Creation vs. Evolution

Originally posted by KellyJay
If I test 10000 independent devices and plot each of them knowing
that they can either give me the results because of age or a stress
that may or may not have been applied to them, how are you going
to tell the difference between the aged and the stressed devices?
Since the results will be the same for both you are telling me that you
can still make an ...[text shortened]... promote. I
understand perfectly it is you that doesn’t seem to understand the
argument.
Kelly

Believe me I know a lot about statistics and data analysis. I know what I am talking about.
Either you have a random stressing that might happen and you can sort it out with statistics, or you must say "All have been stressed the same way, in a way we don't know how and so ALL the data can't be reliable".
But for that to happen, someone had to be stressing them on purpose in a sick twisted way.
This, assuming there is "stress", which in fact does not exist, at least in the way you think.
I hope you understand your argument about stress doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by serigado
Believe me I know a lot about statistics and data analysis. I know what I am talking about.
Either you have a random stressing that might happen and you can sort it out with statistics, or you must say "All have been stressed the same way, in a way we don't know how and so ALL the data can't be reliable".
But for that to happen, someone had to be stressin ...[text shortened]... the way you think.
I hope you understand your argument about stress doesn't make sense.

Which gets back to my bit about patience . . .

To KJ: Apparently a number of us here have some training in probability and statistics. Do us all a favor and at least read a wikipedia article on the Law of Large Numbers. It shouldn't take you too long to get the idea. Then you can come back and admit what serigado and I and others are telling you: your "stress" excuse makes absolutely no sense.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What do you mean by "running down" and "(entropy etc)"?
Or are you just being intentionally vague because you haven't got a clue what you are talking about?

twhitehead,

Is getting personal the only tactic evolutionists can employ? A shame.

Random genetic mutations only scramble gene sequences and make inorder out of order. Entropy always increases, and order always deteriorates, this is what the observable laws of physics prove (not unobservable evolutionary processes over billions of years).

Evolutionists are at a complete loss as to explain how order arose from the big bang, and how supposedly at the end of the universe the universe won't keep on going when heat death sets in.

Originally posted by csmatyi
twhitehead,

Is getting personal the only tactic evolutionists can employ? A shame.

Random genetic mutations only scramble gene sequences and make inorder out of order. Entropy always increases, and order always deteriorates, this is what the observable laws of physics prove (not unobservable evolutionary processes over billions of years).

Evolutioni ...[text shortened]... supposedly at the end of the universe the universe won't keep on going when heat death sets in.

I thought evolution was a theory dealing with changes in life forms, does it now encompass the start and end of the universe?

Originally posted by csmatyi
twhitehead,

Is getting personal the only tactic evolutionists can employ? A shame.

Random genetic mutations only scramble gene sequences and make inorder out of order. Entropy always increases, and order always deteriorates, this is what the observable laws of physics prove (not unobservable evolutionary processes over billions of years).

Evolutioni ...[text shortened]... supposedly at the end of the universe the universe won't keep on going when heat death sets in.

You are wrong, and couldn't be wronger.
Don't say something as "entropy always increases" without knowing what entropy really is.
Laws of physics prove nothing -> you are wrong again.

Evolutionism has nothing to do with big bang, and how order came is explained.

In a single post you said so many stupid things you created a stupidity black hole.
Sorry... it's my evolutionist side to get personal and insult.

Originally posted by csmatyi
Well, does this prove all of macroevolution? Why is receiving a couple of antibiotic plasmids convincing proof for the billions of years macroevolutionary process?

Please suggest a definition of macro evolution and a test that would differentiate between 'micro and macro' evolution

Originally posted by telerion
Which gets back to my bit about patience . . .

To KJ: Apparently a number of us here have some training in probability and statistics. Do us all a favor and at least read a wikipedia article on the Law of Large Numbers. It shouldn't take you too long to get the idea. Then you can come back and admit what serigado and I and others are telling you: your "stress" excuse makes absolutely no sense.

If you knew all the stresses or whatever verbiage you would like
to use to talk about all the things that our tested items have gone through,
you could claim you have all the necessary data points required to come
up with your 99.999 percent figure and be justified about it, but instead
all you really have is a feeling of "I know I'm right I cannot be wrong""
confidence.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you knew all the stresses or whatever verbiage you would like
to use to talk about all the things that our tested items have gone through,
you could claim you have all the necessary data points required to come
up with your 99.999 percent figure and be justified about it, but instead
all you really have is a feeling of "I know I'm right I cannot be wrong""
confidence.
Kelly

No. I know that your appeal to random unknown stresses with unknown and even unhypothesized effects on emprical tests can only do one of two things:

1) Bias only small samples. Over a larger number of samples the randomness would wash out (did you read about the LLN?) making these boogie-man stresses just another red herring.
2) Bias all samples in exactly the same way. If this were causing estimates for some objects in the billions of years, then we shouldn't get findings with young dates for anything. Every object tested by every method should display the bias and come out as billions of years old. Now this case doesn't exist. We know this because we have dated many things in the thousands of years. It's not worth commenting on much more, but I will point out that even if this sort of stress did exist, we could get around it. Simply by running many tests on objects for which we are fairly sure of the date (remnants from recorded ancient history for example) we could isolate just how much "stress" had altered the dates. Simply subtract that amount out from all future readings and presto!

Originally posted by csmatyi
twhitehead,

Is getting personal the only tactic evolutionists can employ? A shame.

As it turns out it was merely an accurate observation. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

Random genetic mutations only scramble gene sequences and make inorder out of order.
Not true.

Entropy always increases,
True only for a closed system.
and order always deteriorates,
Not true, even in a closed system. Entropy is not equivalent to disorder.
this is what the observable laws of physics prove
No they don't

Evolutionists are at a complete loss as to explain how order arose from the big bang,
Order arising from the big bang has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

and how supposedly at the end of the universe the universe won't keep on going when heat death sets in.
Again that has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.
I am sure that evolutionists are having a hard time finding all the digits of the square root of pi, but who cares? At least some of them know what entropy is, unlike you.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you knew all the stresses or whatever verbiage you would like
to use to talk about all the things that our tested items have gone through,
you could claim you have all the necessary data points required to come
up with your 99.999 percent figure and be justified about it, but instead
all you really have is a feeling of "I know I'm right I cannot be wrong""
confidence.
Kelly

It's nothing like "I know I'm right".
Didn't you read the arguments? Statistics can sort out your stress, EVEN if it did exist. I must not have "all the necessary data points". I only need MANY points. And scientists have miliions of points to analyze. Isn't that enough?
But according to you, how can you justify all things are right up to 5000 yrs and then suddenly all data, from 6k yrs to 4 bill yrs is wrong and must be within the >6k yrs limit?
Statistics says you are wrong. Try to educate yourself and stop justifying everything on faith. Look at the evidence! Do you think millions of scientists are all wrong and you are so right?

Originally posted by twhitehead
As it turns out it was merely an accurate observation. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

[b]Random genetic mutations only scramble gene sequences and make inorder out of order.
Not true.

Entropy always increases,
True only for a closed system.
and order always deteriorates,
Not true, even in a closed system. E ...[text shortened]... the square root of pi, but who cares? At least some of them know what entropy is, unlike you.[/b]

csmatyi is just yet more evidence of the sad state in which these Creationist conmen leave their victims. I'm sure he's got plenty more of those one line dismantlings of the TOE.

Originally posted by serigado
It's nothing like "I know I'm right".
Didn't you read the arguments? Statistics can sort out your stress, EVEN if it did exist. I must not have "all the necessary data points". I only need MANY points. And scientists have miliions of points to analyze. Isn't that enough?
But according to you, how can you justify all things are right up to 5000 yrs and the ...[text shortened]... at the evidence! Do you think millions of scientists are all wrong and you are so right?

I beg to differ, you may have many data points but if you lack
some of the necessary or important ones your out comes might be
consistent, but your conclusions in error. Besides I’d have to see
your body of work too that suggests your 99.999% error free
is an accurate assessment.

With regard to the error or the chance all dates after a certain date
are in error, you are sure what is true under these conditions? If the
universe were 2.2 billion years old, than every date after 2.2 would be
in error and the possibility of things dated earlier than 2.2 could be
off too, and you still wouldn't know that for sure. As soon as you tell
me know you ‘know’ for sure how old the earth is, you rejected all the
previous dates that were believed earlier by others, which was what
they did to those before them.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I beg to differ, you may have many data points but if you lack
some of the necessary or important ones your out comes might be
consistent, but your conclusions in error. Besides I’d have to see
your body of work too that suggests your 99.999% error free
is an accurate assessment.

With regard to the error or the chance all dates after a certain date
...[text shortened]... tes that were believed earlier by others, which was what
they did to those before them.
Kelly

I doesn't matter to have the right points! Conclusion might be in error, but they have "Error Bars". It means I estimate a date, and give it an error:
for example 100000yrs +- 20000 years.
This is a huge error, and says the date MUST be between 120000 and 80000. As you see, we don't know for sure, but we know it must be between those dates.
I may not know for sure earth is 4.7 bill yrs old, but I know for sure it's older than 6k yrs. Even admitting almost all points are wrong.
If such a huge of date were to be wrong, then if you traced a line with carbon dating method of age vs decay observed, it would NOT follow a straight line (in log scale). Guess what? It does... quite a perfect line. Strange, not?
Not you have to say all data has been messed up AND carbon dating is right up to a certain age and then suddenly starts to be wrong in such a way that the combination of both gives a straight line!!! Can you comment on this?

Originally posted by serigado
I doesn't matter to have the right points! Conclusion might be in error, but they have "Error Bars". It means I estimate a date, and give it an error:
for example 100000yrs +- 20000 years.
This is a huge error, and says the date MUST be between 120000 and 80000. As you see, we don't know for sure, but we know it must be between those dates.
I may not kno n such a way that the combination of both gives a straight line!!! Can you comment on this?

The issue you run into is that your estimated dates are built upon a model
which can give you an accurate estimation on whatever it is you attempting
to understand; however, as I am pointing out to you assumptions on all the
necessarily information means your model may be built upon something
that may not be an accurate representation of the truth. In which case your
built in approximation on what you think your errors could be due to the
outliers you are aware of will be meaningless. If you do not have a clear
grasp on the truth while building your model not only are your predictions
of the dates at fault so are your error bars.

Quite unlike manufacturing where the goal is to predict how many parts
per million will fail you don’t get to see how all the data points were
collected, so that you know they were all done the exact same way, you
don’t get to witness everything that each device in manufacturing has
gone through, so that you can have the confidence required to make an
accurate prediction, you don’t get to identify all your outliers and bring
them under close examination so that all that can be known is. You are
making an assumption plain and simple that you have all you need to
know, you ‘believe’ you are getting it right, and you cannot be shown
you are wrong. You may be right on the age, again my complaint isn’t
that I’m trying to force you into accepting what I believe to be true, my
whole point is that you cannot say what you believe is true is a fact, or
better said that it really does reflect reality as is.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The issue you run into is that your estimated dates are built upon a model
which can give you an accurate estimation on whatever it is you attempting
to understand; however, as I am pointing out to you assumptions on all the
necessarily information means your model may be built upon something
that may not be an accurate representation of the truth. In w ...[text shortened]... you believe is true is a fact, or
better said that it really does reflect reality as is.
Kelly

KJ, why do you even pretend to know what you're talking about? Just go back to "it's all faith" and be happy in your ignorance. When you try to debunk science and mathematics with cheap Creationist claptrap that you picked up in church and retreats and on the web, you look like a fool. You're trying to critique a method about which you know next to nothing. You're correcting us on how statistics works, what it is, and what it needs to function, without the slightest understanding of the process. You can't even understand our explanations!

What, besides your strong belief in a young earth, gives you the audacity to think you know even the slightest about any of this discussion?