infinite monkey theorem

[joshua 1 9]

Why would there be failed attempts to build a universe?

The random theory requires many many failed attempts before you finally arrive at the right combination to make everything function and work.

 

[ecco]

None of this pertains to his current book. This is a review of his previous books before the current one came out. We expect as Christians that the atheists are going to attack and talk origin is not a reputable source outside of atheist circles. It is a act of desperation to have to turn to this web site rather than something more reputable in the scientific community.

1. TalkOrigins is reputable in scientific circles and is disparaged only by theists.
2. TalkReasons is the site that contains the critiques I have been referring to. I have pointed this out to you previously and you still conflate the two sites. This does not speak well for your reading and comprehension skills.

Here are some other sites that you will no doubt dislike.
http://www.judaismandscience.com/science-and-judaism-the-strange-claim-of-dr-schroeder-part-i/
http://creation.com/response-to-a-gerald-schroeder-fan#response


Why don't you point me to some websites that support Schroeder?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

None of this pertains to his current book. This is a review of his previous books before the current one came out. We expect as Christians that the atheists are going to attack and talk origin is not a reputable source outside of atheist circles. It is a act of desperation to have to turn to this web site rather than something more reputable in the scientific community.

That's a rather parochial view of "Talk Origins". What you are really saying is creationists don't like Talk Origins because it doesn't support them.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

The random theory requires many many failed attempts before you finally arrive at the right combination to make everything function and work.

Which 'random theory' is this?

 

[joshua 1 9]

That's a rather parochial view of "Talk Origins". What you are really saying is creationists don't like Talk Origins because it doesn't support them.

What does like have to do with it? Talk Origin rejects God and that means they walk in darkness, they do not walk in the light. Because we walk in the light then we have no fellowship with the works of darkness.

John 3:19
This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world,
and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Which 'random theory' is this?

The random theory started with Aristotle. It current incarnation is the infinite monkey theorem, the subject of this thread.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

That's a rather parochial view of "Talk Origins". What you are really saying is creationists don't like Talk Origins because it doesn't support them.

I agree with Paul's comment here.

BTW: The important essence of the talk.origins FAQ (and Dawkins' book and all referenced secondary sources) is that it summarises scientific work and then gives the references so that you can go and check them out. It doesn't introduce original research or unsupported opinion, it's a secondary source that summarises (and makes more accessible) primary research.

If anyone wants to attack the talk.origins FAQ all that is necessary is to show that it mis-represents the information in the original references. Can anyone do that? If it did, then demonstrating so should be easy.

The random theory started with Aristotle. It current incarnation is the infinite monkey theorem, the subject of this thread.

That theory says that a truly random process given infinite time will eventually produce any output. It doesn't state that the formation or coming into being of any universe is a random process or is the result of one. There could be unvarying physical laws which constrain potential universes, or which mean that there can only ever be one universe, or that any universe works.

What does like have to do with it? Talk Origin rejects God and that means they walk in darkness, they do not walk in the light. Because we walk in the light then we have no fellowship with the works of darkness.

John 3:19
This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world,
and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

I would say that the talk.origins FAQ shines the light of reason on the world, while Ken Ham hides the light behind the dark cloud of superstition.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

That is fine because the discussion is between Marcy and Schroeder. It looks like Marcy is from University of California at Berkeley. A liberal but still highly respected University. So I am surprised that MIT comes up with totally different conclusions using the exact same data. Still most of my life they have said they assume there are other planets but can not prove it. So all of this is new information that they are still processing and working out some degree of agreement concerning just what the chance is that there is another planet like the Earth. But clearly Schroeder is using more then just the information from NASA that Marcy seems to be using.

Still you are only considering one factor: the Habitable zone and Schroeder is considering at least 18 different characteristics that make our solar system unique and different from all the other solar systems in the Habitable zone that Marcy is talking about. Still it is significant that they feel there is a habitable zone even if that is only part of the story. Because it would take a lot more then just what Berkeley is looking at to duplicate life here on Earth.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/Stephen_Hawking__God.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, now I see the thrust of your argument, Joshua.
You are discussing the odds on finding a duplicate of the Earth. Or putting it another way, you are raising the bar as high as you possibly can by requiring that ALL of the conditions for life on Earth be...duplicated.

And herein lies the basic flaw of your argument.
A statistical analysis that uses a sample of just one of anything is statistically... meaningless. A statistical analysis that uses only the Earth to define it inevitably requires all other planets to be exactly the same as the Earth. So you're starting with the conclusion you want to achieve.

Now I see your thinking.

 

[joshua 1 9]

TalkOrigins is reputable in scientific circles and is disparaged only by theists.

Says you, show me some evidence to that effect. Funny thing is the first link you gave me comes to the conclusion about Schroeder that he is NOT objective. That is the case with talkorigin, they are not objective and they do not back up their talk with anything of any real substance. Still I liked the link because it was a interesting discussion even as he tried to find flaws or point out any weakness in what Schroeder talks about.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Says you, show me some evidence to that effect. Funny thing is the first link you gave me comes to the conclusion about Schroeder that he is NOT objective. That is the case with talkorigin, they are not objective and they do not back up their talk with anything of any real substance. Still I liked the link because it was a interesting discussion even as he tried to find flaws or point out any weakness in what Schroeder talks about.

They give ample resources to primary scientific literature. That is definitely backing up their talk (summaries really) with something of considerable substance.

 

[ecco]

In case you missed it. With some added emphasis.

1. TalkOrigins is reputable in scientific circles and is disparaged only by theists.
2. TalkReasons is the site that contains the critiques I have been referring to. I have pointed this out to you previously and you still conflate the two sites. This does not speak well for your reading and comprehension skills.

Here are some other sites that you will no doubt dislike.
http://www.judaismandscience.com/science-and-judaism-the-strange-claim-of-dr-schroeder-part-i/
http://creation.com/response-to-a-gerald-schroeder-fan#response


Why don't you point me to some websites that support Schroeder?

 

[joshua 1 9]

infinite monkey theorem

Actually Schroeder was referring Stephen hawking infinite monkey theorem.

As far as Schroeder is concerned all books can use fine tuning. The question is how much time do you want to spend to iron out all the wrinkles. In response to some of the objections with his book Schroeder responded: "The major error in the critique as I skimmed it is that the author seems to think I use general or special relativity to match the 6 fays to 15 billion yrs. I do not as is clear from the text. and In SOG I make it clear that is is red shifting and blue shifting due to stretching of space. And it is the Bible’s point of view, not God’s. That is the one sentence I would change in G&BB where I state God’s view of time. I should have written the Bible’s view. The view form the beginning is set by the Ramban on his commentary on Day One, rather than a first day. Gerry"

This is why we continue to read, study and learn to further perfect our views and what we believe to be true.

 

[joshua 1 9]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, now I see the thrust of your argument, Joshua.
You are discussing the odds on finding a duplicate of the Earth. Or putting it another way, you are raising the bar as high as you possibly can by requiring that ALL of the conditions for life on Earth be...duplicated.

And herein lies the basic flaw of your argument.
A statistical analysis that uses a sample of just one of anything is statistically... meaningless. A statistical analysis that uses only the Earth to define it inevitably requires all other planets to be exactly the same as the Earth. So you're starting with the conclusion you want to achieve.

Now I see your thinking.

The conversation was more between Hawking and Schroeder. For me there is a lot of talk in Genesis about the firmament or what we call the atmosphere. I just saw some photos taken from a weather balloon and the earth's atmosphere is very thin. So I do not know how much can be accomplished with the atmosphere and how much we need to duplicate the conditions we find here on earth. Even here on earth we seem to have a very narrow window of opportunity. When we do our gardening the conditions we need to provide for plants to prosper can be somewhat narrow. Weeds do real good all by themselves but a beautiful cultivated plant requires a lot more care then a weed. Schroeder attempts to address the issue of why the ground is cursed so that we have to fight with the weeds to cultivate our food. Very few people go into that dept in their study of the Bible. I have lots of books and I would consider most of them to be a waste of time. But I do believe that Schroeder has something to add to the conversation. Even if people are able to pick on what he says that is just a part of the process. That is what peer review process is all about. As they say you raise the flag and wait to see if they salute it or shoot it.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Actually Schroeder was referring Stephen hawking infinite monkey theorem.

As far as Schroeder is concerned all books can use fine tuning. The question is how much time do you want to spend to iron out all the wrinkles. In response to some of the objections with his book Schroeder responded: "The major error in the critique as I skimmed it is that the author seems to think I use general or special relativity to match the 6 fays to 15 billion yrs. I do not as is clear from the text. and In SOG I make it clear that is is red shifting and blue shifting due to stretching of space. And it is the Bible’s point of view, not God’s. That is the one sentence I would change in G&BB where I state God’s view of time. I should have written the Bible’s view. The view form the beginning is set by the Ramban on his commentary on Day One, rather than a first day. Gerry"

This is why we continue to read, study and learn to further perfect our views and what we believe to be true.

Schroeder uses the infinite monkey theorem to say that life could have arisen by chance by saying that the chance of (e.g.) the DNA of living organisms arising by chance is too small. But, his assumption is that all sequences are equally likely, and he's set the size of the 'hit' set (that creates life) at one, when any evolution starts going, that entirely changes the probabilities of what genomes can turn up. The simple model of assuming that any sequence of bases has the same probability of arising doesn't match what we know about probability, and we do not know what sequences would produce active proto-life, or how big that set is. So, we're unable to calculate these probabilities with any degree of accuracy, and the simple models don't say anything about the probability of life emerging.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Schroeder attempts to address the issue of why the ground is cursed so that we have to fight with the weeds to cultivate our food.

Cool - does he eventually find out who cursed it ? Has he considered that weed seeds might be to blame?

Incidentally, the 'Weasel Program' is an interesting model of how an 'infinite monkey' scenario could produce Shakespeare's works in a fraction of the 'random-only' time if it used evolutionary principles (i.e. cumulative selection).

 

[sfs]

What does like have to do with it? Talk Origin rejects God and that means they walk in darkness, they do not walk in the light. Because we walk in the light then we have no fellowship with the works of darkness.

Wait -- when did talkorigins reject God? As far as I know, the site only rejects creationism, not God.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What does like have to do with it? Talk Origin rejects God and that means they walk in darkness, they do not walk in the light. Because we walk in the light then we have no fellowship with the works of darkness.

John 3:19
This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world,
and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

Hmmph. They admire God's creation, which is more than some around here do.

 

[quatona]

The random theory requires many many failed attempts before you finally arrive at the right combination to make everything function and work.

Still assuming that random processes are driven by intentions and purposes?

Random makes no attempts at anything.

But, to humour you, let´s assume for a moment there were an entity who tried to create a universe and had made a lot of failed attempts before succeeding. What would such a failed attempt look like? Where would you expect to find it?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Schroeder uses the infinite monkey theorem to say that life could have arisen by chance by saying that the chance of (e.g.) the DNA of living organisms arising by chance is too small.

The point is that there seems to be only two options. Either Intelligent design however you define that or random chance. Given that option his vote is for design. If you reject design then the only option seems to be random chance.

Schroeder then goes on to say that we can "argue with God". So if we are not happy with the universe and feel there is a injustice then we are free to talk to God and ask Him to correct what we feel is an issue. It seems to me that at times there are atheists that are unhappy with the Creation and thus the Creator. Yet they do not want to dialogue directly with God. Rather they want someone to intercede for them so they can register their complaint.

At the time of Moses Israel was afraid of God. They told Moses to speak to them but do not allow God to speak to them because they were afraid they would die.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What would such a failed attempt look like? Where would you expect to find it?

My answer for that was a failed attempt would either fail or be deformed to the point where it could not reproduce.

Still assuming that random processes are driven by intentions and purposes?

That was Darwin's claim. Natural selection gives purpose and intent and becomes a guiding force for selections that are produced through a random process.