300 cubits in length
50 cubits in width
30 cubits in height

I don't know what a cubit is.

We think the finger to the elbow of the size arm that people had then.

okay, completely disregard whatever he was talking about. it still remains that to have two of every species would require a ship larger than any that has been built in modern history, do you honestly believe they could build something we couldn't build now 2000+ years ago?

Just that they would be the first individuals that were socially aware. Meaning that they were the first beings to recognize that their actions had consequences and the Garden of Eden fable has to do with the dangers of being aware of morality.

I don't know who the tale is cited to as author, but it seems to illustrate for me at least that even early man was aware there was a divide between being hominids motivated by instinct and being people with conscious choices.

Regardless of what or whom you believe, this paradigm shift had to happen sometime and I don't think the Adam and Eve story does a bad job of trying to accomplish that.

Hope that clears my view up.

I think every species is impossible. It would have to be genus.

If you believe that Adam and Eve were created x years ago then obviously you don't believe in any kind of evolution. Also, the poll very purposefully does not use the word evolution, it uses "development" specifically for people who have a problem with Darwinism.

I used the broad term "natural" specifically so that they were mutually exclusive. If human beings developed over time then the processes are either natural or unnatural. I can't think of an unnatural cause that isn't related to God.

Also, thanks for giving me the opportunity to comment on a pet peeve of mine; people who say something is obviously wrong without citing a reason or example. If you can think of something that does not fall into either of these two realms then why not give an example? It would make your point far better and would have taken just as much effort (unless of course you can't think of one, which I suspect is the case).

Took one try: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/One...ally-True.aspx

If you are referring to obvious allegories and metaphors (such as Jesus' parables) then you are a nit and going out of your way to talk down to me with no meaningful purpose. If you really think that there are no Christians who believe that the bible is 100% accurate then you are just wrong and should take your own advice.

1. Already been addressed by fury.

2. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. There are two million animal species. 2 million times two of each is 4 million. They can't all fit onto one boat. If they weren't all the boat, how did they reappear after the flood?

3. Trained biologists from across the planet can do this. Not primitive people with no knowledge of animals, no tools, nothing. Are you telling me a primitive person could just stroll into a beehive and collect two bees? Or pluck two mayflies out of the air? Do you realize how long it woulld take for eight people to corrall a pair of two million different species?

4. Just as an example, here is a link showing the various levels of flood tolerance among certain types of trees. And this is just a regular flood. The flood in the bible was much, much greater, it covered everything, even the tallest treest would have been completely submerged. You can't compare floods in recent history to the cataclysmic flood described in the bible. Any nonaquatic plantlife could not survive two weeks of complete submergence.

No, it isn't obvious.


God parted the Red Sea by calling up a strong wind. For that matter the Bible says that God upholds all things, and along with other passages, this may mean there are no purely natural events. Like I said, you guys are the children of the Enlightenment and probably don't even know it.

Of course that's what I'm talking about. But if I say a metaphor is obvious this forum will then say I'm picking and choosing what is or isn't a figure of speech. The point is some interpretation is required. And I didn't say anything about the Bible's accuracy - I believe it's 100% accurate in the originals.

To get a bit back to OP's original point: I hate to hear Americans disparaged like this.

Anyone who thinks Americans are dumber than people in the rest of the world haven't been to the rest of the world.

We have our flaws examined more than anyone else, because our flaws are more important than anyone else's, because we are more important than anyone else.

Half the leaders in Europe make Bush look bright and honest; almost all the leaders outside Europe have that effect.

Been to Nigeria lately?
Examined Mongolian creationist beliefs?
Encountered a non-idiot Frenchman?

Foreigners sometimes sound like old fat guys walking out of an NBA game saying, "I'm better than those pros, I didn't miss a shot all night!"

no worries. i know you well enough now to know that you are not attacking me. i really did not think much about the question, other than how i should answer. i know that you prope my posts, so i want to make sure i think about what i say before i say it.

i guess i should have been more specific to what i had a problem with. sometimes i forget that not everone sees the exact same thing as me. i thought the link would be obvious to what sort of point i was getting at. but apparently not. i just get mad when people try to use statistics to back themselves up, when there are so many issues with them inherently, when used to just blindly prove a point.

that has been happening more and more lately

When statistical studies have flaws, it is easy to point them out. Statistics is a huge academic field precisely because of its usefulness. There is a lot of information regarding what makes up a good statistical analysis and what makes up a bad one.

Saying that some studies are bad and therefore stats can't be used to back up a point is ridiculous. It must be taken on a case by case basis. If you have issue with the link madnak posted, then take a look at that study and tell us why you think it is flawed. Linking to the "debunking" of an unrelated analysis does nothing for you except make you look ignorant.

"i just get mad when people try to use statistics to back themselves up, when there are so many issues with them inherently, when used to just blindly prove a point."

That's just not true. There's plenty of bad stats going around, but there's nothing inherently wrong with stats. When someone makes a claim like the one in this thread about the inverse correlation between intelligence and religiosity, statistical analysis is the only way to back up that claim!

i agree. i made too much of a blanket statement there and you are right it was wrong. my problem is more this the supposed implications of these types of studies. And maybe madnak was not trying to imply anything but simply pointing out. people like vhawk try to take these studies and use it to say you would have to be stupid to believe in religion. there are many things that could be said about a study like this. for one, you could infer that people of a certain intelligence are to arrogant to believe in religion. that is just as valid of a claim as someone like vhawks claim. and the stats clearly show that, right?

again, what i feel is inherently wrong with stats is that too many things could be inferred by stats that is not neccasarily there. the stats themselves really do not say anything other than there is a possible corralation, not what that corralation means. you can also say of these studies that majority of people are fairly dumb, and that majority of people are religious. so does that mean that there is an actual corralation, or hapenstance? in order to show that you would have to know why the believe what they believe.

Seriously, this wouldn't be the case if the stats were about anything other than a correlation between Biblical Literalism and stupidity (or anything else you might feel strongly about because of your belief system).

Do you not use a HUD when you play poker because there might be underlying stats hidden in the numbers?

no, i personally have always held this view about stats. of course i do get a little more pasionate about it when it deals in the realm of religion.

i do but this is a little different then what we are talking about. HUD stats are useful in basically making a prediction of how someone is going to act based on previous actions. so you are using probabilities to decide what to do and estimate hand range. you do not use one stat like VPIP to imply a direct relationship between entering too many pots to their over all play. that is why people use many stats on their HUD instead of just one.

if someone entered too many pots, you would not just assume that the rest of their play was bad as well. you need to combine that with everthing else that you know as well. if you assume that because someone has poor preflop tendancies therefore must have bad post flop tendancies you can stand to loose a lot of money.

in this case you are using one statistic of supposed corralation to imply a blanket statement about people.

maybe anothe rproblem in (I assume you mean ) the USA is the bizarre idea that there's something wrong with aknowledging mistakes and flaws.


who'se claiming they are dumber?

I'd like that to remain true but it wont if you keep with the cult of the stupid. If you don't stop thinking that you will remain on top without making good decisions then even I expect to live long enough to see you no longer most important.

oh dear, Berlesconi maybe, sarkozy maybe but probably not, who else in Europe makes Bush look anything but a drooling idiot in comparison? If you have to resort to Nigeria and mongolia then you've made the case against the USA pretty well

sure but so what, they don't have a cult of stupidity that rouses the French to wild applause and cheering when the idiot Frenchmen says something really dumb and a distrust for anyone 'afflicted' with intelligence.

This is such a frighteningly poor analogy.

The analogy is with a once great team sitting pretty at the top of the league but half the good players have left, the manager is rubbish and the team is now losing groud rapidly.

This is where the disconnect comes in.

What the stats actually say:

"If someone has poor preflop tendencies, they're MORE LIKELY to have poor postflop tendencies as well."

Which is what's happening in this thread. Here...

Jib:

"Stats get interpreted the wrong way all the time. Just because a person is a Biblical Literalist, doesn't mean they must be stupid too."

What the stats actually say:

"If a person is a Biblical Literalist, they're MORE LIKELY to be stupid as well."

All other underlying factors, in both cases, will help to tweak the stats in certain situations, but the overall correlation is still there without them. Nobody is saying that ALL religious people (or Biblical Literalists) are stupid, just like nobody is saying that all bad preflop players are also bad postflop players. It's just that the stats show there's definitely a correlation. You can go anecdotal all you want to try and show the stats wrong, but that still won't change the overall correlation.

But half? i have no idea of who he is refering to.

I hate to keep harping on this, but the above statement makes me think you have no idea what correlation actually measures.

Do you realize you are describing the construction of a statistical model? Your first model, which you reject, is PQ=f(VPIP), where PQ is player quality. You then intimate a second model, PQ=f(VPIP, preflop tend, postflop tend). This is simply a model with more parameters. Adding parameters makes models more accurate, but less general. So, a model like PQ=f(VPIP, PRF, AF), given a set of values (15, 14, 4), would describe a style of play likely to be successful for many (not all, maybe most) players. When you add to that model values regarding positional play and other more player-specific characteristics, you get more accuracy for a given situation, but you can't impose that output (PQ) in as wide variety of situations. There is always a tradeoff between generality and precision.

i do. look at other parts of my posts. i have kinda used it liberaly in certain spots and directed much toward the connotative meaning of correlation rather than statistical correlation.

there is a difference and i am sure that you know, when talking about correlation in an open forum that word has many implication that most people move toward. not just a statistical definition.

ok. so i do not understand the point that you are trying to get across.

You are confusing correlation and causation, as well as suggesting that a correlation implies some sort of mechanism. An appropriate use of "correlation" is simply a relationship. As x changes, so does y. There might be an underlying reason, or it could be spurious (happenstance). Doesn't matter. It's still a correlation.

I think a survey which determines a persons biblical literalism, an estimate of what THEY think their IQ is, and their actual IQ, would be very interesting.

The point is that you are disparaging statistical thinking and model building without realizing that this is exactly what you are doing when you use a HUD to understand/describe an opponent's behavior. Whether you use a single parameter or many, it's philosophically identical.