Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread

[blackzeus]

statistics have nothing to do with whats observed.

You keep perverting bayesian statistics and thats not how its supposed to be used.

You keep wanting to define the denominator of this fraction when its not functionally possible to do so.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statistics

sta·tis·tics
noun plural but singular or plural in construction \stə-ˈtis-tiks\

1
: a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data
2
: a collection of quantitative data

Please advise to me how you can collect data without observation?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Why are you twisting my argument? Who said anything about life, we're talking about the existence of life by mere chance vs intelligent design. My argument doesn't rest on the fact that I can't believe life exists, my argument rests on the fact it is statistically impossible that life as we know it is the happenstance of mere chance. I assert someone did it because it is infinitely more possible that someone did it than that it happened by chance.

DOES NOT fukkIN MATTER

Don't talk about whats "impossible" when clearly what exists...exists

You don't get to move the goalposts of facts just because you can't comprehend how the shyt works.

This is why I say you need a fukking biochemistry class.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statistics



Please advise to me how you collect data with observation

STOP PERVERTING THE USE OF BAYESIAN STATISTICS. IT WAS NOT MADE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bayesian

 

[blackzeus]

You keep wanting to define the denominator of this fraction when its not functionally possible to do so.

Pray do tell great one, what is the denominator of this fraction? Are you seriously trying to infer it's not possible to define empirical data?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Pray do tell great one, what is the denominator of this fraction? Are you seriously trying to infer it's not possible to define empirical data?

stop muddying terms.
empmiricism is based on data

the statistical magic you're trying to play with isn't even aware of all the variables that exist to be able to say what should or shuold not happen outside of one's bias (read: miseducation) about how things work to the best of our understanding.

 

[blackzeus]

DOES NOT fukkIN MATTER

Don't talk about whats "impossible" when clearly what exists...exists

You don't get to move the goalposts of facts just because you can't comprehend how the shyt works.

This is why I say you need a fukking biochemistry class.

1) So I am supposed to automatically assume your views are the correct one? Is that how the scientific principle works breh? You are the one moving the goalposts, I clearly said that I am not arguing about the existence of life, I am arguing about how life came to exist. You are essentially arguing that the method that is .00001% likely is a better choice than the method that is 99.9999% likely, yet you claim to be an atheist and a scientist, really breh, this thread is turning into comedy

2) Please explain how I moved the goalposts from my first post until now.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

1) So I am supposed to automatically assume your views are the correct one? Is that how the scientific principle works breh? You are the one moving the goalposts, I clearly said that I am not arguing about the existence of life, I am arguing about how life came to exist. You are essentially arguing that the method that is .00001% likely is a better choice than the method that is 99.9999% likely, yet you claim to be an atheist and a scientist, really breh, this thread is turning into comedy

2) Please explain how I moved the goalposts from my first post until now.

This doesn't make sense.

You can't believe that "the impossible" (in your words) happened, so therefore a god must have done it.

WTF type of thinking is that?

 

[blackzeus]

stop muddying terms.
empmiricism is based on data

the statistical magic you're trying to play with isn't even aware of all the variables that exist to be able to say what should or shuold not happen outside of one's bias (read: miseducation) about how things work to the best of our understanding.

I can't even continue with you anymore breh let's just agree to disagree. You're talking about Bayesian statistics, nikka we're not making hypotheses:

- It really is true that the cosmic rate of expansion is fixed at a specific ratio

- It really is true that random walk can't even making a functional string out of 1 MB data, let alone complex molecular organisms

- It really is true that the cosmological constant in dark energy observed in our galaxy and observed in a galaxy 7 billion light years away are the same

^^^^These are FACTS, not hypotheses, and I could go on and on. You are talking about Bayesian statistics in reference to hypotheses, yes, you're right, that sh*t ain't got nothing to do with the facts

 

[blackzeus]

This doesn't make sense.

You can't believe that "the impossible" (in your words) happened...

WTF type of thinking is that?

^^^^Yes folks, these are the words of an atheist

 

[blackzeus]

The quote in your handle is so a propos breh

 

[Mission249]

2) Even the orator himself admitted ID is probable, with the caveat that just because ID is true, doesn't mean the Christian God exists, which is what any TRUE proponent of ID will tell you.

Exactly when does the orator admit ID is probable? You clearly didn't comprehend what he was saying.

Here's another interesting, anti ID video:



Let me guess your counter-argument to that video: You're going to move the goal posts of what is "intelligent"? It's a shame you use your intelligence to rationalize your beliefs rather than deduce the truth in the world. It's such an arrogant way to live...

 

[blackzeus]

Exactly when does the orator admit ID is probable? You clearly didn't comprehend what he was saying.

Here's another interesting, anti ID video:



Let me guess your counter-argument to that video: You're going to move the goal posts of what is "intelligent"? It's a shame you use your intelligence to rationalize your beliefs rather than deduce the truth in the world. It's such an arrogant way to live...

Yes, using empirical data to come to a statistical conclusion = rationalizing your beliefs, you nikkaz can't be serious (dmx voice)

 

[blackzeus]

Exactly when does the orator admit ID is probable? You clearly didn't comprehend what he was saying.

Here's another interesting, anti ID video:



Let me guess your counter-argument to that video: You're going to move the goal posts of what is "intelligent"? It's a shame you use your intelligence to rationalize your beliefs rather than deduce the truth in the world. It's such an arrogant way to live...

I watched the video, and refer you to post #34 in regards to the "bad design" argument. You're basing it off the fact that ID presumes the Designer was an omnipotent perfect being. In reality, ID is only saying the designer was pretty f*cking smart

 

[Mission249]

Yes, using empirical data to come to a statistical conclusion = rationalizing your beliefs, you nikkaz can't be serious (dmx voice)

Exactly what "statistical" conclusion are you talking about? We've done this dance before, and I know you're M.O already; stop trying to inject your shallow, grab bag of psuedo-science equivocations in order to distract and pivot from a very simple argument: In order to show that something isn't universally true you only need one instance to negate it. I'm simply denying the idea of intelligent design by showing that evolution was clearly at play. Watch the video and argue the facts.

 

[blackzeus]

Exactly what "statistical" conclusion are you talking about? We've done this dance before, and I know you're M.O already; stop trying to inject your shallow, grab bag of psuedo-science equivocations in order to distract and pivot from a very simple argument: In order to show that something isn't universally true you only need one instance to negate it. I'm simply denying the idea of intelligent design by showing that evolution was clearly at play. Watch the video and argue the facts.

I watched the video, again, the premise of the video was that imperfect design proves evolution at work, which is in fact an assumption, not a fact. A bad design simply means a bad design. Are we gonna say a 1989 Ford Taurus was an act of evolution? Again, ID is not about PERFECT design, it's about INTELLIGENT design.