@ProcInc Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! Wake up atheist MORONS! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins!
An infinite random string will necessarily contain the works of Shakespeare due to the fact that it cannot repeat. Therefore, it follows that it must eventually land on the correct sequence. This must be true as NOT landing on Shakespeare would require the string to repeat, and therefore, not be random.
The string will also contain moonlightbateman's full name, address, and phone number in that order. And yours. And mine.
@otonanoC Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! Wake up atheist MORONS! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins!
this video is absolute nonsense. Please just be brief and explain your point. You cannot compare infinity to evolution because, our universe is not infinite. k i see everyone else is confused to by this video.
The infinate monkey theory is all fine and good. However I'm looking at the theory and wondering how this would honestly apply to evolution.
There is no such thing as infinate. Everything has an end. Earth itself will one day die out. Who knows how, but it will. Our sun could burn up and die as well. We can talk and joke about any theory involving infinity, however the theory itself can't happen if we apply practical knowledge that infinity can't exist. There must be an end at some point.
"(I'm) wondering how this would honestly apply to evolution."
And you're right, it doesn't. The infinite monkey theorum has a teleological outcome (A specific need to be met). Applying natural selection to the model means that is met no worries within a very finite time.
But then again evolution is not limited by goals.
Our sun definitely does not have infinite time left, only ~5.5 billion years actually
So yes, the original monkey theory does not aply to evolution
Here is the proof, the logic and the math, please try to follow...there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
Only one thing, infinity is infinitly long, so no matter how small the number, even one over 9999 to the power of 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 is reachable because it is always running.
It may take trilions of years, but it will happen weather it is probable or not. Plus it dosent matter how small it is, this is longer than your life span.
You are talking to a math illiterate. Also, notice the spamming with the same cut and paste. He will do this non-stop. I think he is some kind of web-bot. Maybe a computer programmers 2nd year term project. He really needs to work on the AI routines. Also needs to get the repetitive spamming bug worked out. It gets caught in a non-terminating loop.
Here is the proof, the logic and the math, please try to follow...there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
Say we have 36 alphabet and punctuation characters. There is a 1/36 chance of using the right character and a (1/36)*(1/36) chance of hitting two right characters in a row.
If you have a play 20,000 characters long then the odds are (1/36)^20000. So if you have 36^20000 monkeys the odds are that you will get one of these plays printed. 36^200000 monkeys will get 36^180000 plays printed.
Therefore, if you have an infinite number of monkeys you will have an infinte number of plays written.
Here is the proof, the logic and the math, please try to follow...there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
Instead of just replying with another cut and paste, you need to show me explicitly where I am wrong. I have showed you explicitly where you are wrong. If you reply with another cut and paste I will just assume you are a laughable cut and paste spambot who has no clue what he is cutting and pasting.
"You cannot prove infinity by starting out with an "infinite' set, that is in fact NOT an infinite set."
That is the stupidest thing I have seen in a while. Mathematicians routinely use infinity.
I just showed my nephew how you find the escape velocity from earth. It is the kinetic energy required to send a ballistic mass from earth to an infinite distance from earth. The premise is an infinite set of monkeys, not a finite set. An infinite set is not an infinite set? LOL!
Quit trying to pretend you have the book. You got if off wiki. They make the distinction of an operational probability and a theoretical probability. They are not disputing that an infinite number of monkeys would produce hamlet, they are saying but on a practical real world level we don't expect it to happen. This in no way contradicts the infinite monkey theorem.
LOL! You ask me if I can read, and you are quoting from "the Textbook of Thermodynamics"
The book is called "Thermal Physics" by Kittel and Kroemer. You are telling other people to read the book, you've never read it, you've never seen it, you did a c&p from wiki and tried to pass it off like you have read the book. You did not even bother to look at the wiki footnotes for the name of the book and cited "the Textbook of Thermodynamics"
Infinity: You are the one who does not understand the concept of infinity. If you look into integral calculus you will find that integrals to infinity can be defined as finite numbers. If your not sure what an integral is, its a mathematical operation to find the area under a function of x. now, how can an area that is not bound by a finite number be bound to a finite area? The concept is pretty hard to grasp, and its fairly obvious that you do not understand it.
Here is the proof, the logic and the math, please try to follow...there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
An infinite number of monkeys in not all of the monkey that could fit into the universe. 10^79 is infinitely small compared to infinity. So if you take your finite number of monkeys and multiply that by 10183800, Hamlet will be written one time. Multiply it by infinity and it will be written an infinite number of times.
Incorrect...If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
I was not wrong. You are using a finite number of monkeys and trying to pass them off as an infinite number. 10^79 is infinitely small compared to infinity. You do not understand math.
Doesn't anybody get that the balding guy is playing dumb to yank the first guy's chain? It could (likely) be scripted to be absurdist comedy. Can't believe you guys are taking this seriously! What a hoot!
Hmmm... maybe... but I laughed like hell: the escalation of the first guy's frustration and the pedestrian stupidity of the balding guy... classic Monty Python. "I'm here for an argument."
Here is the proof, the logic and the math, please try to follow...there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
Watching a creationist use logic is like watching a 2 yr old use a steak knife. I don't understand how the video relates to abiogenesis, but your criticism is wrong. Also, when you cite a textbook, please give the title and author.
Maybe moonlightbateman has some form of autism that prevents his brain from grasping the concept? Doesn't necessarily mean he can't function in most social situations, just that he can't fully grasp certain simple concepts due to the idea that they have to be reasoned outside-the-box. ;-)
Here is the proof, the logic and the math, please try to follow...there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
wow...just wow...I can't believe a grown man would have such a hard time grasping the concept of infinity. Richard Dawkins addressed it in "The Blind Watchmaker" and Carl Sagan did so in his "Cosmos" series. He said "a googlplex (thats 10 to the googl power, and a googl is 1 with 100 zeros) is as far away from infinity as the number 1.
Here is the proof, the logic and the math, please try to follow...there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
Matthew 5; 14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
Thank you for comparing me to a lamp (too easy), your own words betray you! MBB
Even if I could post text with an Australian accent, still it would be silly ignorance to do so, being that I know there are Australians who are intelligent enough to not believe the hoax in this video. Firstly, at the end you summed it up to mean that it makes abiogenesis possible. However, within the video you used elements of the theory of evolution to supposedly prove this point. How exactly would natural selection play a part in any abiogenesis hypotheseis?
Secondly, you said: "creationists who believe abiogenesis and evolution is a random process". Since you mentioned both abio & evo, it means this video is intended to prove both possible. Therefor, your like a Dingo chasing his own tail with circular reasoning. You said: "If you were to apply correction & refineing processes into the mechanism ie. natural selection". Since this model is intended to prove the possibility and validity of evo, then how can you include evo's natural selection within
"Since you mentioned both abio & evo, it means this video is intended to prove both possible."
Both already are facts however this video is not intended to prove that, merely point out the similarities to the model and how a selection process does produce functional order.
"then how can you include evo's natural selection within"
By including an unconscious selection process to a letter generation model as seen in 6:37
the process which is intending to prove evo? Once one gets past all of your fancy word smoke, it becomes clear that it all boils down to the equivelant of a self validating statement. "Abiogenesis and evolution are true because abiogenesis and evolution prove it". I don't feel its neccesary to address any of the other flaws presented here. However,I wonder what the probabilities are of that your chart showed stats of "10 year education vs Christian". Being that I fit both descriptions?
It isn't. An evolutionary mechanism simply shows an increase in order from random elements. This video is about the infinite monkey model. How it works originally and how it then can be refined.
"Being that I fit both descriptions"
You are therefore a statistical minority. The more religious one is, the less likely they are to acheive a higher education.
This statistic is drawn from many surveys on the matter, most well known is Gallup
Well, I never said it was random. Technically, the infinite monkey thing isn't random either. It would be limited to the number of things a monkey could do with a typewriter. If it WERE random, one monkey would have composed Shakespear, one a random string of jibberish, one would have made the Mona Lisa, and one would have transformed into a carrot. Nothing is really completely random. If it were, anything could happen.
Well I'm not a science/math wiz but I do understand that, given enough time, using random letters you will eventually form a coherent sentence and given even more time a book and so on.
When I said your argument I should have specified your argument with bateman.
My point was using that accent in such a condescending way is akin to me posting videos mocking you saying"OI MATE A DINGO ATE MY BABY SO I'M GONNA PUT ANOTHER SHRIMP ON THE BARBIE SKULL A FEW SCHOONERS AND JAM MY THUMB UP A CROCS BUTT"
"My point was using that accent in such a condescending way is akin to me posting videos mocking you saying"OI MATE A DINGO ATE MY BABY SO I'M GONNA PUT ANOTHER SHRIMP ON THE BARBIE SKULL A FEW SCHOONERS AND JAM MY THUMB UP A CROCS BUTT" "
Not really, unless you were to use a direct quote of mine as I did for him.
If I were to say your quote it would come off as fairly authentic (although we have shrimps rather than prawns and don't barbecue them)
Ran out of room obviously, hope you got my meaning. Basically, when someone tells you to ASSEMBLE THE MONKEYS and have em start typing in order to "prove" a theory it's unnecessary to mock him based on his citizenship.
I also had a run in with moonlighbateman trying to explain the difference between facts, laws, and theories as they pertain to science.
He just couldn't get it. He thinks scientific theories grow up to be laws. He doesn't think gravity is a theory because there are laws of gravity. He thinks facts are more important in science than theories are.
When I gave up due to frustration, he also claimed victory.
I should add that I made liberal use of his chimps throwing poop comment in comparison to him throwing false arguments. The level of intellect in both cases can be approximated to equality.
Just noticed his petty little claims of "victory against you" and your "surrendering" to him... It must be nice to be so stupid as to never realize when you're beaten. To quote Strong Bad: "It's like, even when I win, he wins."
I posted, what, five? six? comments to his replies and his video. Remains to see if he'll approve them (not bloody likely, but it's an infinite universe. Hah.), but he probably doesn't like being shown how he's wrong.
Hah... that guy on the right is completely stupid... Theoretically, an infinite amount of monkeys typing away would create every book ever written or ever to be written, not just Shakespeare, and given there's an -infinite- amount, it'd happen almost immediately (not considering the time needed to type out everything, of course). This is so simple to understand I could explain it to my neighbor's mildly retarded kid...
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
An example of how calculus works (for dummies and those, who like to spam, quote mine and use non sequitur arguments like amount of hydrogen atoms in universe):
Take bridge cards (52). Shuffle them, very thoroughly. Probability that they will be in ANY order, EVEN the one you REALLY hold in your hands, is 1 against 8,07E+67.
I know enough to understand that there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
Great natural selection analogy, but I still think these artards need a simpler or at least more complete picture. Like math, we skip steps and don't show every thing when we explain natural selection and random variation. I'm not sure I can count on a creationist to even be able to extrapolate permutations and expected values of time.
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
"If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time"
Oh, but we have infinity monkeys typing for infinite time. That means infinite Hamlets! And infinite everything else, too. Everything can be infinite if you pretend with ProcInc!
Seriously though, given a billion billion years, you would get maybe a dozen characters that match something. Same thing for the next cycle of time. And so on. Again and again. You really won't ever have a random monkey accidentally type up Hamlet.
"given a billion billion years, you would get maybe a dozen characters that match something."
That is why you need (for the 50th time) a *refining process*
"Seriously though, given a billion billion years, you would get maybe a dozen characters that match something."
I don't dispute that, infinite is as for from a billion^2 as 1 though. The process is random meaning it isn't getting better or worse. The chance of every sequence you get is equal to that of shakespeare
"The chance of every sequence you get is equal to that of shakespeare"
Kind of like playing the lottery, except with a probability stacked against you that approaches infinity. If you played the lottery an infinite amount of times, though, I suppose you would win infinity dollars. However, if you don't have an infinite amount of opportunities to play...go ahead and finish that thought in the most logical manner possible.
"If you played the lottery an infinite amount of times, though, I suppose you would win infinity dollars."
That's a reasonable remark to make
If you have any less than infinite chances to play you have no certainty of winning without extreme luck (you could win on the second try, it could take a googolplex of unsuccess)
Infinite chances removes the 'luck' factor
So does model refinement. If the lottery numbers are locked in place. Guarenteed success in limited attempts
Well, let's refine it so it looks more like reality, shall we? Suppose the threshold of "success" were actually 1,000 consecutive lottery wins, each with this near-infinite probability of success. If you won on every one of your first 1,000 attempts, you would not call this a truly random lotter, would you? Even in an infinite series, a 1,000 win streak would be (rightly) called a 1,000 win series where the selection was not truly random.
"When each of these lotteries is one, it is locked in and the next one begins. In your case it will occur 1000 times"
Problem is, every time you miss something in the series, the series is broken and you start back at zero. Because of these breaks, a true infinite series is impossible because every break in the series gives you a new beginning; hence, not an infinite series in a practical sense. Because of this, adding "infinity" to the equation does not help you much. Do you understand?
"No where in my refined model is consecutive success relied on."
You know, if you want to apply this to biological evolution, one key aspect of life is that stuff dies. So the consecutive nature of your success is very necessary in a practical sense, as the success is useless if it fails to be passed on to the next generation.
"That means infinite Hamlets! And infinite everything else, too."
Well done, spot on. Something with a finite will happen infinite times in an infinite realm
Shakespeare might POSSIBLY be randomly generated on the 3rd attempt And it's probability would be no higher (stasistical thermodynamics dicates SOMETHING must be generated). If you want something specifically complex to be randomly generated for certain in a finite time, simply refine the process (see the 'revisiting' video)
"I just watched the video response from Bateman... that guy is impressively stupid."
Yes indeedy. He believes he is some of Ramboesque communist-killer war hero with a moral and intellectual high ground
In reality he is just a tiresome, childish and overnutritioned ad homining moron with a reception censorship vice perfect for his deceptive quote mining.
1. What a communist is, and why he doesn't like them.
2. What HE thinks would happen if you DID have an infinite number of monkeys typing.
You know I think I might write a program to demonstrate this, taking into account the points you made in the vid. I'll even give Bateman the source code if he thinks it's rigged!
Actually thank YOU for showing once again how unforgivably deceptive you are, bearing false witness to my comments. You are actually a spectacularly ignorant bag of brainwash who are as frustrating to address as you are fun to expound your ignorance and total imperceptability
Most capitalist states are democratic, meaning that an atheist would need to be elected. This won't be happening as long as atheists remain the least trusted minority(lol).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Once again, the best known and largest atheist regimes are/were North Korea, Communist China, and the Soviet Union. All repressionist, anti-theist governments who killed millions and cause the rest of the world to look on atheism with distrust and suspicion. Making atheists the least trusted minority.
But China and USSR were anti-theist COMUNISTIC governments, which showes COMUNISTS are bad. How many times is it necesarry to point out, that comunism is not the same thing as atheism?
Saying that it is the same thing is just as idiotic, as to say that all christians are crusaders/inquisitoras and that all muslims are terorists.
You really do not understand this or are you joking?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Do you realize that atheism is one of the main tenants of communism? (Please read "the Communist Manifesto" as a reference). The atheist Chinese are persecuting Tibet even as we speak.
You really are absolutely incapable to understand simple things, you are not joking. Atheism was part of comunism only in the same sense as stoning disobedient children to death is part of christianity (read "the bible"). But you instead of even trying to understand keep spamming with repeating nonsense over and over again.
I am ending my attempts to try and communicate with you like with ingelligent person. I wont waste my time with you any more.
So in the interest of keeping this discussion short, just answer a couple of simple questions: You aren't a steady-state person, are you? You do understand that you don't have an infinite amount of time, right? Just admit that one thing: You don't have an infinite amount of time to work with. The universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time. Just admit that one thing, and we can be done here.
You, however, do not have infinity to work with. Btw, this scenario has been tested (a Java applet: the Monkey Shakespeare Simulator). Given 42 billion billion billion monkey-years, one of them matched 19 letters from Two Gentlemen of Verona. Other teams got similar results. Another million billion years gets you up to 24 characters from a different play. Bad news though, ProcInc: You don't have that kind of time. And the prospect of having an infinite amount of monkeys is physically impossible.
One quick really practical question: About how many years ago did monkeys come into existence? Was it infinity? I didn't think so. OK, let's try something else. How about protozoans, assuming they could have computer skills? Is that quite up to infinity years ago? Nah. How about we go back to the origin of the universe? Is that infinity? No, not really. Huxley really liked this theory b/c he didn't know the universe was expanding, so within his steady-state theory, he had infinity to work with.
"Geez, it is an analogy! how can you be so dense as to not understand that."
I understand that "infinity" does not equate to "several billion years," which is what you do, in fact, have to work with. Given several million billion billion years, you could get about 20 characters (characters!) from one segment of one of Shakespeare's plays. And you don't have nearly that kind of time. Do you see how the analogy applies to naturalistic evolution in a negative kind of way?
Here is the deal with communism and fascism, they both incorporate anti-theist secular humanism as tenant beliefs. Neo-Darwinism is used as justification for destroying "lesser" races with intellectuals/religious leaders viewed as threats to the state. They repress free thought and free speech and establish the state and state science as the definative authority.
The Soviet Union, Nazi Gernmany, North Korea are perfect examples. Anti-Theist, secular humanist totalitarian states.
I lived in comunistic country and you have no clue what u r talking about.
Darwinism has nothing to do with comunism whatsoever. Comunism was NOT about atheism, but about "social struggle". They did not opose religion in general, they oposed mostly organised rich churches. The repressed not only free speech (as u said), but also SCIENCE that did not fit with their ideology.
The fact is, that there are very striking similarities between comunism, fascism AND religion.
State science seems to be the model for repression, the nazis for instance conducted experiments o human children to breed a "master race" and Stalin went so far as to attempt to breed an army of half ape soldiers using Darwinian reverse engineering. Sad, but true.
You do realize that the term eugenics was coined by Darwin's cousin. The "Labensborn project" for breeding SS Officers and the experiments conducted by Joseph Mengele at the several concentration camps on twins were attempts to use neo- darwinian practices to control evolution in human beings. The anti-theist program of rounding up, torturing and executing millions of Catholics (Christians), Jews and Gypsies (often Muslim) defined why the nazis were considered an anti-theist regime.
And comunism did NOT in any way speak about "lesser" races, quite the oposit, comunism statet absolute equality here (about the only good thing about comunism).
Hitler did - but not because of Darwinism. It was so, because he was convinced that german nation was somehow related to ancient nordic gods. Fascests did quite a good "mind bending" when they tried to proove, that their japanese allies had also "nordic blood" and that Jesus was not Jew.
Was'nt your country also subjected to communist oppression during the cold war? Any idea how many people died as a result of totalitarian, ant-theist neo-darwinism?
You understand of course that the majority of the persecuted in the cold war under the communists were atheists themselves. The communists were not anti-theist they were anti power-struggle.
And 'neo-darwinism' is a myth. Nothing communists ever did was connected with evolutionary thery, you may as well argue they did because they believe in the theory of gravity
The Communists themselves were atheists! Atheism was/is a tenant belief of Communism as outlined in the Communist Manifesto.
Stalin actually approved funding for a program to breed humans with apes to prove evolution. Face it, Neo-Darwin, anti-theist secular Humanists did some pretty horrible things in the name of state controlled science.
Saying "comunists are atheists" is true, but it does not mean that "atheists are comunists" or that "atheism makes people comunists".
Its just as untrue, fallacious and dishonest (or misunderstood, I am not sure in your case) like saying "mormons are christians", therefore "chritians are mormons" furthermore "christianity makes people mormon".
"Atheism was/is a tenant belief of Communism as outlined in the Communist Manifesto."
So was Utopian equality and prosperous plenty spread among all the people. The thing about communism is loads of things went wrong. You should be able to tell when you look around that evolutionary biologists and atheists don't act like that.
Not even the communists did, only the leaders to did so to keep power
Stalin's ape-breeding program is a myth (and wouldn't prove evolution)
What has this to do with what I wrote? I did not advocate communism, I merely pointed out, that it is not equal to atheism and has nothing to do with comunism. I see, that you lack education not only in maths, but also in very recent history. Its no wonder, if you get your information from creationists sources only.
"and has nothing to do with comunism" should be "and has nothing to do with darwinism".
As for your "defeating communism" your help was minuscule. Communism rotted from inside, mostly because of oppresion of free speech and basic knowledge of economy.
I'm sorry you had to suffer under such oppression. Thankfully you were liberated from such monsters. As a retired member of the U.S. Armed Forces and Cold War veteran, let me just say...
Look up the exposes of Expelled's deceptive tactics and fallicious arguments is what I suggest.
I know for instance that Ben Stein equates evolution with social darwinism (false), atheism (false) and totalitarianism (cuckoo)
He thinks that Hitler was an athiest and accepted evolution when he was a pious and proud Catholic leading a country of christian heritage "Got Mit uns" and justified his actions in accordance witht he will of the almighty creator
No, he did not sey they censor films. But film distributors know very well, that theres no chance to get any money from presenting this bullshit to educated society, for educated society would not pay to watch pathetic and paranoic rants of some uneducated religious bigots from US.
One of my favorite things at the Kennedy Space Center is that as you enter the main building there is a framed copy of the poem "High Flight". The last line of which reads "touched the face of God".
This has been flagged as spam show
in all seriousness...
who taught the monkeys how to type?
where are all these monkeys doing this?
is there a factory just making type writers?
is there a lab just cloning monkeys?
Pandaren123 1 year ago
Karl Pilkinton, you are my hero.
ReubenHorsley 1 year ago
Your explanation was poor I know all the things you said but had a hard time following
Silbob5 1 year ago
When he said with no errors I was completely lost
questionsamson 2 years ago
What if the monkey only hit the space bar for eternity... after all it is the largest key on the keyboard... stupid monkey!
asaon 2 years ago
you don't have to imitate an accent like that....it just denotes immaturity.
LordWhorfinX 2 years ago
duly noted
ProcInc 2 years ago
i liked the slack jawed yokel accent, it fits dumb statements/questions so well. it is almost as if the accent was intelligently designed for it
thisis3d 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProcInc Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! Wake up atheist MORONS! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
that video clip of the monkeys was so irritating...lol. Mathematically, IT WILL HAPPEN...that man was dense....lol
LordWhorfinX 2 years ago
This video is not quite accurate.
An infinite random string will necessarily contain the works of Shakespeare due to the fact that it cannot repeat. Therefore, it follows that it must eventually land on the correct sequence. This must be true as NOT landing on Shakespeare would require the string to repeat, and therefore, not be random.
The string will also contain moonlightbateman's full name, address, and phone number in that order. And yours. And mine.
otonanoC 2 years ago
"This video is not quite accurate.
An infinite random string will necessarily contain the works of Shakespeare due to the fact that it cannot repeat."
I agree with what you say (and try to convey most of it) but a random sequence has no rules so I don't see why it wouldn't be able to repeat
ProcInc 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@otonanoC Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! Wake up atheist MORONS! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
this video is absolute nonsense. Please just be brief and explain your point. You cannot compare infinity to evolution because, our universe is not infinite. k i see everyone else is confused to by this video.
intellectualsword 2 years ago
Ricky Gervais is very arrogant, it wouldn't happen even with infinity. Infinity doesn't exist.
reckIess 2 years ago
"Ricky Gervais is very arrogant"
He's very right too. A finite probability is inevitable in a situation against infinity
"it wouldn't happen even with infinity"
Of course it would, the premise of this isn't even debatable.
"Infinity doesn't exist."
Infinite doesn't have to for this argument to be sound, however by definition infinite must exist (though eternity may not)
ProcInc 2 years ago
I don't agree with using something intangible in an argument. For the same reason I can't believe in God, I cannot believe in infinity.
I can understand what you're saying, it just falls outside of my own rationale.
reckIess 2 years ago
"I don't agree with using something intangible in an argument."
you'd be right in doing that if that was the whole discussion.
However the two main points covered is that if infinite exists (hypothetically) then any specified finite sequence could be randomly generated.
Alternatively through natural selection, the same thing can be acheived in a relatively brief amount of time.
If my whole argument hinged on infinite existing it would be worthless
ProcInc 2 years ago
The infinate monkey theory is all fine and good. However I'm looking at the theory and wondering how this would honestly apply to evolution.
There is no such thing as infinate. Everything has an end. Earth itself will one day die out. Who knows how, but it will. Our sun could burn up and die as well. We can talk and joke about any theory involving infinity, however the theory itself can't happen if we apply practical knowledge that infinity can't exist. There must be an end at some point.
shayndapain 3 years ago
"(I'm) wondering how this would honestly apply to evolution."
And you're right, it doesn't. The infinite monkey theorum has a teleological outcome (A specific need to be met). Applying natural selection to the model means that is met no worries within a very finite time.
But then again evolution is not limited by goals.
Our sun definitely does not have infinite time left, only ~5.5 billion years actually
So yes, the original monkey theory does not aply to evolution
ProcInc 3 years ago
Shayn,
as for infinity as far as we know time has no beginning or end.
the argument applies to creation, really, not evolution.
Grizzly0679 3 years ago
More fun than a barrel of Infinite Monkey!
MeanMamaDog 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is the proof, the logic and the math, please try to follow...there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Only one thing, infinity is infinitly long, so no matter how small the number, even one over 9999 to the power of 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 is reachable because it is always running.
It may take trilions of years, but it will happen weather it is probable or not. Plus it dosent matter how small it is, this is longer than your life span.
WorldOfHurt101 3 years ago
You are talking to a math illiterate. Also, notice the spamming with the same cut and paste. He will do this non-stop. I think he is some kind of web-bot. Maybe a computer programmers 2nd year term project. He really needs to work on the AI routines. Also needs to get the repetitive spamming bug worked out. It gets caught in a non-terminating loop.
DiggityDogg56 3 years ago
Or he is just retared.
WorldOfHurt101 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is the proof, the logic and the math, please try to follow...there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
Referenced from the Textbook on Thermodynamics
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Say we have 36 alphabet and punctuation characters. There is a 1/36 chance of using the right character and a (1/36)*(1/36) chance of hitting two right characters in a row.
If you have a play 20,000 characters long then the odds are (1/36)^20000. So if you have 36^20000 monkeys the odds are that you will get one of these plays printed. 36^200000 monkeys will get 36^180000 plays printed.
Therefore, if you have an infinite number of monkeys you will have an infinte number of plays written.
DiggityDogg56 3 years ago
Monkeys are not an infinite set, they are a finite set. Shakespeare and the universe are also finite sets, that is where your logic falls apart.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is the proof, the logic and the math, please try to follow...there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
Referenced from the Textbook on Thermodynamics
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Instead of just replying with another cut and paste, you need to show me explicitly where I am wrong. I have showed you explicitly where you are wrong. If you reply with another cut and paste I will just assume you are a laughable cut and paste spambot who has no clue what he is cutting and pasting.
DiggityDogg56 3 years ago
What you stated is simply a contradiction of universally accepted logic.
You cannot prove infinity by starting out with an "infinite' set, that is in fact NOT an infinite set.
Monkeys are a finite set, the universe is a finite set (definate begining point), and the works of Shakespeare are all finite sets.
The textbook on Thermodynamics is absolutely correct in asserting that the probability is zero.
No need to cut and paste, you are simply incorrect.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
"You cannot prove infinity by starting out with an "infinite' set, that is in fact NOT an infinite set."
That is the stupidest thing I have seen in a while. Mathematicians routinely use infinity.
I just showed my nephew how you find the escape velocity from earth. It is the kinetic energy required to send a ballistic mass from earth to an infinite distance from earth. The premise is an infinite set of monkeys, not a finite set. An infinite set is not an infinite set? LOL!
DiggityDogg56 3 years ago
Please review, your premise is incorrect, monkeys are not an infinite set, niether is Shakespeare and niether is the universe.
All are finite sets and the math, according to the Textbook of Thermodynamics proves that the probability is ... zero.
Please contact Kittel and Kroener if a re-write is in order, obviously ... it is not.
You are simply mistaken.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Quit trying to pretend you have the book. You got if off wiki. They make the distinction of an operational probability and a theoretical probability. They are not disputing that an infinite number of monkeys would produce hamlet, they are saying but on a practical real world level we don't expect it to happen. This in no way contradicts the infinite monkey theorem.
DiggityDogg56 3 years ago
Do you know how to read? If so, Please read what they wrote in the Textbook of Thermodynamics.
Obviously you are mistaken.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
LOL! You ask me if I can read, and you are quoting from "the Textbook of Thermodynamics"
The book is called "Thermal Physics" by Kittel and Kroemer. You are telling other people to read the book, you've never read it, you've never seen it, you did a c&p from wiki and tried to pass it off like you have read the book. You did not even bother to look at the wiki footnotes for the name of the book and cited "the Textbook of Thermodynamics"
What a moron.
DiggityDogg56 3 years ago 2
LOL! So you admit that you are mistaken!
You even cited the textbook that PROVES you are mistaken! Hilarious!
Way to go, you not only admitted defeat, you went so far as to provide a detailed reference PROVING you are wrong!
Hilarious!
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Infinity: You are the one who does not understand the concept of infinity. If you look into integral calculus you will find that integrals to infinity can be defined as finite numbers. If your not sure what an integral is, its a mathematical operation to find the area under a function of x. now, how can an area that is not bound by a finite number be bound to a finite area? The concept is pretty hard to grasp, and its fairly obvious that you do not understand it.
Dirtyl3um 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is the proof, the logic and the math, please try to follow...there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
Referenced from the Textbook on Thermodynamics
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
An infinite number of monkeys in not all of the monkey that could fit into the universe. 10^79 is infinitely small compared to infinity. So if you take your finite number of monkeys and multiply that by 10183800, Hamlet will be written one time. Multiply it by infinity and it will be written an infinite number of times.
DiggityDogg56 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Incorrect...If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
Referenced from the Textbook on Thermodynamics
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
I was not wrong. You are using a finite number of monkeys and trying to pass them off as an infinite number. 10^79 is infinitely small compared to infinity. You do not understand math.
DiggityDogg56 3 years ago
Please review, obviously you are the one who does not grasp the concept of finite and infinite. Sorry, you just don't get it.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Doesn't anybody get that the balding guy is playing dumb to yank the first guy's chain? It could (likely) be scripted to be absurdist comedy. Can't believe you guys are taking this seriously! What a hoot!
dwd99999dd 3 years ago
"Doesn't anybody get that the balding guy is playing dumb to yank the first guy's chain?"
Its possible, however Karl Pilkongton (the balding guy) is a very...special person.
This is not a response to him however, it is a response to someone seriously ignorant on the issue. The clip was a comparison only
ProcInc 3 years ago
Hmmm... maybe... but I laughed like hell: the escalation of the first guy's frustration and the pedestrian stupidity of the balding guy... classic Monty Python. "I'm here for an argument."
dwd99999dd 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is the proof, the logic and the math, please try to follow...there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
Referenced from the Textbook on Thermodynamics
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Watching a creationist use logic is like watching a 2 yr old use a steak knife. I don't understand how the video relates to abiogenesis, but your criticism is wrong. Also, when you cite a textbook, please give the title and author.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
"I don't understand how the video relates to abiogenesis"
Abiogenesis occurs through an unconscious selection process (Like most natural forces).
Aside from that, very very little
ProcInc 3 years ago
Maybe moonlightbateman has some form of autism that prevents his brain from grasping the concept? Doesn't necessarily mean he can't function in most social situations, just that he can't fully grasp certain simple concepts due to the idea that they have to be reasoned outside-the-box. ;-)
xephyr1000 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is the proof, the logic and the math, please try to follow...there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
Referenced from the Textbook on Thermodynamics
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
wow...just wow...I can't believe a grown man would have such a hard time grasping the concept of infinity. Richard Dawkins addressed it in "The Blind Watchmaker" and Carl Sagan did so in his "Cosmos" series. He said "a googlplex (thats 10 to the googl power, and a googl is 1 with 100 zeros) is as far away from infinity as the number 1.
wakeangel2001 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is the proof, the logic and the math, please try to follow...there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
Referenced from the Textbook on Thermodynamics
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
The semi-balding guy is so dense. Like trying to explain this to a lamp
t21spectreclone 3 years ago
Matthew 5; 14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
Thank you for comparing me to a lamp (too easy), your own words betray you! MBB
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Even if I could post text with an Australian accent, still it would be silly ignorance to do so, being that I know there are Australians who are intelligent enough to not believe the hoax in this video. Firstly, at the end you summed it up to mean that it makes abiogenesis possible. However, within the video you used elements of the theory of evolution to supposedly prove this point. How exactly would natural selection play a part in any abiogenesis hypotheseis?
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
"Firstly, at the end you summed it up to mean that it makes abiogenesis possible."
Actually I was disproving the connection between the two as anything other that analogous.
"How exactly would natural selection play a part in any abiogenesis hypotheseis?"
The first replicating systems (or protobionts) were in competition. See CDK007's video on the Origin of Life
ProcInc 3 years ago
Secondly, you said: "creationists who believe abiogenesis and evolution is a random process". Since you mentioned both abio & evo, it means this video is intended to prove both possible. Therefor, your like a Dingo chasing his own tail with circular reasoning. You said: "If you were to apply correction & refineing processes into the mechanism ie. natural selection". Since this model is intended to prove the possibility and validity of evo, then how can you include evo's natural selection within
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
"Since you mentioned both abio & evo, it means this video is intended to prove both possible."
Both already are facts however this video is not intended to prove that, merely point out the similarities to the model and how a selection process does produce functional order.
"then how can you include evo's natural selection within"
By including an unconscious selection process to a letter generation model as seen in 6:37
ProcInc 3 years ago
the process which is intending to prove evo? Once one gets past all of your fancy word smoke, it becomes clear that it all boils down to the equivelant of a self validating statement. "Abiogenesis and evolution are true because abiogenesis and evolution prove it". I don't feel its neccesary to address any of the other flaws presented here. However,I wonder what the probabilities are of that your chart showed stats of "10 year education vs Christian". Being that I fit both descriptions?
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
"the process which is intending to prove evo?"
It isn't. An evolutionary mechanism simply shows an increase in order from random elements. This video is about the infinite monkey model. How it works originally and how it then can be refined.
"Being that I fit both descriptions"
You are therefore a statistical minority. The more religious one is, the less likely they are to acheive a higher education.
This statistic is drawn from many surveys on the matter, most well known is Gallup
ProcInc 3 years ago
Yes, but abiogenesis doesn't have an infintite amount of chances. Sure, it has a large amount of chances, but even that number is far from infinity.
EmergingPhilosopher 3 years ago
"Yes, but abiogenesis doesn't have an infintite amount of chances. Sure, it has a large amount of chances, but even that number is far from infinity."
Abiogenesis isn't random however. It's just chemistry and the laws of chemical arrangement.
This discusses abiogenesis very abstractly if at all. There is no use for calculating statistical chance in a refined process
ProcInc 3 years ago
Well, I never said it was random. Technically, the infinite monkey thing isn't random either. It would be limited to the number of things a monkey could do with a typewriter. If it WERE random, one monkey would have composed Shakespear, one a random string of jibberish, one would have made the Mona Lisa, and one would have transformed into a carrot. Nothing is really completely random. If it were, anything could happen.
EmergingPhilosopher 3 years ago
CDK007 and Impaler1854 recently made videos discussing abiogenesis more appropriately
ProcInc 3 years ago
No need to use a mock Southern American accent.
Don't really care about your argument but doing that just makes you look ignorant.
anon2999 3 years ago
"Don't really care about your argument"
thanks for watching anyway?
"but doing that just makes you look ignorant."
Probably ignorant of my ability to replicate a Southern drawl however I think that is the limit of using a mock accent in determining ignorance.
Was it perhaps the content of the citations that led you towards seeing 'ignorance'?
ProcInc 3 years ago
Well I'm not a science/math wiz but I do understand that, given enough time, using random letters you will eventually form a coherent sentence and given even more time a book and so on.
When I said your argument I should have specified your argument with bateman.
My point was using that accent in such a condescending way is akin to me posting videos mocking you saying"OI MATE A DINGO ATE MY BABY SO I'M GONNA PUT ANOTHER SHRIMP ON THE BARBIE SKULL A FEW SCHOONERS AND JAM MY THUMB UP A CROCS BUTT"
anon2999 3 years ago
"My point was using that accent in such a condescending way is akin to me posting videos mocking you saying"OI MATE A DINGO ATE MY BABY SO I'M GONNA PUT ANOTHER SHRIMP ON THE BARBIE SKULL A FEW SCHOONERS AND JAM MY THUMB UP A CROCS BUTT" "
Not really, unless you were to use a direct quote of mine as I did for him.
If I were to say your quote it would come off as fairly authentic (although we have shrimps rather than prawns and don't barbecue them)
ProcInc 3 years ago
Ran out of room obviously, hope you got my meaning. Basically, when someone tells you to ASSEMBLE THE MONKEYS and have em start typing in order to "prove" a theory it's unnecessary to mock him based on his citizenship.
Hope I was clear enough it's about 3am here.
anon2999 3 years ago
"it's unnecessary to mock him based on his citizenship."
I see your general point now, particularly if you are of Southern heritage and were personally insulted. To which I apologised
However I break it down to this
he stated an unintelligible point in his own accent. I repeated the unintelligent quotes in a (poor) Southern accent
the stupidity of the comments combined with my poor impression made the accent itself sound like a general mockery of the southern states (apparently)
ProcInc 3 years ago
I also had a run in with moonlighbateman trying to explain the difference between facts, laws, and theories as they pertain to science.
He just couldn't get it. He thinks scientific theories grow up to be laws. He doesn't think gravity is a theory because there are laws of gravity. He thinks facts are more important in science than theories are.
When I gave up due to frustration, he also claimed victory.
His ignorance knows no bounds.
pandstar 3 years ago
Yay triple post, stupid character count.
I should add that I made liberal use of his chimps throwing poop comment in comparison to him throwing false arguments. The level of intellect in both cases can be approximated to equality.
EdwardHowton 3 years ago
Just noticed his petty little claims of "victory against you" and your "surrendering" to him... It must be nice to be so stupid as to never realize when you're beaten. To quote Strong Bad: "It's like, even when I win, he wins."
I posted, what, five? six? comments to his replies and his video. Remains to see if he'll approve them (not bloody likely, but it's an infinite universe. Hah.), but he probably doesn't like being shown how he's wrong.
EdwardHowton 3 years ago
Hah... that guy on the right is completely stupid... Theoretically, an infinite amount of monkeys typing away would create every book ever written or ever to be written, not just Shakespeare, and given there's an -infinite- amount, it'd happen almost immediately (not considering the time needed to type out everything, of course). This is so simple to understand I could explain it to my neighbor's mildly retarded kid...
EdwardHowton 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
From Textbook on Thermodynamics
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
From Textbook on Thermodynamics
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
An example of how calculus works (for dummies and those, who like to spam, quote mine and use non sequitur arguments like amount of hydrogen atoms in universe):
Take bridge cards (52). Shuffle them, very thoroughly. Probability that they will be in ANY order, EVEN the one you REALLY hold in your hands, is 1 against 8,07E+67.
chstoney 3 years ago
Non sequitur, Nothing at all to do with abiogenesis, evolution or the infinite monkey theorem, the title of this video (sorry).
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Pretty much to do with calculating probability, something you do not understand a tiny bit.
chstoney 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I know enough to understand that there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
From Textbook on Thermodynamics (lol)
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
From Textbook on Thermodynamics.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Great natural selection analogy, but I still think these artards need a simpler or at least more complete picture. Like math, we skip steps and don't show every thing when we explain natural selection and random variation. I'm not sure I can count on a creationist to even be able to extrapolate permutations and expected values of time.
rytallica898 3 years ago
"I'm not sure I can count on a creationist to even be able to extrapolate permutations and expected values of time."
I wouldn't count on a creationist to sit the right way on a toilet seat
"but I still think these artards need a simpler or at least more complete picture."
I agree, there are plenty of simplified videos on that subject if they look too (Potholer's 'Made Easy' series is an excellent example)
ProcInc 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
(lol)
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
"If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time"
Oh, but we have infinity monkeys typing for infinite time. That means infinite Hamlets! And infinite everything else, too. Everything can be infinite if you pretend with ProcInc!
Seriously though, given a billion billion years, you would get maybe a dozen characters that match something. Same thing for the next cycle of time. And so on. Again and again. You really won't ever have a random monkey accidentally type up Hamlet.
who0Oshhh 3 years ago
"given a billion billion years, you would get maybe a dozen characters that match something."
That is why you need (for the 50th time) a *refining process*
"Seriously though, given a billion billion years, you would get maybe a dozen characters that match something."
I don't dispute that, infinite is as for from a billion^2 as 1 though. The process is random meaning it isn't getting better or worse. The chance of every sequence you get is equal to that of shakespeare
ProcInc 3 years ago
"The chance of every sequence you get is equal to that of shakespeare"
Kind of like playing the lottery, except with a probability stacked against you that approaches infinity. If you played the lottery an infinite amount of times, though, I suppose you would win infinity dollars. However, if you don't have an infinite amount of opportunities to play...go ahead and finish that thought in the most logical manner possible.
who0Oshhh 3 years ago
"If you played the lottery an infinite amount of times, though, I suppose you would win infinity dollars."
That's a reasonable remark to make
If you have any less than infinite chances to play you have no certainty of winning without extreme luck (you could win on the second try, it could take a googolplex of unsuccess)
Infinite chances removes the 'luck' factor
So does model refinement. If the lottery numbers are locked in place. Guarenteed success in limited attempts
ProcInc 3 years ago
"Guarenteed success in limited attempts"
Well, let's refine it so it looks more like reality, shall we? Suppose the threshold of "success" were actually 1,000 consecutive lottery wins, each with this near-infinite probability of success. If you won on every one of your first 1,000 attempts, you would not call this a truly random lotter, would you? Even in an infinite series, a 1,000 win streak would be (rightly) called a 1,000 win series where the selection was not truly random.
who0Oshhh 3 years ago
"were actually 1,000 consecutive lottery wins, each with this near-infinite probability of success."
*Consecutive* lottery wins requires a different model. The refinement model I use is about single successes with correction of errors.
There is no way of refining consecutive *inerrant* success that I know of.
Your example is too different to mine and not capatable.
And 'not truly random' is exactly correct, the materials are random but the order is naturally selected for
ProcInc 3 years ago
"Suppose the threshold of "success" were actually 1,000 consecutive lottery wins"
Here's all you can do in this case:
Focus on one lottery at a time, allowing for errors and using the selection mechanism of6:35-7:12 of this video
When each of these lotteries is one, it is locked in and the next one begins. In your case it will occur 1000 times
This is, in a way, similar to evolution as we retained loads of 'junk DNA': mutations of no prominant beneficial nor detrimental effects
ProcInc 3 years ago
"When each of these lotteries is one, it is locked in and the next one begins. In your case it will occur 1000 times"
Problem is, every time you miss something in the series, the series is broken and you start back at zero. Because of these breaks, a true infinite series is impossible because every break in the series gives you a new beginning; hence, not an infinite series in a practical sense. Because of this, adding "infinity" to the equation does not help you much. Do you understand?
who0Oshhh 3 years ago
Yes, and you are being entirely non sequitar. No where in my refined model is consecutive success relied on.
Errors can be made there is no requirement for a series.
So, like I said there is no refining model for inerrant consequtive selection that I know of
ProcInc 3 years ago
"No where in my refined model is consecutive success relied on."
You know, if you want to apply this to biological evolution, one key aspect of life is that stuff dies. So the consecutive nature of your success is very necessary in a practical sense, as the success is useless if it fails to be passed on to the next generation.
who0Oshhh 3 years ago
"as the success is useless if it fails to be passed on to the next generation."
Pretty much, that is why reproduction is the major goal and factor of natural selection
common sense genius
ProcInc 3 years ago
"That means infinite Hamlets! And infinite everything else, too."
Well done, spot on. Something with a finite will happen infinite times in an infinite realm
Shakespeare might POSSIBLY be randomly generated on the 3rd attempt And it's probability would be no higher (stasistical thermodynamics dicates SOMETHING must be generated). If you want something specifically complex to be randomly generated for certain in a finite time, simply refine the process (see the 'revisiting' video)
ProcInc 3 years ago
"Everything else" must include God!
Once again you state that God is possible!
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
"Everything else" must include God!"
Watch the second video and find out why it DOESNT include any god you pointless dolt
ProcInc 3 years ago
Nice one Proc - a clear, logical description of the issue and hand, and well worth watching.
I just watched the video response from Bateman... that guy is impressively stupid.
ChristianLinnell 3 years ago
"I just watched the video response from Bateman... that guy is impressively stupid."
Yes indeedy. He believes he is some of Ramboesque communist-killer war hero with a moral and intellectual high ground
In reality he is just a tiresome, childish and overnutritioned ad homining moron with a reception censorship vice perfect for his deceptive quote mining.
ProcInc 3 years ago
Well said! I'd like to hear him describe:
1. What a communist is, and why he doesn't like them.
2. What HE thinks would happen if you DID have an infinite number of monkeys typing.
You know I think I might write a program to demonstrate this, taking into account the points you made in the vid. I'll even give Bateman the source code if he thinks it's rigged!
ChristianLinnell 3 years ago
Sure, Here are some well known communists- Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Pol Pot.
I don't like them because they are mass murderering anti-theists.
Now to you- Why do you like them, defend them and take up thier cause?
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
"I don't like them because they are mass murderering anti-theists"
How do you classify mass-murdering theists and philantrapist anti-theists then?
which is better?
Also, you need to take into account that the actions of communist dictators are not condoned by atheists, and atheists were the majority of victims.
Also the fact that all of those leaders led personality cults (equivalent to religious dogma)
Still, You must be glad you have 4 dictators to hide the guilt of religion behind
ProcInc 3 years ago
I'm not a big fan of either :)
Those 4 anti-theists did not act in a vaccuum, they had millions of supporters who enabled thier actions against humanity to take place.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
I forgive you for resorting to name calling.
Sounds like you are getting desperate, you even had to post ANOTHER video because your first was inadequate!!! (lol)
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Wow! Thank you for calling me a "Ramboesque communist-killer war hero with a moral and intellectual high ground".
High praise indeed!
You are welcome!
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
"High praise indeed"
Actually thank YOU for showing once again how unforgivably deceptive you are, bearing false witness to my comments. You are actually a spectacularly ignorant bag of brainwash who are as frustrating to address as you are fun to expound your ignorance and total imperceptability
ProcInc 3 years ago
Resorting to name calling...sad. The most obvious sign of defeat, desperation.
I forgive you.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Interesting how you are so obsessed with Communists.
It's because it seems that the only time atheists are seriously amoral is when they are communist dictators (Who, oppressed atheists)
So, a very slim chance of an amoral athiest
Meanwhile Adolf Hitler was a devout christian/Catholic and so were his officers
Neo nazis and KKK to the day are strong christians.
You demonise atheism as much as you can because your beliefs has the body count.
No capitalist atheist despots I see
ProcInc 3 years ago
Most capitalist states are democratic, meaning that an atheist would need to be elected. This won't be happening as long as atheists remain the least trusted minority(lol).
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Europe is pretty democratic. And atheist are not minority here, which is fact you continuously keep ignoring.
chstoney 3 years ago
Atheists made up thee majority in the Soviet Union, North Korea, Communist China etc... That is why they remain the least trusted minority.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Sorry dude, but comunists never ruled in Britain, Norway or Sweden...
What has China to do with this whatsoever?
chstoney 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Once again, the best known and largest atheist regimes are/were North Korea, Communist China, and the Soviet Union. All repressionist, anti-theist governments who killed millions and cause the rest of the world to look on atheism with distrust and suspicion. Making atheists the least trusted minority.
BTW - Free Tibet!
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
But China and USSR were anti-theist COMUNISTIC governments, which showes COMUNISTS are bad. How many times is it necesarry to point out, that comunism is not the same thing as atheism?
Saying that it is the same thing is just as idiotic, as to say that all christians are crusaders/inquisitoras and that all muslims are terorists.
You really do not understand this or are you joking?
(BTW I agree with freeing Tibet.)
chstoney 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do you realize that atheism is one of the main tenants of communism? (Please read "the Communist Manifesto" as a reference). The atheist Chinese are persecuting Tibet even as we speak.
Free Tibet!
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
You really are absolutely incapable to understand simple things, you are not joking. Atheism was part of comunism only in the same sense as stoning disobedient children to death is part of christianity (read "the bible"). But you instead of even trying to understand keep spamming with repeating nonsense over and over again.
I am ending my attempts to try and communicate with you like with ingelligent person. I wont waste my time with you any more.
chstoney 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Atheism is a tenant of communism, comrade. Sorry you could'nt comprehend simple math, world history or thermodynamics (lol). Better luck next time.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
This debate really goes nowhere. You keep ignoring context of EVERYTHING that is written and you only pick and choose what suits you.
chstoney 3 years ago
No, it has not. You only show ignorance again and again.
chstoney 3 years ago
Brilliant response. I forgive you (again) for resorting to name calling.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
This is really hopeless. You still do not understand what either analogy nor calculus are.
chstoney 3 years ago
So in the interest of keeping this discussion short, just answer a couple of simple questions: You aren't a steady-state person, are you? You do understand that you don't have an infinite amount of time, right? Just admit that one thing: You don't have an infinite amount of time to work with. The universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time. Just admit that one thing, and we can be done here.
who0Oshhh 3 years ago
I know I don't have an infinite amount of time to work with. The model used, even when refined was not a useful tool for the big bang for instance.
energy and matter are attracted to each other and their chemical properties cause them to fuse in predictable ways
The entire development of the universe from galaxies to stars and planets can revolve around those principles remedially
For something as small as a planetary atmospher we have a greater understanding
ProcInc 3 years ago
You, however, do not have infinity to work with. Btw, this scenario has been tested (a Java applet: the Monkey Shakespeare Simulator). Given 42 billion billion billion monkey-years, one of them matched 19 letters from Two Gentlemen of Verona. Other teams got similar results. Another million billion years gets you up to 24 characters from a different play. Bad news though, ProcInc: You don't have that kind of time. And the prospect of having an infinite amount of monkeys is physically impossible.
who0Oshhh 3 years ago
One quick really practical question: About how many years ago did monkeys come into existence? Was it infinity? I didn't think so. OK, let's try something else. How about protozoans, assuming they could have computer skills? Is that quite up to infinity years ago? Nah. How about we go back to the origin of the universe? Is that infinity? No, not really. Huxley really liked this theory b/c he didn't know the universe was expanding, so within his steady-state theory, he had infinity to work with.
who0Oshhh 3 years ago
"About how many years ago did monkeys come into existence?"
we shared a common ancestor with them 18 million years ago
Hang on, don't tell me you are taking the infinite model literally too!
Geez, it is an analogy! how can you be so dense as to not understand that.
Also I repeat that the entire second half of the video refines the model to remove infinite
ProcInc 3 years ago
"Geez, it is an analogy! how can you be so dense as to not understand that."
I understand that "infinity" does not equate to "several billion years," which is what you do, in fact, have to work with. Given several million billion billion years, you could get about 20 characters (characters!) from one segment of one of Shakespeare's plays. And you don't have nearly that kind of time. Do you see how the analogy applies to naturalistic evolution in a negative kind of way?
who0Oshhh 3 years ago
"Do you see how the analogy applies to naturalistic evolution in a negative kind of way?"
That is why the model was refined, that is why it is so resented that naturalistic events are compared with randomiscity, they AREN'T.
Evolution and abiogenesis are entire non random processes and a model that uses randomoscity must be refined
ProcInc 3 years ago
Here is the deal with communism and fascism, they both incorporate anti-theist secular humanism as tenant beliefs. Neo-Darwinism is used as justification for destroying "lesser" races with intellectuals/religious leaders viewed as threats to the state. They repress free thought and free speech and establish the state and state science as the definative authority.
The Soviet Union, Nazi Gernmany, North Korea are perfect examples. Anti-Theist, secular humanist totalitarian states.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
I lived in comunistic country and you have no clue what u r talking about.
Darwinism has nothing to do with comunism whatsoever. Comunism was NOT about atheism, but about "social struggle". They did not opose religion in general, they oposed mostly organised rich churches. The repressed not only free speech (as u said), but also SCIENCE that did not fit with their ideology.
The fact is, that there are very striking similarities between comunism, fascism AND religion.
chstoney 3 years ago
State science seems to be the model for repression, the nazis for instance conducted experiments o human children to breed a "master race" and Stalin went so far as to attempt to breed an army of half ape soldiers using Darwinian reverse engineering. Sad, but true.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
"the nazis for instance conducted experiments on human children to breed a "master race" "
funny how we wanted them all to be christian though.
And they weren't 'experiments' it was controlled breeding (based on an anti-evolutionary ideal known as eugenics)
ProcInc 3 years ago
You do realize that the term eugenics was coined by Darwin's cousin. The "Labensborn project" for breeding SS Officers and the experiments conducted by Joseph Mengele at the several concentration camps on twins were attempts to use neo- darwinian practices to control evolution in human beings. The anti-theist program of rounding up, torturing and executing millions of Catholics (Christians), Jews and Gypsies (often Muslim) defined why the nazis were considered an anti-theist regime.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
And comunism did NOT in any way speak about "lesser" races, quite the oposit, comunism statet absolute equality here (about the only good thing about comunism).
Hitler did - but not because of Darwinism. It was so, because he was convinced that german nation was somehow related to ancient nordic gods. Fascests did quite a good "mind bending" when they tried to proove, that their japanese allies had also "nordic blood" and that Jesus was not Jew.
chstoney 3 years ago
And lat but not least:
My country has almost 80% atheists.
Divorce rate - equal to US
Crime rate (stolen cars) - 1/2 of US
Homicide rata - 1/3 of US
chstoney 3 years ago
Was'nt your country also subjected to communist oppression during the cold war? Any idea how many people died as a result of totalitarian, ant-theist neo-darwinism?
Hint- The answer is over 100 million.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
You understand of course that the majority of the persecuted in the cold war under the communists were atheists themselves. The communists were not anti-theist they were anti power-struggle.
And 'neo-darwinism' is a myth. Nothing communists ever did was connected with evolutionary thery, you may as well argue they did because they believe in the theory of gravity
ProcInc 3 years ago
The Communists themselves were atheists! Atheism was/is a tenant belief of Communism as outlined in the Communist Manifesto.
Stalin actually approved funding for a program to breed humans with apes to prove evolution. Face it, Neo-Darwin, anti-theist secular Humanists did some pretty horrible things in the name of state controlled science.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Saying "comunists are atheists" is true, but it does not mean that "atheists are comunists" or that "atheism makes people comunists".
Its just as untrue, fallacious and dishonest (or misunderstood, I am not sure in your case) like saying "mormons are christians", therefore "chritians are mormons" furthermore "christianity makes people mormon".
chstoney 3 years ago
"Saying communists are atheists is true"
Your first line says it all. Communists are atheists.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
And you are mormon.
chstoney 3 years ago
"Communists are atheists."
Wroong, communists can also be christians or Jewish or any religion technically
Leon Trotsky
Youtube User Commiechristian
ProcInc 3 years ago
"Atheism was/is a tenant belief of Communism as outlined in the Communist Manifesto."
So was Utopian equality and prosperous plenty spread among all the people. The thing about communism is loads of things went wrong. You should be able to tell when you look around that evolutionary biologists and atheists don't act like that.
Not even the communists did, only the leaders to did so to keep power
Stalin's ape-breeding program is a myth (and wouldn't prove evolution)
ProcInc 3 years ago
Google it or watch the vid from the discovery channel. He provided research facilities, researchers and funding for the program.
"Loads of things went wrong" indeed, beginning with the premise (lol).
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
What has this to do with what I wrote? I did not advocate communism, I merely pointed out, that it is not equal to atheism and has nothing to do with comunism. I see, that you lack education not only in maths, but also in very recent history. Its no wonder, if you get your information from creationists sources only.
chstoney 3 years ago
"and has nothing to do with comunism" should be "and has nothing to do with darwinism".
As for your "defeating communism" your help was minuscule. Communism rotted from inside, mostly because of oppresion of free speech and basic knowledge of economy.
chstoney 3 years ago
I'm sorry you had to suffer under such oppression. Thankfully you were liberated from such monsters. As a retired member of the U.S. Armed Forces and Cold War veteran, let me just say...
You're welcome.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Go see it and make up your own mind. It is difficult to discuss the film with someone who has'nt viewed it yet. What have you got to loose?
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Look up the exposes of Expelled's deceptive tactics and fallicious arguments is what I suggest.
I know for instance that Ben Stein equates evolution with social darwinism (false), atheism (false) and totalitarianism (cuckoo)
He thinks that Hitler was an athiest and accepted evolution when he was a pious and proud Catholic leading a country of christian heritage "Got Mit uns" and justified his actions in accordance witht he will of the almighty creator
ProcInc 3 years ago
So you have'nt seen the film yet...that's all I was looking for.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
I take it you have'nt attended a viewing of the film yet. I would see it before you pre-judge it. You might even like it.
It does paint anti-theist, neo-darwin, secular humanist regimes in a negative light.
Fascism and Communism are great examples of why atheists remain the least trusted minority in the world.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
"Fascism and Communism are great examples of why atheists remain the least trusted minority in the world."
Communism isnt strictly atheistic an America's ignorant view of atheism is not that of the rest of the world
The film isnt showing here because we are a more rational country not swarmed with religious loonies.
ProcInc 3 years ago
So your rational country censors it's films? (lol) That is what the movie is actually about (lol)!
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
No, he did not sey they censor films. But film distributors know very well, that theres no chance to get any money from presenting this bullshit to educated society, for educated society would not pay to watch pathetic and paranoic rants of some uneducated religious bigots from US.
chstoney 3 years ago
No need for profanity, censorship is censorship.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
"So your rational country censors it's films? (lol) That is what the movie is actually about (lol)!"
If the Flat Earth Society made a film advacting their 'science' we wouldn't bother showing it either
ProcInc 3 years ago
One of my favorite things at the Kennedy Space Center is that as you enter the main building there is a framed copy of the poem "High Flight". The last line of which reads "touched the face of God".
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Wow, what a relevent and important piece of information. A metaphorical poem line.
ProcInc 3 years ago
I already answered. That was a rhetorical question.
Please keep up
ProcInc 3 years ago