Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Joe G.'s Tardgasm

Pages: (919) < ... 307 308 309 310 311 [312] 313 314 315 316 317 ... >

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,13:45    bumpy -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,13:46    Quote (JonF @ June 24 2015,13:45) Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,14:24) Something that is impossible doesn't have a chance, nor a likelihood. Something that is impossible does not fit in the definitions of probability provided by JonF. Um, yes, it does. As I posted from M-W.  And as you posted: https://www.mathsisfun.com/definit....ty.html[/quote] "Probability is the chance that something will happen - how likely it is that some event will happen. Sometimes you can measure a probability with a number like "10% chance of rain", or you can use words such as impossible, unlikely, possible, even chance, likely and certain."  I.e between zero and one inclusive, and zero is a valid probability.           Quote http://home.avvanta.com/~math......ability "Probability is the measure of the likeliness that an event will occur.[1] Probability is quantified as a number between 0 and 1 (where 0 indicates impossibility and 1 indicates certainty)." I.e between zero and one inclusive, and zero is a valid probability.       Quote URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ability[/URL] "Probability is the likelihood of something happening in the future. It is expressed as a number between zero (can never happen) to 1 (will always happen)." I.e between zero and one inclusive, and zero is a valid probability. You just refuse to read what I actually post. Either that or you are just an imbecile. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,13:47    Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,14:26) Quote 1. the chance that something will happen 2. something that has a chance of happening 3. a measure of how often a particular event will happen if something (such as tossing a coin) is done repeatedly Impossible things do not fit any of those. 1- Impossible things do not have a chance they will happen 2- Impossible things do have a chance of happening 3- we cannot measure impossible things let alone repeat them Yeah, you keep claiming that.  And all the definitions and references you and I have posted refute those claims. As your own references said, probability zero = impossible. Impsossible things do have a chance of happening, it's zero.  No chance I find your point three especially amusing, albeit totally irrelevant.

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,13:47    0 and 1 are not probabilities -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,13:49    Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,14:46)   Quote (JonF @ June 24 2015,13:45)   Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,14:24) Something that is impossible doesn't have a chance, nor a likelihood. Something that is impossible does not fit in the definitions of probability provided by JonF. Um, yes, it does. As I posted from M-W.  And as you posted: https://www.mathsisfun.com/definit....ty.html "Probability is the chance that something will happen - how likely it is that some event will happen. Sometimes you can measure a probability with a number like "10% chance of rain", or you can use words such as impossible, unlikely, possible, even chance, likely and certain."  I.e between zero and one inclusive, and zero is a valid probability.             Quote http://home.avvanta.com/~math......ability "Probability is the measure of the likeliness that an event will occur.[1] Probability is quantified as a number between 0 and 1 (where 0 indicates impossibility and 1 indicates certainty)." I.e between zero and one inclusive, and zero is a valid probability.           Quote URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ability[/URL] "Probability is the likelihood of something happening in the future. It is expressed as a number between zero (can never happen) to 1 (will always happen)." I.e between zero and one inclusive, and zero is a valid probability. You just refuse to read what I actually post. Either that or you are just an imbecile.[/quote] You psted links., I read 'em. Just can't stand that you linked to four definitions of probability and each one refuted your claims, hum? Are you foaming at the mouth yet? What's your estimate of how often you'll have to repeat your idiocy before it becomes true?

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,13:49    Quote (JonF @ June 24 2015,13:47) Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,14:26) Quote 1. the chance that something will happen 2. something that has a chance of happening 3. a measure of how often a particular event will happen if something (such as tossing a coin) is done repeatedly Impossible things do not fit any of those. 1- Impossible things do not have a chance they will happen 2- Impossible things do have a chance of happening 3- we cannot measure impossible things let alone repeat them Yeah, you keep claiming that.  And all the definitions and references you and I have posted refute those claims. As your own references said, probability zero = impossible. Impsossible things do have a chance of happening, it's zero.  No chance I find your point three especially amusing, albeit totally irrelevant. Impossible things don't have a chance. Probability theory assigns that a value of 0 but it also says that zero probability and impossible are not the same thing. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,13:50    Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,13:41) There is a difference between impossibility and mere zero probability Please, explain in detail. Here's what Joey is doing. 1 meter = 1 second but 0 =/= 0 >!??!?! -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,13:52    Quote (OgreMkV @ June 24 2015,13:50) Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,13:41) There is a difference between impossibility and mere zero probability Please, explain in detail. Here's what Joey is doing. 1 meter = 1 second but 0 =/= 0 >!??!?! Fuck you, Kevin. I posted the link to zero probability, read it, asshole. You can also search on those terms "the difference between impossible and zero probability" -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,13:53    Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,14:49) Quote (JonF @ June 24 2015,13:47) Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,14:26)   Quote 1. the chance that something will happen 2. something that has a chance of happening 3. a measure of how often a particular event will happen if something (such as tossing a coin) is done repeatedly Impossible things do not fit any of those. 1- Impossible things do not have a chance they will happen 2- Impossible things do have a chance of happening 3- we cannot measure impossible things let alone repeat them Yeah, you keep claiming that.  And all the definitions and references you and I have posted refute those claims. As your own references said, probability zero = impossible. Impsossible things do have a chance of happening, it's zero.  No chance I find your point three especially amusing, albeit totally irrelevant. Impossible things don't have a chance. Probability theory assigns that a value of 0 but it also says that zero probability and impossible are not the same thing. Except,of course, for all the definitions and referenced you and I and others have dug up.  You linked to an interesting argument at http://lesswrong.com/lw....ilities but it has to do with Bayesian arguments and mathematical manipulations.  You just read the headline.

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,13:53    Quote There is a difference between an event that "will never occur" and one that "has a zero probability of occurring." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki....ability -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,13:54    Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,14:53) Quote There is a difference between an event that "will never occur" and one that "has a zero probability of occurring." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki.......ability Why are they a reliable source?

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,13:55    Quote (JonF @ June 24 2015,13:53) Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,14:49) Quote (JonF @ June 24 2015,13:47)   Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,14:26)   Quote 1. the chance that something will happen 2. something that has a chance of happening 3. a measure of how often a particular event will happen if something (such as tossing a coin) is done repeatedly Impossible things do not fit any of those. 1- Impossible things do not have a chance they will happen 2- Impossible things do have a chance of happening 3- we cannot measure impossible things let alone repeat them Yeah, you keep claiming that.  And all the definitions and references you and I have posted refute those claims. As your own references said, probability zero = impossible. Impsossible things do have a chance of happening, it's zero.  No chance I find your point three especially amusing, albeit totally irrelevant. Impossible things don't have a chance. Probability theory assigns that a value of 0 but it also says that zero probability and impossible are not the same thing. Except,of course, for all the definitions and referenced you and I and others have dug up.  You linked to an interesting argument at http://lesswrong.com/lw....i....ilities but it has to do with Bayesian arguments and mathematical manipulations.  You just read the headline. YOUR references support me. That alone should tell you there isn't an easy answer and it is debateable. But no, you need a "win" so desperately you will do anything. I can't wait for the mathematical proof that the impossible has a chance. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,13:56    Quote (JonF @ June 24 2015,13:54) Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,14:53) Quote There is a difference between an event that "will never occur" and one that "has a zero probability of occurring." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki.......ability Why are they a reliable source? Well it should be for you as it is your bible- that and wikipedia. It is referenced -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,13:57    Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,10:10)   Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 23 2015,14:07)   Quote (Joe G @ June 23 2015,12:20)     Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 23 2015,10:38)       Quote "Between" has a specific meaning. Like claiming ID as scientific then also admitting to be a YEC? That puts your lard ass between a rock and a hard place.   How many different designed, er, Designed "kinds" are there Chubs? ID is scientific and I never said I was a YEC. I don't accept the Bible as any sort of authority so that squashes your ignorance. Yet you claim every biological experiment ever conducted supports baraminology, which is Biblical created 'kinds" that were put on Noah's Ark. If you're such a scientific genius why don't you accept all those supposed scientific findings? Chubs logic strikes again.   Every biological experiment does support baraminology. Your ignorance means nothing. Hey Chubs, when you're done making an ass of yourself yet again over 0 doesn't equal 0, why don't you explain your YEC position that every biological experiment supports YEC baraminology.     -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,14:10    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 24 2015,13:57) Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,10:10)   Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 23 2015,14:07)     Quote (Joe G @ June 23 2015,12:20)       Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 23 2015,10:38)       Quote "Between" has a specific meaning. Like claiming ID as scientific then also admitting to be a YEC? That puts your lard ass between a rock and a hard place.  :p How many different designed, er, Designed "kinds" are there Chubs? ID is scientific and I never said I was a YEC. I don't accept the Bible as any sort of authority so that squashes your ignorance. Yet you claim every biological experiment ever conducted supports baraminology, which is Biblical created 'kinds" that were put on Noah's Ark. If you're such a scientific genius why don't you accept all those supposed scientific findings? Chubs logic strikes again.   :D Every biological experiment does support baraminology. Your ignorance means nothing. Hey Chubs, when you're done making an ass of yourself yet again over 0 doesn't equal 0, why don't you explain your YEC position that every biological experiment supports YEC baraminology. :D  :D  :D Hey Timmy, when you get finished with diddling little boys perhaps you could actually make an argument. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,14:15    Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,13:45) Quote (OgreMkV @ June 24 2015,13:43) Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,13:35)   Quote (OgreMkV @ June 24 2015,13:33)   Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,12:00)     Quote (OgreMkV @ June 24 2015,11:58)     Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,11:43) 1/T works, moron, regardless of the medium. My claim still holds- if I have the wavelength I can derive the frequency. They are two different numerical representations of the SAME wave And we've already proven, multiple times, that you can't do that. You are just too arrogant and meglomanical to see it. What is the frequency of a sound wave with a wavelength of 1 meter? No, Kevin, you are a moron who couldn't prove anything. I HAVE TO HAVE THE WAVELENGTH, MORON. Really? I gave you the wavelength... 1 meter. What you HAVE TO HAVE is the velocity of the wave... since you don't you can't derive the frequency and the frequency can vary depending on the speed of the wave in different media. Therefore, you have just shown t yourself that there is not a 1:1 correspondence between wavelength and frequency. Not to mention that they aren't even the same units (as has been mentioned to you dozens of times now), so they CANNOT be equal. Because you seem to be confused, math is done on units as well as the numbers. You can't just look at the numbers. Follow along or shut up. If you have the wavelength then you should be able to know the frequency. Asshole I don't disagree with what you say NOW. You SHOULD be able to know the frequency IF you also know the velocity. But there is no possible way (zero probability) that wavelength = frequency. "=" has a specific mathematical definition, which you have been desperately trying to change. Just say "I'm sorry, wavelength does not equal frequency, but instead velocity = wavelength * frequency" and we're all good. But you won't and that's funny. Frequency and wavelength are different numerical representations of the same wave. And that you agree with what I say NOW tells me you just started to listen. I would ask Joe about standing waves but I wouldn't want to put too much stress on the three firing brain cells that he has.

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,14:17    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ June 24 2015,14:15) Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,13:45) Quote (OgreMkV @ June 24 2015,13:43)   Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,13:35)   Quote (OgreMkV @ June 24 2015,13:33)     Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,12:00)     Quote (OgreMkV @ June 24 2015,11:58)       Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,11:43) 1/T works, moron, regardless of the medium. My claim still holds- if I have the wavelength I can derive the frequency. They are two different numerical representations of the SAME wave And we've already proven, multiple times, that you can't do that. You are just too arrogant and meglomanical to see it. What is the frequency of a sound wave with a wavelength of 1 meter? No, Kevin, you are a moron who couldn't prove anything. I HAVE TO HAVE THE WAVELENGTH, MORON. Really? I gave you the wavelength... 1 meter. What you HAVE TO HAVE is the velocity of the wave... since you don't you can't derive the frequency and the frequency can vary depending on the speed of the wave in different media. Therefore, you have just shown t yourself that there is not a 1:1 correspondence between wavelength and frequency. Not to mention that they aren't even the same units (as has been mentioned to you dozens of times now), so they CANNOT be equal. Because you seem to be confused, math is done on units as well as the numbers. You can't just look at the numbers. Follow along or shut up. If you have the wavelength then you should be able to know the frequency. Asshole I don't disagree with what you say NOW. You SHOULD be able to know the frequency IF you also know the velocity. But there is no possible way (zero probability) that wavelength = frequency. "=" has a specific mathematical definition, which you have been desperately trying to change. Just say "I'm sorry, wavelength does not equal frequency, but instead velocity = wavelength * frequency" and we're all good. But you won't and that's funny. Frequency and wavelength are different numerical representations of the same wave. And that you agree with what I say NOW tells me you just started to listen. I would ask Joe about standing waves but I wouldn't want to put too much stress on the three firing brain cells that he has. You can't even follow along... -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Woodbine Posts: 1218 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,14:20    Biggest Number in the Universe: UPDATE Scientists say: "Holy shit....it's even bigger than the last one!" Stay tuned for more dispatches from this exciting frontier.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,14:49    Quote (JonF @ June 24 2015,11:54) Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,14:53)   Quote There is a difference between an event that "will never occur" and one that "has a zero probability of occurring." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki.......ability Why are they a reliable source? It's actually not bad: Quote There is a difference between an event that "will never occur" and one that "has a zero probability of occurring. - To say that something "will never occur" means there is no option for it to occur (i.e., it is an outcome outside the random variable's set of outcomes). For example, flip a fair coin with a thickness of zero and the event that "neither heads nor tails is flipped" will never occur, since the coin only has heads or tails. - To say that something "has a zero probability of occurring" means that its probability is statistically equivalent to zero."This is seen in continuous random variables where the number of possible outcomes is uncountable. For example, if a random variable X could have as an outcome any real number between -1 and 1, the probability of any individual real-number outcome (e.g., P(X = 0)) would be an infinitesimal quantity , which is statistically equivalent to zero. But what is not explicitly stated (because it's obvious to everyone here except caekboy) is that if something is outside the set of possible outcomes, it has a probability of zero.  It's just that "probability of zero" doesn't have to mean that. And "statistically equivalent to zero" does not mean ">0", as is also obvious to the not-Joe community. Aaand... we could be heading back to set theory and infinity, so p(more lulz)~=1 -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,14:50    Quote (Woodbine @ June 24 2015,14:20) Biggest Number in the Universe: UPDATE Scientists say: "Holy shit....it's even bigger than the last one!" Stay tuned for more dispatches from this exciting frontier. Mathematicians, not scientists. Woodbine must have an epee up its whatever it has. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,14:53    Quote (JohnW @ June 24 2015,14:49) Quote (JonF @ June 24 2015,11:54)   Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,14:53)   Quote There is a difference between an event that "will never occur" and one that "has a zero probability of occurring." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki.......ability Why are they a reliable source? It's actually not bad:   Quote There is a difference between an event that "will never occur" and one that "has a zero probability of occurring. - To say that something "will never occur" means there is no option for it to occur (i.e., it is an outcome outside the random variable's set of outcomes). For example, flip a fair coin with a thickness of zero and the event that "neither heads nor tails is flipped" will never occur, since the coin only has heads or tails. - To say that something "has a zero probability of occurring" means that its probability is statistically equivalent to zero."This is seen in continuous random variables where the number of possible outcomes is uncountable. For example, if a random variable X could have as an outcome any real number between -1 and 1, the probability of any individual real-number outcome (e.g., P(X = 0)) would be an infinitesimal quantity , which is statistically equivalent to zero. But what is not explicitly stated (because it's obvious to everyone here except caekboy) is that if something is outside the set of possible outcomes, it has a probability of zero.  It's just that "probability of zero" doesn't have to mean that. And "statistically equivalent to zero" does not mean ">0", as is also obvious to the not-Joe community. Aaand... we could be heading back to set theory and infinity, so p(more lulz)~=1 1 in 10^200 is statistically equal to zero and yet also > 0. I did say "can be > 0", asshole. If something is outside the set of all possible outcomes then it doesn't have a probability. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,14:53    Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,14:10)   Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 24 2015,13:57)   Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,10:10)       Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 23 2015,14:07)       Quote (Joe G @ June 23 2015,12:20)         Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 23 2015,10:38)           Quote "Between" has a specific meaning. Like claiming ID as scientific then also admitting to be a YEC? That puts your lard ass between a rock and a hard place.   How many different designed, er, Designed "kinds" are there Chubs? ID is scientific and I never said I was a YEC. I don't accept the Bible as any sort of authority so that squashes your ignorance. Yet you claim every biological experiment ever conducted supports baraminology, which is Biblical created 'kinds" that were put on Noah's Ark. If you're such a scientific genius why don't you accept all those supposed scientific findings? Chubs logic strikes again.   Every biological experiment does support baraminology. Your ignorance means nothing. Hey Chubs, when you're done making an ass of yourself yet again over 0 doesn't equal 0, why don't you explain your YEC position that every biological experiment supports YEC baraminology.     Hey Timmy, when you get finished perhaps you could actually make an argument. But Chubs, I am making an argument.  The argument is Joe Gallien is a potty-mouthed scientifically ignorant ass who is ashamed of his YEC beliefs so he hides behind the skirts of ID. So far there's lots of positive evidence for, none against. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,14:56    Hey, Joe, check out # 7. -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,14:59    Has anyone else noticed how Joe started switching between wave and wavelength?  Do we think he's unaware of the difference or that he's trying to fool someone? -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,15:00    Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,12:53) 1 in 10^200 is statistically equal to zero and yet also > 0. I did say "can be > 0", asshole. No it isn't.  It's statistically equal to 1 in 10^200.  And we all know you said "can be >0".  That's what we're laughing at. Where did you learn mathematics, caekboy?  Have you looked into their refund policy? -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,15:04    Quote (Texas Teach @ June 24 2015,14:56) Hey, Joe, check out # 7. But Joe spells "mathematical" with a d. So the probability can't be zero.

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,15:07    Quote (JohnW @ June 24 2015,15:00) Quote (Joe G @ June 24 2015,12:53) 1 in 10^200 is statistically equal to zero and yet also > 0. I did say "can be > 0", asshole. No it isn't.  It's statistically equal to 1 in 10^200.  And we all know you said "can be >0".  That's what we're laughing at. Where did you learn mathematics, caekboy?  Have you looked into their refund policy? Johny, dumbass, it says it right there in my reference. With probability 0 can be > 0. You laugh because you are insane. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,15:08    Quote (Texas Teach @ June 24 2015,14:56) Hey, Joe, check out # 7. There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics". -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,15:09    Quote (Texas Teach @ June 24 2015,14:59) Has anyone else noticed how Joe started switching between wave and wavelength?  Do we think he's unaware of the difference or that he's trying to fool someone? A wavelength is a wave and a wave has a wavelength. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,15:11    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ June 24 2015,15:04) Quote (Texas Teach @ June 24 2015,14:56) Hey, Joe, check out # 7. But Joe spells "mathematical" with a d. So the probability can't be zero. You received a d in mathematics but only after you blew the teacher. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Pages: (919) < ... 307 308 309 310 311 [312] 313 314 315 316 317 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard