Creationists Believe the Darndest Things

An experiment like that was actually tested. They put into place monkeys in a room full of computers with keyboards to see if they can write Shakespeare. But as it turned out, the monkeys barely typed out a single word and the computers just ended up... stinky.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2003/05/09/MNmonkeys.DTL

 

That's one clever monkey Maybe they needed more like him in the experiment?

 

....but is it Shakespreare?

 

Nope

 

At first, said Phillips, "the lead male got a stone and started bashing the hell out of it. "Another thing they were interested in was in defecating and urinating all over the keyboard," added Phillips, who runs the university's Institute of Digital Arts and Technologies.
:rofl:

 

:smilielol5:

My fav part

 

Maybe not enough monkeys or typewriters or time? Or maybe they should replace the monkeys with, Sorry Monkey Boy, evolutionists?

 

you win a slap for that.

 

:smilielol5:

Thanx, I needed that. ​

 

The only problem with "Too Many Monkeys + Typrewriter = Shakespeare" comparison is that while it is indeed, in theory, possible to type Shakespeare by pressing random keys, still it doesn't bear any consequence to support Darwinists idea that evolution of species is the result of random chance and natural selection.

The first problem is that of the odds and average time it takes for some events to happen by chance.
In case of , let's say, Hamlet you would need to first count the total number of characters used for entire work.
Next, you know there are only so many letters and characters that can vary in each space. Then you multiply the number of possible characters in each space times number of characters in next space and you keep multiplying as many times as the total number of characters costituting the entire work.
Just imagine if there are 22 letters in alphabet and if you have just one word made of 5 letters to select then you have total of 5153632 variations out of which one will make a word you want to select as "fit".
There is one out of 5153632 chances for it to happen from first try.
As you increase numbers of words (as would sentence and then entire book require) the number of variations become extremely great.
Applying probability theory it's possible to calculate how many random attempts in average it would take for a sentence or even a book to emerge in such a way.
The question then would be the length of time requiered for such "extremely well fit" product as Shakespeare's works to emerge by means of random chance and natural selection.
If it turns out that it would take 9 million monkeys and 800 trillion years for such work to emerge you can't then say "well, this is probably how Shakespear's works could have emerged in the first place". You can't say that because even if typewriters existed from times immemorial and even if someone gave those typewriters to 9 million monkeys ever since first monkey emerged in existence , the time passed since first monkey started to type would not be enough to accomplish task requiring 800 trillion years under the estimate using the formula of probability theory.

The second problem is that the matter itself happens to be a lot fuzzier and more complex than binary digits or 22 alphabet characters to neatly fit even 800 trillion year scenario.

 

"Creationists Believe the Darndest Things"

Then again, so do people who believe in the Big Bang Theory.

People come up with some of the most convoluted stuff.

 

I don't "believe" in Big Bang theory.
What I know is that it has Scientific Validity.
It's based on empirical observation of expanding Universe and derived from it assumption that it was in such state since it came into existence (only slowing down in speed as time goes on).
Proponents of theory did great deal of work doing quantitative analysis and showing the state of the matter up to the Plank epoch, beyond which all formulas collapse.

Did anyone observe any macroevolutionary process by random chance and natural selection, no matter how limited in scope, to make it possible to assume greater evolutionary steps took place over longer periods of time?
The fact is there is no macroevolutionary evidence in record at all, even when selectively attempted to induce.
Everything shown so far is an evidence of microevolution.
Dogs, no matter how much you breed them, are still dogs, not cats or any other species.
The viruses are still viruses, no matter how much they adapt to changing circumstances.
The variations observed are within certain litimts beyond which no speciation occurs, you can't force it beyond certain point no matter how hard you try.
And where is quantitative analysis to support the idea of atomic and molecular interaction by random chance producing through natural selection the most advanced organisms from most primitive, in the matter of 3 billion years ( absence of macroevolutionary evidence notwithstanding) ?

 

personnaly i believe that no one has yet comprhended how man came to be. i think that most theories have bits of truth in them, but we still need to seperate the bull from the truth.

 

I think the test would be intended to play out over the course of thousands or even millions of years, theoretically.

 

That's true, but I wouldn't expect anything from it other than more poop :coffee:

 

'Monkeys with typewriters' has nothing to do with evolution because evolution is not a random process. Not one person educated in evolutionary sciences has ever claimed evolution to be a random process.

The idea that macro-evolution is unobservable is a fallacy. Observable does not mean observable in one life time. If it did then we would have to discard the theory that giant redwoods come from redwood saplings on the grounds that no one has ever lived long enough to watch a redwood sapling become a giant redwood.

The evidence for macro-evolution is so massive that I will not waste time presenting it here. Libraries and museums are full of the evidence and anyone can see it any time they want. I will simply say this: if macro-evolution is false then why is it that we see faunal succession without a single exception in the fossil record, as well as the divergence of lineages? And you can't claim that it is an evolutionary biologist conspiracy because much of the work in geology and paleontology was done by creationists and devout Christians.

If you are interested in the hilariously pathetic things that creationists believe look into "flood geology." Intelligent creationists abandoned flood geology as obviously false thirty years before Darwin published the origin, but for some reason modern creationists have resurrected those concepts.