|
|
Post by The_L on Feb 9, 2010 21:38:48 GMT -5
Someone posted this comic on the homepage:  Well, Mr. Lietha, there is a very glaring problem with your probability argument, one that causes your comic to make even less sense. You see, when someone says, for example, "the chances of this happening are 10 to 1," that means that it is 10 times more likely for the event to happen than for it not to happen. So basically, the creationist in the cartoon is unrealistically asserting that evolution is extremely likely. Why he would say this, and why the fellow with the Darwin fish on his shirt is saying "Yes! There's still a chance!" is entirely beyond me. The term "odds against" would actually make sense in this context, but apparently probability theory, like the Theory of Evolution, is only for filthy atheists who don't care about the truth of Genesis. XD |
|
|
|
Post by Mantorok on Feb 9, 2010 21:41:58 GMT -5
Also, probability can't be applied to past events. If it has already happened its probability is 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Feb 9, 2010 22:35:31 GMT -5
The actual problem with probability arguments is that the numbers used tend to be completely made up or arrived at without an actual understanding of the processes involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Feb 10, 2010 0:39:45 GMT -5
Imagine you take Gary Larson. Add a shitload of creationist bullshit. Subtract senses of humour/ absurd/ and ridiculous.
Ablate a large portion of the frontal cortex.
Voila you have Dan Leitha
|
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Feb 10, 2010 1:15:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Feb 10, 2010 1:20:17 GMT -5
I'm a failure at math and I know that's not right.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkfireTaimatsu on Feb 10, 2010 1:22:28 GMT -5
I'm offended by the unattractive art alone.
Also, please don't use numbers that you can't actually say out loud.
|
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Feb 10, 2010 2:50:02 GMT -5
I'm a failure at math and I know that's not right. I'm an actuary and false statistics make me rage. I just want to punch them in the face while yelling "WHERE'S YOUR SOURCES? WHAT'S THE MEAN AND MARGIN OF ERROR, BITCH!" |
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Feb 10, 2010 2:55:49 GMT -5
I'm not an actuary, but I am a behavioral scientist and false statistics make me angry. You... wouldn't like me when I'm angry.
|
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Feb 10, 2010 6:32:59 GMT -5
I'm still waiting for that evidence that evolution is false and creationism is true...i mean look, they dumped money into advertising, legal battles, building 'museums', but has any gone into any type of research?
No?
Well, they best get goin' on that, science isn't decided by what you like
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Feb 10, 2010 8:09:25 GMT -5
The actual problem with probability arguments is that the numbers used tend to be completely made up or arrived at without an actual understanding of the processes involved. Especially in cases that make calculating probability hard or even impossible to begin with. Or where it makes no sense to do so. I mean, we ain't exactly handicapping horses here. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Feb 10, 2010 8:10:40 GMT -5
Well, they best get goin' on that, science isn't decided by what you like Yeah, but any moron can accuse you of bias, so.... |
|
|
|
Post by Radiation on Feb 10, 2010 20:03:06 GMT -5
How come every time I see the initials AiG I think of the insurance company and not the creationist group?
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkfireTaimatsu on Feb 10, 2010 22:29:02 GMT -5
How come every time I see the initials AiG I think of the insurance company and not the creationist group? Funny, I have the opposite problem. |
|
|
|
Post by yojetak on Feb 10, 2010 22:50:36 GMT -5
|
|
