hysterical Darwinites panic

crosswalk ^ | 2004 | creationist

[Elsie]

the house always wins: there IS no 'profit'!

[WildHorseCrash]

Since NO 'true' Evo will touch the third rail, why do we NOT know where all of this 'first life' came from anyway??

Because we are human, and therefore not omniscient. We know more now than we did 100 years ago. We'll know more 100 years hence. Geez-Louise, we just learned the structure of DNA 1/2 a century ago. We've just started to try to learn where and what this first life was all about."

[bvw]

Trying to change the specific heat of the material.

[Junior]

It drives me crazy how freeper darwinists claim everybody that questions darwinism is a "creationist"

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

However, we understand it is against creationist philosophy to draw conclusions from available evidence.

[Elsie]

Well, that's great... but FIRST you gotta have a plant!

[bvw]

It was a para-mutual payout. The house take was a fixed percentage of the gross. If people picked 787 one hundred times less frequently than 312, the payout on 787 would be a hundred times higher than the payout on 312.

[Elsie]

[WildTurkey]

At least we have settled that flipping the coin 50 straight heads is just as probable as any other sequence, such as the sequence I flipped this morning.

[Elsie]

Do you mean if a 100 people picked the winning number, they'd each RECeiVE only a 1/100th of the total prize?

[colorado tanker]

Thanks. The all or nothing aspect of the debate does seem silly.

If you read a little about the history of science, betting that the current state of scientific knowledge is 100% accurate and complete has always been a sucker bet.

[WildHorseCrash]

This is not exactly right.

there ARE some things that are 'provable'.

Perhaps I should clarify, because you are right. I am not saying that it is devoid of facts. To take the simplest example, the City of Jerusalem exists.

What I am saying is that the things that make it religion- i.e., the existence of God, the truth about the resurrection- are believed on faith, not evidence.

[Doctor Stochastic]

There's another fallacy I've discovered but I can't find a reference to it; someone should have seen it before. I would like to call it the "Fallacy of the Clade" or "Cladistic Fallacy" because "Taxonomic Fallacy" is already taken.

This fallacy consists in assuming that "being a member of a group" is a property of an individual rather than a property of the classification method. It's not the same as the "Fallacy of Composition" or "Fallacy of Division." It's peculiar to cladistic analysis.

[AntiGuv]

No, actually you don't.

[grey_whiskers]

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

It might be an AFLAC commercial...

There are lurkers, and those 'new' to the debates, too!

Cheers!

[WildHorseCrash]

"And can it propagate?"

To be honest, I am not much of an expert on mules. I don't think they are absolutely sterile, but I am not up on the specifics of when, and under what conditions, they breed.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

As to the first. There is a website (as soon as I find it I will post it) that has a "detailed" statistical evalution assuming certain parameters as to cell structure and years available, etc. that concludes that the possibility of the number of "random" changes inoder to end with the present "man" is statisticaly too many (very low probability) for the number of years and (wave the hand) evolution is therefore impossible.

May I suggest that we agree to dismiss out of hand and without comment any sources which are ideologically or theologically biased? That would include answers-in-Genesis, infidels.org and the ilk.

[Alamo-Girl]

Perhaps it is in here: Cladistics (but I wouldn't which one you are recalling)

[PatrickHenry]

People often make the mistake of using "crossstream" (inferences from a population of sequencess of a given length, sometimes called "weak") computations to model "downstream" (inferences along a given sequence, sometimes called "strong") computations.

I knew I was getting in over my head.

[PatrickHenry]

This fallacy consists in assuming that "being a member of a group" is a property of an individual rather than a property of the classification method. It's not the same as the "Fallacy of Composition" or "Fallacy of Division." It's peculiar to cladistic analysis.

It seems to involve, to some degree, the notion that the "group" is itself an entity with characteristics.

[Junior]

Actually, only the people disagreeing with me who have absolutely no clue as to what they are talking about are stupid.