1 2 3
Now, Dan, you know you're supposed to show your work or you don't get credit. *eye roll*
2/9/2010 4:59:02 PM
Intelligent people don't employ probability arguments after the fact.
2/9/2010 5:35:13 PM
There was a pretty good applet that can be used to disprove this nonsense using simulated dice rolls
. Yeah, I know the url looks suspect but trust me it is a pro-evolution site.
2/9/2010 6:02:25 PM
Your calculations are as ridiculous as your creationist proxy's hideous nose.
2/9/2010 6:25:26 PM
I'm so sick of the stupid probability thing. Yes, it's a small chance. But this is how it happened. You can't argue probability backwards.
2/9/2010 6:30:50 PM
What are the odds that the sun came up today?
If the world is only as old as I am (32 years) and it's 50/50 chance, then the odds are 1 in 1.07 x 103516. Guess you didn't need that sunscreen.
2/9/2010 6:36:30 PM
The new creation science field: Retro statistics.
2/9/2010 6:43:31 PM
The problem with probability arguments is that you don't understand them.
2/9/2010 7:20:52 PM
Actually, what the creationist in that cartoon is saying is that evolution is extremely likely. (10^whatever in favor, 1 against) If he meant to make evolution sound improbable, he should have said "odds against."
Basic, seventh-grade probability theory: Yet another theory AiG knows nothing about.
EDIT: Nobody noticed this? Seriously?
2/9/2010 7:29:15 PM
2/9/2010 7:56:00 PM
Again, we see the math skills of the home-schooled fundie on display
2/9/2010 8:28:17 PM
Three words, dipshit:
SHOW YOUR WORK
2/9/2010 8:48:48 PM
I take no joy in the truth of evolution. If a better theory came along tomorrow I would abandon evolution in a heart beat.
2/9/2010 8:57:28 PM
AIG = poor math
2/9/2010 10:13:30 PM
So, by using the same logic...
To be fair, I'll begin with the same faulty premise that all possible outcomes are equally probable, so that the probability of any one happening is 1/(# of possible outcomes).
Therefore, this means that the probability of your father and mother meeting is 1 in 6 x 10^9.
Your mother had about 5 x 10^5 eggs in her ovaries. Over the course of his lifetime, your father produced about 10^13 sperm cells.
Therefore, the probability that you even exist is approximately one in thirty octillion. Surely with odds that far, there's no possible way you, or ANYONE, could have EVER been born.
(and that's assuming every generation leading up to your parents was guaranteed to happen)
2/9/2010 11:25:21 PM
Um... Is it me, or is this actually worded to say that evolution is incredibly likely
to be true, rather than unlikely? I thought the first number was the one being suggested as fitting the proposed event.
(looks through comments) Ah, the L noticed that too. Kudos. And Dan Lietha, you're convincing nobody with your pathetic misinterpretation of both biology and statistics.
It is pretty cool, isn't it? I've seen ones like it elsewhere... Here
is a similar style on Amazon, and I think there are other places.
2/10/2010 12:15:49 AM
Chance that evolution has occurred and is occurring 1 in 1.
Not really much wiggle room there.
2/10/2010 12:47:18 AM
I'm a language nerd, and know as little math as possible, but isn't the probability of humans being here 1?
As we can watch evolution in progress, that probability ought to be 1, also.
No-one has watched God, or even heard from him, in about 2000 years, and back then the recording possibilities were rather slim.
2/10/2010 1:01:50 AM
I'm sorry, when you said 10^23, did you mean 1? Thats what I read.
2/10/2010 1:20:31 AM
Yes. Because numbers that sound that they were thought up on the spot by a ten year old is very compelling evidence.
2/10/2010 1:54:49 AM
The problem with slippery slope as well, and the possibility of applying it to your ideas.
2/10/2010 4:25:34 AM
I think you failed at numbers.
2/10/2010 5:03:12 AM
According to my calculations, PI=3
2/10/2010 5:56:01 AM
Show us your "calculations". bet they're brown.
Yet another cartoon pretending creationists do scientific research or have any evidence against evolution.
2/10/2010 7:47:12 AM
Apparently, creationists have never heard of exponential operators...
2/10/2010 9:17:28 AM
1 2 3