/sci/ - Science & Math

Yes, but you assume that the Old Earth had black people on it.

Fucking retard.

>10% chance of being valid
>Something is either right or wrong

I don't understand. Are they assuming that if they get a buttload of (likely incorrect) theories and then further assume that each has a 10% chance of being valid, the cumulative validity will disprove an Old Earth?

>>2947359

They've were brainwashed at a young age by a silly cult and now they believe things that are insane.

'The lack of erosion between rock layers.[11][12] ' (what?)

'The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood. '

'Beaches have long been eroding far too quickly for the Old Earth theory; "between 80 and 90 percent of the sandy beaches along America’s coastlines have been eroding for decades," sometimes by as much as 50 feet per year.[15] '

'The age of onset of sexual maturity is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.[21] '

'Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.[27] '

' A stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades.[28] '


I couldn't make this shit up.

>>2947359

No, they get a boat load of valid arguments, most of which are probably true. Then they argue that even if they are mostly wrong, and there is a chance that some of those are wrong, then it's still a valid proof against the old earth theory.
Don't attempt to talk your way out of this by looking at the somewhat vaguely presented odds calculation, just look at the contradictions.

I think it's more like, if we can produce ten million ridiculous reasons, one of them has to be true!

>>2947384
All they have is a boatload of bullshit. These "contractions" be better described as "lies" or "misrepresentation of the truth."

For instance
>The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago
This is a fact mixed with an conclusion that doesn't make sense. Here's my own example of the same thing.

The number of pirates in the world has been inversely proportional to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Therefore pirates prevented global warming.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_the_Bible

i love this website

If each of 33 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate

>>>mfw

Conservapedia's only good for laughs. Their science-related articles are seriously some of the funniest shit I've read online.

http://www.conservapedia.com/CE
The term "Common Era" (CE) is an anti-Christian attempt to conceal that Jesus is the historical basis for the primary calendar dating system. "Common Era" has no real meaning, and even the origin of this term is unclear. A later edition (11th) defines it as the Christian Era. The first recorded use of the phrase "common era" was in 1708.[1]

The established calendar dating system, which uses the 'AD' notation, is based on the calculations of Dionysius Exiguus for the birthyear of Jesus relative to the foundation of Rome.[2] At the time, dates used the 'AD' system instituted by pagan and murderer Emperor Diocletian, which used his own date of birth as year 0. Because Dionysius Exiguus in the year 525 wanted to end the memorialization of an evil man who persecuted Christians, he invented a new numbering system based on his calculations of the birth year of Jesus Christ.

While the use of the phrase "Common Era" has existed for hundreds of years, only recently have politically correct liberals attempted to replace all instances of 'AD' with 'CE.' The original use of 'CE' was to avoid the common practice of countries basing their dates on when their rulers reached power [3] or were born, i.e. the "regal era" from the birthdate of Jesus Christ, which belonged to all men "the common era." While use of "Common Era" attempts to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar, there are no similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names from the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods. Numerous texts, particularly schoolbooks, have replaced "B.C./A.D." with "Common Era" symbols over the past decade.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity


"In August 2009, PZ Myers led a group of over 300 atheist and agnostic students on a tour of the Creation Museum.[45] During the visit, Myers had noticeably greater difficulty than others climbing on and off a dinosaur model due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.VIDEO"

>Forbidden
>You don't have permission to access /Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth on this server.

>Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

I has a sad.

Eric H., Canada

Thank you for the information. I am a chemist, and I can see errors in the theory of a 4.6 billion year old Earth. Thanks again! It’s hard to see geographic evidence for a young earth, or space evidence for a young earth, with a field in chemistry. I would not be suprised that in a couple of years, evidence will greatly support Creationism due to more evidence supporting a young earth. I hoped scientists in distantly related fields could work together to compile evidence for a young earth. And seems like you guys have done that! :D

>>2947335
>pirates prevented global warming.

I have no problem with this.

Does Andy Schlafly and other Conservapedians live in an alternate reality?

>>2947413
OHHHH these unbiased sources, these unbiased sources.

1. ↑ http://www.bible-history.com/pontius_pilate/pilateArchaeology.htm
2. ↑ http://www.publicchristianity.org/jesusevidence.html
3. ↑ http://www.historian.net/NTHX.html
4. ↑ Does Genesis 30:9 teach "magical genetics"? from Tektonics
5. ↑ Is the Bible wrong about insects having "four feet"? from Tektonics
6. ↑ http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/270-is-taking-an-oath-in-court-forbidden

>>2947513
going to go out on a limb here and say it's not?

>mfw they cited a source, I clicked it, and the "source" was just: "SAT scores have been rapidly decreasing in real terms." just in writing right there on the page

>>2947351

ive clicked on about five sources so far, and they all just say scientific knowledge doesnt know why this happens yet, not this means the earth must have been this old

oh and dont forget if it disproves the bible it must be "liberal propaganda" or "scientifically weak" just like all evidence conservapedia has ever put together...

>>2947335
>If each of 33 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is less than 3.8%.

>With the total of these counterexamples at 32, they demonstrate that the Earth must be young with a likelihood of greater than 96%.

Prosecutor's fallacy

hahaha, it is fun to flip through conservapedia but you can't go to the sources because they're obviously just there to create the illusion of credibility

>>2947506
thats because their ships didnt burn fuel.

duh they had an environmentally friendly life, they also killed people which is about the most environmentally friendly thing you can possibly do

gather round children, I have stories for you

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_parables

Physics 401 was the most difficult course in the entire college, having problem sets that would take many hours to complete each week. The students often worked on the homework together, as allowed and even encouraged by the professor. Students were also able to consult books and online resources in solving problems.

As the course progressed, the problems became increasingly difficult and complex. Some students were better than others at solving the problems. Reputations developed about which students had answers, and which ones did not.

Near the end of the course, the teacher assigned a particularly difficult problem to the class. The night before it was due, the students gathered as they had been throughout the course, and worked as hard as they could to find the answer. One student who had a reputation for not being as smart claimed he had the answer, and started to explain it to the others. But the smarter students quickly rejected his approach to the problem and told him to be quiet. Despite trying several times to describe his answer, he was ignored.

The next day the students handed in their homeworks, and the following week the professor returned their graded papers. He said that only one student had answered the difficult problem correctly. That student was the one who had tried to explain it to the others, but they would not listen.

The one student had found the correct answer in a book not used by the other students.

The Fasting Woman

A woman had been fasting for several days and was quite weak. It was Sunday morning, and she wondered whether she had enough strength to attend church. It would have been easy to justify not going, as she had already shown her love and devotion to God that week. But she decided to attend the services anyway. Without eating any breakfast, she prepared herself for the late morning service. She got dressed, gathered her purse and belongings, and drove off to the church.

The church was filled for the late-morning service, with many hundreds of worshipers. The woman sat near the back and watched the pews fill up with members of the community, young and old. The service was about to begin. The woman then heard an unusual commotion outside, including several loud noises and shouts. She turned around several times to look at the door to the church. Her intuition told her something was wrong.

Suddenly, a large man burst through the door and began shooting at the hundreds of worshipers, children and all. The woman mustered all her strength and pulled out her gun from her bag. She then shot the intruder. Stunned, and expecting to die from her shot, the intruder killed himself. The worshipers in the church were all saved. Afterwards, the woman said that she had been "praying to God that he direct me" in what to do in life.[2]

>>2947359

This website is bullshit, but don't you dare bismirch the good name of Bayesian probability. Epistemic probability is a perfectly valid kind of probability.

>>2947636

I don't think they know what a parable is. A parable is supposed to be metaphorical. Just telling a story about a lady who was told by Jesus to shoot a guy isn't a metaphor, it's just... stupid.

All of the most ridiculous articles on Conservapedia are written by trolls.

The encyclopaedia itself isn't a troll, but it contains trolling. It's Poe's Law run rampant.

>>2947477
You have to use an American proxy, obviously they don't want intellectuals from the civilized world to come and tear apart their 'evidence' and 'facts' that they are trying to push on idiots

>>2947631
Physics 401 Big climax:

>The one student had found the correct answer in a book not used by the other students.

>Cant decide if implying metaphorically that you will get the correct answers to questions in the bible, or if its just an anti-joke?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs


enjoy

Ok, we are all laughing at Conservapedia. But actually it is not the least bit funny. Think for a minute. There are thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people who actually read that shit and believe that it is correct. People who get to vote. Conservapedia is funny the way Faux News O'Reilly is funny, for about a minute, then yet again the realisations hits you "there are loads of people who actually see this crap and are unable to see through the crap. People who think this is true and the way the world actually is". At that point it is not that funny any more, rather it's quite scary and depressing.

>>2947704
I think that really depends on your sense of humor, and I don't think you belong on 4chan.

>>2947704
>There are thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people who actually read that shit and believe that it is correct.

Name me names! I doubt anyone in the UK at least would believe such gibberish.

>>2947704
See >>2947678

>>2947712
Additionally, I have never once observed anyone to actually cite Conservapedia for anything other than "look how stupid Conservatives are" so there's no evidence that it's widely believed. I would say it has no credibility to anyone.

>If each of 33 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is less than 3.8%

>With the total of these counterexamples at 32, they demonstrate that the Earth must be young with a likelihood of greater than 96%

what kind of calculations did they use for these numbers?

>>2947732
Conservative maths.

>>2947732
The probability that all the counterexamples are false is 0.9^32 = 3.4%. It's science!