posted May 04, 2011 05:22 AM            

You do not need to know complex math. This link is enough:
http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspx

How to proceed?
===============

Rule Number 1:
----------------
The analyzed set has to be well defined and a closed set.
For instance, any ten relatives does not count. But if ten relatives all played the same sport for the same team, it becomes a valid set. If ten relatives all got married to foreign men or women, that counts too.

Rule Number 2:
------------------
Predefine the orbs, objects and aspects to check to arrive at the probability of success.

If you want to use Squares, there are 2. Trines = 2. Conjunction is 1 and Opposition is 1.

So probability of success of any one object aspecting a predefined object is Aspects/360 or 1/60 if you use 1 degree orb. 1/12 for a 5 degree orb.

Rule Number 3:
----------------
More the objects being checked, lesser the odds of success.

Ideally, stick to 5-6 objects, two strong aspects and maximum 5 degree orb for a 1/6 [0.16] success rate.

=============================================

Now, what is an amazing probability?
Anything that is less than one in thousand is amazing, and anything less than one in a hundred thousand is miraculous. Meaning it was not random but there was a deliberate design to it.

Case 1:
---------
10 charts of a closed set, 3 have Saturn conjunct Moon less than 5 degree orb.

P(Success) = 1 Aspect x 5 degree Orb x 2 objects/360 = 1/36 0r 0.03.

Apply this in the link, and the odds are
2/1000 or 1/500. Quite interesting.

Case 2:
---------
10 charts of a closed set, Natal and Draconic. 5 out of 10 chart pairs have Saturn conjunct Moon less than 5 degree orb.

P(Success) = 1 Aspect x 5 degree Orb x 2 objects x 2 Chart Types/360 = 1/18 0r 0.06.

Apply this data in the link, and the odds are 1/10000 . Meaning there is a definite pattern, the chance of deliberate design is very high. It is not likely to be a coincidence.

Case 3:
---------
Two same object conjunctions in Two different yet related charts.

P(Success) = 1/360.

Apply and we get the odds:
One in a 100000.

Meaning only a liar or intellectually incompetent person will call this a coincidence.

When you have such low odds, it is an intricate, deliberate design, a chance to understand mysteries or to know that there is a divine purpose or a scientific process behind the occurrence.

Case 4:
---------
Asteroid Poseidon is in a 60 degree sector mapping Tropical or Sidereal Capricorn in 11/14 Earthquakes that took over one hundred thousand lives.
What are the odds that this was random?

P(Success) = 1/6 [Tropical + SIdereal/12).
Apply in the formulae, we get:

1 in 5 million.

Can anyone say that Asteroid Poseidon's position near Capricorn is not related to very harsh earthquakes after seeing these odds?

======================================================

------------------
http://tamsoft.co.in/articles.html

posted May 05, 2011 04:24 AM            

Making a closed set of the 8 most deadly earthquakes which have deaths above 200,000 .
Using Draconic and Natal Mapping.

Number of objects used: Poseidon, Kaali, Sun, Pluto. I have also shown Siva as interesting but am not checking its probability for now.

Orb: 4 degrees.

P(Success) for a Kaali, Poseidon, Dr Kaali or Dr Poseidon conjunction to the 4 objects is 16 x Orb/360 = 1/6 approx.

23 Jan 1556 Shangxi:
*Sun conjunct Poseidon
Dr Neptune and Dr Kaali conj Pluto.

28 July 1978, Tangshan:
*Sun conj Dr Poseidon
Dr Sun conjunct Poseidon.

21 May 525 Antioch:
*Sun conj Kaali and Hekate,
Dr Pluto conj Kaali,
Dr Poseidon opp Kaali exact.

16th Dec 1920 Gansu:
Dr Neptune conj Poseidon.
*Sun conj Kaali

26th Dec 2004 Tsunami:
*Pluto conjunct Poseidon
Dr Kaali conj Natal Saturn
Dr Anubis and Dr Hekate conj Ascendant

11th Oct 1138, Alleppo:
Sun opp Dr Siva and Dr Kaali conjunction.

12 Jan 2010, Haiti:
*Poseidon conj Kaali,
Dr Siva conjunct Poseidon exact.

22 December 856 Iran:
*Sun conjunct Poseidon,
Dr Siva conj Kaali.

Total Success = 7/8. Notice that there are multiple successes but I am counting just one success per trial. Multiple successes per trial further decrease the odds, making it more miraculous.

Applying the formula, the odds are less than one in hundred thousand!

So now it is confirmed that both Poseidon and Kaali are involved in very very harsh earthquakes, and their involvement is far more prevalent than just planetary conjunctions.

------------------
http://tamsoft.co.in/articles.html

posted May 10, 2011 07:15 PM            

A problem here is believing the proposition as being true when its probability of not being true is much < 100%. It is virtually impossible to state with any degree of conclusivity that a proposition is true. Ironically perhaps the only 100% conclusive proposition is that no proposition can ever be 100% conclusive.

The wording used, confirmed, amazing, miraculous are all suggestive and misleading, not being representative of objective evidence. Rhetorical questions and a rhetoric style are used.

Probability will show you how likely something is to happen. Take for example the existence of life elsewhere in the universe, the probability of life existing elsewhere in the galaxy is not 0. Therefore it is possible for life to exist elsewhere in the galaxy however, there is no conclusive evidence, no 100% certifiable interaction or event with non-earth beings, as far as I am aware, that can prove the existence of non-earth lifeforms. The major downfall is examining the evidence available and if it is sufficiently compelling, we believe.

posted May 11, 2011 04:30 AM            

And forget propositions, we are talking of deliberate design versus random chance.

If you get heads 20/20 in a "fair coin", I can sue that the coin is doctored, and I will win. That is the power of probability in spotting design versus a random event.

Why do you believe that g = 9.8 or Pi = 3.14? he probability of those values being wrong is very very very low, so the scientists believe it, and then apply it.

Now, what theory of Astro Physicis do you believe? Big Bang? Steady State?

The probability of those theories being true is far worse than Astrology. Yet just because established PhDs utter those theories, you "feel" compelled to believe them.

Probability is Probability.

We are nott alking of 1000 sided dice, proabbility caluclates that as high. We are talking of exact and sepcific chances of success using an irrefutable forumla to calculate.

To disbelieve that Design behind a 1/1000 and below chance for a random event and to accept the proposed design behind a 1/10 chance of a random event is called "HYPOCRISY".

posted May 11, 2011 06:01 AM            

if you toss a coin 100 times the probability of getting any side is 50%. becasue the posibilities are 2 and you need 1 so 1/2=0.5

if I just toss 3 times the number of events is too little that it is difficult to know (if you get 3 times face) to say that probability is 100% because the number of events it is not enough, but after 100 or more intents, the probability should be around 50%.

if the coin is "designed" to give one side more than the other, then the probability of getting that side of the coin should be more than 50%. if tossing 100 times you get one side 75%, that is not simply chance, there is something going on with that coin.

my understanding with astrology would work in this way=

posted May 11, 2011 06:35 AM            

This is how Tobey proved Astrology in the 1960s. He checked each and every fire accident in the United States that led to more than one death. He found that more than 80% of such dates had a Sun square Lunar Node aspect.
If Astrology were false, only 10-15% of the dates should have had this aspect.

He found many more proofs using probability:

More than 90% of women with Mars square Uranus or Mars conjunct 19 Scorpio had a hysterectomy before the age of 45.

More than 80% of all German spies caught on US Soil had a Sagittarius Sun.

My evidence for Nessus:
100% of all Psychopaths who have killed over 3 people have a Nessus square or opposing Karma, Moon, Pluto, Mars, Mercury or Dejanira.

Evidence from US Presidents:
30 American Presidents have an Asteroid Kaali Aspect to SIva, CHiron, Pluto, Mercury or Jupiter.

Here is a proof of mine For Chinese Astrology:
Out of more than 30 talented nations that play soccer, every time it is the Chinese Year of the Rooster, the winner has been Brazil or Italy.

What are the odds of that? Less than 1 in many millions. We have seen 19 World Cups in 80 years, 7 of them on the Year of the Rooster.

------------------
http://tamsoft.co.in/articles.html

posted May 11, 2011 07:22 AM            

Plus his entire correspondence course is available free:
http://mysite.verizon.net/bonniehill/pages.aux/astrology/tobey/index.html

If I have to name one astrologer who rivalled or even exceeded Linda Goodman in pure astrological domain, it has to be him.

He was the first to use Probability to shut the mouths of skeptics, he has recounted many of those battles, the best being with an astrophysicist who apologized to him in private and requested him to NOT REBUFF ASTROPHYSICISTS using probability. Tobey had them all for breakfast, but they continue to fool us today with their "dark matter" theories which have less than 3/4 chance of being true.

posted May 11, 2011 12:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
So what is the proability for "sufficiently compelling" to believe?

---

No such probability exists, we believe purely because we choose to believe, cases of empirically demonstrating something is true are very rare. As humans we have an inclination to resolve questions, people do not like leaving questions unanswered. This leads to the answers to those questions being untrue to a certain degree. When the evidence for something crosses a pre-determined threshold, set either conciously or unconciously, we believe it to be true rather than it actually being true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
And forget propositions, we are talking of deliberate design versus random chance.

If you get heads 20/20 in a "fair coin", I can sue that the coin is doctored, and I will win. That is the power of probability in spotting design versus a random event.

---

Is the belief that 'deliberate design exists' not a proposition? I thought that a proposition was a declarative sentence, i.e. deliberate design exists. That looks like a declarative statement to me.

If I get heads 20/20 times you can sue me and you will win, because prove does not mean the same thing as proof. Proving something is almost impossible, to provide proof of something in the legal realm you only need to show that what you are suggesting is 51% likely over 49% likely. At the lowest level it only requires that you outprove (provide more proof) the opposing argument.

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
Why do you believe that g = 9.8 or Pi = 3.14? he probability of those values being wrong is very very very low, so the scientists believe it, and then apply it.

Now, what theory of Astro Physicis do you believe? Big Bang? Steady State?

The probability of those theories being true is far worse than Astrology. Yet just because established PhDs utter those theories, you "feel" compelled to believe them.

---

Personally I don't believe gravity is 9.81 or that Pi is 3.141... because those values were arbitrarily selected based on our interpretation and labelling of the world, we decided to work in base 10 and then apply maths to world properties and the numbers just so happen to work out well. If you said gravity was 15.8 it wouldn't change its effect here on Earth. As for the probability of those values being wrong, I don't know what their relative probabilities are so I cannot comment.

I also don't personally have a position on which theory of astrophysics is true because they have not been proved yet and probably will not be proved. So please don't put words into my mouth. I personally only feel compelled to consider them as options.

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
Probability is Probability.

We are nott alking of 1000 sided dice, proabbility caluclates that as high. We are talking of exact and sepcific chances of success using an irrefutable forumla to calculate.

Probability is probability - Tautology

The probability of 1/1000 is higher than 1/1000? That doesn't make much sense to me, could you explain further please?

How can you state using an irrefutable formula after questioning the values of gravity and pi? Probability is based on the same system that derived those values you questioned.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by iQ:
To disbelieve that Design behind a 1/1000 and below chance for a random event and to accept the proposed design behind a 1/10 chance of a random event is called "HYPOCRISY".

---

I don't understand what you mean by the, disbelieve 1/1000 for design but believe 1/10 design point. Could you clear this up for me?

To not hold the same belief as you is not hypocrisy, it is simply holding a different belief. It is absurd to label hypocrisy as someone having a different opinion or view to your own opinion or view. Any person could say any statement and then call it hypocrisy if someone disagrees.

------------------

posted May 12, 2011 04:34 AM            

Great, it means you are not a Hypocrite.

"I don't understand what you mean by the, disbelieve 1/1000 for design but believe 1/10 design point. Could you clear this up for me? "

There are scientists who claim Astrology is false or mumbo jumbo. Yet, Astrological Case Studies have show so many events that have a probability of random occurrence being less than 1/1000.

These same scientists accept a Design Principle behind events which have only 10% chance of being random [Quantum theory, Astro Physics etc ] yet refuse to accept a design behind a 1/1000 event. This is what I consider to be hypocrisy.

Consistent Disbelief is never hyprocrisy, choosing a belief of higher random probability as truth and calling another "belief" of lower random probability as false is definitely hypocrisy.

Please refer "Forbidden Archaeology" by Michael Cremo where he explains thousands of hypocritical "scientific findings" of the evolutionary biology scientists.

posted May 12, 2011 10:19 AM            

You have labelled quantum theory and astrophysics as things that support design theory. The whole point of scientific theories and such theories listed is that actually, they contradict design theory, because they attempt to explain how a system works from observation. They observe how two atoms interact and then showcase it and assign a theory to it as is understood as best as possible. When some observation or new information comes to light, the theory is changed in accordance to update it. What design theory does is, watch two particles interact and jump straight to, 'it must have been designed this way!' And no matter how much more evidence or observation you throw at the problem the conclusion of 'well it must have been designed that way' will never change. If I were to apply an analogy it would be along the lines of, "we think the moon is made out of cheese" - Evidence shows the moon is in fact made out of carbon and minerals etc. So the evidence is considered and the conclusion is, "We think the moon is made out of cheese."

Design theory has no relation what so ever to any piece of information, our eyes work perfectly for what we need them to do. - Design Theory. The conditions on Earth are just right for life to exist - Design theory. There are no intermediate steps, no logical process, a question is asked and the human mind fearing unanswered questions immediately explains and rationalises it away so it can carry on comfortably with business.

You call scientific findings critical, I'm sure I will find the time to read this text you so highly recommend but throughout all your slandering of science, you seem to forget that Science is willing to admit it is wrong and change its viewpoint on something should the evidence suggest it is more plausible to do so. Design theory will never ever change and will continue to just make assumptions between A and Z.

You seem really defensive as well, I don't mean to upset I am simply discussing a subject. If I misread this as you being defensive then I apologise.

------------------

posted May 12, 2011 11:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swift Freeze:
I don't understand what you mean by the, disbelieve 1/1000 for design but believe 1/10 design point. Could you clear this up for me?

---

it refers to chance of a something being random rather than due to a "design". for instance in sciences it is common to stablish the alpha to 1%, 5%, 10%, which means that the results of the experiment has 1%, 5%, 10% chances of being random (not a result of the intervention.

IQ point was that many scientific "facts" are considered with 10% of probability of being caused by randomness, while some astrological events has shown to a lower chance to be due to ramdoness (1%) and still astrology is not considered science.

posted May 12, 2011 01:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by nordicsoul:

IQ point was that many scientific "facts" are considered with 10% of probability of being caused by randomness, while some astrological events has shown to a lower chance to be due to ramdoness (1%) and still astrology is not considered science.

---

So fundamentally something which occurs more frequently is less likely to be true than something which occurs infrequently, so to provide an explanation for this unexplainable infrequent event, the conclusion of, "it was designed" is sufficient is it?

------------------

posted May 12, 2011 01:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
Good pick Beth
I know that story very well. A more intense movie than that is "Knowing" *ing Nicholas Cage.

---

Both were great movies! Especially, "the Knowing". I cried hysterically at the end. The part where the children were taken away on the ship to start a new Garden of Eden on a new planet triggered something deep in me and I burst into tears. The film was full of symbolism. I also recommend it for everyone.

posted May 13, 2011 05:38 AM            

SFreeze wrote:
"Science is willing to admit it is wrong".
Untrue, the scientific community apologizes the least. Even politicians apologize more.

Have the scientists who claimed the Electron is fundamentally only a particle apologized? Have those who opposed them back then and had got ridiculed got compensation? What is an Electron today BTW? A wave? A wave function? A cloud? The highest probability today is that it is a mathematical wave function. Tomorrow, they will come up with something else.

Will the PhD degrees of all those who were wrong be taken away? All Scientists who claimed that electron is a particle should have their degrees removed if they were honest. Had they not been teaching falsehood for decades? What about those earlier who claimed the atom is the smallest fundamental particle? There were doctors in the 19th century who were opposed to the washing of hands. Have they compensated their victims or at least apologized?

An ethical scientist might admit his old theory was wrong but the established scientific community never apologizes.

Richard Leaky is still unrepentant in spite of so much objective evidence from Cremo and so many new findings about Neanderthals.

The Medical Community endorsed Thalidomide.
Mathematical Probability proved that it was a poison, using the fact that the odds of the diseases caused as a side effect had less than one in many thousands chances of being random.

Scientists feed you Fluoride in water to this day which you happily consume. Use probability, calulcate how many natural sources of drinking water have excess flouride? Do you feel smarter for being philosophical and singing hymns to the glory of such scientists?
Jackass scientists approved the use of Lead in petrol. They also claim Aspartame is safe.
Have they compensated us for their wrong theory?

The Pesticide community endorsed "ENDOSULFAN", the government of Kerala used Mathematical Probability to prove that Endosulfan was dangerous and has now banned that poison. The odds of genetic illnesses being random was less than one in a thousand as compared to areas that did not have endosulfan sprayed on crops.

We appreciate observational science but it is Mathematics that can give us genuine benefits and can prove the veracity of any claim. Like Match Fixing. Three Pakistani Crickters were convicted because the odds of them bowling a "no ball" at the precise moment the fixer claimed they would do so being random chance was less than one in a million.

"So fundamentally something which occurs more frequently is less likely to be true than something which occurs infrequently"

No, you are not understanding probability theory. That which occurs more frequently has a greater chance of intelligent design.
That which is claimed to be random yet occurs more frequently in trials has a very low chance of being random, hence has a design principle.

Lower Probability of randomness = Higher chance of Intelligent Design.

You accuse me of defensiveness, but pray tell what is your agenda on this forum?
To learn or to Troll ?

Did you even read Harold's 100 page reasoning for end of the world before "judging" me for not agreeing to his conclusion even though I appreciated his math? The Math did not say anything about doomsday, it only showed how two timelines had the same set of prime numbers in their day differences. The odds of such being random are very very low and Harold deserves my thumbs up for finding such timelines.

If you are an Opponent of Astrology, there are sufficient scientific forums for the anti-Astrology camp to spew that for which Saturn will exact precise revenge every 7 and a half years.

posted May 13, 2011 11:48 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:

SFreeze wrote:
"Science is willing to admit it is wrong".
Untrue, the scientific community apologizes the least. Even politicians apologize more.

---

I never mentioned anything about apologising, I simply stated Science will admit it is wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:

Have the scientists who claimed the Electron is fundamentally only a particle apologized? Have those who opposed them back then and had got ridiculed got compensation?...Tomorrow, they will come up with something else.

---

I don't understand what your desire for an apology is, the theory of Electrons as particles has been replaced by other theories. Those who were ridiculed, do you mean those who proposed wave motion theory? Their theory is eminently more accepted in the scientific circle and they are not ridiculued or chastised in the annals of scientific history. The disparity between the two groups is eminently admitted to and show cased in documentaries but at the end of the day their theories are used and they are accredited for them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
Will the PhD degrees of all those who were wrong be taken away? All Scientists who claimed that electron is a particle should have their degrees removed if they were honest. Had they not been teaching falsehood for decades?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
What about those earlier who claimed the atom is the smallest fundamental particle? There were doctors in the 19th century who were opposed to the washing of hands. Have they compensated their victims or at least apologized?

---

Those who claimed the atom was the smallest particle did so because they were unable to see anything smaller, with advances in equipment, smaller particles could be observed. With advances in theory smaller particles can be theorised to exist using as much evidence, science is still trying to find particles and evolve its understanding. The doctors washing their hands is irrelevant to this debate as you are assuming an analogous link between poor hygiene practice and the ever evolving scientific practice. You need only look back to the Roman period or later eras where there was good hygiene practice in medicine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
An ethical scientist might admit his old theory was wrong but the established scientific community never apologizes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
Richard Leaky is still unrepentant in spite of so much objective evidence from Cremo and so many new findings about Neanderthals.

---

I am unaware of this Richard Leaky and issue you mention here, could you please enlighten me?

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
The Medical Community endorsed Thalidomide.
Mathematical Probability proved that it was a poison, using the fact that the odds of the diseases caused as a side effect had less than one in many thousands chances of being random.

---

I'm not saying Thalidomide is not responsible for birth defects, I'm only pointing out the flaw in the mathematical probability used for 'proving' such a link which I think is completely wrong. Investigations such as one done on 8 out of 10 mothers who had taken thalidomide showed that their child had the birth defects. In actual fact this investigation undertaken showed that Thalidomide was a common factor in birth defects. If it was a common factor this equates to a high probability. This is only one investigation and the evidence suggesting that Thalidomide causes birth defects is extremely low, extremely low correlation and extremely low probability of both conditions being true.

Your statement of Thalidomide and birth defects having an extremely small probability means exactly that, the chance that Event A Thalidomide and event B disease side effects are present is an extremely small number. Thus are very unlikely to be connected. Interpretting this extremely low correlation as evidence that they must be linked is not based on maths at all.

What is done in these cases where it is said that this extremely low probability that these two events occur and therefore they must be linked is due to an arbitrary threshold or upper bound is set by whomever makes that statement. For example, to take the link between specified complexity and intelligent design theory the threshold chosen arbitrarily by the person 'proving' it was 1 in 10^150 probability of occuring. Tossing a coin 1000 times and a particular outcome occurring is 1 in 10^300 probability, yet the post probability of this occurring is 1 since we just witnessed it occuring. This 1 in 10^300 probability is astronomically smaller. Humans seek patterns and answers to everything, thus we impose patterns, targets after the facts in an attempt to explain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
Scientists feed you Fluoride in water to this day which you happily consume. Use probability, calulcate how many natural sources of drinking water have excess flouride? Do you feel smarter for being philosophical and singing hymns to the glory of such scientists?
Jackass scientists approved the use of Lead in petrol. They also claim Aspartame is safe.
Have they compensated us for their wrong theory?

---

You say excess fluoride water, so is there not a problem with 'acceptable' levels of fluoride, research suggests that it helps prevent tooth decay. Asking me to do the probability of excess fluoride in water is preposterous because it would require an investigation of enormous magnitude that I currently have neither the connections or equipment to undertake. However, you haven't given any negative side effect of excess fluoride for which probability should be evaluated in context or correlation shown. You say 'excess' fluoride, this could constitude as little as 1mg. The investigation between fluoride and poor health is ongoing and indeterminant at this period of time as far as I am aware, that is, it is not universally accepted that it should be stopped currently.

At the bolded section, why are you attacking my character? That has nothing to do with this debate. As for singing hymns and glories of scientists, I have no idea where you got that from, I've stated numerous times, that scientists get it wrong and are never completely right. That is definitely not a 'praise or hymn of glory'.

Lead in petrol, scientists admitted they were wrong, yet again. Preventing global warming, whether any of us believe in it or not, is a concern of the world and if not great enough currently, it will become great enough later on for major changes to be made.

Aspartame has not been irrevocably linked with brain damage. Findings establish the chances of such being incredibly small. Not impossible, just incredibly small. For any product the health and safety required to pass is rigourous and extremely well regulated, at least now in more modern times where greater degrees of testing are available.

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
The Pesticide community endorsed "ENDOSULFAN", the government of Kerala used Mathematical Probability to prove that Endosulfan was dangerous and has now banned that poison. The odds of genetic illnesses being random was less than one in a thousand as compared to areas that did not have endosulfan sprayed on crops.

---

What was the probability of areas without endosulfan. The probability is still extremely small, please refer to my earlier point about extremely small probabilities, them being unlikely and hence the false assumption that there must be a link. It only suggests than an investigation needs to be undertaken to ascertain whether there is a link, not that a link can be made directly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
We appreciate observational science but it is Mathematics that can give us genuine benefits and can prove the veracity of any claim. Like Match Fixing. Three Pakistani Crickters were convicted because the odds of them bowling a "no ball" at the precise moment the fixer claimed they would do so being random chance was less than one in a million.

---

I don't think that this probability assumption was the evidence used. If it was, then they would be guilty without any kind of evidence what so ever. Testimonials from all parties involved were used and a large investigation was undertaken. Simply applying the mathematical probability of such an event being extremely unlikely and therefore occuring only prompts investigation, which is exactly what happened. During the investigation when evidence suggested that match fixing had taken place it was acted upon. By the logic that such a rare occurence must have been fixed does not explain the lottery or fair race horse betting for example. Your statement suggests that anyone who wins the lottery or indeed even the euromillions must be cheating since the probability of that occuring is 1 in 116,531,800. Thus the probability of winning the euromillions is so absolutely tiny that there is no way anyone can fairly win it? i.e. that it is not random?

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
No, you are not understanding probability theory. That which occurs more frequently has a greater chance of intelligent design.
That which is claimed to be random yet occurs more frequently in trials has a very low chance of being random, hence has a design principle.

Lower Probability of randomness = Higher chance of Intelligent Design.

---

I understand probability perfectly, it tells you what is more likely or less likely to happen. You have just jumped to the conclusion that it must show intelligent design with no evidence or intermediate steps to support such corroboration. Similarly for your point about the design principle.

You state that if something has a probability of say below 1 in 1 million. It points to intelligent design. The probability of these 'events' occuring is 1 in 1 million, they are extremely unlikely to be linked. If the probability of these two events was 999,999 in 1,000,000 then it would be more true, not absolute truth, more true to suggest that intelligent design exists. There are no such cases, the probability used to show intelligent design uses extremely low probabilities of something occuring and just interjects a statement. Flipping a coin 1000 times and hence 1 in 10^300 only indicates that the chance of that particular outcome occuring is; 1 in 10^300. Would you say there is some intelligent design behind this? You cannot pick and choose and make things fit for your purpose.

Intelligent design also argues from ignorance, that such a proposition is true because it hasn't been proved false. There are not just two states, there may be insufficient evidence or information to prove it either true or false. This is applicable to the majority of propositions, one proposition is more true than another, nothing is absolute. Intelligent design theory also just attaches more and more frequent unsupported adjustments to sustain their argument. Thus the theory gets more convoluted and complex with a vast array of conditions to satisfy. This isn't necessarily wrong as sometimes adjustments are needed but requiring too many to make it work severely limits the chances of it being correct.

Intelligent design theory is also not falsifiable. If the statement, 'intelligent design exists' were false, it could be demonstrated to be false. Since this is not the case with Intelligent design theory, it is not a scientific theory, in the sense that it cannot be determined to be true or false but rather is simply held as an absolute truth. Irreducible complexity and specified complexity have both been shown to be severely flawed as support for intelligent design theory. Artificial life research in evolution simulations show the ability for evolution to generate the complexities that these theories reject evolution for and propose Intelligent design.

Fundamentally Intelligent design is a telelogical argument. The assumption that there is a design principle behind the things in nature.

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
You accuse me of defensiveness, but pray tell what is your agenda on this forum?
To learn or to Troll ?

Did you even read Harold's 100 page reasoning for end of the world before "judging" me for not agreeing to his conclusion even though I appreciated his math? The Math did not say anything about doomsday, it only showed how two timelines had the same set of prime numbers in their day differences. The odds of such being random are very very low and Harold deserves my thumbs up for finding such timelines.

If you are an Opponent of Astrology, there are sufficient scientific forums for the anti-Astrology camp to spew that for which Saturn will exact precise revenge every 7 and a half years.

If you are opposed to Asteroids in Astrology, you are most welcome. It is a new subject and there are many reasons for not using Asteroids. The Probability to me shows they are effective but if you decide you need less than one in ten million odds to confirm, then I am yet to get such a data set, mainly because we do not have exact birth times. I will humbly request more patience till anyone finds such a data set, and if we don't, there is no issue whatsoever if you avoid Asteroids. [/B]

---

Please stop attacking my character, I am here on these forums to think and provoke thought. Life is one great learning experience and closing yourself to any possible avenue, at least for myself, is inconcievable. I am not saying that Intelligent design theory is wrong, only that the probability of it being true is far smaller than other potential explanations.

I did not 'judge' you for not agreeing with Harold's conclusions, only questioned why when faced with the same situation as I am here, that you considered it absolutely fine to ignore his conclusions yet for me to question and disagree with you and label it hypocrisy. For the bolded statement, the probability of whatever events you want simultaneously co-inciding is very small. This maths says nothing about Intelligent design theory. It is simply a jump in reasoning, exactly the same as Harold's jump from his maths to his doomsday conclusion.

I am by no means an opponent of Astrology, I consider it along with the thousands of other possibilities and want to learn as much as I can about everything I can. I really hope you aren't wishing revenge on me through Saturn by that statement thats a tad vindictive and not particularly humanitarian that you would wish some revenge or ill-fortune on your fellow man. Again if I mis-interpretted your statement my apologies.
I am also not opposed to asteroids in astrology, they are a new subject and as such deserve a lot of interest and inspection.

------------------

posted May 14, 2011 06:22 AM            

Then we are on the same page.

Welcome to the forum.

You will find great information on the "Universal Codes" Forum as well, as well as the "Divine Diversities" forum.