METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
- Status
sentientsynth
New member
fool,
Your "chewbacca defense" won't work on me.
McCain? NO
McCann? Yes
SS
Your "chewbacca defense" won't work on me.
McCain? NO
McCann? Yes
SS
sentientsynth
New member
SUTG said:
SS: 2
fool:1
SUTG
New member
sentientsynth said:
Yeah. To quote bob from earlier in the thread, I think someone "missed the forest for the trees." :chuckle:
To be honest, I don't know squat about Biology...but I think this analogy could be granted. But I'll bet the probablilites would be different for the creation of the good word and the creation of the good protein sequence.
But just choosing random groups of letters leaves out one of the most critical and important parts of the "random mutations plus natural selection" - the natural selection!
sentientsynth
New member
SUTG said:
It's so much more complex, it's unfathomable (to me, at least.) I think this could hold as a rather loose analogy, though I wouldn't push it too far.
I think the qualification of "good" is roughly analogous to being naturally selected.
About the math, wouldn't you have to do it on a word by word basis, especially for the larger words?
SS
sentientsynth
New member
sentientsynth
New member
:darwinsm:
sentientsynth said:
This is the first posting I have seen which takes the example seriously. This is undoubtedly because it comes from a believer. Believers like you see things that are hidden from unbelievers. For example, one level and one "snare".
The example seems to be a "parable" which has multiple levels of meaning plus a number of snares for unbelievers, some of which are only slowly becoming apparent to me.
The concept is probably not from me, because it simply "popped" into existence as I was in a semi-dreamlike state following the alarm going off and my drifting back into oblivion.
bob b said:
Is this the "Become a believer and all will be revealed to you" spiel? Can anyone think of a 4 lette word---CULT---perhaps?
The KoolAid is available at bob b's house. The space ships are coming next week so drink up now.
And who is doing the hiding? Is that God's plan.
bob b what have you been smoking?
Pardon me if I bail from this thread.
SUTG said:
Are you referring to the fact that I carelessly entered an extra digit on the calculator while doing the six-letter example or perhaps to the fact that p is not strictly the probability as stated in the preamble to the example?
As far as the parable is concerned, these are minor details having very little to do with the point of the parable or even the detailed example for that matter.
"For some can not see the forest because all those pesky trees get in the way of the view."
"And why do you look at the splinter in your brother’s eye, and not notice the beam which is in your own eye? Matt 7:3 "
What a creationist idiot! Did you ever take a ruler and measure the size of an eye and then the size of a wooden beam? Check your math buddy.
Last edited:
SUTG
New member
bob b said:
Ding, Ding, Ding!!! I think we have a winner!
Although why understate it by saying that p is not "strictly" the probability as stated in the preamble? You made a rudimentary probability error, and I stepped in to Truthsmack you silly.
If you can't even understand the basic problem you posed in the preamble, you'll never understand the Theory of Evolution.
Things like this leave me frustratingly speechless.
SS said, "I think this could hold as a rather loose analogy, though I wouldn't push it too far
I think the qualification of "good" is roughly analogous to being naturally selected. " I just chose not to fluff your ego and told you straight up that it was a wretched analogy.
It's funny how you compare your parables to Christ's parables. Christ's parables had a different purpose. They taught ideas where the details of who and what don't matter. Unfortunately, when you're trying to make a scientific point, you're not afforded the same luxury. So while you may feel you're the creationist messiah preaching to us heathen evolutionists using cryptographic parables and then berating us for pointing out that you're analogy is flawed, the rest of us are marvelling at the lengths to which deliberate ignorance and intellectual prostitution can drive a man.
You can't tell us what heavenly revelation your analogy is supposed to be reveal because you know that it will fall apart upon cursory examination. I am quite willing to accept that you are already well aware of the shortcomings of this analogy, but like Bob Enyart, this does not concern you. Instead, you will simply pretend that only believers in creationism can get your point. On this matter I will agree with you. Only someone who is as scientifically incompetent as a young earth creationist would be willing to overlook such a flawed analogy. Don't blame the rest of us for our intellectual standards. I must bow out of this thread. I think I've said enough.
Johnny said:
Don't leave.
I'm interested in why you think it is an analogy, what it might be comparing and why you think it is flawed.
BTW I fixed my calculator misstep in the six letter case in my first posting which started this thread.
It doesn't affect the point that was being made at all, of course. Too bad so few ( if any) get the point of the "parable". :bang:
Last edited:
- Status