.JPG
)
Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
You see fifty coins being tossed onto a table. You examine them once settled on the table. All fifty are heads. What is on the other side of the coins?
Good idea but that may exclude some that are scientifically accurate. Could be a bookkeeping nightmare. I would rather have like a set up responses to those few arguments and maybe include some "sample" websites on that prepared statement.
For example:
Your argument xxxx is not considered for this discussion since a bipartisan panel had concluded that the basis for that argument is scientifically lacking and is used repeatedly to distract from more meaningful discussions of evolution. Your contribution is welcome to progress the discussion but not to detract. Thank you.
--------------------------
I know that others have tried different ways to moderate the discussions so I am just throwing it out for discussion.
Couple of off-the-wall observations here.
1) Why does this bring the word "ergodic" to mind?
(look it up on www.m-w.com...)
2) This also seems like the way I have been told some
drug companies and others investigate the effects
of chemical additives on organisms--overdosing
on a given chemical all at once to simulate
cumulative, long-term exposure.
Cheers!
In an ergodic system, the crossstream (note the artificially induced sss) and downstream properties are the same. Coin tossing games are not that way. The properties of 10 games of matching pennies with 10 tosses are not the same as that of a single game of 100 tosses. (Trivially, one cannot be behind 11 points in a 10 toss game.)
Yes. Horse race tracks pay out on winning bets the same way. A pro learns to follow the money. You may *know* the horse will win, but if everybody else bets the same horse the payout still won't match the risk. And there's ALWAYS a risk. Even in a fixed race.
Obviously fractal attractors at work in any discussion. Here's another one: sex.
Aye. And for non-ergodic, they are not.
The issue I was trying to raise was the possibility whether
a) there are "almost" ergodic systems, where depending on the property observed, you can treat them as though they really were ergodic, without too big an error...
b) are there cases where one thinks something is ergodic, and it turns out it *wasn't* at all? How far up the proverbial creek does one end up?
Just stirring the pot...
Cheers!
You wouldn't believe how far we went trying to come to an agreement for civil discourse on these threads. In the end, the thing that worked best was to ignore the provocations and junk posts.
Sometimes very good information is indeed available from a biased website. The problem is that the source itself can become a bone of contention making it impossible to continue with whatever others were trying to discuss.
IMHO, it works best to pick up a unique phrase from the article, use Google and find the same article from a neutral and credible website. If it can't be found at a credible site, then its time to go back to square one and see why not.
Isn't that the definition of bigorty?
So you actually think questioning Darwinism automatically makes one a creationist...
...and you wonder why you are not taken seriously.
Dunno. Couldn't find "bigorty" in the dictionary.
Yes, I transposed two letters.
I think it is fairly obvious what word I was using but I guess I have given you more create than you have earned.
What you said is the definition of bigotry
I have no idea how you inferred everything you ‘imagined’ I was saying from a post were I only asked “What?”
And I repeat, I actually think a formal equation is not (not…not…not…) necessary because logic is sufficient. I do not need an equation to know who my wife is nor do I believe that my wife merely is an elaborate differential equation. I have not calculated probability (specified complexity, coin tosses, poker hands, etc…) but you continue to insist that I am and then argue accordingly.
Actually, it's not.
Main Entry: big·ot·ry
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&-trE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
1 : the state of mind of a bigot
2 : acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigotMain Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
- big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
- big·ot·ed·ly adverb
Pointing out that someone acts like a creationist does not make me a bigot. Saying said person, because he is a creationist, has a subpar intelligence would be bigoted, but I didn't say that.
I'm sorry, but there IS proof of the Resurrection.
Eyewitness accounts, written down, preserved for a long time.
Horrible deaths, which SHOULD have caused much recanting, if the facts were not true, were the end of many 'believers', who were THERE when it all started.
I guess my faith is not strong enough to believe that it all did NOT happen.
(Kinda like a holocaust denier, 2000 years from now....)
HEY!!
You let your cursor linger on my cartoon!
The table............
My fract is being attracted!!!
AFLAC!
I'll have to save this to look at the source code...
Cheers!
Thats quite a generalization as I know of several 'religious' scientists who are definitely not ignoramuses.
I'm sure either side in the God v. Evolution debate think the other is stupid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.