Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[Shadow Wolf]

The thing that proves it is The Edicts. It tells of our blessed ancestors Adam and Eve, and Eve's rape by the accursed amoral degenerate. Through Eve's rape, the whole Squares came about. They are our cousins, but they aren't human. They are half human and throw there weight around the whole world. Hopefully, the accursed Squares won't give in to there homicidal instincts and have global nuclear war.

Such ways of thinking are dangerous. We are all humans. Trying to insist that others are somehow not-or-less-than fully human has gotten a lot of people killed throughout or species history.

 

[dust1n]

The formula could be simple, or complicated. If I presented a ''simple'' formula, it's still bad odds. However, I suspect that there is some other element to this debate, that you have not intoned yet. I can't think of any reason why you would not just state why the probability doesn't look terrible.

I'll even take a simple formula.

 

[dust1n]

Still looking for serious threads here.......

Not so much about serious threads, as serious posts laden in the general manure.

 

[Milton Platt]

Not so much about serious threads, as serious posts laden in the general manure.

Yeah, too true....(heavy sigh)

 

[dust1n]

Yeah, too true....(heavy sigh)

Don't worry, you'll come across them. RF is the same general art as the internet. You learn how to automatically shift through and discard %99.9 of it after awhile.

 

[Paranoid Android]

Such ways of thinking are dangerous. We are all humans. Trying to insist that others are somehow not-or-less-than fully human has gotten a lot of people killed throughout or species history.

I don't want to kill you. I just am treating Squares as they have always treated us. I think you're protesting too much when Squares have killed thousands if not millions of us, including the

 

[Paranoid Android]

y

I don't want to kill you. I just am treating Squares as they have always treated us. I think you're protesting too much when Squares have killed thousands if not millions of us, including the children with Down Syndrome that are aborted. How many children have Squares aborted because they have Down Syndrome ? Thousands ? MILLIONS ?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't want to kill you. I just am treating Squares as they have always treated us. I think you're protesting too much when Squares have killed thousands if not millions of us, including the

What I am protesting is calling a human being by anything other than a human being.

 

[Paranoid Android]

What I am protesting is calling a human being by anything other than a human being.

Well, I gave you credit. I credited you with being NEAR a human being. That means you're a cousin of ours. Contrast that with how you treated us in the past, calling us "Useless Eaters", exterminating us, euthanizing us, segregating us, us having to beg for food, charging us for the right to immigrate to America, e.t.c .
The next things is how many people have we killed ? Yes, answer: ZERO. How many people are we likely to kill ? The answer: ZERO. Despite the obvious violence, despite the segregation, despite the forced sterilizations, despite all this *I* am telling people that they have ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO REASONS TO KILL ANY SQUARE AND IF THEY DO SO ***THEY*** WILL BURN IN HELL. Yes, that's right.
All Dementheologists are expected to live by Jacob's Ladder. It gets it name from Scripture where Jacob sees angels going up and down a ladder to heaven. Anyways, Jacob's Ladder is rules about nonviolence and a Dementheologist are expected to OBEY THEM. If they do not, there expected to repent and make it right with the person they harmed.
If they DO NOT OBEY JACOB'S LADDER, THE THEY STAND THE SAME CHANCE OF GOING TO HELL THAT A SQUARE DOES. They MUST OBEY IT, they have no other choice. So, I doubt very much you or anyone else will be harmed.

 

[Milton Platt]

Such ways of thinking are dangerous. We are all humans. Trying to insist that others are somehow not-or-less-than fully human has gotten a lot of people killed throughout or species history.

Shadow Wolf......if you read this person's posts here and there around the board it will become clear there are mental issues. It would be wise not to engage.

 

[Paranoid Android]

Shadow Wolf......if you read this person's posts here and there around the board it will become clear there are mental issues. It would be wise not to engage.

Sure it is wise to engage. I haven't been hospitalized for many years.

But the thing is, I don't forget I am disabled. I know that and belong to that group. So it was natural that God has given me the insight to see that we are the Chosen People. What complaints do you have ? That your not included in salvation ? Well, look at yourselves. Many religions say that X group will burn in Hell. All I have said is that only the disabled will go to Heaven. That I am a pacifist ? Many religious groups are pacifist, with the Quakers and Amish being an example. Is it because I don't necessarily tust you ? Looking at our history, and all the horrors that are a part of it, it doesn't make sense to trust you. I say trust but verify. Is it that I think we can live peacefully ? Well, wars breeds more wars, people do not forget. SO you'll never get peace that way.Is it because I show concern ? Yes, I show concern because we have a LOT of work to do if in fact we are going to live in peace, prosperity and equality on this planet.
Besides, you (not you specifically, you in the general sense) have done the same to us. Don't like it ? Stop abusing our kids in school. Tired of being stereotyped ? Like you stereotype us and keep us away from jobs, huh ? All this has been done before by YOU. If you want it to change, then maybe we can work together. But, living on SSDI at $760 dollars a month in a one bedroom apartment, I don't see that changing soon.
Before you condemn me, remember reality is a mirror. The finger you put In blame towards me is really pointing back at YOU.

 

[outhouse]

. I just am treating Squares as they have always treated us.

You need to learn the word stereotype

Then you need to learn not all squares as you claim treat you the same way.

Its wrong you even call people different then you a name, because of your "state of being" does not give you a right to talk down on others.


I dont know if you have the intellect or understanding to grasp this, but people treat you how you treat others. And by your post's I feel very sorry for you, you make your own world dark and miserable and seem to blame others for the problems your negative attitude creates.

 

[Desert Snake]

I considered all of your points and I explained that, with your explanation of "creationism" being "God did it"/"God made everything as is", you are making an unfalsifiable claim ... unfalsifiable claim = no claim at all (logically speaking).

Merely because you can't falsify something, does not make it not a claim. atheism being a prime example, or materialism. Both claims, not necessarily falsifiable. This was already explained in other threads however, it just changes with the topic /theism ,creationism, etc.

So, you are saying that atheism is not a claim? If so then I have no idea why you are only focusing on certain ''non claims''. hmmmmmmm

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What are the probabilities?

I don't know, but apparently not good for randomness, which means not very good for probability theory (random variables being so important and all).

The probability of pink flamingos is 1. Why? There exist pink flamingos. Everything else reduces to the coin toss fallacy:
Creationist/ID logic: "The chances that you will flip a billion coins and get a billion heads is 1 in a billion! So if you get a billon heads, it's God"
Actual logic: "But the chances of getting any and all sequence of heads and tails given a billion coin tosses is also 1 in a billion, and the chances of getting a sequence of a billion tosses is 1"
Creationist/ID logic: "Not if the coins are pink."

 

[Desert Snake]

..Lol

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't know, but apparently not good for randomness, which means not very good for probability theory (random variables being so important and all).

The probability of pink flamingos is 1. Why? There exist pink flamingos. Everything else reduces to the coin toss fallacy:
Creationist/ID logic: "The chances that you will flip a billion coins and get a billion heads is 1 in a billion! So if you get a billon heads, it's God"
Actual logic: "But the chances of getting any and all sequence of heads and tails given a billion coin tosses is also 1 in a billion, and the chances of getting a sequence of a billion tosses is 1"
Creationist/ID logic: "Not if the coins are pink."

What you failed to tell him is that in actuality, if one were to test the randomness, you wouldn't have something like this, (1/billion or whatever), you would have something like this (1//0/ unknown, possibly no chance to determine a probability, ie what is commonly considered ''impossible'', or improbable to the highest degree, for randomness)

Hence my reference in the op to martian purple unicorns.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

It's just a lot of nonsense. There is CATG, random mutation says that any of these bases can change into any other, and then there is random adding, and deleting and shifting. Then there is random recombination. There are a lot of bases, you get a very large number. Then there is the issue of what percentage provides for advantage. Then after you get the advantageous variant, there is still a probability of it not reproducing, or the location on the dna becoming corrupted again through random mutation. Anybody who looks at it can easily tell that it doesn't add up mathematically. And the mathematics that has been done about it substantiates this.

And besides it is evolutionists who have to provide the mathematics that their theory works, it is not creationists who have to provide the mathematics that evolution theory doesn't work.

 

[Desert Snake]

This is the outcome of a debate that is trying to discredit a proposal as opposed to presenting best possible ideas.

/1/ doesn't imply repetition, not in reality; that's a theoretical model for determining probability, nothing more.
Ie, an assumption of randomness

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

They are chaotic. Well over 90% of species have gone extinct. Doesn't that point to chance and time? How is that not chaotic?

I wouldn't know about it, I am sure if you look closely there is also much higher level ordering, just as well as the individual organism is very ordered. But I was talking about individual organisms, they would have to look more chaotic for the individual organism not to be chosen as 1 whole.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What you failed to tell him is that in actuality, if one were to test the randomness

Which type? Algorithmic? Algebraic? Measure-theoretic? Combinatorial? Quantum mechanical? Set-theoretic? Nonstochastic? ML-randomness? Irreducible? Decision-theoretic? Or did you really believe that there is some agreed upon definition of random that can serve as a foundation to your argument?

you wouldn't have something like this

You absolutely would.

you would have something like this (1//0/ unknown, possibly no chance to determine a probability, ie what is commonly considered ''impossible'', or improbable to the highest degree, for randomness)

1) You wouldn't
2) 1/0 is undefined
3) There is always a chance to determine a probability
4) Probabilities of 0 don't mean impossible and probabilities of 1 don't mean certain (hence the change in terminology from measure theory/integration theory in general such as a.e (almost everywhere) to a.s. or "almost surely").
5) Randomness isn't required for improbable or impossible, and the two aren't really very related. It is virtually impossible to flip a billion coins and obtain a sequence of all heads, but equally virtually impossible to obtain any other sequence.
6) If you can't determine probabilities, you have no measure of randomness. If you can measure, characterize, or otherwise quantify randomness, then you immediately have the ability to determine probabilities.
7) I'm bored. There are free sources on probability theory, logic, etc., out there, from Harvard courses to free textbooks (I've even gone to the trouble of trying to evaluate the best free sources in these and other areas: Math Books/Resources for Free and for Learners and in particular see the post Package 2: Probability & Statistics)