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.”

If zero was in the choice the probability it would be one in six not one in five. However you want to look at it you cannot avoid a universal bound and I think you are confusing yourself. I will have to leave it to the outside opinion about your misunderstanding because I tried my best. The only way that an evolutionist can justify their calculations is either to misrepresent or petition to a new physics and chemistry.

Like I said earlier…

A magician has exactly one rabbit in a hat. He reaches in and pulls it out. What are the odds of the magician pulling out another rabbit? The creationist says zero. The evolutionists claim one in ten to the two millionths.

Naraoia · Nov 2, 2011

Zaius137 said:
If zero was in the choice the probability it would be one in six not one in five.

One in five is the probability of a success in ONE trial. Zero is one of the possible numbers of successes in FIVE trials. Please, please, get it already. I'm swiftly losing my faith in humanity.

However you want to look at it you cannot avoid a universal bound...

I've just shown you why the universal bound doesn't think what you think it means. Well, I tried at least. There's only so many times I can explain something before I throw my hands up in hopeless frustration.

...and I think you are confusing yourself.

I don't feel particularly confused. Not to mention I told you I actually simulated the whole "have 5 attempts to pick a number out of 5" thing millions of times before sfs helped out with that limit (as I said, I can give you my code).

I invite anyone who doesn't confuse individual values of a random variable with expectations to correct me if I'm wrong...

I will have to leave it to the outside opinion about your misunderstanding because I tried my best.

Same here. Best to let the thread speak for itself

The only way that an evolutionist can justify their calculations is either to misrepresent or petition to a new physics and chemistry.

I forget, where did I invoke new physics and chemistry? Quote, please.

supersage · Mar 4, 2012

I'm Christian, yet I am deeply into science and believe totally in evolution.
I have my concepts about the origin of the universe, so I keep them out of scientific discussion, because I know they are no where near scientific, thus I never mention them in science class which is and should be reserved for science only.
A friend in his blog sort of summed it up:
"The moment Creation (magic) is apparent, it cannot be made scientific (form a theory with consistent, measurable and predictable outcomes). So they cannot ever exist together.
Magic (creator intrusion) destroys predictability which destroys any scientific accountability and scrutibility.
That is the principle reason Creation cannot be taught in science classes. Because there's no science involved.
It cannot even be promoted as an alternative scientific theory, because it is not a scientific theory
It is only a religious argument based on faith alone, never a scientific argument, so it still cannot logically be introduced into science classes, EVER!"

I leave my faith out of science, so should Creationists and I.D. activists.
Because they make Christianity and us Christians look extremely stupid to the rest of the intelligent world.
Jesus said nothing about denying scientific evidence!:

supersage · Mar 4, 2012

Just to elaborate my point.

Okay: Science has various "Origin Of The Universe" theories.
They are called theories in science because they have various forms of scientific evidence from which they were derived.
Theory in science is not the common use of theory, such as a notion or idea.

For instance, there is the "Big Bang Theory" which has a huge amount of data to support it.
For me to involve my god in the "Big Bang Theory" would introduce magic, which automatically renders it unscientific.
Thus I leave god out of the scientific investigation of the origin of the universe, because I have to, in order to keep it scientific.

God should always be kept out of science.
Because there's no real reason for including god.

There's absolutely no conflict, because science is not interested in god and god is definitely not concerned with what scientists discover.
The two are completely and idealistically separate!

God Bless!!

Creation

Real science and faith are compatible.

Apprentice Biologist

Real science and faith are compatible.

Apprentice Biologist

Real science and faith are compatible.

Apprentice Biologist

Real science and faith are compatible.

Apprentice Biologist

Real science and faith are compatible.

Real science and faith are compatible.

Apprentice Biologist

Real science and faith are compatible.

Apprentice Biologist

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency