No one disputes Micro-Evolution, that is, small changes within ‘kinds’ (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25), such as varieties of dogs, cats, etc. It is Macro-Evolution, that is, wholesale changes of one species into an entirely new species, that is disputed. Since such an assertion has never been observed, Evolutionists claim that over very long periods of time, perhaps millions of years, such large changes have definitely taken place.
The Bible makes clear that “The Lord God Almighty . . . created all things” (Revelation 4:8,11). “How countless are your works, Yahweh, all of of them made so wisely!” (Psalm 104:24 NJB). Actual documented evidence proves that all creatures reproduce only “according to their kinds” (Genesis 1:21 ESV; NIV).
The following article on BBC gives very recent evidence proving that the Macro-Evolutionary time claims of Evolutionists are impossible.
“Monkeys Will Never Type Shakespeare, Study Finds” — November 1, 2024
BBC News, Sydney
Getty Images
Two Australian mathematicians have called into question an old adage, that if given an infinite amount of time, a monkey pressing keys on a typewriter would eventually write the complete works of William Shakespeare.
Known as the “infinite monkey theorem”, the thought-experiment has long been used to explain the principles of probability and randomness.
However, a new peer-reviewed study led by Sydney-based researchers Stephen Woodcock and Jay Falletta has found that the time it would take for a typing monkey to replicate Shakespeare’s plays, sonnets and poems would be longer than the lifespan of our universe.
Which means that while mathematically true, the theorem is “misleading”, they say.
As well as looking at the abilities of a single monkey, the study also did a series of calculations based on the current global population of chimpanzees, which is roughly 200,000.
The results indicated that even if every chimp in the world was enlisted and able to type at a pace of one key per second until the end of the universe, they wouldn’t even come close to typing out the Bard’s works.
There would be a 5% chance that a single chimp would successfully type the word “bananas” in its own lifetime. And the probability of one chimp constructing a random sentence – such as “I chimp, therefore I am” – comes in at one in 10 million billion billion, the research indicates.
“It is not plausible that, even with improved typing speeds or an increase in chimpanzee populations, monkey labour will ever be a viable tool for developing non-trivial written works,” the study says.
The calculations used in the paper are based on the most widely accepted hypothesis for the end of the universe, which is the heat death theory.
Despite its name, the so-called heat death would actually be slow and cold.
In short, it’s a scenario in which the universe continues to both expand and cool – while everything within it dies off, decays, and fades away.
“This finding places the theorem among other probability puzzles and paradoxes… where using the idea of infinite resources gives results that don’t match up with what we get when we consider the constraints of our universe,” Associate Prof Woodcock said in a statement about the work.
9 thoughts on “New Study Proves “Time” Assertion of Evolutionists Is Impossible”
BA: No one disputes Micro-Evolution, that is, small changes within ‘kinds’ (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25), such as varieties of dogs, cats, etc.
GW: You failed to quote these verses or tell from which version you are reading. That is your obligation. I doubt that these verses support evolution in any form.
BA: It is Macro-Evolution, that is, wholesale changes of one species into an entirely new species, that is disputed. Since such an assertion has never been observed, Evolutionists claim that over very long periods of time, perhaps millions of years, such large changes have definitely taken place.
GW: Assertions are made, not observed. No human being has ever lived long enough to observe the changes in organisms and across generations producing new species, but still we know these changes have occurred by observing other evidence.
BA: The Bible makes clear that “The Lord God Almighty . . . created all things” (Revelation 4:8,11). “How countless are your works, Yahweh, all of of them made so wisely!” (Psalm 104:24 NJB).
GW: The Bible is mistaken on this point. God does not exist. We now know this. It has been proven.
BA: Actual documented evidence proves that all creatures reproduce only “according to their kinds” (Genesis 1:21 ESV; NIV).
GW: You failed to quote the entire verse here. Even if you provide a correct quote, the verse over-simplifies biology. The authors of the Bible knew nothing about evolution. I do not trust them on this subject.
BA: The following article on BBC gives very recent evidence proving that the Macro-Evolutionary time claims of Evolutionists are impossible. “Monkeys Will Never Type Shakespeare, Study Finds” — November 1, 2024
GW: Oh really? I don’t believe you.
BA: Two Australian mathematicians have called into question an old adage, that if given an infinite amount of time, a monkey pressing keys on a typewriter would eventually write the complete works of William Shakespeare.
GW: “Called into question”? Oh, so they haven’t disproven the claim. What does this have to do with evolution?
BA: Known as the “infinite monkey theorem”, the thought-experiment has long been used to explain the principles of probability and randomness.
GW: I am familiar with it.
BA: However, a new peer-reviewed study led by Sydney-based researchers Stephen Woodcock and Jay Falletta has found that the time it would take for a typing monkey to replicate Shakespeare’s plays, sonnets and poems would be longer than the lifespan of our universe.
GW: Well, even if that were true, it does not disprove the “infinite monkey theorem.” The theorem assumes eternity is available.
BA: Which means that while mathematically true, the theorem is “misleading”, they say.
GW: False. The theorem is not misleading if it is properly stated.
BA: As well as looking at the abilities of a single monkey, the study also did a series of calculations based on the current global population of chimpanzees, which is roughly 200,000. The results indicated that even if every chimp in the world was enlisted and able to type at a pace of one key per second until the end of the universe, they wouldn’t even come close to typing out the Bard’s works.
GW: But they would type the Bard’s works if they had eternity to do it. Your worldview assumes an eternity, i.e. that God has existed and will exist for eternity. So, if all the chimps had eternity to do their typing, at least one would achieve the goal, even if they typed at random.
BA: There would be a 5% chance that a single chimp would successfully type the word “bananas” in its own lifetime. And the probability of one chimp constructing a random sentence – such as “I chimp, therefore I am” – comes in at one in 10 million billion billion, the research indicates.
GW: Well, that might be true, but the researchers were assuming an end to the universe or to time. That is their error.
BA: “It is not plausible that, even with improved typing speeds or an increase in chimpanzee populations, monkey labour will ever be a viable tool for developing non-trivial written works,” the study says.
GW: This is just false. Just one monkey could do it with eternity to work with.
BA: The calculations used in the paper are based on the most widely accepted hypothesis for the end of the universe, which is the heat death theory.
GW: Yes, but assume eternity and you will get a different answer.
BA: Despite its name, the so-called heat death would actually be slow and cold. In short, it’s a scenario in which the universe continues to both expand and cool – while everything within it dies off, decays, and fades away.
GW: Those points are correct.
BA: “This finding places the theorem among other probability puzzles and paradoxes… where using the idea of infinite resources gives results that don’t match up with what we get when we consider the constraints of our universe,” Associate Prof Woodcock said in a statement about the work.
GW: Well of course, if you use different assumptions you will get different answers.
GW: But the “infinite monkey theorem” is not a proper model of the theory of evolution which does not depend solely on randomness. So, your original claim, i.e. “The following article on BBC gives very recent evidence proving that the Macro-Evolutionary time claims of Evolutionists are impossible,” is clearly false. You are spreading misinformation. You should write a retraction.
BBC article: “It is not plausible that, even with improved typing speeds or an increase in chimpanzee populations, monkey labour will ever be a viable tool for developing non-trivial written works,” the study says.
GW: This is just false. Just one monkey could do it with eternity to work with.
BA—The faith, or rather, credulity, of atheists in Macro-Evolution is astounding!
On the other hand, Biblical “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1 NKJV).
BBC article: “It is not plausible that, even with improved typing speeds or an increase in chimpanzee populations, monkey labour will ever be a viable tool for developing non-trivial written works,” the study says.
GW: This is just false. Just one monkey could do it with eternity to work with.
BA: The faith, or rather, credulity, of atheists in Macro-Evolution is astounding!
GW: There is no faith. The acceptance of evolution is based on evidence, logic, science, and reason.
BA: On the other hand, Biblical “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1 NKJV).
GW: Yes, that is correct. It is basically belief based on hoping or wishing, not evidence or logic.
BA: On the other hand, Biblical “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1 NKJV).
GW: Yes, that is correct. It is basically belief based on hoping or wishing, not evidence or logic.
BA: No, you overlooked the fact that Biblical faith is based on “evidence”, whereas the credulity of believers in Macro-Evolution is based on “imaginations” (Ezekiel 13:3 NLT). For example:
BBC article: “It is not plausible that, even with improved typing speeds or an increase in chimpanzee populations, monkey labour will ever be a viable tool for developing non-trivial written works,” the study says.
GW: This is just false. Just one monkey could do it with eternity to work with.
The BBC article proves what God has said in his word, the Bible is true, and is based on a scientific study, whereas ‘the eternally typing monkey’ scenario is based on “imaginations”.
BA: On the other hand, Biblical “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1 NKJV).
GW: Yes, that is correct. It is basically belief based on hoping or wishing, not evidence or logic.
BA*: No, you overlooked the fact that Biblical faith is based on “evidence”, whereas the credulity of believers in Macro-Evolution is based on “imaginations” (Ezekiel 13:3 NLT).
GW*: Just re-read Hebrews 11:1, which you cited. Note the words “hoped for.” For example, theists hope for the existence of God who is not seen. Where is the good evidence for his existence? There isn’t any! On the other hand, there is proof that he does not exist.
BA: For example: BBC article: “It is not plausible that, even with improved typing speeds or an increase in chimpanzee populations, monkey labour will ever be a viable tool for developing non-trivial written works,” the study says.
GW: This is just false. Just one monkey could do it with eternity to work with.
BA*: The BBC article proves what God has said in his word, the Bible is true, and is based on a scientific study, whereas ‘the eternally typing monkey’ scenario is based on “imaginations”.
GW*: False. The BBC article doesn’t even mention God or the Bible. Also, the study is not a scientific study. It is a mathematical study.
BA: On the other hand, Biblical “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1 NKJV).
GW: Yes, that is correct. It is basically belief based on hoping or wishing, not evidence or logic.
BA*: No, you overlooked the fact that Biblical faith is based on “evidence”, whereas the credulity of believers in Macro-Evolution is based on “imaginations” (Ezekiel 13:3 NLT).
GW*: Just re-read Hebrews 11:1, which you cited. Note the words “hoped for.” For example, theists hope for the existence of God who is not seen.
BA—“Faith is the SUBSTANCE of. . . “, not simply “the things hoped for”.
BA*: The BBC article proves what God has said in his word, the Bible is true, and is based on a scientific study, whereas ‘the eternally typing monkey’ scenario is based on “imaginations”.
GW*: False. The BBC article doesn’t even mention God or the Bible. Also, the study is not a scientific study. It is a mathematical study.
BA—First of all, mathematics IS defined as a science. The study referred to in the article was done scientifically. Notice:
“Is mathematics a science?
Mathematics is the science and study of quality, structure, space, and change. Mathematicians seek out patterns, formulate new conjectures, and establish truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions.”—-Tennessee Tech University
BA: For example: BBC article: “It is not plausible that, even with improved typing speeds or an increase in chimpanzee populations, monkey labour will ever be a viable tool for developing non-trivial written works,” the study says.
GW: This is just false. Just one monkey could do it with eternity to work with.
BA—That idea is as insane as asserting a monkey could set the timing on an engine.
As for the eternally tying monkey assertion, where did the typewriter come from? Who designed and manufactured it?
There is no end to such insanity!
BA: On the other hand, Biblical “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1 NKJV).
GW: Yes, that is correct. It is basically belief based on hoping or wishing, not evidence or logic.
BA*: No, you overlooked the fact that Biblical faith is based on “evidence”, whereas the credulity of believers in Macro-Evolution is based on “imaginations” (Ezekiel 13:3 NLT).
GW*: Just re-read Hebrews 11:1, which you cited. Note the words “hoped for.” For example, theists hope for the existence of God who is not seen.
BA4: “Faith is the SUBSTANCE of. . . “, not simply “the things hoped for”.
GW4: They are equivalent.
BA*: The BBC article proves what God has said in his word, the Bible is true, and is based on a scientific study, whereas ‘the eternally typing monkey’ scenario is based on “imaginations”.
GW*: False. The BBC article doesn’t even mention God or the Bible. Also, the study is not a scientific study. It is a mathematical study.
BA4: First of all, mathematics IS defined as a science.
GW4: There is no consensus among mathematicians on that claim. Mathematics can be considered a branch of logic.
BA4: The study referred to in the article was done scientifically. Notice:
“Is mathematics a science?
Mathematics is the science and study of quality, structure, space, and change. Mathematicians seek out patterns, formulate new conjectures, and establish truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions.”—-Tennessee Tech University
GW4: That’s one opinion. Here is a contrasting one:
“Science, generally is analyzing information gathered from observing phenomena, and coming up with theories to try and explain the phenomena. Then, attempting to predict a new phenomenon before it happens (when we can do that we usually say that we have discovered “a fundamental law of nature”),and when we can consistently produce the same result, this is regarded as proof of the theory…Mathematics is different. it does not rely on these experiments in order to claim the discovery of a new truth. Theres a distinction between what Mathematics claims as proof in contrast to science.” https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/14818/is-mathematics-considered-a-science
BA4: For example: BBC article: “It is not plausible that, even with improved typing speeds or an increase in chimpanzee populations, monkey labour will ever be a viable tool for developing non-trivial written works,” the study says.
GW4: This is just false. Just one monkey could do it with eternity to work with.
BA4: That idea is as insane as asserting a monkey could set the timing on an engine.
GW4: Setting timing on an engine is not done by chance, but the monkey in our example is working by chance. For example, the monkey may have 1/26 chance of typing the correct first letter, then a 1/26 chance of typing the correct second letter. So, the probability of getting just two letters correct in a row, just by chance, is (1/26)X(1/26), which is a very low probability. If we have only one monkey, then whenever it gets one letter wrong, it must start over. But remember: If the monkey has eternity to work with, then he will eventually produce the correct sequence of letters, regardless of how improbable it is. In the study you mentioned, the investigators assumed that the monkey would only have the anticipated length of time before the “heat death” of our universe. So, the outcome of the situation depends on the amount of time you assume to have for the monkey or a group of them.
BA4: As for the eternally tying monkey assertion, where did the typewriter come from? Who designed and manufactured it?
GW4: That’s irrelevant to the study. Human persons designed and manufactured the typewriter or typewriters. Duh.
BA4: There is no end to such insanity!
GW4: The delusion is that God exists. Others and I have proven that God does not exist. You have found no errors in these proofs.
GW*: Just re-read Hebrews 11:1, which you cited. Note the words “hoped for.” For example, theists hope for the existence of God who is not seen.
BA4: “Faith is the SUBSTANCE of. . . “, not simply “the things hoped for”.
GW4: They are equivalent.
B—One of the definitions of substance, and the one which applies to Hebrews 11:1, is: “the quality of having a solid basis in reality or fact.”
GW4: Setting timing on an engine is not done by chance, but the monkey in our example is working by chance. For example, the monkey may have 1/26 chance of typing the correct first letter, then a 1/26 chance of typing the correct second letter. So, the probability of getting just two letters correct in a row, just by chance, is (1/26)X(1/26), which is a very low probability. If we have only one monkey, then whenever it gets one letter wrong, it must start over. But remember: If the monkey has eternity to work with, then he will eventually produce the correct sequence of letters, regardless of how improbable it is. In the study you mentioned, the investigators assumed that the monkey would only have the anticipated length of time before the “heat death” of our universe. So, the outcome of the situation depends on the amount of time you assume to have for the monkey or a group of them.
BA4: For example: BBC article: “It is not plausible that, even with improved typing speeds or an increase in chimpanzee populations, monkey labour will ever be a viable tool for developing non-trivial written works,” the study says.
BA–This makes sense. Atheists’ eternally typing monkey producing all the works of Shakespeare is utter nonsense, which is one of many evidences of Atheistic thinking that is similar to what the following scriptures say:
“They knew all the time that there is a God, yet they refused to acknowledge him as such, or to thank him for what he is or does. Thus they became fatuous in their argumentations, and plunged their silly minds still farther into the dark. Behind a facade of ‘wisdom’ they became just fools”—Romans 1:21-23 The New Testament In Modern English, by J B Phillips
GW*: Just re-read Hebrews 11:1, which you cited. Note the words “hoped for.” For example, theists hope for the existence of God who is not seen.
BA4: “Faith is the SUBSTANCE of. . . “, not simply “the things hoped for”.
GW4: They are equivalent.
BA5: One of the definitions of substance, and the one which applies to Hebrews 11:1, is: “the quality of having a solid basis in reality or fact.”
GW5: Hopes are about wishes or aspirations, not about facts.
GW4: Setting timing on an engine is not done by chance, but the monkey in our example is working by chance. For example, the monkey may have 1/26 chance of typing the correct first letter, then a 1/26 chance of typing the correct second letter. So, the probability of getting just two letters correct in a row, just by chance, is (1/26)X(1/26), which is a very low probability. If we have only one monkey, then whenever it gets one letter wrong, it must start over. But remember: If the monkey has eternity to work with, then he will eventually produce the correct sequence of letters, regardless of how improbable it is. In the study you mentioned, the investigators assumed that the monkey would only have the anticipated length of time before the “heat death” of our universe. So, the outcome of the situation depends on the amount of time you assume to have for the monkey or a group of them.
BA4: For example: BBC article: “It is not plausible that, even with improved typing speeds or an increase in chimpanzee populations, monkey labour will ever be a viable tool for developing non-trivial written works,” the study says.
BA5: This makes sense. Atheists’ eternally typing monkey producing all the works of Shakespeare is utter nonsense,
GW5: False. It is plausible, if you assume that the monkey or monkeys have eternity to work with.
BA5: which is one of many evidences of Atheistic thinking that is similar to what the following scriptures say: “They knew all the time that there is a God, yet they refused to acknowledge him as such, or to thank him for what he is or does. Thus they became fatuous in their argumentations, and plunged their silly minds still farther into the dark. Behind a facade of ‘wisdom’ they became just fools”—Romans 1:21-23 The New Testament In Modern English, by J B Phillips
GW5: The opposite is true for some of us atheists. We know that God does not exist. This has been proven. Also, the monkey problem is different from the God problem.
Getty Images
9 thoughts on “New Study Proves “Time” Assertion of Evolutionists Is Impossible”
BA: No one disputes Micro-Evolution, that is, small changes within ‘kinds’ (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25), such as varieties of dogs, cats, etc.
GW: You failed to quote these verses or tell from which version you are reading. That is your obligation. I doubt that these verses support evolution in any form.
BA: It is Macro-Evolution, that is, wholesale changes of one species into an entirely new species, that is disputed. Since such an assertion has never been observed, Evolutionists claim that over very long periods of time, perhaps millions of years, such large changes have definitely taken place.
GW: Assertions are made, not observed. No human being has ever lived long enough to observe the changes in organisms and across generations producing new species, but still we know these changes have occurred by observing other evidence.
BA: The Bible makes clear that “The Lord God Almighty . . . created all things” (Revelation 4:8,11). “How countless are your works, Yahweh, all of of them made so wisely!” (Psalm 104:24 NJB).
GW: The Bible is mistaken on this point. God does not exist. We now know this. It has been proven.
BA: Actual documented evidence proves that all creatures reproduce only “according to their kinds” (Genesis 1:21 ESV; NIV).
GW: You failed to quote the entire verse here. Even if you provide a correct quote, the verse over-simplifies biology. The authors of the Bible knew nothing about evolution. I do not trust them on this subject.
BA: The following article on BBC gives very recent evidence proving that the Macro-Evolutionary time claims of Evolutionists are impossible. “Monkeys Will Never Type Shakespeare, Study Finds” — November 1, 2024
GW: Oh really? I don’t believe you.
BA: Two Australian mathematicians have called into question an old adage, that if given an infinite amount of time, a monkey pressing keys on a typewriter would eventually write the complete works of William Shakespeare.
GW: “Called into question”? Oh, so they haven’t disproven the claim. What does this have to do with evolution?
BA: Known as the “infinite monkey theorem”, the thought-experiment has long been used to explain the principles of probability and randomness.
GW: I am familiar with it.
BA: However, a new peer-reviewed study led by Sydney-based researchers Stephen Woodcock and Jay Falletta has found that the time it would take for a typing monkey to replicate Shakespeare’s plays, sonnets and poems would be longer than the lifespan of our universe.
GW: Well, even if that were true, it does not disprove the “infinite monkey theorem.” The theorem assumes eternity is available.
BA: Which means that while mathematically true, the theorem is “misleading”, they say.
GW: False. The theorem is not misleading if it is properly stated.
BA: As well as looking at the abilities of a single monkey, the study also did a series of calculations based on the current global population of chimpanzees, which is roughly 200,000. The results indicated that even if every chimp in the world was enlisted and able to type at a pace of one key per second until the end of the universe, they wouldn’t even come close to typing out the Bard’s works.
GW: But they would type the Bard’s works if they had eternity to do it. Your worldview assumes an eternity, i.e. that God has existed and will exist for eternity. So, if all the chimps had eternity to do their typing, at least one would achieve the goal, even if they typed at random.
BA: There would be a 5% chance that a single chimp would successfully type the word “bananas” in its own lifetime. And the probability of one chimp constructing a random sentence – such as “I chimp, therefore I am” – comes in at one in 10 million billion billion, the research indicates.
GW: Well, that might be true, but the researchers were assuming an end to the universe or to time. That is their error.
BA: “It is not plausible that, even with improved typing speeds or an increase in chimpanzee populations, monkey labour will ever be a viable tool for developing non-trivial written works,” the study says.
GW: This is just false. Just one monkey could do it with eternity to work with.
BA: The calculations used in the paper are based on the most widely accepted hypothesis for the end of the universe, which is the heat death theory.
GW: Yes, but assume eternity and you will get a different answer.
BA: Despite its name, the so-called heat death would actually be slow and cold. In short, it’s a scenario in which the universe continues to both expand and cool – while everything within it dies off, decays, and fades away.
GW: Those points are correct.
BA: “This finding places the theorem among other probability puzzles and paradoxes… where using the idea of infinite resources gives results that don’t match up with what we get when we consider the constraints of our universe,” Associate Prof Woodcock said in a statement about the work.
GW: Well of course, if you use different assumptions you will get different answers.
GW: But the “infinite monkey theorem” is not a proper model of the theory of evolution which does not depend solely on randomness. So, your original claim, i.e. “The following article on BBC gives very recent evidence proving that the Macro-Evolutionary time claims of Evolutionists are impossible,” is clearly false. You are spreading misinformation. You should write a retraction.
BBC article: “It is not plausible that, even with improved typing speeds or an increase in chimpanzee populations, monkey labour will ever be a viable tool for developing non-trivial written works,” the study says.
GW: This is just false. Just one monkey could do it with eternity to work with.
BA—The faith, or rather, credulity, of atheists in Macro-Evolution is astounding!
On the other hand, Biblical “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1 NKJV).
BBC article: “It is not plausible that, even with improved typing speeds or an increase in chimpanzee populations, monkey labour will ever be a viable tool for developing non-trivial written works,” the study says.
GW: This is just false. Just one monkey could do it with eternity to work with.
BA: The faith, or rather, credulity, of atheists in Macro-Evolution is astounding!
GW: There is no faith. The acceptance of evolution is based on evidence, logic, science, and reason.
BA: On the other hand, Biblical “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1 NKJV).
GW: Yes, that is correct. It is basically belief based on hoping or wishing, not evidence or logic.
BA: On the other hand, Biblical “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1 NKJV).
GW: Yes, that is correct. It is basically belief based on hoping or wishing, not evidence or logic.
BA: No, you overlooked the fact that Biblical faith is based on “evidence”, whereas the credulity of believers in Macro-Evolution is based on “imaginations” (Ezekiel 13:3 NLT). For example:
BBC article: “It is not plausible that, even with improved typing speeds or an increase in chimpanzee populations, monkey labour will ever be a viable tool for developing non-trivial written works,” the study says.
GW: This is just false. Just one monkey could do it with eternity to work with.
The BBC article proves what God has said in his word, the Bible is true, and is based on a scientific study, whereas ‘the eternally typing monkey’ scenario is based on “imaginations”.
BA: On the other hand, Biblical “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1 NKJV).
GW: Yes, that is correct. It is basically belief based on hoping or wishing, not evidence or logic.
BA*: No, you overlooked the fact that Biblical faith is based on “evidence”, whereas the credulity of believers in Macro-Evolution is based on “imaginations” (Ezekiel 13:3 NLT).
GW*: Just re-read Hebrews 11:1, which you cited. Note the words “hoped for.” For example, theists hope for the existence of God who is not seen. Where is the good evidence for his existence? There isn’t any! On the other hand, there is proof that he does not exist.
BA: For example: BBC article: “It is not plausible that, even with improved typing speeds or an increase in chimpanzee populations, monkey labour will ever be a viable tool for developing non-trivial written works,” the study says.
GW: This is just false. Just one monkey could do it with eternity to work with.
BA*: The BBC article proves what God has said in his word, the Bible is true, and is based on a scientific study, whereas ‘the eternally typing monkey’ scenario is based on “imaginations”.
GW*: False. The BBC article doesn’t even mention God or the Bible. Also, the study is not a scientific study. It is a mathematical study.
BA: On the other hand, Biblical “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1 NKJV).
GW: Yes, that is correct. It is basically belief based on hoping or wishing, not evidence or logic.
BA*: No, you overlooked the fact that Biblical faith is based on “evidence”, whereas the credulity of believers in Macro-Evolution is based on “imaginations” (Ezekiel 13:3 NLT).
GW*: Just re-read Hebrews 11:1, which you cited. Note the words “hoped for.” For example, theists hope for the existence of God who is not seen.
BA—“Faith is the SUBSTANCE of. . . “, not simply “the things hoped for”.
BA*: The BBC article proves what God has said in his word, the Bible is true, and is based on a scientific study, whereas ‘the eternally typing monkey’ scenario is based on “imaginations”.
GW*: False. The BBC article doesn’t even mention God or the Bible. Also, the study is not a scientific study. It is a mathematical study.
BA—First of all, mathematics IS defined as a science. The study referred to in the article was done scientifically. Notice:
“Is mathematics a science?
Mathematics is the science and study of quality, structure, space, and change. Mathematicians seek out patterns, formulate new conjectures, and establish truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions.”—-Tennessee Tech University
BA: For example: BBC article: “It is not plausible that, even with improved typing speeds or an increase in chimpanzee populations, monkey labour will ever be a viable tool for developing non-trivial written works,” the study says.
GW: This is just false. Just one monkey could do it with eternity to work with.
BA—That idea is as insane as asserting a monkey could set the timing on an engine.
As for the eternally tying monkey assertion, where did the typewriter come from? Who designed and manufactured it?
There is no end to such insanity!
BA: On the other hand, Biblical “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1 NKJV).
GW: Yes, that is correct. It is basically belief based on hoping or wishing, not evidence or logic.
BA*: No, you overlooked the fact that Biblical faith is based on “evidence”, whereas the credulity of believers in Macro-Evolution is based on “imaginations” (Ezekiel 13:3 NLT).
GW*: Just re-read Hebrews 11:1, which you cited. Note the words “hoped for.” For example, theists hope for the existence of God who is not seen.
BA4: “Faith is the SUBSTANCE of. . . “, not simply “the things hoped for”.
GW4: They are equivalent.
BA*: The BBC article proves what God has said in his word, the Bible is true, and is based on a scientific study, whereas ‘the eternally typing monkey’ scenario is based on “imaginations”.
GW*: False. The BBC article doesn’t even mention God or the Bible. Also, the study is not a scientific study. It is a mathematical study.
BA4: First of all, mathematics IS defined as a science.
GW4: There is no consensus among mathematicians on that claim. Mathematics can be considered a branch of logic.
BA4: The study referred to in the article was done scientifically. Notice:
“Is mathematics a science?
Mathematics is the science and study of quality, structure, space, and change. Mathematicians seek out patterns, formulate new conjectures, and establish truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions.”—-Tennessee Tech University
GW4: That’s one opinion. Here is a contrasting one:
“Science, generally is analyzing information gathered from observing phenomena, and coming up with theories to try and explain the phenomena. Then, attempting to predict a new phenomenon before it happens (when we can do that we usually say that we have discovered “a fundamental law of nature”),and when we can consistently produce the same result, this is regarded as proof of the theory…Mathematics is different. it does not rely on these experiments in order to claim the discovery of a new truth. Theres a distinction between what Mathematics claims as proof in contrast to science.”
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/14818/is-mathematics-considered-a-science
BA4: For example: BBC article: “It is not plausible that, even with improved typing speeds or an increase in chimpanzee populations, monkey labour will ever be a viable tool for developing non-trivial written works,” the study says.
GW4: This is just false. Just one monkey could do it with eternity to work with.
BA4: That idea is as insane as asserting a monkey could set the timing on an engine.
GW4: Setting timing on an engine is not done by chance, but the monkey in our example is working by chance. For example, the monkey may have 1/26 chance of typing the correct first letter, then a 1/26 chance of typing the correct second letter. So, the probability of getting just two letters correct in a row, just by chance, is (1/26)X(1/26), which is a very low probability. If we have only one monkey, then whenever it gets one letter wrong, it must start over. But remember: If the monkey has eternity to work with, then he will eventually produce the correct sequence of letters, regardless of how improbable it is. In the study you mentioned, the investigators assumed that the monkey would only have the anticipated length of time before the “heat death” of our universe. So, the outcome of the situation depends on the amount of time you assume to have for the monkey or a group of them.
BA4: As for the eternally tying monkey assertion, where did the typewriter come from? Who designed and manufactured it?
GW4: That’s irrelevant to the study. Human persons designed and manufactured the typewriter or typewriters. Duh.
BA4: There is no end to such insanity!
GW4: The delusion is that God exists. Others and I have proven that God does not exist. You have found no errors in these proofs.
GW*: Just re-read Hebrews 11:1, which you cited. Note the words “hoped for.” For example, theists hope for the existence of God who is not seen.
BA4: “Faith is the SUBSTANCE of. . . “, not simply “the things hoped for”.
GW4: They are equivalent.
B—One of the definitions of substance, and the one which applies to Hebrews 11:1, is: “the quality of having a solid basis in reality or fact.”
GW4: Setting timing on an engine is not done by chance, but the monkey in our example is working by chance. For example, the monkey may have 1/26 chance of typing the correct first letter, then a 1/26 chance of typing the correct second letter. So, the probability of getting just two letters correct in a row, just by chance, is (1/26)X(1/26), which is a very low probability. If we have only one monkey, then whenever it gets one letter wrong, it must start over. But remember: If the monkey has eternity to work with, then he will eventually produce the correct sequence of letters, regardless of how improbable it is. In the study you mentioned, the investigators assumed that the monkey would only have the anticipated length of time before the “heat death” of our universe. So, the outcome of the situation depends on the amount of time you assume to have for the monkey or a group of them.
BA4: For example: BBC article: “It is not plausible that, even with improved typing speeds or an increase in chimpanzee populations, monkey labour will ever be a viable tool for developing non-trivial written works,” the study says.
BA–This makes sense. Atheists’ eternally typing monkey producing all the works of Shakespeare is utter nonsense, which is one of many evidences of Atheistic thinking that is similar to what the following scriptures say:
“They knew all the time that there is a God, yet they refused to acknowledge him as such, or to thank him for what he is or does. Thus they became fatuous in their argumentations, and plunged their silly minds still farther into the dark. Behind a facade of ‘wisdom’ they became just fools”—Romans 1:21-23 The New Testament In Modern English, by J B Phillips
GW*: Just re-read Hebrews 11:1, which you cited. Note the words “hoped for.” For example, theists hope for the existence of God who is not seen.
BA4: “Faith is the SUBSTANCE of. . . “, not simply “the things hoped for”.
GW4: They are equivalent.
BA5: One of the definitions of substance, and the one which applies to Hebrews 11:1, is: “the quality of having a solid basis in reality or fact.”
GW5: Hopes are about wishes or aspirations, not about facts.
GW4: Setting timing on an engine is not done by chance, but the monkey in our example is working by chance. For example, the monkey may have 1/26 chance of typing the correct first letter, then a 1/26 chance of typing the correct second letter. So, the probability of getting just two letters correct in a row, just by chance, is (1/26)X(1/26), which is a very low probability. If we have only one monkey, then whenever it gets one letter wrong, it must start over. But remember: If the monkey has eternity to work with, then he will eventually produce the correct sequence of letters, regardless of how improbable it is. In the study you mentioned, the investigators assumed that the monkey would only have the anticipated length of time before the “heat death” of our universe. So, the outcome of the situation depends on the amount of time you assume to have for the monkey or a group of them.
BA4: For example: BBC article: “It is not plausible that, even with improved typing speeds or an increase in chimpanzee populations, monkey labour will ever be a viable tool for developing non-trivial written works,” the study says.
BA5: This makes sense. Atheists’ eternally typing monkey producing all the works of Shakespeare is utter nonsense,
GW5: False. It is plausible, if you assume that the monkey or monkeys have eternity to work with.
BA5: which is one of many evidences of Atheistic thinking that is similar to what the following scriptures say: “They knew all the time that there is a God, yet they refused to acknowledge him as such, or to thank him for what he is or does. Thus they became fatuous in their argumentations, and plunged their silly minds still farther into the dark. Behind a facade of ‘wisdom’ they became just fools”—Romans 1:21-23 The New Testament In Modern English, by J B Phillips
GW5: The opposite is true for some of us atheists. We know that God does not exist. This has been proven. Also, the monkey problem is different from the God problem.