Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[McBell]

Very, very, bad. Trying to computate that is a feat unto itself. Let me put it this way, it's worse than the usual numbers offered, because those would tend to give a benefit of doubt to /0/ . In the ''real world'', the probabilities are astoundingly bad./ie in the real world no one gives benefit of doubt to /0/ in a similar context./
just my opinion!

Please show your math.
If you cannot, you lose the "argument".

 

[McBell]

No, the probability is terrible no matter what format one is using. Actuality doesn't infer a good probability, it merely means that /pink flamingos/, are possible. Even if I tried to better the probability with assumptions of repetition, in /0/, or a different definition of /flamingo/, ie a broader unit or subject, it's still horrendous probability. When one might get shall we say, 'almost believable' numbers, is when I really am skewing every variable in my direction. We wouldn't assume randomness anyway, the problem being lack of comparable ''assumed random'' comparison models, we don't really have them. That's why it is /0/, and then each equation depending on the persons bias, or whatever, affects how they deal with that. I'm perfectly ok with leaving /0/ as it is, in other words I wouldn't compound the accumulated data in order to bolster my argument, it's not necessary. Where one gets ''better /still awful/, probability is when one really generalizes the units, but then we aren't talking about something that relates to any real meaning for how one would label things, etc.

Again, show your math.

 

[Desert Snake]

Again, show your math.

Silly request. There are many formulas or parameters in which to arrive at a probability ''number'', however, they are all bad probability. I'm not going to get sidetracked in some silly semantics when any one who's serious about the subject can simply look at the basics and find what I have presented as far as probability as somewhat obvious.

 

[Revoltingest]

Please show your math.
If you cannot, you lose the "argument".

Next time I make an argument about systems analysis, I'll just say "Differential equations!".
It's math, so it must be a cogent argument.
No need to get sidetracked by silly numbers, eh.

 

[McBell]

Silly request. There are many formulas or parameters in which to arrive at a probability ''number'', however, they are all bad probability. I'm not going to get sidetracked in some silly semantics when any one who's serious about the subject can simply look at the basics and find what I have presented as far as probability as somewhat obvious.

Silly semantics?
YOU made the claims about probability.
It is on you to back those claims up or be dismissed.

Now since it was already difficult to take you seriously for your lack of supporting your bold empty claims, it is now impossible to take you seriously now that you have descended into flat out refusing to support your bold empty claims.

Now it is about your credibility.
Either produce the math or lose what little credibility you had left.

Ball in your court now.

 

[McBell]

why are you putting this stuff on my thread?

Because you have shot your own "argument" in the foot.

No reason to take you or this thread seriously any more.

 

[Revoltingest]

why are you putting this stuff on my thread?

It's to mirthfully point out that claims of probability analysis aren't really analysis when lacking the following....
- Premises
- Description of methods of analysis
- Calculations
The third item needs no precision. Even something within several orders of magnitude would be of value. But we see nothing to back up the claims based upon probability.

 

[Revoltingest]

Note:
This thread isn't in a DIR.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's to mirthfully point out that claims of probability analysis aren't really analysis when lacking the following....
- Premises
- Description of methods of analysis
- Calculations
The third item needs no precision. Even something within several orders of magnitude would be of value. But we see nothing to back up the claims based upon probability.

Probability does not always need precision to be obvious whether one would consider it ''probable'' in any manner approaching logical analysis/ Insisting otherwise is ridiculous, and not an argument.

 

[McBell]

And yet the irrelevant posts keep appearing on the thread. why. Why not just post all this nonsense in a nonDIR?

Then you must ask yourself why you are posting so many irrelevant posts.

Are you going to provide your math or at the very least admit you are merely parroting the bold empty claims of others?

 

[McBell]

Probability does not always need precision to be obvious whether one would consider it ''probable'' in any manner approaching logical analysis/ Insisting otherwise is ridiculous, and not an argument.

it is not obvious to those outside your choir.
Why is that?

 

[Desert Snake]

Then you must ask yourself why you are posting so many irrelevant posts.

Are you going to provide your math or at the very least admit you are merely parroting the bold empty claims of others?

You're position isn't credible.

 

[McBell]

its akin to asking for proof that the moon is a cube, or such, i'm not going to take it seriously.

I see.
So in short, you can talk the talk but fail with epic proportions when it comes time to walk the walk.

like I said, no reason to take you or this thread seriously.

 

[Desert Snake]

it is not obvious to those outside your choir.
Why is that?

That is actually a good question. My guess, they just believe what they are told? dunno... really. My explanation for the probability position suits the needs of the thread. If it ''doesn't'' according to you, I have no idea what definitions you are putting on units etc. no amount of math is going to bridge that gap.

 

[McBell]

You're position isn't credible.

says you.
The problem is I am not a member of your choir.
Meaning it will take more than your ad nauseum barrage of bold empty claims for you to be taken seriously.

 

[Revoltingest]

Probability does not always need precision to be obvious whether one would consider it ''probable'' in any manner approaching logical analysis/ Insisting otherwise is ridiculous, and not an argument.

If something is so obvious, then it should be easy to explain to those who disagree.
But if the explanation is not forthcoming, then perhaps the argument of obviousness fails, eh?

 

[McBell]

That is actually a good question. My guess, they just believe what they are told? dunno... really. My explanation for the probability position suits the needs of the thread. If it ''doesn't'' according to you, I have no idea what definitions you are putting on units etc. no amount of math is going to bridge that gap.

your claims of probability are completely empty and worthless until you show your math.

Merely making yet another bold empty claim (it is obvious) does not help, but in fact hurts your "argument".

 

[Desert Snake]

I see.
So in short, you can talk the talk but fail with epic proportions when it comes time to walk the walk.

like I said, no reason to take you or this thread seriously.

whuppity do. You haven't offered anything anyways.

 

[McBell]

whuppity do. You haven't offered anything anyways.

I have offered more in this thread than you.
Unless you are going to try the bold empty claim that your bold empty claims are worth anything more than a quick dismissal.

 

[leibowde84]

The op states creationism so that's the position i'm proposing. Whether evolution loses credibility in the process is just a by-product of the argument/s/.

There isn't a better DIR that I'm aware of. I think that generally, most people fall into distinct camps here, even when they are not completely specific. Nothing is stopping anyone from putting their opinion in a specific context, it happens all the time in other DIR's.

It doesn't say creationism or evolution, it says "creation VS. Evolution".