Mike Hardie responded:
>I think your problem here is that you are examining the probabilities
>fallaciously. If you have a jar full of 100 marbles, and you take them out
>randomly one at a time, what is the probability that you would take them
>out exactly in the same sequence again? *Infinitesimal*. Far below 0.95%,
>to be sure!
>
>Now, by your reasoning, this means that it was in fact *practically
>impossible* to have taken out the marbles in that sequence. But that
>clearly isn't true. Moreover, no matter which sequence you happened to
>choose, it would have the same miniscule probability as any other. The
>question I put to you is: is it a "miracle" that you took out the marbles
>in exactly the sequence that you did? Is it scientifically or logically
>implausible? Obviously not.
>
>This is the fundamental problem with creationistic probability
>calculations. They are based on the mistaken presumption that, if the
>exact repetition of something is monumentally improbable, then the original
>event is essentially impossible.
To add to the marble example: the probability is very small that each
subsequent attempt will repeat the sequence of the first try. However, if
repeated often enough, the likelihood of repeating the first sequence is
quite high. Probability alone does not inform us as to the likelihood that
an event will happen. I pointed this out earlier to Joseph and he fails to
take the point into account. He continues to misuse probability. I too
share the great frustration expressed previously by others of Joseph's
insensitivity to poorly constructed arguments.
Steve
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Ph: 608-263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin
School of Medicine
600 Highland Ave
Madison, WI 53792
http://www1.bocklabs.wisc.edu/profiles/Clark,Steven.html