In this time, all told, the number of species of life scientically guestimated, to exist today, to have existed and become extinct, both flora and fauna, is approximately, about 4 billion species.
This is probably a good time to reflect over how new sub-species come to be.. And how fast it may happen, given the right spatial, social and Intellectual conditions.
Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:54 am Post subject: Re: Heated political/religious discussions
Looking at 'believers' and summazing what 'GOD' is like maybe isn't the wisest thing to do.
A local assembly (church) is like a hospital. Broken and almost destroyed 'souls' gather there. In all states of transformation and health.
So throw the GOD out with the stinky, soiled water?
By the way, good post there about the post on the shape of the world as a ball etc. The word ball was translated from the hebrew word for horizon!!! When i posted that post I wondered if anyone would check me up on that !
And if they did what would i say in reply. So here goes. ;)
Full marks! for thinking! And our forefathers did have alittle (more) time on their hands to do just that. THINK! And a thinking person with time could would look up and say, "The earth definitely has a curve to it.. by the curve in that distant 'horizon'. AND the earth is HUGE cuz it takes days even months to go to such & such a place. (e.g. wandering Jews: exodus etc etc.) And in every place i've been.. that horizon is always curved the same bend.
Soooo. heh < chuckling at myself. . . The earth must be shaped like a Ball ! ;)
David, please help me here, give me the probability of this event
To be honest I don't know the method of calculating these types of questions easily, and I don't have the time to try and figure it out ... so please explain. I enjoy learning new things
@ davidssfx
Don't take any notice of Stalky's 4 coloured ball probability ruse.
(1) Firstly, Stalky is just trying to baffle you with waffle as his example has absolutley no relevance to the laws of probabilities concerning the unscientific theory of evolution.
(2) Its just a con, in which he is trying to make you think that all the various ameno acids can only align and attach in such a way as to form a protein .
Even if that were true, it would be far more useful as evidence of a designer God, than it would be for accidental evolution
(3) If the 4 coloured balls were thrown into a bag and shaken vigorously, they woiuld not nescesarily attach to one another, so the probability of them being attached, as he said, is NOT 1/1!
The probability is ONLY 1/1 of them attaching in that order under the proviso that: THEY ALL DO ATTACH
(4) That example is probably at the limit of his grasp of understanding mathmatical probabilities
(He only knew the answer because the answer was on the page where he got the diagram )
Jounalists have more success getting straight answers from politicians than anybody can get from you
Having given you a clear and concise answer to your question, surely i could reasonably hope that you would have the common decency to reciprocate likewise.
Being a man of patience (God help me) and because longsufferring is one of the virtues called upon Christian, i will give you another chance
AT_Stalky, do you WANT or NEED, Islamic influence on your Swedish society???
Please, like i did, give a clear and direct answer, without trying to cover yourself with a smoke screen with your attacks on Christianity,
Here are your options again
As see it, you have 5 options here:
(1) You can lie and say:
"Yes, i want/need islamic influence on Swedish society"
By telling such a blatant lie you expose your total lack of integrity and everybody will know you wrote that to hide your hypocracy
(2) Be honest and say:
"No, i dont want, or need, islamic influene on Swedish society."
In which case you expose your hypocracy for berating me for writing it
(3) Never post in thread again
Which, in itself, by default, would be an admission of your hypocracy and prove that you dont have any inetegrity
(4) Contunue posting without answering.
Which proves that you dont have any inetegrity and that you are too ashamed to admit to your hypocracy.
(5) Apologise for your hypocracy and your barrage of attacks on my faith and myself
This choice would be the only option that could show that you have any integrity.
WELL STALKY...., (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5)?
THE DEFAULT ANSWER IS (4) Which is what we all expected, as that option shows the lowest level of integrity
And if you now take this same set with its 4 balls, and take them to the 2D basket in the illustration above, you ought to see that the probability becomes a sertenty that the event is happening.. Wow, we now have 4 different probabilitys, with the same balls still connecting in the same way.. ...
(3) If the 4 coloured balls were thrown into a bagand shaken vigorously, they woiuld not nescesarily attach to one another, so the probability of them being attached, as he said, is NOT 1/1!
"so the probability of them being attached, as he said, is NOT 1/1" (c) AGS....
Wow...
A bag is an 3D object….. The illustration portrays a linear situation, and a specific 2D situation….
Non of them are an unrestricted 3D situation like a "bag"....
Relax, whos counting.... whats a dimension and a restriction more or less.. ..…
Last edited by AT_Stalky on Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:07 pm; edited 4 times in total
Looking at 'believers' and summazing what 'GOD' is like maybe isn't the wisest thing to do.
A local assembly (church) is like a hospital. Broken and almost destroyed 'souls' gather there. In all states of transformation and health.
So throw the GOD out with the stinky, soiled water?
EXCELLENT POINTS!!!
Good post
We keep making this point, Christians are sinners too, we don't think we are better, we admit we are imperfect, we recognise our need for forgiveness, reconcilliation and sanctification with God's help.
As Jesus said:
"It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
(Mark 2:17)
Nice play on the: "Dont throw out the baby with the bathwater" proverb
Glad to hear you want to stop the drownings now... i guess sinking the boats wasn't such a good idea?"
UH UH, sinking their (leaky) boats while they are still in sight of the Indonesian coast is a very good idea. When they get back to shore, thanks to the Australian taxpayer funded life jackets, they can tell the rest of the potential illegals not to bother paying out for a people smuggler boat.
That will save thousands from drowning at sea as many boats just dissappear because the crappy boats crack up quickly in high seas and People Smugglers dont invest much in expendable radio equipment for one way, end of the line trips.
The People Smugglers now get their boats to send a distress signal very soon after they leave port.
As the crappy boats they buy have little chance of making it all the way to Christmas island anyway.
The idea is, get out in the sea a bit, make a distress signal, get the RAN to leave Australian waters, cross international water, enter Indonesia's sovereign waters and rescue them because the Indonesian Navy (Largest Navy in Southern Hemisphere), makes little or no effort to rescue them.
Indonesia is an Islamic nation, do you feel the love?
You say your wife had to jump through many hoops to become a legal immigrant?
What has that to do with being and asylum seeker?
Apparently the illegal immigrant asylum seekers don't have to pass the same stringent character testing that legal immigrants do.
Legal immigrants, like my wife, had to have a police clearance and multiple character references from her home country.
Illegal immigrants, who claim to be asylum seekers, only need to convince overworked immigration officials that they are asylum seekers.
Most of them turn up with little or no ID (sometimes forged by the People Smuggling Ring).
Basically, the illegal immigrants are treated as asylum seekers unless proved to be just illegal immigrants.
Thats why People Smugglers like Captain Emud can easily lie their way in.
The Department Of Immigration does not have the resources to be able to send people to every backwater province of Iraq, Iran, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Burma, Pakistan, Sudan, Ethiopia et cetera, et cetera, et detera, to check the validity of the illegal immigrant's claims.
Most often they must accept the word of officials from these countries who will often tell the DOI what they have been paid to say
Did any one ask the locals what they thought about the British boat people? (was there any checks on their moral perpetuity?
To the contrary, the first people that Britain sent to Australia had to fail a police clearance and moral codes to get a boat ticket.
Victoria, N.S.W. Tasmania were primarily convict settlement.
Only people of disrepute were sent.
South Australia was all non-convict
Show me the proof that Australia's intake of immigrants has change because of refugee's.
Our immigrant intake is set to increase because of a labour shortage caused by the mining boom.
Do you wish to argue this?"
Nope, because thats got nothing to do with my point
Since the Labor Government openned the flood gates for illegals, the percentage of legal refugee asylum seekers has gone waaaaaaaaaaay dooooowwwwwwwn and the % of illegal quazi asylum seekers has gone waaaaaaaaaay uuuuuupppppppppp!
Overall, the quality of immigrants has gone down. Not saying that all of the refugees are bad, no way!
Some refugees are absolutely GREAT PEOPLE, and you are right about those ones, they will be an asset to Australia (more often than not, these are among the few legal asylum seekers)
To quote, "Let ye without sin, cast the first stone".
Or one of my favorites for those 7th generation White Australians.. "Those that live in glass houses ought not throw stones"
Guess you must be koori, because, in this matter, i am reading a moral superiority, between the lines, or are you just as evil as my ancestors?
But your comments are irrevelent as i have never been an immigrant, i was born here and am as Australian as the dirt beneath my feet. (remember even the Koori were immigrants 40,000 years ago if you believe the guestimates of science).
i suppose now would be a good time to tell you that most of us spell asylum with one "s" and racism with one "i"."
Yeah, thanx M8
Gotta admit, i am one realy crap typist
After typing a post i preview and do some inadequate proof reading, if you think those slips are bad, you should see the see the crap the crap that i edit out.
Not just double letters, but aslo also double double words ont ot mentoin dislexic tpynig
OH, you keep using "then" when you should be using "than"
i.e When you are better than me at gramma, i shall then ask for your correction
i would prefer you practice what your good book teaches you, but without the "but ifs" in between.
Man, if i could live exactly as the Bible teaches, i would be a "Perfect human being"!
Every day, i start out with good intentions, i make a realy good start each day, then i wake up and get out of bed, thats when the imperfect behaviour and thoughts begin.
But i do practice what the good book teaches, i just haven't had enough practice to be good enough to get on the podium yet
Franky, when it comes to being good at Christian living, i would not make the local district 11, let alone the national Olympic team
maybe you should start a thread that deals with immigration and stuff. This was supposed to be a sort of meta-thread about how discussing certain subjects (religion, politics, etc.) almost never stay polite but almost always degenerate into shouting matches. You're really proving my point, and you being religious but attacking other religious (who aren't in this thread to defend themselves) is, well, just the icing on the cake.
This is a hidden 3D probability model. But I respect MajorFranks wich, as hes the moderator of this thread, so I hide it as this model is rather large and also a bit oftopics. Dont bother looking if your not intrested in probabilitys and stuff like that.
(3) If the 4 coloured balls were thrown into a bag and shaken vigorously, they woiuld not nescesarily attach to one another, so the probability of them being attached, as he said, is NOT 1/1!
Yeh, but as said in post above, you failed to see it was a linear and 2D stage I talked about, with restrictions. A "bag" is not a 2D stage but a 3D stage without restrictions.
Lets for argues sake set up a 3D “bag”, with the same 4 colour balls, and they can only line up gray-green-blue-red. hmmm, if we arrange them as pyramid. Ohhh, then they always hook up?? = Probability 1/1 ?? (that’s a thought…), lets dropp that idea direct.. . as its to obvious, right AGS...
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Hmm, let’s make a 3D model with 8 balls, that makes 2 balls of each colour… So it’s a 2x2x2 model.. Ah, that’s an 3D model. And they can only line up gray-green-blue-red..
Hmm, we must have restrictions, or the bag can be the size of the universe, and if the balls isn’t large enough and they cant float around they will never even have a chance of hook up… Right…
So lets pretend we deal with atoms, or with balls in a gel or water and the balls has neutral buoyancy, they sorts of floats around and bump into each others now and then, u know like neighbours at the same floor or on the other side one stare down as in -> diagonally, u get the picture… … But there can only be 4 balls at each level, and 2 balls in each axis… as in 2x2x2 ..
The balls can only hook up like the image suggest, gray-green-blue- red, oh yeh, that implicitly means red-blue-green-gray… And they are allowed to spontaneous hook up in the “bag” if they connects… And, as we move into the 3D world, we must also restrict multiple connections by assuming saturation. Ie: a gray ball cant connect to two greens etc, it can only connect to one green ball.. … We think of it in the same way as the molecule HOH, or OCO, not HHOH or OOC… Get the picture?
Now, what’s the probability of this event happening?
Lets see…:
So we now seen that the probability of a line-up is very high in this 3D stage with this set.... and ohh, and we actually got 2 line-ups in each experiment… Wow…
Lets then compare this probability and make the mistake and believe that this stage is a linear event …And that we MUST start with the gray ball… Ie: the balls can only connect outside of the bag. And we pick a random ball, and the first ball must be a gray ball, and the second a green ball, and the third a blue ball, and finally we must pick a red ball...
What’s the probability of that?
Its 1/105 Wow… One chance in 105 for one line-up? Mmm funny.. And what about the probability that we have 2 line-ups in a row, in this same way, from the same 3D bag, anyone (gray-green-blue-red gray-green-blue-red)? Tiny ehh?
Compare this result with the conclusion you made from the 3D illustrations.
Here is a tougher problem, for the really clever guys: What’s the probability that AGS will actually get what im talking about?
(4) That example is probably at the limit of his grasp of understanding mathmatical probabilities (He only knew the answer because the answer was on the page where he got the diagram )
Hehe.
----
I must focus on work now, atleast up to the end of december. Sux a bit...
A big thanx for the debate, specially to MF who hosted it.
Stwa,
Church, many deep cool thoughts.
Blackstump, total agreement.
HoganHeroes,
David, you know where I am..
AGS.... ... .. . .. .
DJ
And all others
Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:48 am Post subject: Re: Heated political/religious discussions
So AGS is finally showing his anti-Islamic tendencies? Well, it had to come out sooner or later...I'm a lil' disappointed.
All AGS is showing is that it's apparently not possible to be a devout Christian without disparaging other religions.
Also re his views on immigrants: "Oh, not ALL immigrants are bad! Just most of them... Some immigrants are really good people. It's just most who are bad (and/or Muslim)."
And then there's his views on the Aborigines. No comment.
This was supposed to be a sort of meta-thread about how discussing certain subjects (religion, politics, etc.) almost never stay polite but almost always degenerate into shouting matches.
and you being religious but attacking other religious
AND THERE WE HAVE IT
Again the hypocracy, its perfectly ok for you (an atheist) to criticise somebody else's belief system, but is not ok for me (a Christian) to criticise somebody else's belief system x inifinty
That is descriminatory, prejudicial and hypocritical, that 3 bonus points MF, good score
All AGS is showing is that it's apparently not possible to be a devout Christian without disparaging other religions. .
Hmmm, do i smell hypocracy in the air?
Its perfectly ok for atheists, like MF and AT_Stalker, to disparage any religion as much as they want, but if a Christian says the slightest thing negative about some people of another faith, its some huge terrible crime......, is that what you mean?
Or have my posts been the only posts that you have read in this thread?
Doubt it...
That my friend, is blatant discrimination and hypocracy, well done LoneRebel
AT and MF have been mercilessly attacking Christianity throughout this thread (they despise all religions including islam).
This is ok by you because...........you are:
(A) an atheist
(B) a muslim
(C) some other kind of anti-christ-ian
And then there's his views on the Aborigines. No comment.
???????
And what, pray tell, are my views on aboriginals?
AT_Stalk and MF are only attacking Christianity because it is the largest and most influential religion in their resepctive countries.
If these 2 atheists lived in Indonesia, Iran, Afganistan, or Pakistan, i am prety sure their main target would be Islam.
Actually, it would be good if they lived in Iran, or Afganistan under Taliban rule
Just imagine what fun they would have making public denunciations of Islam there
Food for thought:
Is it better (safer/more welcoming) to be a Christian in an Islamic country, or a Muslim in a Christian country?
Hint: You can be executed for becoming a Christian in some Muslim cultures
Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:24 pm Post subject: Re: Exposing hypocracy in political/religious discussions
Quote:
Sorry that i dissappointed you...
What did you expect?
Did you expect me to pull out a prayer matt, face Mecca and worship Allah 3 times a day?
No, I expect you not to display anti-Islamic tendencies. Was that even a serious question?
Quote:
Hmmm, do i smell hypocracy in the air?
Its perfectly ok for atheists, like MF and AT_Stalker, to disparage any religion as much as they want, but if a Christian says the slightest thing negative about some people of another faith, its some huge terrible crime......, is that what you mean?
So, let's see...you think it's okay for you to do it, because other people have done it? Please, tell me more about this fascinating morality of yours.
Basically, your moral code as expressed here can be simplified to "WAAAAHHHH!!! BUT THEY STARTED IT!!!
Quote:
AT and MF have been mercilessly attacking Christianity throughout this thread (they despise all religions including islam).
This is ok by you because...........you are:
(A) an atheist
(B) a muslim
(C) some other kind of anti-christ-ian
Deet deet! Wrong again! I'm Catholic, actually.
The reason your statements really get me is that I'm Filipino. We Catholic Filipinos must be so thankful to the Spanish for colonizing us, Christianizing us, and civilizing us. Lord knows, if in some alternate history my distant animist ancestors hadn't been converted to Christianity, we would probably have been converted to Islam, and we would now have you making your self-righteous proclamations on the evils of "Islamic nations" such as ours.
I refer you now to your statements on Indonesia in one of your previous comments, where for no reason at all you had to mention that Indonesia is an Islamic nation. Now, the Indonesian people are very closely related, genetically, ethnically and linguistically, to Filipinos. (We are both Austronesian peoples.) Religion is one of the only differences. The fact that we were converted to Christianity (many unwillingly, I'm sure) by the Spaniards is the only thing keeping you from passing almighty judgment on us the way you did with Indonesia. How interesting.
Not to mention your signature. Seriously, this thread has become so important to you that it's now in your sig?
Quote:
???????
And what, pray tell, are my views on aboriginals?
And I quote:
Quote:
Guess you must be koori, because, in this matter, i am reading a moral superiority, between the lines, or are you just as evil as my ancestors?
But your comments are irrevelent as i have never been an immigrant, i was born here and am as Australian as the dirt beneath my feet. (remember even the Koori were immigrants 40,000 years ago if you believe the guestimates of science).
In the likely event that you will need help figuring out what's wrong with your statement, please ask. I will be glad to assist you.
Quote:
AT_Stalk and MF are only attacking Christianity because it is the largest and most influential religion in their resepctive countries.
If these 2 atheists lived in Indonesia, Iran, Afganistan, or Pakistan, i am prety sure their main target would be Islam.
Maybe. Or maybe not. That's all hypothetical.
Anyway, they don't need to attack Islam here because there isn't a Muslim fanatic on this thread, only a Christian one.
Quote:
Is it better (safer/more welcoming) to be a Christian in an Islamic country, or a Muslim in a Christian country?
It can't be very welcoming if it's people like you who are going to be doing the welcoming...
We keep making this point, Christians are sinners too, we don't think we are better, we admit we are imperfect
Could have fooled me. You sure do act like you think you're better.
This is what I always see in arguments like this. Someone will say that they don't like how Christians think they're better than others. A Christian will pop in and say that no, we Christians don't think we're better than you. But many Christians do act like they're better than others. That's the whole point. Or if not they themselves being better, their religion is better. To other people it comes across as the same thing.
Quote:
we recognise our need for forgiveness, reconcilliation and sanctification with God's help.
And what about the people who haven't recognized their "need for forgiveness, reconciliation and sanctification with God's help"?
Even if you say you are a sinner like everyone else, you're still "better" than others because you recognize your "need for forgiveness with God's help" and they don't.
David, do you understand the laws of probabilities?
Setting:
4 different balls.
The balls can only be attached as the image illustrates: (Gray can only be attach to Green, Green can only be attach to Blue, Blue can only be attach to Red.)
Lets say that we have a basket with the 4 different balls. And you take a random ball,
Now, consider the the law of probability, and tell me what the chance that they attach, Gray-Green-Blue-Red, as the image illustrate:
David, please help me here, give me the probability of this event
Wether or not davidssfx understands the laws of probabilities realy does not matter,
Hi, I've politely tried to walk away from this, but since you've brought it up ... I think it would be best to further analyze Stalky's post.
Let me first suggest that the "setting" of this problem is not valid, and therefore is not capable of producing any cogent conclusion based on logic.
My reasons for stating this are simple.
One image in the description of the problem shows a representation of a 2D basket with four different colored balls that are not attached. The other image shows the same four colored balls attached with lines and in a specific order ... Gray-Green-Blue-Red.
Now we are instructed to take a random ball from the basket and predict the probability that they will attach.
First let's recognize that the balls have changed state ... from unattached to attached. Without knowing how this state change occurs, there is no reasonable way to calculate the probability of this event occurring.
Logically this problem could be presented as a deterministic event: always has the same outcome and is predictable 100% of the time. But, in fairness to the person trying to solve the problem ... both images (shown in the description of the problem) would have to display the balls in a state exactly comparable to the other. In this case attached.
Logically this problem could also be presented as a probabilistic event: the exact outcome is not predictable 100% of the time. But, in fairness to the person trying to solve the problem ... both images (shown in the description of the problem) would have to display the balls in a state exactly comparable to the other. In this case unattached.
A person would also have to know whether of not the experiment is to be done with or without replacement.
Stalky's problem and image below:
Setting:
4 different balls.
The balls can only be attached as the image illustrates: (Gray can only be attach to Green, Green can only be attach to Blue, Blue can only be attach to Red.)
Lets say that we have a basket with the 4 different balls. And you take a random ball,
Now, consider the the law of probability, and tell me what the chance that they attach, Gray-Green-Blue-Red, as the image illustrate:
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
.
)
