The odds of a 52 card deck resulting in a specific shuffle is 8.06582E+67:1. Why not ascribe that to god?

Question

Creationists and "Intelligent Design" theorists claim that the odds of life having evolved as it has on earth is so great that it could not possibly be random. Yes, the odds are astronomical, but only if you were trying to PREDICT IN ADVANCE how life would evolve.

Just like you could not possibly predict in advance how a deck of cards would shuffle, they have to shuffle in SOME order (just as life had to evolve in SOME order) and just because the odds of that particular shuffle was 8.06582E+67:1, we don't ascribe it to god.

If all six billion humans shuffled one standard deck of cards every second, it would take 4.26276E+50 years to achieve every possible shuffle; and that assumes no duplicate shuffles.

So just because the odds of any particular event happening are vanishingly small, it is ignorant to assume that divine intervention had anything to do with it.

To Scott S: You state that "Emile Borel, a probability expert has stated that any event with of probability ratio of greater than 10 to 50th power will never happen based on chance alone." Then how do you explain that the odds of any random card shuffle js 8.06582E+67, many multiples higher that 10^50. You think a random card shuffle is based upon something other than chance?

Scott S: You, however, are assuming that the way life on earth evolved is the only way it could have. And that is clearly not true. Just as a deck of card can shuffle in many different way, so could life on earth have evolved in many different ways. I believe my comparison is just.

Answer 1

There are a lot more problems than that. Take a look at some of these articles:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp

Answer 2

Whilst I admire your motives, I must point out that you are fuelling misinformation amongst creationists.

Evolution has NOTHING to do with chance. It is about tiny incremental steps taken over some millennia. (Read any of Dawkin's books on the subject - The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable etc).

I assume you are actually referring to abiogenesis (the creation of life from inorganic chemicals).

And yes, the odds of this are entirely feasible (or to state the anthropic principle, they are inevitable). So when you refer to life - you are actually referring to a very simplistic form of Deoxyribonucleic Acid. Simply a molecule that is capable of self replication.

The molecule replicates, and in a number of cases, there will be a copying error. Most of the time this will 'break' the molecule and it won't be able to replicate. Other times, the copying error will actually lead to an advantage. Over many millions of years, all of these copying errors have created the incredible breadth of flora and fauna on the planet.

So to the person who argues that you can stir a beaker of chemicals for ever and you will never create life - you are entirely wrong. There may very well be self-replicating molecules in there that you wouldn't be able to see.

The concept of evolution amongst misinformed creationists is that you can stir a beaker of chemicals and all of a sudden an elephant will appear. The elephant is the product of millions and millions of years worth of evolution from a single self-replicating molecule that you may very well have created whilst stirring.

Answer 3

Creationists are simple minded. Creationists look at the freshly shuffled deck and say that the mixture of blacks and reds; clubs, hearts, diamonds and spades is evidence that the deck was not randomly shuffled but intelligently ordered. It could well have been intelligently ordered, but why waste the time when you could have done it just as well through random shuffling?

Answer 4

"The odds of a 52 card deck resulting in a specific shuffle is 8.06582E+67:1. Why not ascribe that to god? "

Because I can sit and shuffle the deck until I get that shuffle. I can't mix a bunch of chemicals in a test tube and stir it until life appears.

Besides that, the numbers you are dealing with aren't even close to the numbers that are estimated for evolution.

You are talking 10^67. Evolution is talking 10^40000 (especially considering there are only 10^80 atoms in existence).

There is a little bit of a difference.

Answer 5

Well put.

I just want to answer brown eyed girl. We do know what was before the big bang. The 1st law of thermodynamics tells us that matter can neither be created or destroyed. Thus the matter that we see in our universe always existed. It was always there and could not be created.

No need for a God explanation.

Answer 6

some people call on their so called poker Gods all the time. beside that you have to have the deck of cards to shuffle. even if you believe that life evolved the way it did by chance you still need to start with something.

Answer 7

What was before the big bang, when did time begin and how did the big bang start? Not one scientist or philosopher can answer that one. A deck of cards will not shake my faith in God.

Penster-
I also agree with the law of thermodynamics, only I see it as one sole Creator as the infinite basis for all existance before and after time. God always was and always will be. Therefore, matter always was and always will be, because He created it.

Answer 8

"Yes, the odds are astronomical, but only if you were trying to PREDICT IN ADVANCE how life would evolve. "

This is not correct. This is not in textbooks on probability statistics.

The probability is the same whether one is looking ahead to something that has not yet happened or looking back at something that already happened.

"So just because the odds of any particular event happening are vanishingly small, it is ignorant to assume that divine intervention had anything to do with it."

You are so intent on proving Christians ignorant, that it is preventing you from seeing the implications of the numbers in front of you.

Emile Borel, a probability expert has stated that any event with of probability ratio of greater than 10 to 50th power will never happen based on chance alone.

Your numbers are much more improbable than that.
-------------------------------

Jules C:

"The molecule replicates, and in a number of cases, there will be a copying error. Most of the time this will 'break' the molecule and it won't be able to replicate. Other times, the copying error will actually lead to an advantage."

From my reading (of secular sources) the math only makes some sense with extremely high replication rates, such as certain molecules or germs.

Your argument falls aparts with any higher order creature (animal) because the replication rates are way to long for the alterations you describe to accumulate into a benefical function. Even billions of years is not long enough.

If you know of any statistical analysis to the contrary in peer reveiwed literature or authoratative text, please cite it.
-------------------------------

A baby ate my Dingo:

Re: your question in "additional details"

“Then how do you explain that the odds of any random card shuffle js 8.06582E+67, many multiples higher that 10^50.”

This is an invalid comparison. I can explain it in two ways.

#1 When the statistical expert refers to the probability ratios exceeding 10^50, he refer to probability of achieving one and only one particular outcome. Since you accept any outcome of random card shuffles, the probability of success is 100%, not one in 8.06582E+67.

#2 Here is another way to look at it: We are talking about probability and evolution, right? I’m sure we can agree that science has shown that a particular combination (order) of life’s building blocks are needed for life to exist. Let’s call this particular order, success.

Since we are using cards to discuss probability, the corresponding question is: what is the probability when only a single particular order of cards will be deemed a success?

The reason your comparison is not valid is because you equate any results of a random card shuffle (probability of success 100%) with a result that would only occur one in 8.06582E+67 shuffles of the card deck.
---
Another concern in your original question: “Just like you could not possibly predict in advance how a deck of cards would shuffle, they have to shuffle in SOME order (just as life had to evolve in SOME order)”

This is circular reasoning. You are assuming what you are trying to prove.

Thanks for the dialog.
Scott
-------------------------------

A baby ate my dingo - Continued:

You wrote:
"Scott S: You, however, are assuming that the way life on earth evolved is the only way it could have. And that is clearly not true. Just as a deck of card can shuffle in many different way, so could life on earth have evolved in many different ways. I believe my comparison is just."

First, the reason I am using "1" is because that is in your original question: "8.06582E+67:1"

I hoped you would catch the general nature of my proposition when I used: "life's building blocks".

Nevertheless, I am simply appealing to the findings of mainstream science, which I thought you would accept.

Science has been discovering many parameters that must be in a narrow range for life to be possible on our planet. For example, the rotational speed and tilted-axis of the earth is unique amoung planets that we can observe and must be in a very small range to prevent temperature extremes that would destroy life.

Another example is the size and gravity of the planet must be in small range to maintain the right elements in the atmosphere that will support life. There are at least dozens of such parameters.

The probability of these parameters all being within the necessary small range just by chance alone is as you have said "vanishingly small"

But, the small range means that just any old conditions (like those produced by shuffling cards) won't produce a hospitable conditions for life.

You must stop and think about this idea of "any old design will do" (aka shuffle). This goes against what we see in the world. What product made by man will work designed any old way?

Further, I recommend that you check with the Math forum for an "unbiased" assessment on your use of statistics.

You need to properely define a "success" to set the problem up correctly. If you accept the results of any shuffle (aka, any conditions will work for life), then the probability is 100%, that is, 1:1 odds.

Answer 9

You have an excellent point that those Hoyle numbers. (I'm assuming the odds you're talking about are the ones derived by Fred Hoyle)

Answer 10

It is no assumption. It's the truth. It's your choice if you don't believe it, and your ranting about odds isn't gonna make Christians change their mind.

Just chill.