(1) Why 50/50? This assumption on your part immediately gives your calculation a larger value than it may deserve. What are the true odds that string theory may be right? And what are the true odds that it may be right in just the way you need it to be?
Eh, if you can find your way back to the first few pages of posts in this thread, you'll see another of Warren's "calculations" where these types of assumptions were made. I don't think they're purposely done to support his opinion; rather I think it's a great case for why statistics is it's own branch of math.

Warren: Lets examine this statment. "I'm either blonde or I'm not." So me being blonde is either true or false. That's two options, and one of them is correct. So 50/50 chance, right?

But not so fast. Blonde is a recessive trait; also many races do not carry a blonde gene. In short, the ratio of blonde hair to other colors is not 1:1. And the chace of me being "Blonde" versus me being "Other" is therefore not 50/50.

You can't just pose a question as a true/false operator then assume the chance of one of the results is 50/50.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."