Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

It's official: ID really is creationism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Back when I taught Statistics I used this example (as well as others) to illustrate that two totally unrelated measurements may have a strong numerical correlation without there being any true 'connection' between the two. That was the point I was making here which, predictably, swooshed over the hapless Evos (as evidenced by their posts).

    Jorge
    I've taught a mathematical statistics course for over 20 years. I understand the post hoc fallacy very well. Correlation, even strong correlation, can be caused by confounding variable(s). But when there is an identifiable causal link between the variables, then it becomes more and more likely that causation exists.

    Jorge, stop trying to buffalo the reader less expert on a subject with your distortions. You WILL be caught and your error pointed out.

    K54

    Comment


    • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
      I've taught a mathematical statistics course for over 20 years. I understand the post hoc fallacy very well. Correlation, even strong correlation, can be caused by confounding variable(s). But when there is an identifiable causal link between the variables, then it becomes more and more likely that causation exists.

      Jorge, stop trying to buffalo the reader less expert on a subject with your distortions. You WILL be caught and your error pointed out.

      K54
      I don't try to "buffalo" anyone - that wouldn't be right. You must be projecting again.

      As for your (alleged) statistics background, you should know that a statistical correlation is a purely numerical measure between variable(s) and is related to variance accountability. The "identifiable causal link" you speak of goes beyond that simple measure. Glad none of my students took stats under you.

      Jorge

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        Frantically tap dance all you want, O-Mudd, your endless attempts at vilification are exposed for all to see. My work involves synthesis (of previous work) and extracting new features that others may have missed. Ever heard of the phrase, "Standing on the shoulders of giants"? What I hope to accomplish (should I get there) would probably not have been possible without those before me. So, again, your vilification is as misguided as is your theology.




        Leave it to people like yourrself to call "stupid" what you do not understand.




        Not "silly Jorge" ... infantile Jim would be the proper wording here.





        Yup, the Fantasy World bubble that you have fashioned for yourself and which you spend your time trying to recruit others into accepting - dishonoring the God of Scripture in the process. THAT bubble.

        Jorge
        So Jorge, in spite of all YOUR tap dancing, have you come up with a way to explain the observed correlation in YEC land, other than to hope that somehow there is some random reason the correlation appeared that has nothing to do with the evolutionary theory?

        Jim
        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-22-2014, 06:21 PM.
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          I don't try to "buffalo" anyone - that wouldn't be right. You must be projecting again.

          As for your (alleged) statistics background, you should know that a statistical correlation is a purely numerical measure between variable(s) and is related to variance accountability. The "identifiable causal link" you speak of goes beyond that simple measure. Glad none of my students took stats under you.

          Jorge
          Yes - a correlation is a number. Correlation is a useful way to identify potential causal factors. When one sees evidence for a causal relationship between elements in a system, one way to test that possibility is to construct tests and then measure the outcomes, looking for a strong correlation.

          Now, you are creating an implied equivalence of two kinds of investigation:

          1) a blind correlation test of a block of data, hoping to use the correlation to identify potentially related elements
          2) observed behavior that implies a causal relationship that is then subjected to testing and whose data is analysed for correlation.

          I am not sure why you think it makes sense to treat these as equivalent, but they are not. In the second case (the case represented by this paper), the more tests which pass (result in strong statistical correlations), the more and more likely the hypothesis is correct. This is, again, how science is done. One can never with absolute surety say that two elements are necessarily related, but eventually one reaches the point one can be nearly absolutely sure of the relationship.

          What you are doing is called 'grasping at straws'. What is happening is that you are so sure in you mind you are correct that no amount of evidence can convince you otherwise. And so, each bit of evidence is dismissed based on the almost invisible probability the correlations are somehow 'accidental'.

          And it is I believe, in fact, this 'mechanism for denial' that forms nearly your complete 'scientific' case for YEC. It certainly comes up more often than not in these discussions.

          And that is why you can feel you are truthful when say your case for YEC has scientific support, but also why you simply will not communicate what your 'scientific' case for YEC is.



          Jim
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            I don't try to "buffalo" anyone - that wouldn't be right. You must be projecting again.

            As for your (alleged) statistics background, you should know that a statistical correlation is a purely numerical measure between variable(s) and is related to variance accountability. The "identifiable causal link" you speak of goes beyond that simple measure. Glad none of my students took stats under you.

            Jorge
            Nothing but insult and ignorance. Pitiful.

            I know the difference between correlation and causation. I know how to calculate Pearson's r. I know that correlation with a low p-value can indicate causation. Causation requires some kind of causal link. That link exists in the genetic case. Ergo, likely causality.

            We need to start a thread on the correlation between C-14 dating and lake varves, with the common causation of time intervals > 10,000 years. It would be interesting to see how you botch that up.

            You say you taught statistics? Hmm...

            I'm going to hound you until give answers. You can count on that.

            K54

            P.S. BTW, as a recovering alcoholic, I would appreciate you not attributing my posts to alcohol consumption. Thank you.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              I sincerely do not believe that you understand the term "honest".

              Nonetheless, the answer to your question is a resounding NO! Why? Because it's not necessary. Information - properly understood within the context of the observable universe - points in only one direction (and that direction is not Materialism/Naturalism).

              Jorge
              I always get a kick out of creationists writing things like "properly understood."

              All that means is "if you see it the way I do".

              Unfortunately, most people that understand the issues do NOT see it the way of the YEC.

              Which of the following sequences has more information, and how do you know?


              1. attaatagtt gacagggatt tacactaatg ttattcatca taatatggga tgtatcgctc attgttgttt atttgtcact gatacgaaga aaagttaaat catttcattc tttgtgaaag

              2. atttatagtt gacagggatt tacactaatg ttatccatca taatatggga tgtatcgctc attgttgatt atttgtcact gatacgaaga aaagttaaat catttcattc tttgtgaaag

              Comment

              Related Threads

              Collapse

              Topics Statistics Last Post
              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
              48 responses
              135 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Sparko
              by Sparko
               
              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
              16 responses
              74 views
              0 likes
              Last Post shunyadragon  
              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
              6 responses
              47 views
              0 likes
              Last Post shunyadragon  
              Working...
              X