Evolutionists slip up...AGAIN.

Quote from Ricter:

To borrow from Paulos... a thought

If a thousand people flip a coin, and we ask all those who got tails (pun intended) to step aside, and then asked the remaining 500 or so to flip again, once again asking those who got tails to step aside, and continued this process until there was one guy left who has flipped heads every time, would we suspect his coin was flawed?
More...

If everyone flipping the coin flipped heads a billion times in a row would you suspect the coin is flawed?

By the way - I am not taking any stand on this argument with respect to biology...

I am pointing out the flaws of the coin flip analogy .

This coin flip aanlogy is used by many to argue the markets are random and to argue against some of the conclusions reached by scientist considering the anthropic principle.

Just because something only has two possible outcomes does not mean the outcomes you observed were created by chance.

Is it chance that Federer wins so many finals?

Yet there was a stats professor and more than a few of ets big liberals telling me I did not understand stats.
I told them they were misapplying the null hypothesis.

Just because you can produce of 7 heads in a row does not mean that the result of a trial of binary results could have happened by chance.

The majority of smart people seem to misapply stats to trading and life.

Federrer has not won grand slam finals by chance.

If you wish to keep the trials shorter I am very comfortable saying Nadal has not won his finals at roland garros by chance either.

Yet clowns will tell you that random chance can results in 4 head in a row.

If gs goes down 4 days in a row after a judge says they have to return all the money they pillaged... would that be a random result?

Yet most of the people who are academics who do not make money trading will tell you the markets are random?
 
I don't get academics, never liked them, they never liked me actually... I had a science teacher in High School that one day, when I was out, he took half the class time ranting to the class about how much he didn't like me!! I could do high speed math better than he could, understood all the material and he gave me a D!!

Academics have come on this site with all sorts of proof that trading is impossible, serious ones, not making this up... on a site that is funded by guys that made $100,000,000 in the trading business, by training traders to be winning traders!!

I just don't see the need to apologize to them if I don't have their world view. Mine fits the evidence, theirs doesn't and they can all go have a big circle jerk for all I care...
 
evolutionists never slip up, they create models and may the best model win out, for the moment.

work in progress thank god for none are privy to the "truth absolute". NO ONE :D
 
So, because some traders are profitable, and because a high school science teacher didn't like maxpi, the coin flip analogy is untrue, that is, we shouldn't expect chance alone to produce an "improbable" event, like a coin flipping heads ten times in a row?

My reply and use of the analogy was not about trading. Believe it or not, it was directed at, look up... can you see it? see the title of the thread up there?
 
attachment.php
 

Attachments

Quote from maxpi:

I don't get academics, never liked them, they never liked me actually... I had a science teacher in High School that one day, when I was out, he took half the class time ranting to the class about how much he didn't like me!! I could do high speed math better than he could, understood all the material and he gave me a D!!
More...

This is quite telling actually. Thank you for honestly divulging of your background.

Academics have come on this site with all sorts of proof that trading is impossible, serious ones, not making this up... on a site that is funded by guys that made $100,000,000 in the trading business, by training traders to be winning traders!!
More...


Point taken. However, they are correct in the grand majority of cases when it comes to traders. Or I should say, the majority of traders failing is sort of a self fulfilling prophecy. That a few traders find a way to beat the odds does not make the academics wrong. It just means the academics need to adjust their theory to properly account for the anomalous few.

I just don't see the need to apologize to them if I don't have their world view. Mine fits the evidence, theirs doesn't and they can all go have a big circle jerk for all I care...
More...

Just keep in mind that you're curve fitting "evidence" to support your interpretation of the Bible or Torah when in fact both books support alternate interpretations that actually validate evolution and an old universe/old earth.

Whereas in science, evidence dictates far more often than not. Of course there is an element of curve fitting. But that can only go on for so long because scientists are inevitably forced into a situation where things do fit properly along the curve.

I still recommend you take the time to not only learn about what biological evolution actually is and isn't, but now also recommend that you learn about radiological dating methods, and astronomy. Also that you take a harder look at Genesis.
 
Quote from Ricter:

To borrow from Paulos... a thought

If a thousand people flip a coin, and we ask all those who got tails (pun intended) to step aside, and then asked the remaining 500 or so to flip again, once again asking those who got tails to step aside, and continued this process until there was one guy left who has flipped heads every time, would we suspect his coin was flawed?
More...

Is that a joke? Surely its not math or probability. Thats a pretty self serving anology, it is FAR more likely that in said scenario we would never see one flipper standing alone at the end of the game, or maybe one flipper remains but we have only had four or five tosses.

Evolution or not I just don't think the analogy fits. And its unfair for him to use it knowing people are so easily swayed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top