Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
So that is what I have been telling you, that you have no understanding about how choosing works at all.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pink flamingos prove Creationism.
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
So that is what I have been telling you, that you have no understanding about how choosing works at all.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
LOL. Classic MNS. You are priceless, buddy. Never change ...
leibowde84
Veteran Member
This is irrelevant. Just take a second to read my actual claim. No more straw men.
I am saying that well over 90% of species have gone extinct. And, according to the creationist view, they didn't "evolve" into any other species. So that was it for them. So, why do the number of species or ill-equipt "designs" so severely outweigh the number of adequate ones. That is a horrendous success rate.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Or, isn't it far more likely that YOU are actually the one that doesn't understand how choosing g works? That's the real question, isn't it?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Oh, I understand that. What verifiable support do you have to make this claim specifically about Revoltingest?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
They can infer creationism from probability inference. meaning, ''Randomness'', has a specific meaning, it means non-ordered or non-purposely ordered. Now, one would think that the randomness problem is easily explained by matter connectivity, ie different elements interacting, randomly; this is compatible with random process theoretically, though that could be argued., Anyway, the problem with the randomness idea, in general, is that random things happen more than once. Hence the coin flips discussed in the thread. So, randomly, you can assume that you won't get the same side every time you flip etc., it's just an analogy with variables, but it's useful. Now, the OP is using a set of coin flips, as it were, /the pink flamingos/, as an basis or unit for comparison to test probability. Since we would literally have something like (/1/0/), ie no comparison model, or measurement, really, people create formulas that mimic theoretical repetition probabilities. These formulas will vary depending on whatever, quite a few things. However, what the ''argument'' is ultimately reduced to is a position that there is no indication of randomness, /in reality/. The op is for realists, essentially. Anyways, because of the lack of repetition units, there is no indication of randomness; no indication of randomness is great if you think that there is more than /we'll say/ interactive randomness. It isn't so great if one believes in interactive randomness despite what is basically no probability of such, //in the actual formula//. Now, that's great. I personally have no problem with that sort of thinking. However it then necessarily affects other theories, and estimations. For example if I say, believe that the moon is made of green cheese, then it would affect other arguments, say, someone thought a distant moon was made of green cheese; with my adherence to the green cheese theory, it would not be intellectually sound or logical to tell that person that no moons are made of green cheese. It's contradictory, in essence. Clumsy analogy but it'll do. So, what we are faced with, essentially, is what is considered proof. Or rather what a person can logically assume to be proof. ''The moon exists'', is a belief that many people have. What is the proof of such. If someone said the moon did not exist, or that the belief in the moon was illogical, most people would simply shake their heads. But in the probability department, we can infer that (/1//0/) or even many hypothetical formulas, do not indicate randomness. Of course people can believe whatever they want, however it is important to remember inferred adherence when a position is taken. How many non-creationists are applying the same probability inferences to their other arguments. most likely none, /there might be a few/ lol.
Last edited:
leibowde84
Veteran Member
But, obviously "random" in this context means "not intentionally ordered". That in no way means that patterns and such shouldn't be expected. For this reason, isn't this a straw man?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
No, because one would be using unit repetition as a basis for determining randomness in the first place. So, it's a self defeating argument. That is why, theoretically, one could actually hold that position, ie the improbable random sequence theory, however, it then forces the issue of other possibilities utilizing the same probabilities. So, one would be forced to apply the same inference to ones other formulas.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Therefore? The flamingos are still pink.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
You can have an approximation. There's no reason to not have an ''idea'', of the directional probability.
No position on the probability is something one might do if they are presenting a theory with no 'best inferences', but not practical for the debate.
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Actually, without eating brine shrimp their feathers are white. Technically, flamingos are not pink but white.
But a diet rich in brine shrimp turns them pink.
http://www.allaboutwildlife.com/are-flamingos-pink-because-they-eat-shrimp
flamingos are pink because they eat shrimp. Brine shrimp, to be exact. Rich swarms of tiny brine shrimp inhabit salty lakes in both of the world’s hemispheres, and it is to these lakes that flocks of flamingos travel in search of their meals. They scoop up shrimp in their strangely curved beaks, which they hold upside down in order to strain our mud and water. Then they swallow the shrimp. It is a nutritious natural chemical, or organic compound, called beta carotene in the brine shrimp that turns the flamingos’ feathers pink.
Eating this shrimp make flamingos into their more well known image.
outhouse
Atheistically
From the get go. Its obvious.
McBell
Unbound
You give the Op far to much credit
McBell
Unbound
You mean you can assume creation, cause you haven't done anything ut parrot the opinions of others.
This obviously disproves evolution.Actually, without eating brine shrimp their feathers are white. Technically, flamingos are not pink but white.
But a diet rich in brine shrimp turns them pink.
http://www.allaboutwildlife.com/are-flamingos-pink-because-they-eat-shrimp
flamingos are pink because they eat shrimp. Brine shrimp, to be exact. Rich swarms of tiny brine shrimp inhabit salty lakes in both of the world’s hemispheres, and it is to these lakes that flocks of flamingos travel in search of their meals. They scoop up shrimp in their strangely curved beaks, which they hold upside down in order to strain our mud and water. Then they swallow the shrimp. It is a nutritious natural chemical, or organic compound, called beta carotene in the brine shrimp that turns the flamingos’ feathers pink.
Eating this shrimp make flamingos into their more well known image.
Why? Because choosing, probability & subjectivity.
Someone slap me now.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Not necessarily. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it can't be rationalized.
Last edited:
It was actually bizarre.
