Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[SkepticThinker]

Sure. Like all those Buddhists who chant to improve their karma. Later they tell one another all the good things that have happened to them since they started chanting. To them, it's all part of the overwhelming evidence that saying nam-myoho-renge-kyo brings good things into your life.

The funny thing is that when I point out that all their "evidence for" chanting is actually neutral to the theory that chanting makes your life better, they react exactly as you do.

Peas in a pod, don't you think?

Yeah, sure. Exact same thing.

 

[Thief]

Bold empty claim.

Is this to springboard you into your old outdated song and dance about which came first?

you should post...bold empty claim.....as your signature

you could spare yourself a lot of typing

 

[McBell]

you should post...bold empty claim.....as your signature

you could spare yourself a lot of typing

empty retort

 

[Zosimus]

Yeah, sure. Exact same thing.

Yes, exactly right. Blind faith in science is no different from blind faith in anything else.

You can all you want, but it's true.

 

[Zosimus]

I couldn't help but notice that no one responded to the point. I say again that evidence gathered and claimed to support a theory is worthless unless that evidence has a chance of falsifying the theory.

Perhaps you don't get it. Let's try it more simply.

Given the a priori probability of the hypothesis (whatever you choose that to be) the above formula shows us how to calculate the a posteriori probability of the hypothesis. Now you see, if we assume that the probability of the observation is 100% (namely that the observation has no chance at all to disprove the theory in question) then we can come up with the following:

P(H|O) = P(O|H) x P(H) ÷ P(O)

P(H|O) = 100% x P(H) ÷ 100%

Therefore, the probability of the hypothesis, given the observation, is exactly the same both before and after the observation is made.

You all seem to be worthless at philosophy. Let's see whether a little math can break through.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, exactly right. Blind faith in science is no different from blind faith in anything else.

You can all you want, but it's true.

Science isn't about blind faith. That's kind of the point of it. Hence the emoji.

 

[gnostic]

You say that a worldwide flood is impossible, but I say that if the land mass of the Earth were perfectly spherical,

This is based on purely speculation (yours) and false information that the Earth is a perfect sphere. It has never been a perfect sphere. It is "what-if" that never was, and never happen.

the water would cover the Earth and be 2.5 km deep everywhere (excluding calculations for tides).

Again, more "what-if" scenario that didn't happen.

For there to be a global flood, like the way Genesis say, there need to be both geological evidences, archaeological evidences and even biological evidences (such as mass extinction of those animals that didn't make it, to board the Ark, hence all death by drowning), EVERYWHERE, AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME.

We have many evidences of ancient floods, because they occurred annually in many places. Archaeologists for instance, can tell which city suffer from such as fire, earthquakes, or floods.

No where in human history are there any evidence for a global flood, that lasted a whole year (so the Genesis claim), not geologically, not archaeologically and not biologically.

No where in geological history does it provide a single evidence of global flood during the Bronze Age or the Neolithic period.

And if there was such a global flood, it should have caused a break in civilisation or culture. Logically (hypothetically), the civilisations and cultures AFTER the flood (after 2340 BCE) should be very different from the civilisations and cultures BEFORE the flood (before 2340 BCE).

Meaning, the styles in arts (paintings, sculptures, pottery, architecture, etc) would be different from the one before the global flood. Writing systems before the flood would be lost, and the ones that come afterwards should be different. The customs before and after the flood should be different.

If the Flood had happened, hypothetically, it would have taken place between 2400 and 2100 BCE (early Bronze Age in Egypt and the Near East), by using the calculations of all the years, generations and reigns mentioned in the bible, to a specific point of actual and verifiable history the fall of Jerusalem in 587 or 586 BCE. Counting backward all those years, that the Flood would have happened in 2340 BCE, if the calculations were based on the (Hebrew) Masoretic Text (compared to the Greek Septuagint manuscripts).

And if everyone but Noah's family had died, then it would have taken time, at least 20 years, for the children of Shem, Japheth and Ham to reach maturity. But looking at Shem's genealogy, Shem's successor, Arphaxad (supposedly the middle child of Shem's 5 sons), was born 2 years after the flood. Unless, Arphaxad was a twin with Asshur, I don't see how could even be possible.

2340 BCE would have hypothetically put the Flood in the reign of Teti I (2345 – 2333 BCE), the 1st king of the 6th dynasty in Egypt. Had there being a flood, he should have been killed, and yet here we have a king, building pyramid at Saqqara, like his predecessors, including Unas, the last king of the 5th dynasty. Teti and his son and successor, Pepin I (who have his own pyramid built for himself), were still using the same writing system as all his other predecessors (Egyptian hieroglyphs and hieratic). There were also no change in styles of arts, pottery and architecture.

Culturally, Egypt have been around during the Neolithic period. This can be seen in old artefacts that depicted gods and goddesses (eg Horus, Seth, Hathor, Neith, etc) dating before the 1st dynasty, known as the Predynastic period (, when Egypt was actually two kingdoms.

But in Genesis 10, Egypt didn't exist, until after Noah family began multiplying. Egypt is supposedly the son of Ham. That would mean for at least 20 years, there were no Egypt until Ham's son came to age (adult). 20 years may not seem a long time, but it would be noticeable for the size of the kingdom.

And Egypt isn't the only kingdom or civilisation showing that Noah's deluge didn't happen.

2340 BCE would hypothetically put the flood during very late Early Dynastic period (c 2900 - c 2350 BCE), just before the founding of the Akkadian empire (c 2350 - 2193 BCE).

Sargon the Great (reign 2334 - 2279 BCE) was the founder of Akkadian dynasty in 2334 BCE, and founder of the city Akkad or Agade.

Akkad is the same city that supposedly built by Nimrod in Genesis 10:10, the son of Cush and grandson of Ham. Nimrod supposedly also found Babylon and Uruk.

Nimrod is a historical figure, Nimrod isn't.

Another reason for rejecting anything and everything in Genesis, is that of the city of Uruk. Genesis 10:10 claimed that Nimrod had Uruk built (called Erech in the KJV translation). But historically and archaeologically, Uruk is much older than 2340 BCE. During 2900 to 2600 BCE, Uruk was a thriving and important Sumerian city, in which Gilgamesh was supposed to be a king of Uruk in the 27th century BCE.

But Uruk is even older that. Around 5000 BCE, the first Neolithic settlement is found in this site. Uruk kept growing in size and in importance during the throughout the 5th millennium BCE, known as the Ubaid period (6800 - 3800 BCE), Uruk was a modest size town.

By the 4th millennium BCE, became a full size city, the largest in the world at that time, and all before the Sumerian civilisation. It reached its height during 3500 - 3200 BCE, where they have several temples, especially to the sky god An (Anu in Akkadian and Babylonian) and to the sky goddess Inanna (Ishtar in Akkadian-Babylonian). And even earlier cuneiforms writing exist in Uruk before the Sumerian cuneiforms, known as Proto-Sumerian cuneiforms.

This show that the author of Genesis didn't the history of pre-Sumerian and Sumerian Uruk, just as it doesn't know much about Egypt.

Believing in the bible, particularly with the Genesis Noah and the Flood are taken on as blind faith. And taking the bible as historical records is not only pointless, it is unreliable source of information, no better than relying on the epic of Gilgamesh or Hesiod's Theogony.

 

[gnostic]

Other facts you are ignoring about flood, zosimus.

How did Australian animals get from the top of Mount Ararat, where Noah supposed beached his Ark, to Australia.

The kangaroos and emus may be able to cover the distance with good speed, but animals like the wombats, koala bears and the lyre birds are known as long distance walkers. How could they possibly survive thousands of kilometres trek, without being attacked and eaten by predators, including man?

I supposed you have some more silly excuses to offer, to explain these.

 

[viole]

I couldn't help but notice that no one responded to the point. I say again that evidence gathered and claimed to support a theory is worthless unless that evidence has a chance of falsifying the theory.

Perhaps you don't get it. Let's try it more simply.

Given the a priori probability of the hypothesis (whatever you choose that to be) the above formula shows us how to calculate the a posteriori probability of the hypothesis. Now you see, if we assume that the probability of the observation is 100% (namely that the observation has no chance at all to disprove the theory in question) then we can come up with the following:

P(H|O) = P(O|H) x P(H) ÷ P(O)

P(H|O) = 100% x P(H) ÷ 100%

Therefore, the probability of the hypothesis, given the observation, is exactly the same both before and after the observation is made.

You all seem to be worthless at philosophy. Let's see whether a little math can break through.

I would advise to refrain from arrogance until you have done your homework yourself.

P (O) = 100% does not entail P(O|H) = 100%. I wonder how you inferred this.

For instance, if H = gravity is always repulsive and O = apple falls down because of gravity, then P(apple falls down because of gravity | gravity is always repulsive) = 0, even if the priori probability of the observation P(apple falls down because of gravity) were 100%, because maybe, in reality, gravity is always attractive.

Or you can have the hypothesis claiming that gravity is attractive 99,999999% of the time, but in reality gravity is always attractive. Even in this case the probability to observe an apple falling, under the assumption that the theory is correct, is different from the probability that the apple will actually fall down, without any assumption. The former is less than the latter. Despite the latter having probability 1.

Ergo, your deduction is flawed from the start. Obviously.

Ciao

- viole

 

[james bond]

The claim that evolution is just a theory.

Good grief.

A lot of good griefs and opinions to avoid answering the questions evos have problems with. Now, that gets boring fast.

The origin of life and origin of the universe are not covered by the theory of evolution. Yet another thing that's been pointed out zillions of times before in this thread and on this forum.

Evolution is valid because it's observable, demonstrable and testable, with evidence spanning across most fields of science. Faith is not required. Stop trying to compare scientific theories to your religious beliefs.

>>Evolution is valid because it's observable, demonstrable and testable, with evidence spanning across most fields of science. Faith is not required. Stop trying to compare scientific theories to your religious beliefs.<<

Too much DELUSION here to even be worth a reply ha ha. Hope it's not mental illness.

 

[james bond]

>>EDIT: Here it is:

To start off with an explanation of how isochron plots let us know the original radioisotope ratios, let’s create a scenario for a thought experiment. A volcano erupts and releases lava. The lava contains the expected substances such as silicates, but also contains some small impurities such as uranium and lead. Since the lava is in a liquid state, the various isotopes of the lead impurities are distributed homogenously throughout the lava flow by diffusion (the chemical properties of the isotopes are identical and the difference in their masses are far too small, with lead-207 being about 1% heavier than lead-204, to result in separation based on mass differences). Therefore, when the lava flow finally hardens, the ratio between lead-207 and lead-204 will be the same throughout all of the newly-formed rocks.

As the lava cools and begins to crystallize, various different minerals form from the various substances in the lava (quartz, topaz, beryl and others). Each of these different minerals has different chemical properties and therefore each mineral has a different likelihood to incorporate lead or uranium into their structures as defects based on those properties. Some will incorporate uranium better than others and some will incorporate lead better than others. Because of this, each mineral will contain a different ratio of uranium-235 to lead-204. This fact, combined with the fact that the ratios of lead-207 and lead-204 are the same between all of the minerals, means that the initial isochron looks like this when the lava first hardens:

Isochron Plot 1

Since I’m using pre-made graphics, I’ll have to clarify what this diagram represents. The Y-axis is the ratio of Pb-207 to Pb-204 (the higher on the graph a mineral is placed, the higher its ratio of Pb-207 to Pb-204 is). The X-axis is the ratio of U-235 to Pb-204 (the more uranium, the further to the right the mineral will appear on the graph). A mineral which did not incorporate any uranium upon its formation would be all the way on the left side of the graph right at the Y-axis. Since we’ve already clarified that the 207/204 ratios are the same for all the minerals upon formation, they all lie on a straight, flat line.

On the other hand, the 235/204 ratios vary from one mineral to another. The first mineral on the line incorporates more uranium than lead, the second incorporates more uranium than lead but not as much as the first, whereas the second two incorporate lead better than uranium.

Isochron Plot 2

As uranium-235 decays, the ratio of U-235 to Pb-204 decreases, causing each point representing a sample mineral to move to the left on the graph. At the same time, the decay of U-235 causes the amount of Pb-207 to increase, resulting in each data point moving up on the graph. The Pb-204, which neither decays nor it produced by decay, remains constant. Take note how the Y-intercept on the graph remains in the same place no matter how old the sample becomes. This is very important. Remember how I said that a rock sample with no uranium inclusions would represent that same point on the graph? It doesn’t move because there is no uranium-235 to decay and create new lead-207. Since it doesn’t change, this means that this particular point on the graph represents the original ratio of lead-207 to lead-204 upon the hardening of the lava in all of the mineral samples.

Now let’s say that, when we finally discover the hardened lava bed, the isotope ratios have moved such that the graph now looks like this:

Isochron Plot 3

Since we now know what the original ratio of lead-207 to lead-204 was thanks to the Y-intercept, we know that any excess of lead-207 in the samples over this amount must have come from the decay of uranium-235. By subtracting the current amount of lead-207 from the primordial amount, we know exactly how much lead-207 has accumulated and therefore exactly how much uranium-235 has decayed since the rocks were formed. The age of the lava bed can also be calculated from the slope of the line, since the only thing that increases the slope of the line is an increase of age. Changing 207/204 ratios only change the Y-intercept, but not the slope. Changing 235/204 ratios only changes where exactly on the line each sample falls, but doesn't affect the slope either.

All of this assumes ideal or near-ideal circumstances (no gain or loss of isotopes). Of course, such things can be detected anyway.<<

Parsimony, it was a nice break. Since you adequately know the stuff in Jonathan Woolf's paper, I'll cut to the chase of isochron plotting in order to save time.

As you know, the creation scientists do not think that radiometric dates of millions or billions of years are not true ages of the life, earth and the universe. Yet, they go into what does it mean, if they are not true ages? Thus, they scrutinize further the experimental results from the various dating techniques, the interpretations made on the basis of the results and the assumptions underlying those interpretations. Through this, they say the isochron dating technique was thought to be infallible because it supposedly covered the assumptions about starting conditions and closed systems. In order to explain and answer isochron dating, they referred to an expert, geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling, so I watched his 30-minute youtube. Snelling worked on dating the Koongarra uranium deposits in the Northern Territory of Australia, primarily using the uranium-thorium-lead (U-Th-Pb) method. He found that even highly weathered soil samples from the area, which are definitely not closed systems, gave apparently valid “isochron” lines with “ages” of up to 1,445 Ma.

Such “false isochrons” are so common that a whole terminology has grown up to describe them, such as apparent isochron, mantle isochron, pseudoisochron, secondary isochron, inherited isochron, erupted isochron, mixing line and mixing isochron.

Another geologist, Y.F. Zheng writes, "Some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr [rubidium-strontium] isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental results is obtained in plotting 87Sr/86Sr. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying Sm-Nd [samarium-neodymium] and U-Pb [uranium-lead] isochron methods.1

1. Y.F. Zheng, “Influence of the Nature of Initial Rb-Sr System on Isochron Validity,” Chemical Geology, 1989, 80:1-16 (p. 14).

 

[viole]

A lot of good griefs and opinions to avoid answering the questions evos have problems with. Now, that gets boring fast.



>>Evolution is valid because it's observable, demonstrable and testable, with evidence spanning across most fields of science. Faith is not required. Stop trying to compare scientific theories to your religious beliefs.<<

Too much DELUSION here to even be worth a reply ha ha. Hope it's not mental illness.

I agree, if someone told me this is not worth a reply, I would have the same hope.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

A lot of good griefs and opinions to avoid answering the questions evos have problems with. Now, that gets boring fast.

Your question/claim has been addressed. Evolution is not "just a theory."

>>Evolution is valid because it's observable, demonstrable and testable, with evidence spanning across most fields of science. Faith is not required. Stop trying to compare scientific theories to your religious beliefs.<<

Too much DELUSION here to even be worth a reply ha ha. Hope it's not mental illness.

I haven't stated anything that isn't factual, never mind delusional.

Is that the best you've got? Some lame attempt at an insult? No wonder it's so difficult to take you seriously.

 

[Zosimus]

Science isn't about blind faith. That's kind of the point of it. Hence the emoji.

Science is the firm belief that logical fallacies can lead to truth if repeated often enough.

 

[Zosimus]

This is based on purely speculation (yours) and false information that the Earth is a perfect sphere. It has never been a perfect sphere. It is "what-if" that never was, and never happen.


Again, more "what-if" scenario that didn't happen.

For there to be a global flood, like the way Genesis say, there need to be both geological evidences, archaeological evidences and even biological evidences (such as mass extinction of those animals that didn't make it, to board the Ark, hence all death by drowning), EVERYWHERE, AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME.

We have many evidences of ancient floods, because they occurred annually in many places. Archaeologists for instance, can tell which city suffer from such as fire, earthquakes, or floods.

No where in human history are there any evidence for a global flood, that lasted a whole year (so the Genesis claim), not geologically, not archaeologically and not biologically.

No where in geological history does it provide a single evidence of global flood during the Bronze Age or the Neolithic period.

And if there was such a global flood, it should have caused a break in civilisation or culture. Logically (hypothetically), the civilisations and cultures AFTER the flood (after 2340 BCE) should be very different from the civilisations and cultures BEFORE the flood (before 2340 BCE).

Meaning, the styles in arts (paintings, sculptures, pottery, architecture, etc) would be different from the one before the global flood. Writing systems before the flood would be lost, and the ones that come afterwards should be different. The customs before and after the flood should be different.

If the Flood had happened, hypothetically, it would have taken place between 2400 and 2100 BCE (early Bronze Age in Egypt and the Near East), by using the calculations of all the years, generations and reigns mentioned in the bible, to a specific point of actual and verifiable history the fall of Jerusalem in 587 or 586 BCE. Counting backward all those years, that the Flood would have happened in 2340 BCE, if the calculations were based on the (Hebrew) Masoretic Text (compared to the Greek Septuagint manuscripts).

And if everyone but Noah's family had died, then it would have taken time, at least 20 years, for the children of Shem, Japheth and Ham to reach maturity. But looking at Shem's genealogy, Shem's successor, Arphaxad (supposedly the middle child of Shem's 5 sons), was born 2 years after the flood. Unless, Arphaxad was a twin with Asshur, I don't see how could even be possible.

2340 BCE would have hypothetically put the Flood in the reign of Teti I (2345 – 2333 BCE), the 1st king of the 6th dynasty in Egypt. Had there being a flood, he should have been killed, and yet here we have a king, building pyramid at Saqqara, like his predecessors, including Unas, the last king of the 5th dynasty. Teti and his son and successor, Pepin I (who have his own pyramid built for himself), were still using the same writing system as all his other predecessors (Egyptian hieroglyphs and hieratic). There were also no change in styles of arts, pottery and architecture.

Culturally, Egypt have been around during the Neolithic period. This can be seen in old artefacts that depicted gods and goddesses (eg Horus, Seth, Hathor, Neith, etc) dating before the 1st dynasty, known as the Predynastic period (, when Egypt was actually two kingdoms.

But in Genesis 10, Egypt didn't exist, until after Noah family began multiplying. Egypt is supposedly the son of Ham. That would mean for at least 20 years, there were no Egypt until Ham's son came to age (adult). 20 years may not seem a long time, but it would be noticeable for the size of the kingdom.

And Egypt isn't the only kingdom or civilisation showing that Noah's deluge didn't happen.

2340 BCE would hypothetically put the flood during very late Early Dynastic period (c 2900 - c 2350 BCE), just before the founding of the Akkadian empire (c 2350 - 2193 BCE).

Sargon the Great (reign 2334 - 2279 BCE) was the founder of Akkadian dynasty in 2334 BCE, and founder of the city Akkad or Agade.

Akkad is the same city that supposedly built by Nimrod in Genesis 10:10, the son of Cush and grandson of Ham. Nimrod supposedly also found Babylon and Uruk.

Nimrod is a historical figure, Nimrod isn't.

Another reason for rejecting anything and everything in Genesis, is that of the city of Uruk. Genesis 10:10 claimed that Nimrod had Uruk built (called Erech in the KJV translation). But historically and archaeologically, Uruk is much older than 2340 BCE. During 2900 to 2600 BCE, Uruk was a thriving and important Sumerian city, in which Gilgamesh was supposed to be a king of Uruk in the 27th century BCE.

But Uruk is even older that. Around 5000 BCE, the first Neolithic settlement is found in this site. Uruk kept growing in size and in importance during the throughout the 5th millennium BCE, known as the Ubaid period (6800 - 3800 BCE), Uruk was a modest size town.

By the 4th millennium BCE, became a full size city, the largest in the world at that time, and all before the Sumerian civilisation. It reached its height during 3500 - 3200 BCE, where they have several temples, especially to the sky god An (Anu in Akkadian and Babylonian) and to the sky goddess Inanna (Ishtar in Akkadian-Babylonian). And even earlier cuneiforms writing exist in Uruk before the Sumerian cuneiforms, known as Proto-Sumerian cuneiforms.

This show that the author of Genesis didn't the history of pre-Sumerian and Sumerian Uruk, just as it doesn't know much about Egypt.

Believing in the bible, particularly with the Genesis Noah and the Flood are taken on as blind faith. And taking the bible as historical records is not only pointless, it is unreliable source of information, no better than relying on the epic of Gilgamesh or Hesiod's Theogony.

Nothing that you have said has anything to do with any of the points I made.

Let's recap, shall we? You said:

"[I reject] the scientific impossibilities of events [such as]...that of the worldwide Flood,"

If we ignore the harm inflicted upon the English language by your drivel, we can see that you have claimed that a worldwide flood is a "scientific" impossibility (though I have no idea what the modifier "scientific" does to the word "impossibility").

It is not impossible. The ocean could cover the Earth to a depth of 2.5 km. Anyone with a calculator can figure that out. Even people without calculators who just google it can find that out. So I don't give a damn about Uruk, Nimrod, Cush, Ham, or Genesis.

It's not impossible. Nothing is impossible. Now you can claim that there are good reasons for rejecting the claim, but you cannot claim that it's impossible because impossible it is not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Science is the firm belief that logical fallacies can lead to truth if repeated often enough.

Science works. It's how we know pretty much everything we currently know. It's the best tool we've come up with, thus far, in helping us determine how our world works. And it's brought us a long way.

 

[Zosimus]

I would advise to refrain from arrogance until you have done your homework yourself.

P (O) = 100% does not entail P(O|H) = 100%. I wonder how you inferred this.

For instance, if H = gravity is always repulsive and O = apple falls down because of gravity, then P(apple falls down because of gravity | gravity is always repulsive) = 0, even if the priori probability of the observation P(apple falls down because of gravity) were 100%, because maybe, in reality, gravity is always attractive.

Or you can have the hypothesis claiming that gravity is attractive 99,999999% of the time, but in reality gravity is always attractive. Even in this case the probability to observe an apple falling, under the assumption that the theory is correct, is different from the probability that the apple will actually fall down, without any assumption. The former is less than the latter. Despite the latter having probability 1.

Ergo, your deduction is flawed from the start. Obviously.

Ciao

- viole

Oh Viole, you would complain if I hung you with a new rope.

Let's try it again for the mathematically impaired.

Let's throw some numbers at it.

Let H = the ToE and let P(H) = 0.99 -- I think these are generous assumptions on your behalf. You can hardly claim that I am unfair by giving your crappy theory an a priori chance of 99 percent.

Let O = any observation that would not falsify evolution even if it came up false. Some cats are black, for example, theorized by some to be evidence for natual selection as black cats are harder to see at night and thus more easily able to stalk prey in the dark. We understand, of course, that even if white cats exist, that would not falsify the theory in question.

So let's run the numbers. We are seeking to find P(H|O)

So we know that P(O) = P(O|H) P(H) + P(O|~H) P(~H)

At this point I propose that P(O|H) be set to 100% but Viole objects! So we'll set it at 0.8 let's say. So now we know that:

1 = (0.8)(0.99) + P(O|~H)(0.01)

Therefore:

1 = 0.792 + P(O|~H)(0.01)
0.208 = P(O|~H)(0.01)
P(O|~H) = .208 ÷ 0.01

Therefore, the Probability of the Observation given the idea that evolution is false has jumped to (drumroll): 2,080%

Does that make any sense to you? Do you think that the probability of anything can be greater than 100 percent?

Obviously not, but let's take it a step further! Now that you have insisted that the P(O|H) should be less than 100 percent (I hope you weren't agitating for more than 100%) we can run the math:

P(H|O) = P(O|H) P(H) ÷ P(O)
P(H|O) = (0.8) (0.99) ÷ 1

Therefore:
P(H|O) = 0.792

In other words, this confirmation of your theory, under numbers that you have asked for (some P(H|O) less than 1) results in your theory ending up less likely than it was before.

Does that make any sense to you at all?

Viole please... don't take this the wrong way, but you have no idea what you're talking about. I have run the numbers in the most generous way possible for your side so that anyone can see that confirmations that have no chance of proving anything wrong similarly have no chance of proving anything right. Yet you complain.

 

[Zosimus]

Science works. It's how we know pretty much everything we currently know. It's the best tool we've come up with, thus far, in helping us determine how our world works. And it's brought us a long way.

Oh, let me guess your logical process. I am giddy with anticipation.

If science works, then we will have wonderful new technology.
We have wonderful new technology.
Therefore, science works.

This is a classic example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. You have proved nothing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh, let me guess your logical process. I am giddy with anticipation.

If science works, then we will have wonderful new technology.
We have wonderful new technology.
Therefore, science works.

This is a classic example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. You have proved nothing.

What I said is accurate. No need to try putting words in my mouth.


Nice job arguing against yourself though. We're all very impressed.

 

[Zosimus]

What I said is accurate. No need to try putting words in my mouth.

Oh, I see. You have no actual argument. It's a matter of jutting out your jaw quite firmly as you say:

Allahu Akbar!!

Oh wait... you're not Muslim. I guess the battle cry is "Science never faileth!"

Or whatever other faith-based mantra you're trumpeting at the moment.