Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[dust1n]

This is that post I was referring to /coin flips/

This was my response.

Thanks.

"It's different concepts, however. *Translating something like the OP premise into coin flips will yield increased improbability, whereas in your illustration, it has the opposite effect. The only way we could quantify an exact number of representational coin flips regarding the OP is to have a repetition statistic between two OP units. (pink flamingos); the coin flip in translation to the op premise or similar, changes from one sequence, /10 same side in a row/,, (your illustration), to two sequences, ie one sequence of /same side in a row/, then another sequence of /same side in a row./ Then the amount of coin flips between these two sequences, could be used as the probable figure for random occurrence.

*theoretical as we only have one unit in the OP premise. of course."

How many coin clips are required, exactly? What about the universe or about evolution is equivalent to a fifty percent chance you are referring to?

Well, you wouldn't not make any deductions simply because of an unknown. You would still come to a best conclusion for an argument. ''unknown'', doesn't tell me i'm incorrect in my approximations, the same way it wouldn't affirm any one elses position.

How can you arrive at a conclusion from an unknown premise?

P1: ???
P2: ???

Conclusion: The chances for pink flamingos to exist is extremely rare.

It doesn't tell you your approximations are incorrect. It just tells us that your approximations are grounded in conjecture, and no actual proof or even any evidence, and anything conclusions derived off those conjectures would just further conjectures.

Sure, except that could apply to anything. Try presenting an argument without that applying to it, theoretically.

"Yes, this is the problem. You do not know what the variables are, therefore you cannot calculate the odds, therefore you cannot know about the odds."

Okay.

I have a deck of cards. I would like to calculate the odds that, with randomly shuffled deck, I will pull 5 cards and draw a Royal Flush.

How many possible hands can one pull from a deck?

Alright, so out of 2,598,960 possible hands I could draw, how many possible sets of Royal Flushes can I draw?

Royal straight flush — A royal straight flush is a subset of all straight flushes in which the ace is the highest card (i.e. 10-J-Q-K-A in any of the four suits). Thus, the total number of royal straight flushes is

4/2598960 = (According to my calculator) 1.53907716932927e-6, or %.00000153907716932927... Or 1:649470.

So, no it doesn't really apply to anything. It really only applies to outlandish claims about statistics and probability of the universe existing and creating pink flamingos, and the like.

 

[Yorutenchi]

So why don't you produce Godfather part 5 by a way of randomly burning pits on a DVD and selection?

It is all special pleading that probability can just be waved away for evolution theory. All argumentation has to be applied equally, and no special exception can be made for evolution theory. You are just being a pitbull for Darwin, throwing your smarts on the side of evolution theory. What smart thing are you going to come up with next? All just debating tactics lacking honesty, fairness, straightforward reasoning.

Are you being sarcastic?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

we started at one set of ten in a row, we didn't flip to achieve it. so, it's like trying to get the first set.
We don't know the probability until another 10 sides are flipped in a row.

We do know the probability. It's called math, more specifically probabilities and statistics. It's for those reasons that we know that no matter how skilled the player, no game of Tetris can go on forever because eventually, regardless of the next tetrinome being randomly generated, the S-tetrinomes will eventually create too many empty spaces, eventually causing a game over. Even though it is randomly determined what tetrinome you will get next, it is a mathematical fact that eventually you will get too many S-tetrinomes.to effectively build.

 

[Yorutenchi]

we started at one set of ten in a row, we didn't flip to achieve it. so, it's like trying to get the first set.
We don't know the probability until another 10 sides are flipped in a row.

I will ask again, what is your statistics based on?

 

[Desert Snake]

We do know the probability. It's called math, more specifically probabilities and statistics. It's for those reasons that we know that no matter how skilled the player, no game of Tetris can go on forever because eventually, regardless of the next tetrinome being randomly generated, the S-tetrinomes will eventually create too many empty spaces, eventually causing a game over. Even though it is randomly determined what tetrinome you will get next, it is a mathematical fact that eventually you will get too many S-tetrinomes.to effectively build.

Nope, you don't know a probability until you have a comparison, like a starting number or repetition. Contextually, you don't have repetitions, which is an indicator of improbability. This is aside from the fact that you don't know how many coin flips occurred before you started counting; that's an 'unknown', hence not relevant to determining a known within the parameters of the /known coin flips/

 

[Yorutenchi]

Known reality. That's the basis; No one has presented a model which posits another theory yet, so that's what we're going with.

What part of known reality are you basing it off of. All statistics that are accurate are based on "known reality" but this in itself is a meaningless answer. What are you counting and where are you getting the numbers?

What theory and model are you proposing that doesn't have a counter measure? Currently evolution has multiple models and theories with well established evidences supporting it.

 

[Yorutenchi]

We're using pink flamingos as a unit. /number/ We're counting from 1, ie /1/, to wherever , to arrive at probability for pink flamingos.

So far it doesn't seem you have created an argument. You have simply stated a conclusion without supporting it.

Pink Flamingos as what kind of unit? All of their evolutionary history? The number of current pink flamingos? And to what end? What is the exact probability that pink flamingos exist instead of something else is entirely meaningless as I have already pointed out. Every possible outcome is infinity improbable. Yet we will always have at least one outcome.

In biology we do not use probability but rather observation and recognition of patterns. Is there anything about pink flamingos that break the laws of physics or go counter to the possible physical developments that could have happened?

 

[dust1n]

Are you being sarcastic?

Every fiber of my being wished the answer to this question was yes... but it's an unfortunate truth that the answer is no.

 

[leibowde84]

we started at one set of ten in a row, we didn't flip to achieve it. so, it's like trying to get the first set.
We don't know the probability until another 10 sides are flipped in a row.

OK? What does that have to do with anything?

 

[leibowde84]

That is a guess, though. See, that's not ''shown'', because we don't have a comparison or formula to put that in. But anyways, I don't want to go off topic from the OP proposal too much, as it doesn't include aspects after an initial probability of /pink flamingos/.

That's what they all say ... Time isn't fact and the amount of time we are talking about cannot be ignored.

 

[Desert Snake]

That's what they all say ... Time isn't fact and the amount of time we are talking about cannot be ignored.

But your assuming that time ie coin flips somehow helps your position, it may not; that is because there are a bunch of coin flips all taking place at once.

 

[Desert Snake]

OK? What does that have to do with anything?

It's why you can't assume that the unit or number you have , is randomly ''coin flipped''. Well, you can assume whatever you want, but that assumption isn't backed by reality, or a formula, etc.

 

[McBell]

It's why you can't assume that the unit or number you have , is randomly ''coin flipped''. Well, you can assume whatever you want, but that assumption isn't backed by reality, or a formula, etc.

If you honestly believe this then why are you making an exception for your math claims?

 

[Revoltingest]

OK? What does that have to do with anything?

We need custom keyboard keys so that a single keystroke can type.....
- I don't understand this.
- This makes no sense.
- What does this have to do with the topic?
- Where are the claimed math calculations?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That you know you cannot get the Godfather part V by a way of randomly burning pits in a DVD and selection is the same reason you know evolution based on random mutation and selection cannot work. And there are loads and loads of these probabilities like with the dvd and evolution, which we know don't work by broad scopes calculation. By equal terms evolutionists would have us throw up our hands in the air and say we can't know if it will work or not with all these probabilities.

All attempts at mathematical substantiation of evolution theory have failed, which is why evolutionists don't reference one. The most well known mathematical calculation of random mutation and selection was around 1970, showing it didn't work, which led to the suggestion that epigenitics and not random mutation was fundamental.

And why do evolutionists tooth and nail defend randomness against intelligent design? Certainly intelligent design is not an invalid hypothesis, some way of choosing how organisms come to be. It is because evolutionists reject subjectivity, and choosing is related to subjectivity. That is the only reason they are against it, it's got nothing to do with the evidence. They don't care about the evidence, the evidence points to intelligent design, they will have any theory be without choosing, no matter what.

 

[Revoltingest]

Creationism is impossible, because if we subjectively calculate its mathumatical probability quotients, then we must asymptotically choose the ziffular pits of the Godfather's DVD. Using advanced quantum laser coin flipping randomness, we see that the deplenuration of psychrocoptic dunselcryption quickly reaches the marzel vane limit. This also causes subjective wane shifting of the molar epidermal genetics. Intelligent design proponents argue that this is defeated by subjective encabulation of the retrophase detractors. Of course, they fail to understand relative motion of modial flux duractance. The utterly prefamulates the sperving hydrocopitc side deltoids. Now that I've laid it out so clearly, how can they possibly deny the cromulence of my argument?

 

[dust1n]

Biggest DVD is DVD-18 now, 15.90 gigabytes.
Earliest is DVD-1, which is 1.35 GB.

The entire human genome is roughly 1.5 GB.

So, randomly making the human genome is several orders of magnitude more likely to randomly appear (ignoring all know mechanisms for selection, like natural selection) on a truly randomly burnt disc, than is a Godfather Movie in HD that was never made.

But, just for fun. 15.90 Gb is 17072495001.6 bytes.

Each bit is either a 1 or 0. So if had a machine that burned a DVD and randomly choose a one or zero for every single bit, the chances of coming out to one specific outcome is

= (17072495001!/[0!*17072495001!])(.5)^0(.5.)^17072495001 = The likelihood of randomly burning a DVD. Unforunately, none of the calculators I can find can handle several thousand digits to calculate 17072495001!

Although, since Godfather V hasn't came out yet, there could be potentially several hundred million billion random generated versions of the movie.

The chances of coming a Godfather V acted out entirely by talking monkeys would be just as likely as if it was made Lego pieces, would be just as likely to be Medina Goes to The Godfather.

So, one would have to account for that. How many possible versions of the Godfather could one make?

 

[Flankerl]

25 pages on a thread that should have been over after the first answer.

 

[McBell]

25 pages on a thread that should have been over after the first answer.

Still waiting for the OP to present the math in support of his math claims.

problem is that I am seriously wondering if he realizes he even made math claims.

 

[Revoltingest]

Still waiting for the OP to present the math in support of his math claims.
problem is that I am seriously wondering if he realizes he even made math claims.

I've run across 'reasoning' which might be foreign to you.
It works thusly....

I feel that A is true.
My feelings are true.
Therefore A is true.
Math is true.
Therefore math must comport with A.
Math is evidence for A.
There's no need to do the math because of obviousness.