|
Post by stormwarden on Feb 10, 2010 22:51:03 GMT -5
*sighs* Their cartoons don't even try. It shows in the artwork and the arguments they try to make. Do they even attempt to make it sound scientific? Nope. It is their dogma, and their dogma is crap.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Feb 11, 2010 1:16:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Feb 11, 2010 1:17:38 GMT -5
Because there is no science. Science relies on testing the hypothesis and checking for error. Their answer is God, which is a copout and prevents any further investigation. That is the problem with calling creationism or the oxymoron Intelligent Design science. Whenever there is a part which cannot be explained with what we know they insert the black box god/ intelligent designer. No further inquiry is necessary. It is a depressing view of the world which would eventually stifle all progress if it was applied to an area greater than butffuck USA (and some similarly fucking useless parts of the globe e.g. saudi arabia)
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Feb 11, 2010 15:32:05 GMT -5
Yes, because everyone knows Christians never get sad.
|
|
|
Post by Ian1732 on Feb 11, 2010 17:03:29 GMT -5
Yes, because everyone knows Christians never get sad. No, the comic refers to tears, as in rips, meaning... umm... fuck, I don't have a joke.
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Feb 11, 2010 17:10:45 GMT -5
If you're a Xian and you're crying, obviously you're not a True Christian™.
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on Feb 11, 2010 19:42:17 GMT -5
Too busy praying when your school maths class covered scientific notation, were you?
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Feb 12, 2010 17:36:04 GMT -5
Like I said
Evolution is like the event of a roulette ball stopping on a number. The chances of a certain outcome depends on how unfair the roulette wheel is.
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on Feb 12, 2010 22:04:24 GMT -5
The analogy I usually use is cards, because it's very easy to get ridiculously high odds that way. Just ask them to draw ten cards and tell you which ones, then accuse them of lying because the probability of getting those ten cards in that order is one in ~5.74Ă—10^16. (Incidentally, AiG people, that's how you write very large numbers. Don't expect me to take a mathematical argument from someone who doesn't even know scientific notation seriously.)
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Feb 12, 2010 22:09:34 GMT -5
I'm reasonably certain that the number was written that way intentionally (or would have been anyway; the author may have no idea that scientific notation even exists) but because a chain of thirty zeroes or whatever looks impressive to ignorant people.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Feb 12, 2010 23:22:02 GMT -5
I thought humans were the "fallen and sin cursed creature". Did I miss the point or something?
|
|
|
Post by John E on Feb 12, 2010 23:30:23 GMT -5
Lol wat? I don't even get what that one's trying to say.
|
|
Angrytemplar
New Member
THE WINNAH!
Despite the picture, i'm an atheist gamer nerd with an obsession with knights
Posts: 29
|
Post by Angrytemplar on Feb 13, 2010 0:06:26 GMT -5
I'm getting confused about this. I might be doing top of my class year 11 math methods (fancy way of saying year 11 maths), but the whole x:y ratio being used in chance was never told to me in some twist of fate. I mean, In horse races, isn't a 2:1 horse meant to have a better chance than a 10:1 horse? Or was it meant to be 1:2 was better than 1:10? I blame the Australian education system for my confusion. I never got taught sex ed in primary school for goodness's sake. I only learned because one of my friends looked too far in to encyclopedia brittanica and decided to tell me about it. But I guess thats a tale for another thread.
Still, could someone clarify?
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Feb 13, 2010 0:42:28 GMT -5
The idea of x:y odds (like 10:1) is that it represents a ratio of success to failure or vice versa. If the odds are 10:1, then in eleven trials, one event will happen in ten of them while the other event will happen in only one of them over the long term. So flipping a coin and trying to get heads is 1:1 odds - out of two trials, you're likely to get one positive result. Of course, this assumes infinite trials. If you flip a coin twice, you can easily get heads twice or tails twice; if you flip a (fair) coin an infinite number of times, however, you get the expected value of 50% or 1:1 odds.
If evolution has a billion to one odds of being right, then only one time in roughly a billion is evolution going to happen. Unfortunately for Dan Lietha, statistics do not work the way he frames it, as one would have to define "evolution" as something very specific, and establish just what a trial is for testing evolution (in the coin-flipping example, one trial would be one flip of a coin - but what exactly is one trial of evolution?). There are countless major problems besides those two, but I'd say those are the biggest ones.
|
|
|
Post by stormwarden on Feb 13, 2010 0:50:56 GMT -5
I guess I can translate: WHAAARRRRGHARRRRBBBLLLLLE GUILTGUILTGUILTWEARENOTWORTHYOMGFORGIVEUSPLZ
Sound about right to you?
|
|