It is Mathematically Impossible for There to be NO Creator

[GreatAmerican]

It is Mathematically Impossible for There to be NO Creator

In 1943, the distinguished French mathematician Émile Borel stated that “events with a sufficiently small probability never occur” (Institute of Mathematical Statistics).

Dr. Borel chose a fairly safe number, 10 to the power of 50, written as 

For you average folks, that is expressed as one in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Anything with a lower probability than that would not happen, said Borel the numbers man.

Is it hard to wrap your head around that one? How's this:

The “infinite monkey theorem” this states that if enough monkeys pound the keys of enough typewriters (hundred of trillions?) they will eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare. While this is theoretically possible, in fact, it can never happen, and therefore constitutes a "statistical" or mathematical impossibility.

As for Earth and Man, the odds that the number of variables needed for life to just come about on its own, from the earth being the right size and the right distance from the sun, tilted on the correct axis, to the chemical make-up of all the elements and the combination of water and land, to life itself just spontaneously coming into being, and then evolving into man, and all the millions of other variables that come in between those . . . .the odds of that number of variables actually coming together by chance is far beyond 10 to the power of 50, and therefore while it is theoretically possible, it is actually no more possible than a monkey accidentally typing the entire works of Shakespeare.

So, there you go all you big science and math fans. God must exist. The math says so.

[ChemEngineer]

[/quote]
My Dear GreatAmerican,

You misquoted the mathematician.  The "fairly safe number is 10 to the MINUS 50.
This is one chance in 10 to the 50th power. 
I calculated that 10 to the 50th grains of sand would fill 15 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto.  Now imagine a special kind of spaceship that bores through sand and you board it and search through 15 spheres millions of miles in diameter for one single special grain of sand.
Ya think?  No.  Just look at a big desert and imagine finding one there. 

This is child's play compared to what I describe in my newly reconstructed website, after the original was deleted by the censors of Google after I criticized the Biden Crime Family.  They deleted years of my work, the cowards.
http://Illogical-Atheism.blogspot.com

Afternote: I just added your citation of Emile Borel to my website. Je vous en remerci. (A fancy way of saying "Merci beaucoup.")

[Sunsettommy]

Ok I get it now.

My original climate forum was shut down when Google bought out my server host who then LIED to me saying they have no such forum on their server!

[ChemEngineer]

LESSON WITHIN A LESSON

Old English Riddle

As I was going to St. Ives,

I met a man with seven wives.
Each wife had seven sacks,
Each sack had seven cats, 
Each cat had seven kits.
Kits, cats, sacks, wives, 
How many were going to St. Ives?

MAN  = 1
WIVES = 7
SACKS = 49
CATS = 343
KITS = 2,401
Total = 2,801

But that total is NOT the correct answer. It is an answer, just the wrong one.

Thinking logically, we must infer that the person posing the riddle "met" the large group face-to-face.
Otherwise he would have said "I passed a man with seven wives."
His question is explicitly, "Kits, cats, sacks, wives, How many (of those!) were going to St. Ives?"

None of them.  Only the person posing the riddle is.  
The lesson of this interesting old riddle is that words have meanings, and interpreting them correctly is everything.

The lesson within this lesson is that even when people are given the same information, some will interpret it incorrectly, as is the case with Darwinian evolution, and more recently, the global warming fraud, renamed "climate change" after predictions have failed so miserably for so many decades.

"Science progresses one funeral at a time." - Max Planck, Nobel Laureate in Physics

[Interesting note:  I got up at 1:20 AM to post this for my friend, SunsetTommy.  I know he will be pleased at my effort.  My home town's Code Enforcement Department nicknamed me "Starman" for all the gold stars they gave me for assisting them by reporting illegal advertising signs, and often removing them after photographing them for documentation.  These gold stars were in lieu of a paycheck.  I do what I can.  It is little enough.  How about you?]

[ChemEngineer]

LESSON WITHIN A LESSON

Old English Riddle

As I was going to St. Ives,

I met a man with seven wives.
Each wife had seven sacks,
Each sack had seven cats, 
Each cat had seven kits.
Kits, cats, sacks, wives, 
How many were going to St. Ives?

MAN  = 1
WIVES = 7
SACKS = 49
CATS = 343
KITS = 2,401
Total = 2,801

But that total is NOT the correct answer. It is an answer, just the wrong one.

Thinking logically, we must infer that the person posing the riddle "met" the large group face-to-face.
Otherwise he would have said "I passed a man with seven wives."
His question is explicitly, "Kits, cats, sacks, wives, How many (of those!) were going to St. Ives?"

None of them.  Only the person posing the riddle is.  
The lesson of this interesting old riddle is that words have meanings, and interpreting them correctly is everything.

The lesson within this lesson is that even when people are given the same information, some will interpret it incorrectly, as is the case with Darwinian evolution, and more recently, the global warming fraud, renamed "climate change" after predictions have failed so miserably for so many decades.

"Science progresses one funeral at a time." - Max Planck, Nobel Laureate in Physics

[Interesting note:  I got up at 1:20 AM to post this for my friend, SunsetTommy.  I know he will be pleased at my effort.  My home town's Code Enforcement Department nicknamed me "Starman" for all the gold stars they gave me for assisting them by reporting illegal advertising signs, and often removing them after photographing them for documentation.  These gold stars were in lieu of a paycheck.  I do what I can.  It is little enough.  How about you?]

The answer to the riddle is zero.  No "kits, cats, sacks or wives are going to St. Ives." 
Only the riddler is walking there.

The lesson within this lesson is this.  Even when everyone has the same identical information, they arrive at entirely different, and often erroneous, conclusions, as in the evolution fraud and the global warming fraud.

If they were remotely as factual as the two cults claim, there could not be thousands of scientists dissenting from both of them, with compelling data and logic.

[Billy_Bob Systems Administration]

The Riddle is a lesson on relevancy.   What data was relevant to the question posed?

Today the Modeling kings are throwing out tons of irrelevant information clouding the real question that must be answered.  Digging through the mountains of garbage is not what most people can do logically.  This is on purpose. It is a demonstration of how easily people are lead astray and kept from answering the real question.

[ChemEngineer]

The Riddle is a lesson on relevancy.   What data was relevant to the question posed?

Today the Modeling kings are throwing out tons of irrelevant information clouding the real question that must be answered.  Digging through the mountains of garbage is not what most people can do logically.  This is on purpose. It is a demonstration of how easily people are lead astray and kept from answering the real question.

Many liberals/Democrats preach irrelevant considerations and claim them as "fact" and "science."  This is particularly true in their proselytizing Darwinian evolution, climate change, and atheism.  

Science is not a matter of majority opinions or contorted thinking, such as their claims that carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere for long periods of time, and water is not.  Chemicals don't react based on how long they have been in situ.  Every molecule is identical irrespective of arrival time.

Llikewise they endlessly repeat "billions of years" which ostensibly permit anything to happen, and be created by the magic of "selection."  

Richard Dawkins gives the example of a computer program "selecting" random letters to form "Methinks it is a weasel."  Solved in no time by his magic "selection."

His errors are many, chief of which is that "selection" requires the event to be advantageous and promote greater numbers of offspring.  This is the fundamental claim of magic selection.
However there is no advantage whatsoever accruing to one letter being correct, as in the next amino acid being added to the early stage of a protein synthesis.  Either the protein works or else it does not. No advantage is offered, no selection can take place.

Likewise in the atheist argument, "there's no evidence (or proof)."  Just because atheists reject the reams of evidence does not make them worthless.  Design is ubiquitous, from the subatomic to the superatomic.  The Anthropic Principle is profound evidence of the Grand Designer, as are the 20,000+ proteins inside every human body. 

Tell the mother and father of a newborn baby that it is not a miracle.   They will emphatically disagree, along with their doctors.  I know many medical doctors and not one is an atheist.  Not one.
Read what John Orosz, MD, said about my book. It's published on Amazon.com.

You can't make this stuff up.

[ChemEngineer]

The Riddle is a lesson on relevancy.   What data was relevant to the question posed?

Today the Modeling kings are throwing out tons of irrelevant information clouding the real question that must be answered.  Digging through the mountains of garbage is not what most people can do logically.  This is on purpose. It is a demonstration of how easily people are lead astray and kept from answering the real question.

Many liberals/Democrats preach irrelevant considerations and claim them as "fact" and "science."  This is particularly true in their proselytizing Darwinian evolution, climate change, and atheism.  

Science is not a matter of majority opinions or contorted thinking, such as their claims that carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere for long periods of time, and water is not.  Chemicals don't react based on how long they have been in situ.  Every molecule is identical irrespective of arrival time.

Llikewise they endlessly repeat "billions of years" which ostensibly permit anything to happen, and be created by the magic of "selection."  

Richard Dawkins gives the example of a computer program "selecting" random letters to form "Methinks it is a weasel."  Solved in no time by his magic "selection."

His errors are many, chief of which is that "selection" requires the event to be advantageous and promote greater numbers of offspring.  This is the fundamental claim of magic selection.
However there is no advantage whatsoever accruing to one letter being correct, as in the next amino acid being added to the early stage of a protein synthesis.  Either the protein works or else it does not. No advantage is offered, no selection can take place.

Likewise in the atheist argument, "there's no evidence (or proof)."  Just because atheists reject the reams of evidence does not make them worthless.  Design is ubiquitous, from the subatomic to the superatomic.  The Anthropic Principle is profound evidence of the Grand Designer, as are the 20,000+ proteins inside every human body. 

Tell the mother and father of a newborn baby that it is not a miracle.   They will emphatically disagree, along with their doctors.  I know many medical doctors and not one is an atheist.  Not one.
Read what John Orosz, MD, said about my book. It's published on Amazon.com.

You can't make this stuff up.

Wordle solved on second try, April 16 and then again April 19.  
Random picks followed by *magical selection* could not achieve solutions in 10,000 tries.
This is because there are ~70,000 common five-letter words and the combination of 26 random letters which can be duplicated anywhere, to the fifth power is beyond Dawkins' silliness.

[ChemEngineer]

August 22, 2023 on second try

   

August 21, 2023 on second try

   

August 12, 2023 on second try

   

August 7, 2023 on second try

   

[ChemEngineer]

Segueing into the "mathematically impossible," this:

[Please copy and paste to your Word Document and save in your hard drive for children, grandchildren, and friends who could learn from it.]
 

• to:  johnjaeger@xxxxxxx.com
  

Thu 9/14/2023 11:35 AM
Hi John—
 
Your critique of the Dawkins weasel demonstration found its way to me, and I agree with it entirely. I offered my own critique in Undeniable (p198-200). You hit the nail on the head!
Regrettably, even solid refutations of evolutionary arguments like this don’t seem to get their proponents to rethink their position. I’ve become convinced that this is because the root problem is spiritual, not scientific or intellectual.
Best regards,
Doug Axe
Douglas Axe, PhD
Rosa Endowed Chair of Molecular Biology
Professor of Computational Biology
Co-Director of Stewart Science Honors Program
School of Science, Technology & Health
Biola University


 _____________________________________________ 

//endotwikipediadotorg/wiki/weasel_program

In chapter 3 of his book The Blind Watchmaker, biologist Richard Dawkins gave the following introduction to the program, referencing the well-known infinite monkey theorem.*
I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence?

[NOTE:  How lazy of Richard Dawkins to fail to look up the author of his monkey business.  It was Sir Arthur Eddington.      
In 1928, British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington presented a classical illustration of chance in his book, The Nature of the Physical World: “If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum.”
This is nonsense compounding nonsense.  And yet my high school math teacher presented this proposition to his classes in the 1960’s.
First, an “army of monkeys” wouldn’t be very interested in hitting typewriter keys repeatedly.  There is nothing for them to gain in so doing. 
Second, those who did hit the keys would quickly get to the end of the line, and have no concept of returning the carriage to type the second line.
Third, those very few who somehow overcame the first and second hurdles, repeatedly, would find that the paper was ejected from the carriage, and they are hopelessly unable to replace the first page with a fresh sheet of paper.
Fourth, we will never get to the fourth problem of exhausting the ink in the typewriter ribbons because the “army of monkeys” would have defecated on or otherwise ruined every typewriter.
Fifth, Sir Arthur Eddington never began to consider the statistics of monkeys “selecting” 1 out of approximately 100 different keys, counting upper and lower case of all letters, numbers, and punctuation marks.  A page of an average book has 250 – 300 words. 

hotghostwriter dot com/ blogs/blog/novel-length

*Finally, the largest army in the world is the People’s Liberation Army of Communist China, with over 2,000,000 troops.   This is hardly “infinite” in number. economictimes dot indiatimes dot com
The average word has 6.47 letters. capitalizemytitle dot com/
Using the lower value of 250 words, times 6.47 letters equals 1,617 characters in a page.
1/100 to the 1,617th power is 10 to the minus 3,234, for just one page, much less “all the books in the British Museum.”
“we just think of one chance in 10 to the 40th power” as “impossible”. – Richard Dawkins, (The Blind Watchmaker, page 142)
Emil Borel, a famous statistician, defined “impossible” as an event with a probability of 10 to the minus 50 or less.
owlcation dot com/stem/Borels-Law-of-Probability

This is equivalent to finding one unique marble, in 78 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto, all full of identical marbles except for one, on your first and only attempt.  You do not get an infinite number of attempts, not even two. 
Therefore 10 to the 50 marbles, each 1cm in diameter, would occupy 78 spheres reaching from the center of the sun to Pluto, 5.906 billion kilometers from the sun.  (10 to the 5 marbles/km)3  = 10 to the 15  marbles per cubic km
To get 35 more orders of magnitude requires the multiplier of roughly (4.64 x 10 to the 11) cubed, for volume.
4.64x 10 to the 11 km/5.906 x 10 to the 9 km= ~78.5 spheres the size of our solar system to Pluto]


 Dawkins then goes on to show that a process of cumulative selection can take far fewer steps to reach any given target. In Dawkins' words:
We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.
Generation 01:   WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P 
Generation 02:   WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 10:   MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P
Generation 20:   MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL
Generation 30:   METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL
Generation 40:   METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL
Generation 43:   METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
Dawkins continues: 
The exact time taken by the computer to reach the target doesn't matter. If you want to know, it completed the whole exercise for me, the first time, while I was out to lunch. It took about half an hour. (Computer enthusiasts may think this unduly slow. The reason is that the program was written in BASIC, a sort of computer baby-talk. When I rewrote it in Pascal, it took 11 seconds.) Computers are a bit faster at this kind of thing than monkeys, but the difference really isn't significant. What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other procedure of single-step selection: about a million million million million million years. This is more than a million million million times as long as the universe has so far existed.

 
[So much for Dawkins’ specious argument in defense of Darwinism, which he proudly claimed, “… made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”  UncommonDescent dot com
Twenty-six capital letters plus the space bar equals twenty-seven. Twenty-seven to the twenty-eighth power equals ten to the fortieth different possible combinations, of which we seek only one specifically.  Dawkins admits his definition of “impossible” is 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power.  This is not for all of Shakespeare’s works, but for one short sentence, and even then on a dramatically altered keyboard, not of fifty possible keys, lower case, and fifty more keys, upper case, but for only twenty-six keys, all upper case.
Of critical but neglected importance is the fact that for “selection” to occur, the intermediary produced by the random mutation MUST confer a “selective advantage” for the host organism, otherwise it will be lost.  It is therefore incumbent on the advocate for Darwinism to demonstrate, in each case, what that improvement is and how it operates, every single time, without exception.   “Selection” requires no less.  This is easily done when copying short sentences, but not so easily done when originally constructing over 20,000 proteins in humans *a, the largest of which is titin, at 38,138 *b amino acid residues in length. 1 out of 20 amino acids “selected” consecutively 38,138 times has a probability of 1 chance in 10 to the 49,618.  This is for only one protein. Calculating for chirality, i.e. the “selection” of L amino acids instead of D amino acids *c and all peptide bonds rather than the equally probable non-peptide bonds *d reduces the probability of original naturalistic synthesis to 1 chance in 10 to the 72,578.  Twenty thousand more proteins to go! – John Phillip Jaeger]
*a - omni dot org/entry/188840/
*b - ncbi dot nlm dot nih dot gov
*c - ½ to the 38,138 = 10 to the minus 11,480
*d - ½ to the 38,138 = 10 to the minus 11,480
 

[ChemEngineer]

 _____________________________________________ 
(Dawkins):  
 and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence?

[ChemEngineer]

"We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is not salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms." - From Abstract of "Neo-Darwinism must mutate to survive,” by Brown and Hullender, published in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, August, 2022
-----------------
DUH!

It just occurred to me this very day (September 22, 2023) that the pseudoscience of Darwinism has long supported the evil of atheism due to nonsensical extrapolation.

"Darwin made it intellectually fulfilling to be an atheist." - Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist at Oxford and bitter atheist

Because of the pseudoscientific pretension that all plants and animals made themselves, fulfilled atheists extrapolated that pretension to all matter, energy, correspondence, and the profound fortuitous interdependencies extending throughout the universe, which, they insist, also made themselves, out of nothing.  There is not an iota of empirical evidence for nothing making everything, but millions cling to this nonsense.