David, The Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 5 Votes - 2.6 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2012, 04:24 AM
RE: David, The Theist
(19-10-2012 09:59 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Ok, insight as to how Lord Erxy's mind operates.

[Image: 39_wind_up_brain.jpg]

I think yer spring is sprung. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
20-10-2012, 04:54 AM
David, The Theist
(20-10-2012 04:24 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(19-10-2012 09:59 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Ok, insight as to how Lord Erxy's mind operates.

[Image: 39_wind_up_brain.jpg]

I think yer spring is sprung. Tongue

Whoa. That would be cool to turn a key like that in my head. Consider

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 05:41 AM
RE: David, The Theist
(19-10-2012 08:58 PM)aurora Wrote:  Sweetie, you couldn't handle the woman that is Aurora! Big Grin

That sounds like a challenge Tongue

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like FSM_scot's post
20-10-2012, 05:57 AM
RE: David, The Theist
Hi David, I'm new here too. I was reading your web site and was interested in where you got the ideas on your page on the science of Noah's flood.

(17-10-2012 11:01 PM)The Theist Wrote:  Noah's ark was designed to carry Noah and his family along with animals through the global deluge of 2370 - 2369 B.C.E.
...
It has been estimated that 43 kinds of mammals, 74 kinds of birds and 10 kinds of reptiles could have produced the variety of species known today.
...
Of the 5, 000 mammals, which would include whales and porpoises who would have stayed outside the ark
...
Plenty of room for Noah's family as well as for all animals and their food.

How and where was that estimation made? What would the mechanism be? I'd like to recommend the videos "Vitamin C and Common Ancestry" and "Human Evolution: Are We Descended From Viruses?" They both support your claim that species can evolve, but if you already believe in that, then what keeps you from lowering that number down to 1?

I'd also like to know how the 31,300 species of fish came into being. Most can only survive in either salt or fresh water, how could they not get mixed to a state that will kill them all in a global flood?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like UnchosenOne's post
20-10-2012, 07:11 AM
RE: David, The Theist
(20-10-2012 05:57 AM)UnchosenOne Wrote:  ... I'm new here too...

Good start newbie. I think you're going to fit in just fine.

Welcome.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 07:21 AM
RE: David, The Theist
(19-10-2012 08:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(19-10-2012 07:06 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  [Image: the-theist-meme-generator-many-people-do...491e0d.jpg]

Lets ignore incremental dating

Acanthochronology
Annulus (zoology)
Archaeomagnetic dating
Coral
Dendrochronology
Herbchronology
Ice core
Lichenometry
Rhythmite
Speleothem
Tephrochronology
Varve
Vole Clock

And lets ignore radiometric dating.

Argon–argon dating
Before Present
Closure temperature
Cosmogenic nuclide
Environmental radioactivity
Fission track dating
Geochronology
Hallstatt plateau
Helium dating
Ionium-thorium dating
Isochron dating
Isotopic signature
K–Ar dating
Lead-lead dating
Oldest dated rocks
Optical dating
Primordial nuclide
Radio-analytical chemistry
Radiocarbon dating
Radio-halo
Rhenium-osmium dating
Rubidium-strontium dating
Samarium-neodymium dating
Thermochronology
Uranium-lead dating
Uranium-thorium dating
Uranium-uranium dating

Thanks for posting this ! A lot. I'd like your permission to use it in a Creationist-refutation we're making for YouTube. It gets worse.
Two things.
The thing is ALL those systems exhibit approximately the same result. I will multiply it out a bit later, but since the probabilities are multiplied, the "improbability", (in statistics), that any 2 are wrong AT THE SAME TIME, and wrong, are multipled. For example if, (just for example ..I'm making up the numbers), if ice core data is known to be correct as, (VERY low estimate), 75 % correct, and dendrochronology is 60 % correct, then the probability that they come out with the same number, and BOTH be wrong, is

1/(.75 x .60) = 1/(.45). So that means it's, just by two of them, you combine them and get a more than 50/50 chance they are both right. (Most of those systems are 99 + % accurate.) So multiple them all together, and you get an EXTREMELY low (ie "0" %) chance they are wrong, taken together.

Ok then they say "well the universe was different "back then".
Ok
So, in order for THAT to be true, AND to observe the result we see today, they ALL would have had to be *wrong* in exactly the SAME way wrong, in order to come out showing the result we see today, and the probability of THAT is just as bad. So either way, it makes no sense.

I don't think your maths are correct.

The probability that they are both wrong is (1 - 0.75) * (1 - 0.60) = 0.1

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
20-10-2012, 07:28 AM
RE: David, The Theist
(19-10-2012 09:42 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(19-10-2012 08:56 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  It's about goddamn time, you uncle fucker! I am so fucking proud of you, son!

Me too!

Good on'ya dude.

Incidentally, 'cos I haven't been paying atention, I only just found out that Muffsy was out too. Now I'm feeling kinda "out-group" and wondering whether to convert.
I'm told it's a life-choice and not genetic.

Are there courses I can take? Or pills? I don't wanna be the only hetero in the village.

Seriously though, that must have been a big decision.... really, really proud of you.

You are not alone.Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 07:39 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2012 07:54 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: David, The Theist
(20-10-2012 07:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-10-2012 08:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Thanks for posting this ! A lot. I'd like your permission to use it in a Creationist-refutation we're making for YouTube. It gets worse.
Two things.
The thing is ALL those systems exhibit approximately the same result. I will multiply it out a bit later, but since the probabilities are multiplied, the "improbability", (in statistics), that any 2 are wrong AT THE SAME TIME, and wrong, are multipled. For example if, (just for example ..I'm making up the numbers), if ice core data is known to be correct as, (VERY low estimate), 75 % correct, and dendrochronology is 60 % correct, then the probability that they come out with the same number, and BOTH be wrong, is

1/(.75 x .60) = 1/(.45). So that means it's, just by two of them, you combine them and get a more than 50/50 chance they are both right. (Most of those systems are 99 + % accurate.) So multiple them all together, and you get an EXTREMELY low (ie "0" %) chance they are wrong, taken together.

Ok then they say "well the universe was different "back then".
Ok
So, in order for THAT to be true, AND to observe the result we see today, they ALL would have had to be *wrong* in exactly the SAME way wrong, in order to come out showing the result we see today, and the probability of THAT is just as bad. So either way, it makes no sense.

I don't think your maths are correct.

The probability that they are both wrong is (1 - 0.75) * (1 - 0.60) = 0.1

Yes. Thanks Chas. I was thinking I needed to go back and fix that when I multiplied them all together. As you see, even just two terms multiplied, (two agreeing), makes the probability instantly highly ridiculous, that they could BOTH be wrong, and come out with the same date. Since we know dating is 99 + % correct, individually, the multiplication of them all comes out as 1/(.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001). It's really more like (1-.99). So it would be (1-.99) * (1-.99) = .01*.01 = .0001 = 1/ten thousand that they would be both wrong, and see the same error. Each additional term increases the improbability 100 fold more, so 3 together, showing the same result, is 1 / one million, etc.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 10:59 AM
RE: David, The Theist
(19-10-2012 09:26 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Ummmm... reading that link that Bucky posted:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/31535

Just read that whole thread. Holy crap, you're crazier than Egor was at his craziest.

That was even more fun. Thanks, Fullerene! Big Grin

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 11:19 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2012 11:40 AM by Vosur.)
RE: David, The Theist
(19-10-2012 09:26 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Ummmm... reading that link that Bucky posted:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/31535
I wonder if the guy called "Luminion" in that thread is Luminion on TTA. Consider

The Theist doesn't seem to grasp the concept of polysemous words and that the meaning of words is, among other factors, dependent on the context in which they are used in.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: