See my point? Their ID theory has one purpose, that is to oppose evolution. There is no way you can convince them that in fact, evolution could quite possibly be what the Creator used/is using.
Evidence of evolution: Sex ratio as a function of male competition
- Thread starter james_bond_3rd
- Start date
No, your conclusion incorrect.
I am not opposed to evolution, if it is factual. If it is factual, there would be no way to actually oppose it.
Have not seen any facts yet, just theory based on a first assumption (not proved) of random ignorant chance...with no manner to prove it. I have also never seen what would be necessary to logically rule out design. So if you can't rule out design on a logical basis, then any assumption of non design is not really based in logic, rather in a predisposition which is anti design.
Take away the assumptions of random ignorant chance that cannot be verified or proved in any manner, and Darwinism as it is expressed by the ET members falls flat on its face...
Oh, and I see how you couldn't come up with any other words to describe the opposite of ID...
I am not opposed to evolution, if it is factual. If it is factual, there would be no way to actually oppose it.
Have not seen any facts yet, just theory based on a first assumption (not proved) of random ignorant chance...with no manner to prove it. I have also never seen what would be necessary to logically rule out design. So if you can't rule out design on a logical basis, then any assumption of non design is not really based in logic, rather in a predisposition which is anti design.
Take away the assumptions of random ignorant chance that cannot be verified or proved in any manner, and Darwinism as it is expressed by the ET members falls flat on its face...
Oh, and I see how you couldn't come up with any other words to describe the opposite of ID...
You can't see the fact even when the fact slaps you right in the face.
After bond had been acting like he was a Professor -- I cited him to an authority.
Quote from jem:
I will desist from embarassing you on this subject unless you attempt another cheap shot.
Just remember you could not have been more wrong.
Quote from bond
I admit that I was confused by what I consider to be proper definition of null hypothesis and what is generally accepted way of setting up and testing null hypothesis. My definition is more stricter than the usual definition but I often forget that.
Now remember Bond is the same idiot who now makes accusations without backing them up. He is a liar.
Quote from jem:
I will desist from embarassing you on this subject unless you attempt another cheap shot.
Just remember you could not have been more wrong.
Quote from bond
I admit that I was confused by what I consider to be proper definition of null hypothesis and what is generally accepted way of setting up and testing null hypothesis. My definition is more stricter than the usual definition but I often forget that.
Now remember Bond is the same idiot who now makes accusations without backing them up. He is a liar.
Non responsive.
I gave you the benefit of doubt, and didn't want to continue arguing on what I considered to be an issue unrelated to the main discussion. Note how conveniently you reversed the order of the two posts in your quote. You thought you were victorious when you appealed to a website and I stopped arguing with you (and in fact gracefully gave you credit). If you really want to debate it, answer my question in this post:
You don't know statistics, you don't know what a null hypothesis is. Since you don't want the credit, then answer this question,
What do you think is the correct definition of a null hypothesis?
It has been my claim all along that you know nothing about null hypothesis. Prove me wrong.
Now he has another authority to appeal to.
You are embarassed now. You were schooled during our exchange by a guy who only had two semesters of stats in college.
The problem for you was that I understand probabilities and you manifested a facility with statistical definitions but an ignorance of the practical application of probabilities and logic.
Independent of your lack of understanding of probabilities you got all confused about the null hypothesis.
You thought you were setting me up but instead your arrogance tripped you up.
Like you I am arrogant -- however i am just a little smarter therefore I understand probablities and I can understand physics professors.