RE: Calling All Evolutionists To Get Rich Quick.

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Sun, 11 Oct 1998 17:36:44 -0700

> 0.95 is related to correlational evidence. Otherwise scientists would not believe >that there would be a lotto winner either. Poor logic dear Joseph, you are
>comparing apples and oranges.
> Poor Joseph, his arguments are reduced to strawmen and irrelevance by his own
>'logic'.

Joseph: 0.95 is not limited to correlational evidence. So, here is a chance to
make another cool $1000. You say that 0.95 is a standard limited to
correlational analyses and we both put up $1000. If you are right, you
collect the $2000. If I am right, I collect the $2000. Deal?

If you don't put your money where your mouth is Pim, you will look like
a liar to the whole world. And if you do, then "Poor Joseph" will be
rich. Which do you prefer O Great List Teacher?>

Poor Joseph, if he had evidence he should share it with us rather than try to muddle science with silly bets.

So explain how science can support a game of cards if the likelyhood of the individual hands is so small ?

Another strawman bites the dust.