Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[McBell]

I've run across reasoning which might be foreign to you.
It works thusly....

I feel that A is true.
My feelings are true.
Therefore A is true.
Math is true.
Therefore math must comport with A.
Math is evidence for A.
There's no need to do the math because of obviousness.

you really should put the word reasoning in the above quoted post in quotes.

 

[Revoltingest]

you really should put the word reasoning in the above quoted post in quotes.

Done!

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

you really should put the word reasoning in the above quoted post in quotes.

It is evolutionists who have to povide the maths to substantiate their theory.

Here is some creationist review of evolutionary mathematics.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/07/mathematicians_and_evolution002387.html

 

[leibowde84]

But your assuming that time ie coin flips somehow helps your position, it may not; that is because there are a bunch of coin flips all taking place at once.

Why would they happen all at once? That is not how time works. It is linear.

 

[leibowde84]

It's why you can't assume that the unit or number you have , is randomly ''coin flipped''. Well, you can assume whatever you want, but that assumption isn't backed by reality, or a formula, etc.

Don't you assume that, because the universe SEEMS too complex to be random IN YOUR OPINION, you ASSUME it must be designed? And, that is merely the logical fallacy of the God of the gaps ta boot.

 

[leibowde84]

We need custom keyboard keys so that a single keystroke can type.....
- I don't understand this.
- This makes no sense.
- What does this have to do with the topic?
- Where are the claimed math calculations?

That is actually not a bad idea. They should do that.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Don't you assume that, because the universe SEEMS too complex to be random IN YOUR OPINION, you ASSUME it must be designed? And, that is merely the logical fallacy of the God of the gaps ta boot.

It is merely applying the reasonable broad scopes probability estimation that people use all the time in daily life. If people weren't allowed to use that then they could not function very well.

 

[leibowde84]

It is merely applying the reasonable broad scopes probability estimation that people use all the time in daily life. If people weren't allowed to use that then they could not function very well.

I agree, it is extremely vital, but the whole point is that we are discussing what could be beyond these assumptions which make up the limits to our imagination.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I agree, it is extremely vital, but the whole point is that we are discussing what could be beyond these assumptions which make up the limits to our imagination.

Nonsense, what a ridiculous excuse for not having the numbers to back up evolution theory.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nonsense, what a ridiculous excuse for not having the numbers to back up evolution theory.

This is a catch 22.
If anyone presented an objective argument with quantitative evidence, you'd criticize it for denying subjectivity.
But when confronted with a subjective argument, you want numbers to back it up.
It's an impossible double standard to meet.

 

[leibowde84]

Nonsense, what a ridiculous excuse for not having the numbers to back up evolution theory.

If you are going to scoff at my claim, can you at least have the decency to explain your disagreement with it? It seems that the only reason would be that it goes against your claims about subjectivity, but, even you must agree, that would be circular reasoning and confirmation bias.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This is a catch 22.
If anyone presented an objective argument with quantitative evidence, you'd criticize it for denying subjectivity.
But when confronted with a subjective argument, you want numbers to back it up.
It's an impossible double standard to meet.

Can you be dealing with subjectivity without making terrible jokes about it?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If you are going to scoff at my claim, can you at least have the decency to explain your disagreement with it? It seems that the only reason would be that it goes against your claims about subjectivity, but, even you must agree, that would be circular reasoning and confirmation bias.

I am quite sure it is only evolutionists in science who excuse themselves from calculating probabilities.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This is aside from the fact that you don't know how many coin flips occurred before you started counting[/

But you know that the probability of a fair coin toss resulting in heads is 1/2 before any flip. If you wish to get into philosophical interpretations of probability, you have to start with probability, not junk you make up.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am quite sure it is only evolutionists in science who excuse themselves from calculating probabilities.

They calculate probabilities all the time.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you be dealing with subjectivity without making terrible jokes about it?

That post wasn't a joke. It was a serious criticism of your standards of discerning reality change ad hoc.

To repeat.....
If anyone presented an objective argument with quantitative evidence, you'd criticize it for denying subjectivity.
But when confronted with a subjective argument, you want numbers to back it up.
It's an impossible double standard to meet.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That post wasn't a joke. It was a serious criticism of your standards of discerning reality change ad hoc.
To repeat.....
If anyone presented an objective argument with quantitative evidence, you'd criticize it for denying subjectivity.
But when confronted with a subjective argument, you want numbers to back it up.
It's an impossible double standard to meet.

I explained to you 6 times already, or something, that both fact and opinion are validated in creationism. Opinion is relevant to the creator, and fact relevant to the creation. These are 2 separate domains, so there is never an issue of opinion replacing fact, or fact replacing opinion. They are simply both validated each in regards to their own domain. That is how with creationism one can describe the facts of what the earth looks like, and express the opinion that the earth is beautiful.

And again it is shown, that you have no idea whatsoever how subjectivity works.

And also Shad again had a bizarre idea that the hypothesis in science is subjective. A hypothesis in science is just as well a statement of fact. That the painting is beautiful is subjective, and it can never be a scientific hypothesis.

 

[dust1n]

It is evolutionists who have to povide the maths to substantiate their theory.

Here is some creationist review of evolutionary mathematics.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/07/mathematicians_and_evolution002387.html

p² + 2pq + q² = 1

Where p is the frequency of allele "A" and q is the frequency of allele "a"

The model shows that evolution will not occur in a population if seven conditions are met:

1. mutation is not occurring
2. natural selection is not occurring
3. the population is infinitely large
4. all members of the population breed
5. all mating is totally random
6. everyone produces the same number of offspring
7. there is no migration in or out of the population


Godfrey Hardy and Wilhelm Weinberg went on to develop a simple equation that can be used to discover the probable genotype frequencies in a population and to track their changes from one generation to another. This has become known as the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium equation. In this equation (p² + 2pq + q² = 1), p is defined as the frequency of the dominant allele and q as the frequency of the recessive allele for a trait controlled by a pair of alleles (A and a). In other words, p equals all of the alleles in individuals who are homozygous dominant (AA) and half of the alleles in people who are heterozygous (Aa) for this trait in a population. In mathematical terms, this is

p = AA + ½Aa

Likewise, q equals all of the alleles in individuals who are homozygous recessive (aa) and the other half of the alleles in people who are heterozygous (Aa).

q = aa + ½Aa

Because there are only two alleles in this case, the frequency of one plus the frequency of the other must equal 100%, which is to say

p + q = 1

Since this is logically true, then the following must also be correct:

p = 1 - q

There were only a few short steps from this knowledge for Hardy and Weinberg to realize that the chances of all possible combinations of alleles occurring randomly is

(p + q)² = 1

or more simply

p² + 2pq + q² = 1

In this equation, p² is the predicted frequency of homozygous dominant (AA) people in a population, 2pq is the predicted frequency of heterozygous (Aa) people, and q² is the predicted frequency of homozygous recessive (aa) ones.

From observations of phenotypes, it is usually only possible to know the frequency of homozygous recessive people, or q² in the equation, since they will not have the dominant trait. Those who express the trait in their phenotype could be either homozygous dominant (p²) or heterozygous (2pq). The Hardy-Weinberg equation allows us to predict which ones they are. Since p = 1 - q and q is known, it is possible to calculate p as well. Knowing p and q, it is a simple matter to plug these values into the Hardy-Weinberg equation (p² + 2pq + q² = 1). This then provides the predicted frequencies of all three genotypes for the selected trait within the population.


http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_2.htm

 

[leibowde84]

I am quite sure it is only evolutionists in science who excuse themselves from calculating probabilities.

The probabilities are calculated and accounted for.
1. You have to take into account how much time we are talking about. 13.8 Billion years.
2. Particles/atoms can only organize themselves in certain ways due to the fundamental laws of nature.
So, it is almost impossible for our limited minds to comprehend this amount of time. But, mathematically, it is not far fetched at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

I explained to you 6 times already, or something, that both fact and opinion are validated in creationism. Opinion is relevant to the creator, and fact relevant to the creation. These are 2 separate domains, so there is never an issue of opinion replacing fact, or fact replacing opinion. They are simply both validated each in regards to their own domain. That is how with creationism one can describe the facts of what the earth looks like, and express the opinion that the earth is beautiful.
And again it is shown, that you have no idea whatsoever how subjectivity works.

It isn't about the number of times an explanation is given.
It's about the explanation's cogency that is persuasive.
The latter one is lacking.