Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[Yorutenchi]

It isn't stating that something didn't happen. It's putting what we can observe into a conditional perspective. Once we do that, even if completely ''general'', /, then we have results by which we can estimate or at least rule out various improbability limits. What it does affect is how probability is viewed, so to speak. Which is a very important thing, as it affects other formulas and estimates.

The issue with its usage in biology is that we have to observe the natural universe to first find this probability. If it exists then by our best calculations it will not be against probability. If we had calculated something in general with respect to biology perhaps we could make future predictions that may or may not be improbable.

Why do you think that flamingos are improbable due to statistics based on what we can observe in biology?

 

[dust1n]

You're contradicting other arguments posited against my position, it isn't making sense.

All I've stated is that you still haven't provided any math, despite the fact you keep claiming to make mathematical sense regarding theoretical unit repetitions. I'm not sure what you mean I'm contradicting other posts? We are all pretty much on the same page that your refusal to provide even the tiniest amount of math gave us much reason to disregard your argument.

''Conform to probability'', doesn't even make sense;

I know, which is ironic, because when I used "conform to probability," I was quoting you.

Well, no, not practically, or conforming to probability. I already explained this earlier in the thread.

something doesn't conform to probability, unless it is being compared as such in a formula that has probability standards. actual calculations vary, because theoretical unit repetitions are usually used. Ie it is assumed that a random occurrence is taking place, /random in the broad meaning/. You either have not been reading my comments, or are not understanding them.

I mean, it's both, because I've been reading them, but also stuff like "because theoretical unit repetitions are usually used" doesn't actually mean anything in statistics or math or any science, it's pretty much impossible to understand your arguments. You, on the otherhand, don't bother to respond to most of things I say to you, at all, let alone read them or understand them.

 

[Desert Snake]

I know, which is ironic, because when I used "conform to probability," I was quoting you.

You would say conform to probability in a comparison or formula. You wouldn't say it in the undefined context in which you used it, ie not providing a comparison theory or idea, or estimate.

the math I've provided is (/1//0/). I would have provided a better probability estimate /a one more favorable to random plausibility./ if there were any serious discussions or dialogue taking place.
/Actually it would be more like this (/1//(10 or whatever-->/0/). directional probability

 

[dust1n]

You would say conform to probability in a comparison or formula. You wouldn't say it in the undefined context in which you used it, ie not providing a comparison theory or idea, or estimate.

"Well, no, not practically, or conforming to probability. I already explained this earlier in the thread."

But you weren't do any comparison or formula.

the math I've provided is (/1//0/). I would have provided a better probability estimate /a one more favorable to random plausibility./ if there were any serious discussions or dialogue taking place.

What does that mean? (/1//0/). Is that suppose to be a formula? Because no operations are taking place...

 

[Desert Snake]

"Well, no, not practically, or conforming to probability. I already explained this earlier in the thread."

But you weren't do any comparison or formula.

There is no comparison, we only have one unit. the formula or rather formulas, being limited by ''reality'', (non-theoretical) , are ''improbable''. As I stated earlier in the thread. ''very very improbable''. That's being generous.

What does that mean? (/1//0/). Is that suppose to be a formula? Because no operations are taking place...

The context means it's inferred directional probability, so its more like (/1// whatever, huge number,-->/0/) Since we cannot in actuality assume repetition. In other words, we don't even know how bad the probability is, but it's terrible; because it increases the more ''coin flips'' one does. This is why the formula that Revoltingest gave for the coin flips would be different from the flamingo coin flip equivalent. /putting the probability into coin flip form/.

 

[Yorutenchi]

There is no comparison, we only have one unit. the formula or rather formulas, being limited by ''reality'', (non-theoretical) , are ''improbable''. As I stated earlier in the thread. ''very very improbable''. That's being generous.



The context means it's inferred directional probability, so its more like (/1//10 or whatever, huge number,-->/0/) Since we cannot in actuality assume repetition. In other words, we don't even know how bad the probability is, but it's terrible; because it increases the more ''coin flips'' one does. This is why the formula that Revoltingest gave for the coin flips would be different from the flamingo coin flip equivalent. /putting the probability into coin flip form/.

How did you make the calculations?

 

[Desert Snake]

How did you make the calculations?

I haven't presented any actual calculations. It would be difficult and in essence theoretical anyway, since we do not know all of the variables in the first place. This is why different numbers could be reached. I might present a very basic ''good odds'', one, for laughs. Ie skewed for better probability.

 

[Yorutenchi]

I haven't presented any actual calculations. It would be difficult and in essence theoretical anyway, since we do not know all of the variables in the first place. This is why different numbers could be reached. I might present a very basic ''good odds'', one, for laughs. Ie skewed for better probability.

No. If there is no data and there is no calculations it is meaningless and arbitrary speculation.

 

[Desert Snake]

No. If there is no data and there is no calculations it is meaningless and arbitrary speculation.

 

[Yorutenchi]

I can't see whatever it is you are trying to show me. It looks like either a broken link or failed image on my side.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Since there is potentially an infinite number of ways the universe could have played out it seems that anything and everything is rather against the odds. But it did happen. Saying the odds were small isn't an argument against it. The simple odds between the potential choices your parents could have made down to the uncontrolled biology of which egg dropped and which sperm was first to create you is infinity small. The smallest of things could have tipped the chances of whatever way you were conceived. Then every second of your life there were chances for things to go differently. Yet here you sit.

So why don't you produce Godfather part 5 by a way of randomly burning pits on a DVD and selection?

It is all special pleading that probability can just be waved away for evolution theory. All argumentation has to be applied equally, and no special exception can be made for evolution theory. You are just being a pitbull for Darwin, throwing your smarts on the side of evolution theory. What smart thing are you going to come up with next? All just debating tactics lacking honesty, fairness, straightforward reasoning.

 

[dust1n]

There is no comparison, we only have one unit. the formula or rather formulas, being limited by ''reality'', (non-theoretical) , are ''improbable''. As I stated earlier in the thread. ''very very improbable''. That's being generous.

Okay.... So there is no comparison. There is no formula.

"You would say conform to probability in a comparison or formula. You wouldn't say it in the undefined context in which you used it, ie not providing a comparison theory or idea, or estimate."

"something doesn't conform to probability, unless it is being compared as such in a formula"

The context means it's inferred directional probability, so its more like (/1// whatever, huge number,-->/0/) Since we cannot in actuality assume repetition. In other words, we don't even know how bad the probability is, but it's terrible; because it increases the more ''coin flips'' one does.

Okay, I can work with that the symbols. What I can't work with its "We don't know how bad the probably is" while also saying "it's terrible." How can you say the odds are terrible, if you don't know what the odds are, and have no way of actually acquiring any.

This is why the formula that Revoltingest gave for the coin flips would be different from the flamingo coin flip equivalent. /putting the probability into coin flip form/.

I'm not sure what formula Revoltingest gave you.

 

[dust1n]

I haven't presented any actual calculations. It would be difficult and in essence theoretical anyway, since we do not know all of the variables in the first place. This is why different numbers could be reached. I might present a very basic ''good odds'', one, for laughs. Ie skewed for better probability.

Yes, this is the problem. You do know know what the variables are, therefore you cannot calculate the odds, therefore you cannot know about the odds.

What more could possibly be said about this?

 

[Desert Snake]

One test I give to illustrate probability.....

What are the odds that I can flip a coin to get heads 10 times in a row?

Many can do math. They'll quickly & confidently say "One in 1024".
The perspicacious ones will ask how many trials there are.
Without knowing this, the answer would range between 0 & 1.....a several orders of magnitude difference.

Premises are so crucial, & yet so often overlooked....as though the mere application of math confers inerrancy

This is that post I was referring to /coin flips/

It's different concepts, however. *Translating something like the OP premise into coin flips will yield increased improbability, whereas in your illustration, it has the opposite effect. The only way we could quantify an exact number of representational coin flips regarding the OP is to have a repetition statistic between two OP units. (pink flamingos); the coin flip in translation to the op premise or similar, changes from one sequence, /10 same side in a row/,, (your illustration), to two sequences, ie one sequence of /same side in a row/, then another sequence of /same side in a row./ Then the amount of coin flips between these two sequences, could be used as the probable figure for random occurrence.


*theoretical as we only have one unit in the OP premise. of course.

This was my response.

Okay.... So there is no comparison. There is no formula.

"You would say conform to probability in a comparison or formula. You wouldn't say it in the undefined context in which you used it, ie not providing a comparison theory or idea, or estimate."

"something doesn't conform to probability, unless it is being compared as such in a formula"



Okay, I can work with that the symbols. What I can't work with its "We don't know how bad the probably is" while also saying "it's terrible." How can you say the odds are terrible, if you don't know what the odds are, and have no way of actually acquiring any.



I'm not sure what formula Revoltingest gave you.

Well, you wouldn't not make any deductions simply because of an unknown. You would still come to a best conclusion for an argument. ''unknown'', doesn't tell me i'm incorrect in my approximations, the same way it wouldn't affirm any one elses position.

Yes, this is the problem. You do know know what the variables are, therefore you cannot calculate the odds, therefore you cannot know about the odds.

What more could possibly be said about this?

Sure, except that could apply to anything. Try presenting an argument without that applying to it, theoretically.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not confident in any posits in this context. Even if you are correct, in some general meaning, in other aspects, if one does not understand inferred probability, or apply it, then there are going to be erroneous conclusions regarding many things. So they can't be separated. It doesn't matter what I personally believe, in this context, as any calculations are affected by the same results. it's irrelevant.

Can you restate this? I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[leibowde84]

It isn't stating that something didn't happen. It's putting what we can observe into a conditional perspective. Once we do that, even if completely ''general'', /, then we have results by which we can estimate or at least rule out various improbability limits. What it does affect is how probability is viewed, so to speak. Which is a very important thing, as it affects other formulas and estimates.

It ignores the insane amount of time it all had to happen. Low probabilities go out the window.

 

[Desert Snake]

Can you restate this? I don't understand what you are saying.

In other words, the known probability, affects how we look at other things that involve probability. As in, if we flip a coin 10 times, we know almost for sure that we wont get ten sides in a row. If we flip it 10,000 times, we might. so, knowing this, we do not approach probability in any context that an equivalent to flipping a coin 10 times will likely yield the same side in a row. We know that this is improbable.

 

[leibowde84]

In other words, the known probability, affects how we look at other things that involve probability. As in, if we flip a coin 10 times, we know almost for sure that we wont get ten sides in a row. If we flip it 10,000 times, we might. so, knowing this, we do not approach probability in any context that an equivalent to flipping a coin 10 times will likely yield the same side in a row. We know that this is improbable.

Improbable, depending. If you flipped a coin 6 billion times, it is almost certain that we will get 10 in a row.

 

[Desert Snake]

It ignores the insane amount of time it all had to happen. Low probabilities go out the window.

That is a guess, though. See, that's not ''shown'', because we don't have a comparison or formula to put that in. But anyways, I don't want to go off topic from the OP proposal too much, as it doesn't include aspects after an initial probability of /pink flamingos/.

 

[Desert Snake]

Improbable, depending. If you flipped a coin 6 billion times, it is almost certain that we will get 10 in a row.

we started at one set of ten in a row, we didn't flip to achieve it. so, it's like trying to get the first set.
We don't know the probability until another 10 sides are flipped in a row.