Blackjack and Design

[crjmurray]

it doesn't matter how they veiw evolution.
what matters is why, why do these educated people say darwin needs re-evaluated?
surely it can't be "well they missed the god evidence".
do you actually believe such nonsense?


i already knew what the story was.
it's the reason i brought it up.

Bolding mine.

Well you trust second hand evidence over first hand evidence so forgive me if I don't find you in a position that is capable of judging how well evidence should be interpreted.

 

[whois]

It's an illustration of how statistics can be misunderstood. It shows why you should include as many factors as possible when examining any given statistic. No police department is campaigning against ice cream because of this correlation.

Anywhoozle, back to the point. Your source is, beyond a reasonable doubt, a creationist source. I've given you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are not a creationist.

good, because i'm not.
trust me, i can be the heathen from, uh, well i can get excited.
if there is a god, then he is most certainly ROTFL at us.

But do you honestly think a creationist source gives a good representation of what scientists actually think about the theory of evolution.

no, i don't think creation sites give a good representation of evolution.
OTOH, you must admit that if there are flaws then a creationist will spot it.
they will spot it on creationist grounds though and that is what needs to be cleared before you can use their data.

 

[whois]

Bolding mine.

Well you trust second hand evidence over first hand evidence so forgive me if I don't find you in a position that is capable of judging how well evidence should be interpreted.

is this an attempt at character assassination?
it was a simple question to you if you believed it or not.
yes or no, you can't get any simpler than that.

 

[Davian]

"NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."

Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend."

Project Steve | NCSE

 

[crjmurray]

good, because i'm not.
trust me, i can be the heathen from, uh, well i can get excited.
if there is a god, then he is most certainly ROTFL at us.
no, i don't think creation sites give a good representation of evolution.
OTOH, you must admit that if there are flaws then a creationist will spot it.
they will spot it on creationist grounds though and that is what needs to be cleared before you can use their data.

Creationist data would have to be scrutinized, analyzed and sterilized to such an extent that there is no point in using it. The little information that would be left would be worthless. I expect a creationist to find flaws with anything that disagrees with creationism. I do not expect them to have any real scientific knowledge. If anyone is going to find a legitimate flaw in evolution then it will be someone educated in and working in the field. Not some fundamentalist collecting signatures for a website that promotes biblical literalism.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Once while playing blackjack, I was dealt a pair of aces in a row. On both hands, I split the aces and was dealt a face card on each ace resulting in four blackjacks two at a time.There were multiple players at the table so calculating the odds would require a bit of time and memory. Suffice it to say, the odds of this happening are quite low. Now obviously before this, the dealer shuffled the cards and had dealt out several hands before this occurred. If we were to intricately examine the dealer shuffling and were able to count the cards as they came out we could easily see the process that led to my two lucky hands.

The above anecdote was accomplished through natural means. The dealer shuffled, cards were dealt, I got my hands.

Is there any reason to include an element of design in this scenario? In my opinion, no. It is a superfluous element since we already know or could possibly know the process of how the hands came about.

If you think that design is required in any of this, explain why.

If you don't understand blackjack, then don't even try to explain anything.

The occurrence of remarkable incidents is actually quite probable. The difficulty is to specify in advance which particular remarkable incident is going to occur.

 

[whois]

Creationist data would have to be scrutinized, analyzed and sterilized to such an extent that there is no point in using it.

some of it does.
some others can be quite valuable.

The little information that would be left would be worthless.

i would never discount evidence based solely on "it came from a creationist site"

I expect a creationist to find flaws with anything that disagrees with creationism.

the exact same thing can be said of darwinism.
ayala is what set it in stone for me.
ugly doesn't do it justice.

I do not expect them to have any real scientific knowledge.

you know, that's over the top crjmurray.

If anyone is going to find a legitimate flaw in evolution then it will be someone educated in and working in the field.

history doesn't agree.
there have been plenty of accidental inventions and discoveries.

 

[crjmurray]

The occurrence of remarkable incidents is actually quite probable. The difficulty is to specify in advance which particular remarkable incident is going to occur.

WHOOSH

 

[crjmurray]

some of it does.
some others can be quite valuable.
i would never discount evidence based solely on "it came from a creationist site"
the exact same thing can be said of darwinism.
ayala is what set it in stone for me.
ugly doesn't do it justice.
you know, that's over the top crjmurray.
history doesn't agree.
there have been plenty of accidental inventions and discoveries.

The Ayala quote that no one other than you and a handful of creationist websites think is legitimate?

 

[whois]

The Ayala quote that no one other than you and a handful of creationist websites think is legitimate?

yes.
what they don't realize though, ayala never wrote to science.
the article with the retraction is not an official document.
it did not come from science.

 

[crjmurray]

yes.
what they don't realize though, ayala never wrote to science.
the article with the retraction is not an official document.
it did not come from science.

"Article with the retraction"

What do you mean by that?

 

[whois]

"Article with the retraction"

What do you mean by that?

google for the article.
every one i can find has this "retraction" added to it.
this is not sourced from science but from NAIG instead.
the original article still resides unamended on jstor servers.

 

[crjmurray]

google for the article.
every one i can find has this "retraction" added to it.
this is not sourced from science but from NAIG instead.
the original article still resides unamended on jstor servers.

Name of the article?

 

[crjmurray]

google for the article.
every one i can find has this "retraction" added to it.
this is not sourced from science but from NAIG instead.
the original article still resides unamended on jstor servers.

I'm very confused to be honest. Everyone except this one source that you have singled out has said the quote is false. But you agree with this one single solitary source and it isn't confirmation bias? I'm supposed to ignore the guy who supposedly said this and trust you?

 

[whois]

Name of the article?

i can't remember the exact title but i believe it was evolutionary theory under fire.
Science, vol. 210 no. 4472 pp: 883-887

 

[whois]

I'm very confused to be honest. Everyone except this one source that you have singled out has said the quote is false. But you agree with this one single solitary source and it isn't confirmation bias? I'm supposed to ignore the guy who supposedly said this and trust you?

i'm not here to convince you of anything.
i'm stating the facts as i know them.

 

[crjmurray]

i'm not here to convince you of anything.
i'm stating the facts as i know them.

No you are stating one "fact" against what amounts to a tidal wave of actual facts.

 

[whois]

No you are stating one "fact" against what amounts to a tidal wave of actual facts.

i see.
carry on then.

 

[crjmurray]

"NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."

Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend."

Project Steve | NCSE

Hehehehehehe

 

[whois]

I'm very confused to be honest. Everyone except this one source that you have singled out has said the quote is false. But you agree with this one single solitary source and it isn't confirmation bias? I'm supposed to ignore the guy who supposedly said this and trust you?

you shouldn't be confused.
the answer is simply ridicule, maybe even a damaged and/or lost career.

it's definitely an ugly mess.
i don't buy evolution due to its fraudulent nature.

i'm not saying evolution isn't true, but i AM saying there is some very ugly fraud associated with it.
fraud that continues to this very day.