But the religions don't negotiate their requirements.Here's my ultra-quick easy religion. My religion states that Donna Summer will out-rush Fred Taylor. The MINIMUM WAGER to enter my religion is two hours out of every week for the rest of your life and 10% of your career earnings. I have given you good enough odds on your payout to result in a positive EV.Do you join my religion?well maybe not 10% of his career earning, but he'd bet something if he knew it was positive ev. that's the whole point, picking one is a positive ev.If I gave you long enough odds that Donna Summer would have more rushing yards than Fred Taylor by the end of the season, long enough to give it a positive EV, you'd bet 10% of your career earnings on that?I think you're a very silly man.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Creation vs. Evolution (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter larry_boy_44
- Start date
Well, I don't think enough wealth exists for you to pay me if I win. Let's say that 10% of my career earnings is $50,000, just to pick a conservative number. The odds I'd have to get for the bet to be +EV would be more than a billion to one. So that means you'd have to pay me more than $50 trillion, and that's just not feasible.But I'd definitely throw a few pennies on that bet.
Last edited by a moderator:
no i pick another with a positive ev, if i am agnostic. So first I'm an athiest, but wait, that can't be proven (unless you have faith) which i cannot argue. But if you don't get to that by faith, you should become agnostic, realizing that you cannot be SURE.Then,Once you concede you are not SURE, then you should pick one that has the highest EV.Easy peasyBut the religions don't negotiate their requirements.Here's my ultra-quick easy religion. My religion states that Donna Summer will out-rush Fred Taylor. The MINIMUM WAGER to enter my religion is two hours out of every week for the rest of your life and 10% of your career earnings. I have given you good enough odds on your payout to result in a positive EV.Do you join my religion?well maybe not 10% of his career earning, but he'd bet something if he knew it was positive ev. that's the whole point, picking one is a positive ev.If I gave you long enough odds that Donna Summer would have more rushing yards than Fred Taylor by the end of the season, long enough to give it a positive EV, you'd bet 10% of your career earnings on that?I think you're a very silly man.
full grown man
Footballguy
What does your "religion" offer?
shining path
:prettyplease:
Jesus christ, is there any subject that can't be turned into a gambling thread here?
I'll lay you 2-1 odds that the Best Hooters thread will eventually involve some gambling topics.
shining path
:prettyplease:
Ha ha, I got some coffee mugs.
Pigskin Fanatic
Footballguy
I think you missed the point MT. Or I'm missing your point. Jericho's example is pointing out that there is no way for Donna Summers to win since a single yard rush by Fred would win the bet. In the context of his point, it is impossible for Donna Summers to win the bet unless Fred trips over something on the way to the stadium and is unable to run. The best you can hope for is a tie at 0.
It's logically and physically possible for Donna Summers to gain 2000 yards rushing this year. It's just extremely unlikely.If the true odds of it happening are 3^1000000 to 1, and Jericho's offering to lay me 3^1500000 to 1 odds on our bet, then he's the sucker, not me.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I think the odds are better then you think. Imagine Fred Taylor tearing an ACL on the first play of the season after 1 carry for -1 yards. Donna out rushed Jameel Cook, Chris Massey, Kerry Carter, and Obafemi Ayanbadejo in 2003.
I disagree. I think there's a threshold whereby the chances of something happening are so improbable that you could offer any odds you wanted and still be assured a victory. Even given that the losing result is possible. there are certain probabilities that are so close to zero as to merit no consideration as practically possible. If somebody wants to do an EV calculation on any odds given in those situations, feel free. At some point, "extremely probably" becomes, effectively, "absolutely probable" in real situations.
ElGatoLoco
Footballguy
Yeah, right.Like Angelina Jolie likes whipped cream. Please.
Yes, and that threshold is zero. If the chance of something happening is positive -- say, one in fifty billion -- then it will happen every so often. Around once in every fifty billion times, to be exact. So it is not impossible.
Pigskin Fanatic
Footballguy
This isn't a very good argument for DM then. You will devote your life to a religion because there is one in a billion chance that you might be right? Ok, I'll buy that. That's not the part that bothers me.
Then you (you as a general term, not you guys on this thread necessarily) turn around and try to disprove everything else, in this case atheism, because there is one in a billion chance that they might be wrong?
If you can have faith in something with such a low probability, your tolerance for other posibilities should be much much higher than an average person.
Whatevaman15
Footballguy
hmm, thats a nice idea, but surprisingly enough completely wrong. See all infinities are not the same, so infinity/infinity cannot be assumed to be 1. For example, if x is infinity then x^2 is infinity so according to you x/(x^2) is one; however, x/(x^2)=1/x=0.
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
guys... answer these statements...1. The Shrinking Sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "millions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth just the right distance for life to survive. 2. The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than 10,000 years old 3. Fossil Meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks. 4. The moon is receding a few inches each year. A few million years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have destroyed the earth twice a day. 5. The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old. 6. The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young. 7. At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for more than a few thousand years. 8. Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old. Jupiter's moon "Io" is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old. 9. It appears that the stars in the centers of many galaxies are moving faster than the stars at the outer edges. This would make the galaxies lose their spiral shape and spin into a homogeneous mass if they were billions of years old.
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
and...1. The decaying magnetic field limits earth's age to less than 10,000 years old. 2. The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while "the fountains of the deep were broken up," most of the earth's lava was deposited rapidly. 3. Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate gives only a few thousand years of accumulation. 4. The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175, 000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium here which would reduce the age more.) 5. The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years (destroying all old fossils). 6. Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation. Niagara Falls' erosion rate (approx. 2 feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. (Don't forget Noah's Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters receded through the soft sediments). 7. Incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years. 8. The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate the mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah's day could have washed 80% of the mud out there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable time for the delta to form). 9. The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution. 10. Only a small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to evolutionists. 11. The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have formed in about 4400 years. 12. The Sahara desert is expanding. It could easily have been formed in a few thousand years. See any earth science textbook. 13. The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now.
Men-in-Cleats
Footballguy
All of this talk about hedging your bets and probabilities is completely irrelevant when related to reasons for following Christianity. The Christian God described in the Bible would see right through that you'd hedged your bets and didn't really believe, thus taking you back to square one: a one-way ticket to hell. So if your 1/billionth of a chance is made equal to zero in that God isn't interested in being your insurance policy and will damn you to hell for it then your EV is back to zero and your cost is still 2 hours on Sundays and 10% of your salary.
shining path
:prettyplease:
Tell you what, larry, why don't you consult an astronomy or a geology website to get an answer to those points. Astronomers and geologists are just as unanimous as biologists about the age of the earth and the universe.A lot of that stuff is just the usual Last-Tuesdayism that you normally see in creationists literature. "We can point to an object that is only 10,000 years old, therefore everything has to be younger than 10,000 years." Can you see the obvious fallacy in that argument?
Mr. Anonymous
Footballguy
While this all seems a bit silly, I think you guys are focusing on the wrong end of the bet (although I guess they are connected):My instinct (this is unprovable) is that the odds of there being a God is much higher than Donna Summer outrushing Fred Taylor. (By the way, I will take your dollar against any odds on that - trillions to one, if you want. As long as "Donna Summer" is the singer and not Ricky Williams after a name change!) I mean, that's why there's a huge debate on these boards and "out there" about where did everything come from, how can something be created from nothing, our world seems so miraculous it must have designed, etc. And, while it lowers the odds significantly, the odds that that God is THE God through which one must seek through Jesus under the "Christian rules" is still much higher than the Donna Summer bet. The question is the payoff, not the odds on the trigger being met. Our gut instincts may lead us to believe that there is a God - but what to do?; what's the risk/reward with this God? Even if we think that that God may have some demands on us, we don't know what they are (they may be "use your heads, don't hurt people, and don't treat 2000 year old mythology as fact"). So, we generally pick the God and the rules that are part of our culture. Christianity (and Judaism, to a lesser degree) in the west, Islam in the middle east, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. That certainly doesn't seem like people are following a rational bet-making philosophy. It's just happenstance.We have no real grounds to choose against our cultural upbringing, except due to some emotional connection we might have to it (like Buddhism to some, it seems) or due to some rational connection we have to it (like atheism). No people on earth seem especially blessed or cursed. Miracle-making appears to be rare (or is at least rare for the vast majority of us to experience). Thus, even if THE God has been identified by one of the religions, we have no empirical evidence to suggest which religion is right.Now, if I had been given the gift of "faith" (which we are assuming here is not part of the equation for those who are agnostic or atheistic), then I'd have some additional information on which religion to pick, and presumably have some information I'm prepared to consider on the risk/reward front. Hey, my number's in the book, God!But since I don't have faith, I see no reason for the risk/reward to be based on rigidly following any of the theology/mythology packages on offer. I haven't conjured up my own religion to follow. Since the risk/reward seems just as likely to be based on not hurting people and using our God-given brains to their full extent, I see no basis for choosing any religion and following it devoutly. Especially given that there is a cost of doing so. Unless the "psychic income" of following a religion (church fellowship, etc.) justified it, which thus far it doesn't.
Roughly 1.5 inches recession/year.There are 63,360 inches in a mile.The moon is 238,857 miles from the Earth currently.It would take 42,240 years for the moon to move 1 mile further from the earth.Assuming that the moon would be required to be 50,000 miles closer in order to affect the tides in the way you propose (pure speculation), it would take 2,112,000,000 years for the moon to move this distance.What's your argument again?
Rotation of the EarthDo you really want me to debunk every one of these, or can you just go to Google yourself?
Seriously...if you are simply going to be a mocking bird to everything you read, what's the point?
Edit to say: You should be questioning THESE CLAIMS with the same fervor that we are.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Anonymous
Footballguy
I'm not going to search for proof on these, since open-minded and reasonably intelligent person could find them if he/she wanted. These are just off the cuff:1. The Shrinking Sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "millions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth just the right distance for life to survive. DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS; BUT YES, CHANGING THE MASS OF THE SUN WOULD PROBABLY CAUSE LIFE TO PERISH. IF THE SUN COLLAPSES UPON ITSELF, I DON'T THINK THIS WOULD CHANGE ITS MASS BUT THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE YOUR POINT.2. The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than 10,000 years old. NO IT DOESN'T. (FLAT ASSERTION MET WITH FLAT DENIAL)3. Fossil Meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks. FOSSIL METEORITES ARE RARE, PERIOD. IF FOSSIL METEORITES APPEARED IN THE LAYER BELOW THE CRUST AT TEN TIMES WHAT WE SEE ON THE CRUST, WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T KNOW IT. I IMAGINE METEORITES THAT HAVE BEEN PUSHED BELOW THE CRUST THROUGH PLATE TECTONICS HAVE BEEN MELTED.4. The moon is receding a few inches each year. A few million years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have destroyed the earth twice a day. YES, THE MOON REALLY RIPPED THE EARTH A NEW ONE EVERY DAY. THAT'S ONE REASON WHY THE CRUST IS SO YOUNG RELATIVE TO THE AGE OF EARTH; BECAUSE OF THE GRAVATIONAL TIDES IN THE EARTH'S MATERIALS BACK WHEN THE EARTH AND MOON FORMED.5. The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old. SO SUDDENLY WE ACTUALLY BELIEVE SOMETHING SCIENCE HAS TAUGHT US? I DON'T HAVE ANY RESPONSE TO THIS, BUT IF TRUE I'M SURE THAT THERE'S A PERFECTLY REASONABLE SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION. WHERE ARE THESE CONTAINED? ON THE SURFACE OR THE INTERIOR OF THE MOON?6. The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young. NOTHING IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM HAPPENS IN A FEW THOUSAND YEARS. FOLLOWING THAT LOGIC, THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS A FEW THOUSAND YEARS OLD BECAUSE ALL OF THE PLANETS HAVEN'T LUMPED TOGETHER AND THEN SPIRALLED INTO THE SUN.7. At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for more than a few thousand years. THIS IS JUST SILLY. DRAWING ON THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE IN FAVOR OF A FEW THOUSAND YEAR OLD UNIVERSE. THE RATE OF EXPANSION FOR FAR OFF CLUSTERS WOULD HAVE TO BE FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT FOR THEM TO HAVE REACHED THE DISTANCES FROM ONE ANOTHER. (DISCLAIMER: I HAVEN'T CALCULATED THIS, BUT KNOW THAT THE RATE OF EXPANSION IS ALREADY A SIGNIFICANT FRACTION OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT.)8. Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old. EVIDENCE OF THIS? THE HEAT OF JUPITER AND SATURN IS MASSIVE. THEY CAN LOSE MORE HEAT THAN THEY GAIN FOR A LONG, LONG TIME. Jupiter's moon "Io" is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old. HOW LARGE WAS IO ORIGINALLY? THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE. 9. It appears that the stars in the centers of many galaxies are moving faster than the stars at the outer edges. I ASSUME YOU MEAN MOVING FASTER RELATIVE TO THE CENTERS. I DON'T THINK SO; I THINK THIS IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. This would make the galaxies lose their spiral shape and spin into a homogeneous mass if they were billions of years old. BUT YOU ARE SAYING THEY CAN DO IT FOR A FEW THOUSAND YEARS AND BE OKAY? and...1. The decaying magnetic field limits earth's age to less than 10,000 years old. ASSERTION MET WITH DENIAL.2. The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. IF TRUE, I ASSUME THIS RELIES ON THE VOLUME OF LAVA ON EARTH STILL IN THE FORM OF LAVA. LOTS OF LAVA THAT HAS BEEN CREATED OVER THE PAST FIVE BILLION YEARS HAS BEEN CIRCULATED BACK INTO THE MANTLE. I believe that during the Flood, while "the fountains of the deep were broken up," most of the earth's lava was deposited rapidly. LAVA DOES TEND TO GET RAPIDLY DEPOSITED.3. Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate gives only a few thousand years of accumulation. WHERE IS THE INFLUX COMING FROM? SO, IN A BILLION YEARS, WILL THE OCEANS BE CHOCKED WITH MINERALS?4. The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175, 000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium here which would reduce the age more.) I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH HELIUM IS FORMED ON EARTH, BUT I DO KNOW THAT HELIUM IS PRETTY RARE, AND IT MAY WELL BE DISSIPATED INTO SPACE OR ELSE COMBINE WITH OTHER ATOMS TO FORM OTHER ELEMENTS.5. The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years (destroying all old fossils). IF IT WEREN'T FOR PLATE TECTONICS HELPING FORM NEW TERRA FIRMA. MANY OLD FOSSILS HAVE UNDOUBTEDLY BEEN DESTROYED OR OBSCURED BY EROSION AND PLATE TECTONICS. 6. Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation. Niagara Falls' erosion rate (approx. 2 feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. (Don't forget Noah's Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters receded through the soft sediments). I FLAT DON'T BELIEVE THAT NIAGARA FALLS IS ERODING AT TWO FEET A YEAR. THAT WOULD BE TWO HUNDRED FEET IN THE LAST CENTURY, AND I'VE SEEN PICTURES OF NIAGARA FALLS A HUNDRED YEARS AGO AND IT DOESN'T LOOK THAT MUCH DIFFERENT THAN TODAY. IN ANY CASE, NIAGARA FALLS IS NOT AS OLD AS THE EARTH.7. Incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years. MAYBE THOSE WELLS ARE LESS THAN 15000 YEARS. I'LL STIPULATE THAT SOME OF THEM ARE 14,000 YEARS - WILL YOU ACCEPT THAT?8. The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate the mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah's day could have washed 80% of the mud out there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable time for the delta to form). I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA HOW OLD THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER DELTA IS. HOWEVER, I WILL STIPULATE THAT THE DELTA IS YOUNGER THAN THE EARTH IS.9. The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution. IF YOU ARE TAKING THE OBSERVED SLOWING OF SPIN OF THE EARTH, THEN YOU ARE JUST ASSERTING THAT THERE WAS A MAXIMUM RATE OF SPIN REACHED 4400 YEARS AGO. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THIS.10. Only a small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to evolutionists. THE CONTINENTAL DRIFT THEORY IS VITALLY IMPORTANT TO EVOLUTIONISTS BECAUSE THEY ARE SCIENTISTS AND CONTINENTAL DRIFT HAPPENED AND IS HAPPENING. IF YOU BELIEVE IN WHAT SCIENTISTS TELL US ABOUT THE SPIN RATE OF EARTH, WHY DON'T YOU GO READ ABOUT THE RATE AT WHICH THE PACIFIC OCEAN IS WIDENING?11. The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have formed in about 4400 years.OR THEY COULD HAVE FORMED IN 8000 YEARS AND TOPPLED OVER. OR THEY COULD HAVE FORMED IN 10 MILLION YEARS, SLOWLY. OR THEY COULD HAVE FORMED IN A BILLION YEARS AND DISAPPEARED BY NOW. 12. The Sahara desert is expanding. It could easily have been formed in a few thousand years. See any earth science textbook. THE SAHARA DESERT EXPANDS AND CONTRACTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH WARMING AND COOLING OF EARTH. WE ARE IN A WARM CYCLE, SO I BELIEVE IT IS EXPANDING. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHETHER A FEW THOUSAND YEARS IS HOW LONG THE RECENT CYCLE HAS BEEN. I KNOW HUMANS LEFT AFRICA ABOUT 180,000 YEARS AGO DURING A TIME IN WHICH THE SAHARA WAS IN A SHRUNKEN STATE. IT HAS EXPANDED AND SHRUNK A NUMBER OF TIMES SINCE THEN.13. The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now. ASSERTION MET WITH DENIAL (EXCEPT WHETHER THE OCEANS ARE GETTING SALTIER - I DON'T KNOW.)
Yes. The Sahara has only been a desert for a few thousand years. It was not a desert back when glaciers were moving through it during the Ordovician period.
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question from way back on page 16:
So, you say that there was a catastrophic event (the flood) that killed everything not within the safe haven of the ark:
but, earlier, you said...This is an apparent contradiction. Were the beetles and aquatic animals and fish on the ark or were they destroyed during the flood?
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
I'll answer the ones I know... lol
The problem is more with the diameter than the mass...
actually that is exactly what it is saying... That if it happened for more than a few thousand years, it wouldn't be possilbe...gotta go... do others later...
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
:rotflmao: I suppose I'm giving this too much effort, but all of the above assume a constant rate of something happening. Gotta tell you.. that never happens in nature. Ever.Doesn't surprise me at all that the mathematical/scientific complexity in each of these assertions is about a fifth grade level.
Spartans Rule
Footballguy
The Legend of the Shrinking Sun
Typed "Shrinking Sun" in to a search engine and got that. The full article is exhaustive.I could do this for every item on the list. But you've got a search engine Larry, so if you're really that interested in scientific truth, knock yourself out.
shining path
:prettyplease:
There were glaciers during the Ordovician period?
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Snap!
shining path
:prettyplease:
Or maybe rock cocaine. Another reason why the dinosaurs went extinct.
