Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Of Probabilities and the Design Inference

-
As we IDists have tried to explain if something is outside or even approaching the universal probability bound, that means given all the resources in the universe it could not or would be very, very difficult to achieve what is being investigated given no agency involvement.

Cards usually comes up as an example. What usually happens after that is some evotard or evotards will erect a strawman of that example.

For example poker and the royal flush. We IDists say that being dealt a royal flush in a poker game is improbable but not impossible. The (approximate) odds of getting one is 649,739 : 1. No one would be suspicious of a cheater, ie design, if someone just gets one royal flush dealt.

But getting dealt, say, 5 royal flushes in a row, even though the odds are the same with each hand, would be a reason to be suspicious of cheating, especially if other hands are also high hands that keep their holders playing and betting.

The other side of that is if you keep getting dealt horrible/ unplayable hands and keep losing your ante. Sooner or later you either have to walk away or shoot someone. And you would be justified either way (although you still may have to do some time).

So that is the design inference wrt probabilities. If highly improbable things keep happening then most likely they aren't as improbable as you were led to believe. And unless mathematics lie then that means there was something else besides probabilities at play.

The evotard strawman comes in when they just stop at one hand and point out that the odds of getting any hand, say the one you were dealt, are very high. Obviously not realizing that in a poker game the odds of a player getting dealt a hand is 1 and obviously not understanding a design inference requires more than one highly improbable event.

HUMP THAT STRAWMAN!

(hey richie retardo is good for something after all)

114 Comments:

  • At 6:32 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    " If highly improbable things keep happening then most likely they aren't as improbable as you were led to believe."

    Epic non-understanding. Congratulations!

     
  • At 9:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Classic Richie ReTardo flailing-

    Way to take what I said out-of-context. But then again that is basically all you have- to twist what others say.

    Also I see you still have trouble making a case. Do you really think your bullshit one-liners refute something? Amazingly pathetic.

    But anyway let's look at what I said in context:

    So that is the design inference wrt probabilities. If highly improbable things keep happening then most likely they aren't as improbable as you were led to believe. And unless mathematics lie then that means there was something else besides probabilities at play.

    That means what you thought was improbable, ie left to chance, was actually designed to happen- ie cheating in the case of poker.

     
  • At 7:34 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    By the way, joe-boi, didn't you say that probabilities have nothing to do with ID?

     
  • At 8:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Reference please- everyone knows that you are an asshole lying piece-of-shit.

     
  • At 10:06 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "bullshit one-liners" is about right, but not for the reason's you'd like. way to go all sweary at UD! High five!

    DID YOU GET ATTCAKED?

     
  • At 10:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yup, bullshit one-liners are all you have. Did you have a point?

    BTW I didn't get all sweary at UD, just Bilbo. But I am OK now. Thanks...

     
  • At 10:48 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Good. It's good you've calmed down. It's not good for old folks to get too excited.

     
  • At 10:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    When are evotards going to calm down? When you finally find supporting evidence for your position? Don't hold your breath...

     
  • At 10:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So Richie ReTardo gets caught, again, spewing bullshit and then is forced to change the subject.

    Life is good...

     
  • At 10:57 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Probabilities, eh.

    Here's an easy one:

    Okay, what are the odds of being dealt only face cards in a hand of 7 cards?

     
  • At 10:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Here is an easier one- what is the relevance of your question wrt the OP?

     
  • At 11:04 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    I'm checking your credibility to talk about probabilities.

    It's a VERY easy question.

     
  • At 11:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Except you aren't in any position to check on anything.

    That is the problem- you think you are someone but it is clear that you are just a belligerent and clueless fuck.

    That said I posted a probability in the OP. If you have an issue with that then state it. Otherwise you don't have anything and you are just fishing, as usual.

     
  • At 11:09 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    'Except you aren't in any position to check on anything.'

    No, I'm pretty sure I can answer that question. I also think you have about a 50% chance of getting it right.

    The OP example is easily googled. I don't think YOU can do the math.

     
  • At 11:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Nobody cares what you think Richie. And your question doesn't have any relevance to the OP. None at all.

    If you think it does then make your case.

     
  • At 11:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The problem is you came to this thread spewing your ignorance which you have refused to support.

    So NOW you are forced to retreat and flail.

    Everyone sees that Richie...

     
  • At 11:20 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Still no math, Joe? Telling. Very Telling.

     
  • At 11:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Still nothing to say? Very, very telling indeed.

     
  • At 11:32 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    " If highly improbable things keep happening then most likely they aren't as improbable as you were led to believe."

    PS I CAN'T DO MAFS!

    *points and laughs*

     
  • At 11:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, Richie ReTardo, I understand that you are too stupid to grasp the point I was making. Even though I spelled it out for you

    But do you have to be proud of being an ignorant fuck? Really?

     
  • At 11:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    points and laughs...

     
  • At 11:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So that is the design inference wrt probabilities. If highly improbable things keep happening then most likely they aren't as improbable as you were led to believe. And unless mathematics lie then that means there was something else besides probabilities at play.

    That means what you thought was improbable, ie left to chance, was actually designed to happen- ie cheating in the case of poker.

     
  • At 11:43 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "That means what you thought was improbable, ie left to chance, was actually designed to happen- ie cheating in the case of poker."

    Per this, you don't think improbable exists. There can be no unlikely, only design.

    Improbable is NOT probable.
    Probable = >50%.

    The odds of rolling a 1 on a fair die is 1/6. That is <50%, improbable. Must be designed,then.

    IDIOT.

     
  • At 11:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Okay, what are the odds of being dealt only face cards in a hand of 7 cards?

    If I am the only player the the odds are about 170,000 to 1

    12 facecards in a deck of 52

    That means the first facecard has a probability of 3/13

    The second has a prob of 11/51

    the third has a prob of 1/5

    the fourth has a prob of 9/49

    the fifth has a prob of 1/6

    the sixth has a prob of 7/47

    and the seventh has a prob of 3/23

    Then you just multiply all of those and you get about 170,000 to 1

     
  • At 11:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "That means what you thought was improbable, ie left to chance, was actually designed to happen- ie cheating in the case of poker."

    Richie ReTardo:
    Per this, you don't think improbable exists.

    Only an imbecile would say that and here you are.

    But go ahead TRY to make your case you ignorant faggot.

     
  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Improbability does not exist in a design scenario. That is if something were intentionally designed then you do not apply probabilities.

    Probabilities only count when chance is at play, not design.

     
  • At 12:19 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    1. Well done on the example. what is the probability of at least 2 queens being in that hand?


    2. "Probabilities only count when chance is at play, not design."

    This is an admission that we must know of design to rule out chance. So we can use probabilities to infer design. Thanks for killing ID some more.

     
  • At 12:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No Richie, you had your shot and I answered it.

    You do not get to keep testing me as you won't ever respond to my tests.

    2. "Probabilities only count when chance is at play, not design."

    This is an admission that we must know of design to rule out chance

    No, it isn't. By ruling out chance it does help us with the design inference.

    So we can use probabilities to infer design.

    We can. Some people prefer other methods. We get to choose our tools.

    Thanks for killing ID some more.

    In what way did I do that?

     
  • At 1:36 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Woah. I see anything more than basic math is beyond you.

    Probabilities? Can we use them?

    No - not for design

    How do we infer design?

    Probability!

     
  • At 2:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Whoa indeed. Obvioulsy you didn't understand a word I said and think your twisted ignorance means something.

    I never said we infer design via probability. I have always said that one has to eliminate chance and necessity before even considering.

    So yes probability plays a role. We have to know, if left to chance alone, what the proabilities would be.

    And if the mathematics says the chances are very, very small, and yet they keep happening, then is a good reason to suspect design.

    Ya see, dickweed, a series of highly improbable events is more tyhan enough to raise the suspicions of an objective person.

    So that is what has you so confused.

     
  • At 10:58 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    you don't understand. You don't "eliminate chance", that would be P=0. You say "probably not change as P=1/bignumber)

    That's probability.

     
  • At 11:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What the fuck? Of course if you can demonstrate that P=0 then you have eliminated chance-

    shut up- you don't belong in any discussion

     
  • At 3:21 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    But you never show any probabilities, that's the problem. ID asserts it can do these things mathematically (empirically) - then doesn't.

    Showing P=0 is very hard, in fact using Lapace's induction it is impossible unless you have infinite observations.

     
  • At 10:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wrong again- the problem is that your position never shows anything. All you have are Mother Nature + Father Time + some still unknown process.

    And please provide the referencve that demonstrates that showing P=0 is very hard.

     
  • At 4:59 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "And please provide the referencve that demonstrates that showing P=0 is very hard."

    I actually mentioned it before, but here you go:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_succession

    see also:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwell%27s_rule

    You seem to be the only IDist positing P=0.

     
  • At 8:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You seem to be the only IDist positing P=0.

    It all depends on what you are talking about. For some, maybe even many, things P=0

     
  • At 9:47 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    List a few.

     
  • At 6:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    P=0 for chance producing my house, car and computer.

    There, that's a few.

     
  • At 9:29 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    P=0 for chance producing my house, car and computer.

    There, that's a few.


    That's called a bald assertion Joe. There's no math. What do you base it on, having never seen "chance producing my house, car and computer." before?

     
  • At 9:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well hey if it is a bald assertion then YOU shouldn't have any problem refuting it.

    OTOH if what I said is true then all you will do is drool and blather on incoherently.

    So which will it be Richtard?

     
  • At 9:42 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Do you know what induction is, Joe?

     
  • At 1:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard chooses to blather on incoherently- another prediction fulfilled.

    Any luck on any math for the alleged evolution of ATP synthase via accumulations of random mutations?

     
  • At 2:05 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Any luck on any math for the alleged evolution of ATP synthase via accumulations of random mutations?"

    Er, we're not the ones advocating 'improbable' (or you, 'impossible'), arguments, Joe.

    Induction is VERY relevant to probability, especially Bayesian. Do you know what it is?

     
  • At 3:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Err you're the ones without any evidence. You're the ones who have to rely on eons of time. You're the ones with nothing, not even any indication of any probability.

    But anyway asshole do your math and refute what I said or fuck off.

     
  • At 5:04 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Err you're the ones without any evidence" ERVS, MUTATIONS, SELECTION MECHANISMS? Check!

    DESIGNER? Nope.

    But anyway asshole do your math and refute what I said or fuck off.

    You want me to refute your bald assertion? Laplace and Cromwell have, before you were born.

     
  • At 9:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Equivocation double check!

    Evidence that stochastic processes didit? Zero.

    And zero for the math that shows they can construct new, useful multi-part systems. But quite a bit on random mutations breaking things and causing diseases and cancers.

    And question-begging at full throttle. Check.

    And neither LaPlace nor Cromwell refuted what I said. That you think they did just exposes your stupidity and is itself a fucking bald assertion.

     
  • At 11:36 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Evidence that stochastic processes didit? Zero."

    evidence <> chance, numbnutz. No wonder you keep failing. And yet we see random mutations all the time, from parent to child.

    http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.full

    "And neither LaPlace nor Cromwell refuted what I said"

    Yes they did, mathematically. Sorry you can't get it. But you don't like math do you? probably shouldn't use the term 'probability' then.

     
  • At 3:08 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    joe-boi said:

    "Reference please- everyone knows that you are an asshole lying piece-of-shit."

    Okay joe, here's the reference (your words):

    "Probabilities do not apply to design as it is a given that designers know how to design what it is they are dsigning."

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/upright-biped-replies-to-dr-moran-on-information/comment-page-1/#comment-412471

     
  • At 6:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Evidence that stochastic processes didit? Zero."

    RichTard:
    evidence <> chance, numbnutz.

    Nice non-sequitur.

    And yet we see random mutations all the time, from parent to child.

    Moron- just because we see them that does not mean they are stochastic. And what we have seen in no way supports your position- asshole.

    "And neither LaPlace nor Cromwell refuted what I said"

    Yes they did, mathematically.

    No they didn't and your bald assertion is meaningless.

    So unless you can support youtr claim you are still a lying piece-of-shit.

     
  • At 7:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    TWiT:
    By the way, joe-boi, didn't you say that probabilities have nothing to do with ID?

    Okay joe, here's the reference (your words):


    "Probabilities do not apply to design as it is a given that designers know how to design what it is they are dsigning."

    That does not support your claim, asshole. Saying probabilities do not apply to design is not the same as saying probabilities have nothing to do with ID- you are a moron.

     
  • At 7:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To recap:

    Equivocation double check!

    Evidence that stochastic processes didit? Zero.

    And zero for the math that shows they can construct new, useful multi-part systems. But quite a bit on random mutations breaking things and causing diseases and cancers.

    And question-begging at full throttle. Check.

    And neither LaPlace nor Cromwell refuted what I said. That you think they did just exposes your stupidity and is itself a fucking bald assertion.


    And still no maf from Richtard to support his claim- typical.

     
  • At 7:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1- ID, YEC and OEC all accept that mutations occur

    2- ID, YEC and OEC are all OK with mutations being heritable

    3- No one has any data that demonstrates all mutations are random in any sense of the word

    4- Richtard will choke on those three points

     
  • At 7:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Cromwell's rule, named by statistician Dennis Lindley,[1] states that one should avoid using prior probabilities of 0 or 1, except when applied to statements that are logically true or false.

    And everything I said is logically true so therefor P=0 for chance producing my house, car and computer.

     
  • At 10:14 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "And everything I said is logically true"

    Fine. Show me the logic, including all predicates. You're not using any. You're using induction, which you also don't understand.

     
  • At 10:36 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "No one has any data that demonstrates all mutations are random in any sense of the word"

    Wow. Does anyone have any data about ALL of anything?

    IDIOT.

     
  • At 10:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Does anyone have any data about ALL of anything?

    Well it would be nice if your position had something.

     
  • At 10:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And everything I said is logically true so therefor P=0 for chance producing my house, car and computer.

    RichTard:
    Fine. Show me the logic, including all predicates.

    Show me how anything you linked to even applies.

    You tested me once in this thread and I passed.

    You don't get to keep testing me because it is obvious that you are nothing but a pretentious faggot.

    Cause and effect relationships suppprt my claim and not even your made-up math can refute it.

     
  • At 11:03 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "You tested me once in this thread and I passed"

    This, in a nutshell, is your problem. You're inducing. Per LaPlace, this would give you a (1+1)/(1+2) = 2/3rds chance of being right next time, and there's no amount of obserations that gets you to 100%, or p=1. Of course we're not counting all the times you're wrong, including this.

    There you go. Probabilities. That which IDists can do.

     
  • At 11:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    This, in a nutshell, is your problem. You're inducing.

    Bald assertion.

    Show me the math that demonstrates there is some probability that my house, car or computer can arise via stochastic processes- or fuck off.

     
  • At 11:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So to recap- we have Rich, the prententious faggot, continuing his pretentious ways and throwing in his usual side of pompous ass.

     
  • At 12:08 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Bald assertion."

    Not at all:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

    You presuppose many thing, the uniformity of nature being the most obvious. You induce. We all do.

     
  • At 12:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And still no math from Richtard showing that my claim P=0 for chance producing my house, car and computer is a bald assertion.

     
  • At 12:20 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Take that Karl Popper - Joe knows better that you and the long philosphical position that predates you. He knows he's 100% right, no math required.

    Induction - something else Joe doesn't understand.

    Philosophy - a bit too hard for you, apparently.

    Cromwell's rule:

    "Cromwell's rule, named by statistician Dennis Lindley,[1] states that one should avoid using prior probabilities of 0 or 1, except when applied to statements that are logically true or false. (For instance, Lindley would allow us to say that Pr(2 + 2 = 4) = 1.)"

    Lindley allows 2+2=4 because

    mathemematics is an axiomatic system - 2+2 adds no new information.

     
  • At 12:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And still no math from Richtard showing that my claim P=0 for chance producing my house, car and computer is a bald assertion.

     
  • At 12:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Induction - something else Joe doesn't understand.

    And another bald assertion/ false accusation.

     
  • At 12:25 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "And still no math from Richtard showing that my claim P=0 for chance producing my house, car and computer is a bald assertion"

    Okay, let's estimate total houses, cars and computers at 10^100 (way to many) and let's presuppose we've seen how they're all constructed and none were made by chance. And let's presuspose there's never been a measurement error, and that our historical record is accurate, and a bunch of other stuff way above Joe's pay grade.

    The odds would be (1+10^150)/(2+10^150) - which isn't 0.

    Now to try and groundteh conversation - joe claims to know P=o where he has no such obseravtional history. Becasue he is a bad bad tard.
    That gives us

     
  • At 12:28 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "And another bald assertion/ false accusation"

    nope - clearly evidenced by

    "This, in a nutshell, is your problem. You're inducing.

    Bald assertion."

    We're all inducing all the time, unless you know every example of everything in the universe.

    You're such a dolt.

    No wonder you're so clueless about science. You should start with logic 101, or a lower course if one is available.

     
  • At 12:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "And still no math from Richtard showing that my claim P=0 for chance producing my house, car and computer is a bald assertion"


    Okay, let's estimate total houses, cars and computers at 10^100 (way to many) and let's presuppose we've seen how they're all constructed and none were made by chance. And let's presuspose there's never been a measurement error, and that our historical record is accurate, and a bunch of other stuff way above Joe's pay grade.

    The odds would be (1+10^150)/(2+10^150) - which isn't 0.


    How do you know that formula is valid?

    Now to try and groundteh conversation - joe claims to know P=o where he has no such obseravtional history.

    More than that- no one has and no one would even know what such a process would be. And more importantly, no one can demonstrate any math can alleviate your fucked-up position.

     
  • At 12:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    No wonder you're so clueless about science.

    Funny that I know more than you and even funnier that your pposition doesn't have anything to do with science.

     
  • At 1:45 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    How do you know that formula is valid?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_succession#Mathematical_details

    idiot.

     
  • At 2:10 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Funny that I know more than you"

    and how do you know that?

     
  • At 2:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The formula is still used, particularly to estimate underlying probabilities when there are few observations, or for events which have not been observed to occur at all in (finite) sample data.

    Let's see- we have many thousands, if not millions of observations pertaining to the manufacture of cars, computers and houses.

    Fuck you asshole, you lose, again, as usual.

    BTW, moron, you would have to apply your "formula" to every component, every alloy and the final configuration.

    However seeing tat we have thousands, if not millions, of verified observations that confirm my point, you are a loser.

     
  • At 2:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How do I know I know more about science than you? Your posts.

     
  • At 3:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    One of the most difficult aspects of the rule of succession is not the mathematical formulas, but answering the question: When does the rule of succession apply? In the generalisation section, it was noted very explicitly by adding the prior information Im into the calculations. Thus when all that is known about a phenomenon is that there are m outcomes which are known to be possible prior to observing any data, then and only then, does the rule of succession apply. If the rule of succession is applied in problems where this does not accurately describe the prior state of knowledge, then it may give counter-intuitive results. This is not because the rule of succession is defective, but that it is effectively answering a different question, based on different prior information.

    And this is where RichTard comes in...

     
  • At 3:19 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    which brings us back to induction (which joe doesn't understand).

    " Thus when all that is known about a phenomenon is that there are m outcomes which are known to be possible prior to observing any data, then and only then, does the rule of succession apply"

    which is precisely what is happening, both for the outcomes themselves and the priors (UoN), for example.

     
  • At 3:22 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Let's see- we have many thousands, if not millions of observations pertaining to the manufacture of cars, computers and houses"

    So plug those in - doyou get P=1. No?

    So, erm, "Fuck you asshole, you lose, again, as usual."

    "BTW, moron, you would have to apply your "formula" to every component, every alloy and the final configuration."

    Okay do that. Can you ever get P=1? No.
    "However seeing tat we have thousands, if not millions, of verified observations that confirm my point, you are a loser."

    *points and laughs*

    There is no math where P=1, Joe. That's the point, and why science is tentative.

    I-D-I-O-T

     
  • At 3:25 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Even the bomb gets it, before Joe:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjGRySVyTDk

     
  • At 3:55 PM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    joe said to Rich:

    "How do I know I know more about science than you? Your posts."

    Don't you have to be in the same room with Rich and take a test? LOL

    Why are you blocking some of my comments, joe? Are you afraid of the truth?

     
  • At 4:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard you fucking pathetic imp- your formulas do not apply- the rules of succesion do not apply.

    Yes, absolutely we can have P=1 and therefor P=0. That is because in at least some circumastances there is one and only one possible explanation.

    Again not that you can grasp that.

     
  • At 4:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard and TWiT-

    How to support evotardism

     
  • At 4:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    There is no math where P=1, Joe.

    Yes there is.

    If 2P=2 then P=1

     
  • At 11:46 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "If 2P=2 then P=1"

    I thought we were talking about probabilities. Oh, we are. day focused, I know you get confused easily.

    "That is because in at least some circumastances there is one and only one possible explanation."

    Because your limited self can only think of 1, doesn't mean there is only 1. But feel free to offer an example.

     
  • At 7:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard you fucking pathetic imp- your formulas do not apply- the rules of succesion do not apply.

    Yes, absolutely we can have P=1 and therefor P=0. That is because in at least some circumastances there is one and only one possible explanation.

    Again not that you can grasp that.


    Not only that you were misusing it.

    "That is because in at least some circumastances there is one and only one possible explanation."

    Because your limited self can only think of 1, doesn't mean there is only 1.

    No you fucktard. Imagination is not evidence and just because someone can think of something tat doesn't mean anything to science.

     
  • At 11:53 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe asserts, baldly:

    "Richtard you fucking pathetic imp- your formulas do not apply- the rules of succesion do not apply."

    Wrong.

    Me: "But feel free to offer an example."

    Tard: silence on this matter.

    Induction is a bitch, Joe. Smarter minds than yours have know with for millennia.

     
  • At 12:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard,

    The wikipedia article said it doesn't apply because it A) only applies when there are a FEW observations and B)If the rule of succession is applied in problems where this does not accurately describe the prior state of knowledge, then it may give counter-intuitive results. This is not because the rule of succession is defective, but that it is effectively answering a different question, based on different prior information.

    As for examples I gave you three already, dumbass. Ignorance on your part does not = silence on mine.

     
  • At 12:26 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Let's examine your priors.

    How do you know (with p=1 confidence) that "p=0 for chance producing my house, car and computer"?

    Have you ever been mistaken? Lied to? misinterpreted things? How do you know, with p=1 certaintity, that you're not in a simulation right now? etc etc etc.

     
  • At 12:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Let's examine Richtard's priors- lies, lies and more damn lies, followed up with bald assertion after bald assertion with false accusations thrown in for good measure.

    Yup you are a fucking retarded liar Rich.

     
  • At 2:21 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe goes for a dodge, because he knows he's been found out again. Looks like your p=1, isn't, Joe.

    Joe = opinion on everything, knows nothing.

     
  • At 2:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yup I found out that you don't have any basis for any of your claims in this thread.

    Your pretentious bullshit doesn't fly here Rich.

    I can't even give you credit for trying.

     
  • At 2:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To recap- RichTard links to a wikipedia article which says the equation it contains is only used when there are a few observations.

    I give examples that include thousands upon millions of observations which means the equation does not apply.

    RichTard throws his usual distracting hissy-fit and blusters on, unphased.

     
  • At 2:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard- the official finder outer of things.....


    BWAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA


    Is that your job-title?

     
  • At 2:53 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I give examples that include thousands upon millions of observations which means the equation does not apply."

    Utter, unfounded rubbish. The article puts no maximum nor minimum on N, and even talks about 'sunrises' as an example. Joe, you've been caught with your pants down talking gibberish again.

     
  • At 3:06 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    'pretentious bullshit' = well accepted mathematical construct. I suppose that's par for the course in JoeLand.

    Even science denies absolute certainty, but Creationist Joe has P=1 readily available to him, just like in the holy book.

     
  • At 5:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey faggot-

    The formula is still used, particularly to estimate underlying probabilities when there are few observations, or for events which have not been observed to occur at all in (finite) sample data.

    1- FEW observations

    and

    2- You need to demonstrate there are underlying probabilities

    and

    3- Had you bothered to read the article it tells us that the sunrise problem was never a problem and the equation does not apply

    IOW thank you for continuing to prove that you are an ignorant asshole.

     
  • At 5:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Laplace used the rule of succession to calculate the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow, given that it has risen every day for the past 5000 years. One obtains a very large factor of approximately 5000 × 365.25, which gives odds of 1826250:1 in favour of the sun rising tomorrow.

    However, as the mathematical details below show, the basic assumption for using the rule of succession would be that we have no prior knowledge about the question whether the sun will or will not rise tomorrow, except that it can do either. This assumption is of course complete nonsense if we are talking about sunrises!

    Laplace knew this well, and himself wrote to conclude the sunrise example: “But this number is far greater for him who, seeing in the totality of phenomena the principle regulating the days and seasons, realises that nothing at the present moment can arrest the course of it.” Yet Laplace was ridiculed for this calculation; his opponents gave no heed to that sentence, or failed to understand its importance.

     
  • At 5:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    'pretentious bullshit' = well accepted mathematical construct.

    Accepted by who and for what?

    Even science denies absolute certainty,

    Math doesn't. And scientists seem to be certain that the laws of nature cannot be violated.

     
  • At 8:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Laplace used the rule of succession to calculate the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow, given that it has risen every day for the past 5000 years.

    Only 5000 years?

    Imagine the evotardgasms had I referenced that...

     
  • At 10:09 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "'pretentious bullshit' = well accepted mathematical construct.

    Accepted by who and for what?"

    Scientists, probability.

    "Math doesn't."

    Math is an abstraction, and to use it in real life, on needs measurements. But nice goalpost move from 'science' to 'math'

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=laplace+probability&as_sdt=0%2C14&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

    "Imagine the evotardgasms had I referenced that..." Not at all - it doesn't help P=1 one iota.

    "3- Had you bothered to read the article it tells us that the sunrise problem was never a problem and the equation does not apply"

    You clearly don't understand what is written.

    Again Joe, how do you know that you're REALLY seeing sunrises? With total (p=1), confidence? Isn't that itself predicated on some assumptions?

    Your worse at philosophy than you are at math, which you're worse at then science, which you're not very good at.

     
  • At 10:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Your worse at philosophy than you are at math, which you're worse at then science, which you're not very good at.

    Coming from you that means I excel at all of the above.

    Thank you.

    And fuck you as you clearly do not understand what was written.

    But thanks for supporting 5000 years of sunrises you closet YEC.

    I am still waiting for you to demonstrate the equations apply to my house, my computer and my cars. wikipedia doesn't help you in that regard. And you are bastardizing that article anyway...

     
  • At 10:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "'pretentious bullshit' = well accepted mathematical construct.

    Accepted by who and for what?"

    Scientists, probability.

    Unfortunately you couldn't find any scientist that would even consider using that equation for the examples provided in a peer-reviewed setting.

    Bluffing faggot outed again...

     
  • At 11:18 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    Hey joe-boi, can you point me to anything you've ever authored that is in a peer reviewed setting?

    joe-boi barfed without thinking: "Yes I know the math but until the rubber meets the road the math is worthless- that means the math needs some confirming evidence from the real world."

    http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=17489641&postID=7060536778576727563

    That works both ways, joe-boi. Where's your confirming evidence (peer reviewed of course) from the real world for ANY of your claims?

     
  • At 11:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey dipshit TWiT- the evidence for ID is in peer-review and textbooks.

    Go figure....

     
  • At 11:57 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Unfortunately you couldn't find any scientist that would even consider using that equation for the examples provided in a peer-reviewed setting."

    Fancy me not finding scientists using your creationist specific examples in their own peer reviewed work. Shocking.

    Goodness you are dense. It's established math, Joe. Get over it!

    "Hey dipshit TWiT- the evidence for ID is in peer-review and textbooks."

    Oh that is pricessless. Reality misses you, Joe.

     
  • At 12:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    Fancy me not finding scientists using your creationist specific examples in their own peer reviewed work.

    My examples have nothing to do with being a creationist and you are the one who said the equation aplies yet can't find anyone to agree with you.

    And no there isn't any established math that demonstrates there is a probability of my house arising by chance- you are a liar and a moron.

    and yes the evidence for ID is in peer-review- ATP synthase is in peer-review; the ribosome is in peer-review; flagella are in peer-review

    Your ignporance is entertaining though...

     
  • At 2:41 PM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    You need some new material, joe. A brain and a new personality would do you good too.

     
  • At 2:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thank you- coming from a brain-less and spineless imp like you that means something...

     
  • At 3:26 PM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    Everything you push is about your religious belief in creation, joe.

    Your words:

    "The design inference has ALWAYS been about the origin of living organisms- always."

    "ID is primarily concerned with ORIGINS"

    "Baraminology can support theor points of origin whereas your position cannot."

    "Umm Biblical passages are supposed to be actual historical events. Obviously you are too stupid to understand that."

    "The Bible is supposed to depict actual historical events- period. thta is how it was written- as an actual historical account of past events."

    "Nature could not have originated via natural processes."

    "The design is here in this universe and can be studied. That the data will lead to the non or super natural is inevitable."

    "Natural processes only exist in nature and cannot account for its origins. And science says it had an origin- meaning something CREATED it-

    Creation has a specific definition and is based on the Bible"

    "Deal with it. Atheism sucks, grow out of it..."

    "I told you you ignorant fuck- the artist was not present when Adam was Created and never saw God Creating Adam."

    "Baraminology is real science."

    "I am still waiting for some atheistic nut-job to try to stop my Intelligent Design Awareness Day."

    "Creationists come in many denominations. I happen to be a Muslim who is not a follower of the Nation of Islam. I know of Hindu Creationists. Islam, Judaism, and Christiantity all share Abraham and they all share Genesis."

     
  • At 3:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    TWiT:
    Everything you push is about your religious belief in creation, joe.

    In your itty-bitty mind, maybe.

    I could easily say the same about you- you have a relgious belief in a creation myth- dumbass...

     
  • At 5:00 PM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    No, joe. I don't have a religious belief in a creation myth. Ya see, unlike you I'll admit that I don't know how life originated, and I don't need to imagine or believe in a supernatural sky daddy designer/creator god. I'm content with waiting to see what science figures out.

    You say that ID has always been about the origin of life, yet you constantly attack the ToE, which has nothing to do with the origin of life and you, like the other IDiots, use the so-called ID inference as the basis for those attacks.

    Your words (and there are others just like them):

    "Darwinian evolution does NOT apply to the origin of life"

    Since, according to you, ID is about the origin of life, and the ToE is not, why do you use the so-called ID inference against the ToE?

     
  • At 5:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If the ToE is silent on the origin of life then it has nothing to say about any subsequent evolution as the two are directly linked.

    If living organisms are designed then the inference is they were also designed to evolve with stochastic processes being a very minor player.

    BTW science is figuring out that there is no way chance created living organisms and no to stochastic processes.

    Not only that science says that nature had a beginning and seeing that natural processes only exist in nature, natural processes cannot be responsible for its origins.

    IOW assface you are just shit out of luck.

     
  • At 5:47 PM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    That was an entertaining, incorrect, and dishonest little dance you did there, joe, but, as usual, your own words always come back to ruin you.

    By the way, without gravity there would have been no origin of life or evolution of life on Earth, so I guess the the ToE should be required to explain gravity, or any theory of gravity should be required to explain the origin and evolution of life, eh? There's no point in having separate theories, is there?

    Oh, and since the guy named adam in the bible was allegedly created from clay, which would make them directly linked, can you explain, scientifically, the origin of that particular clay and the process that was used to turn it into a human?

     
  • At 6:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Unfortunately for you what I said is true. The ONLY reason to infer evolution is via stochastic processes is if the OoL was via stochastic processes.

    What your saying is that although a car is designed how it operates is just by stochastic processes.

    Bullshit, cars operate how they are designed to operate.

    BTW the ONLY reason there are separate theories is no one knows about the OoL. So the high priests of evotards did the prpaganda and is was bought by all evotards- two separate theories will save us and no one will notice but if someone does we will attack them because we sure as hell can't do anything else like employ logic or evidence.

    Not that you will grasp any of that.

    If the ToE doesn't say anything about the OoL then A) it cannot say how many trees there will be (#trees depends on the #seeds) and B) should be OK with baraminology because that is one basic difference.

    But again yoiu are too retarded to understand any of that and that is why you have to hide behind an anonymous TWiT of a name.

     
  • At 7:04 PM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    I see that you're still dancing, joe.

    Since the so-called ID inference is only concerned with the origin of life, what is the god based inference for the diversity and distribution of life after the origin? Is it baraminology? If so, then why do you IDiots use the so-called ID inference instead of baraminology to argue against the ToE?

    And why is there one god based inference (ID) for the origin of life, and another (baraminology) for the diversification and distribution of life?

     
  • At 7:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I see you are still too stupid to understand anything.

    TWiT:
    Since the so-called ID inference is only concerned with the origin of life, what is the god based inference for the diversity and distribution of life after the origin?

    Since the design inference doesn't require god you are a fucking moron.

    And one more time seeing that you are too fucking stupid to understand the other thousand times i have explained it to you-

    ID argues against the premise that stochastic processes can A) account for the origin of living organisms and B) can account for the diversity of living organisms starting from some unknown population(s) of prokaryotic-like organisms.

    And why is there one god based inference (ID) for the origin of life, and another (baraminology) for the diversification and distribution of life?

    Is there?

    Why are you such a clueless and ignorant coward?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home