Origins Thread

[AN2]

Poker, Probability & @Tiger

Accusing people of what you are yourself.

Okay, let's hear the Tiger roar.

Below is a poker hand dubbed - Greatest Fold Ever?! -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FcHra9RMw0A

You don't have to watch the full video, you can just watch this short if you prefer -


View: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/Jxa0cix7y5c

The question is, how were the percentages (probability) for each player seen on screen calculated before Polk folded?

Feel free to ask any questions if you don't know how to play poker, aren't familiar with a standard deck of playing cards or other.

 

[AN2]

I've no idea but polk only has two outs if that's an answer to anything.

It answers why Hellmuth is 87% (and not )

Btw I don't think it's that impressive. Hellmuth practically gives it away with how he's talking; how relaxed and confident he sounds.

You know what, I've watched a lot of poker over the years and I sense a pattern with Hellmuth raising with that hand, QT - when he's tilting

Obviously, QTo isn't a raising hand in early position (and that's basically what Polk has to put him on) so it's a little disguised in that way. And then there's Hellmuth massively overbetting the pot, he must've been sick when Polk turned over his cards (the second nuts, with no winning outs)

I agree with you that his chatter didn't display any nervousness, the only thing he was nervous about was not getting called

 

[AN2]

I remember it was really popular for a while in the early noughties. They used to show the World Series of Poker on one of the Sky channels and it was fantastic entertainment. There were lots of characters I recall: Mike the Mouth Matusow, the poker brat Phil Hellmuth, Daniel Negraunu; the black fella who was ice cold, Phil Ivey. Negraunu was my favourite. Very charismatic but a great player, constantly making amazing reads. One of the years he was at a table with Sam Farah and Negraunu just kept getting absolutely rode on the river by Farah, making amazing folds - and ended up being knocked out purely due to bad luck. Unfortunately I can't find any clips on YouTube but this hand was from the same table.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V2nx11R4f5g&pp=ygUWV3NvcCBzYW0gZmFyaGEgbmVncmFudQ%3D%3D

Yeah, I loved that show, great commentators. Negreanu's a good guy

The WSOP is a $10,000 buy-in poker tournament with thousands of entrants that takes days to complete, with 1st prize being millions.

That ^ guy (who I think is Goldie Hawn's son) went out, doubling up Sammy in the very first hand of the first day of the tournament.

Sammy of course made it to the final table of the WSOP 'Main Event' losing to Chris Moneymaker (who bad-beat Ivey in the latter stages) heads-up -


View: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/EjfKC3AhAkc

Moneymaker is credited with the explosion of online poker, a rank amateur who qualified for the tournament online for like 30 bucks.

You're right about Hellmuth usually accompanied by his characteristic quick shove of the chips and hands up to cover his face. The poor chap always seemed to get screwed

Hahaha.. Here's Finn Juha Helppi imitating it in a hand with Phil -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qEsmxW5EKy8

 

[SwordOfStZip]

So far three devout Catholics have voted against evolution.

In Nordie land in particular but also to a lesser degree in the rest of Ireland you have this bad habit of even "Conservative" Catholics (though in all justice not "Traditionalist" Catholics as in people who reject Vatican II) of sniggering at Prods for choosing to accept the Bible over the theories put forward by Occidental science as regards human origins. With this comes the incredibly wrong idea that the Catholic Church actually accepted the theory of evolution. I actually think that all this has been a major cause for the collapse of Catholicism in Ireland.

 

[AN2]

Yeah, there were a few lads who won the wsop and then faded into obscurity. Remember Greg Raymer, the fat fella with the colourful glasses? Then there was the Australian guy, Joe Hachim? And Jamie Gold, a right annoying bollox.

Good days.

Greg Raymer "Fossilman" won it the year after Moneymaker I think. I would certainly say that Raymer and Hachem are pros, Jamie Gold is more of a Chris Moneymaker

 

[AN2]

I've no idea but polk only has two outs if that's an answer to anything.

I should clarify (wouldn't want to lead @Tiger astray) that Polk has three outs, or would have had if he called.

Polk would need to hit a queen (with two cards to come) for a split pot.

His hand can't improve to a winning hand, which is why he's 0%, and with Helmuth at 87% clearly that means that there's a 13% chance of the split.

The probability is calculated based on what's known and what isn't. So, 7 cards are known, 2 in each of their hands and 3 on the flop. Leaving 45 unknown cards, containing 3 queens (Helmuth obviously has one in his hand).

Calculating the 13% is easy for anyone with an understanding of the basics of probability.

 

[AN2]

In Nordie land in particular but also to a lesser degree in the rest of Ireland you have this bad habit of even "Conservative" Catholics (though in all justice not "Traditionalist" Catholics as in people who reject Vatican II) of sniggering at Prods for choosing to accept the Bible over the theories put forward by Occidental science as regards human origins. With this comes the incredibly wrong idea that the Catholic Church actually accepted the theory of evolution. I actually think that all this has been a major cause for the collapse of Catholicism in Ireland.

Evolution must be a tough one for the Church.. considering the weight of evidence behind it.

Btw, evolution doesn't address abiogenesis (the origin of life)

 

[AN2]

Poker, Probability & @Tiger



Okay, let's hear the Tiger roar.

Below is a poker hand dubbed - Greatest Fold Ever?! -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FcHra9RMw0A

You don't have to watch the full video, you can just watch this short if you prefer -


View: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/Jxa0cix7y5c

The question is, how were the percentages (probability) for each player seen on screen calculated before Polk folded?

Feel free to ask any questions if you don't know how to play poker, aren't familiar with a standard deck of playing cards or other.

Seems like @Tiger is more of a pussycat than a tiger

 

[Hermit]

lol Did you mean to type that*?

*The plot thickens

No one knows what a planet is. Claims that planets are balls of rock and gas cannot be verified.

 

[AN2]

View attachment 6636

The planets move perceptibly because they're relatively close in comparison to the stars. They shine because they reflect sunlight.

Btw, all of the planets of the solar system orbit very close to the ecliptic, only a few degrees off, the exception being this one -

(Although it's not technically considered a planet anymore)

No one knows what a planet is. Claims that planets are balls of rock and gas cannot be verified.

 

[AN2]

Day 3

Still no sign of @Tiger.. Are we looking at the second greatest fold in history?

I'll give him till midnight tonight to show up.

Ha! That reminds me of my favourite movie..


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w19XRFnxQ-E

 

[Tiger]

Day 3

Still no sign of @Tiger.. Are we looking at the second greatest fold in history?

I'll give him till midnight tonight to show up.

Ha! That reminds me of my favourite movie..


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w19XRFnxQ-E

James, the scar of shame on your ego over that probability blunder seems to run deep—but alas, you’ll have to find another to soothe it. I don’t do belly rubs.

You have some cheek demanding responses from people that you never answer any questions to. I’ve only ever had one way conversations with you. You never answer anything, because you think every question is a trick question.

This thread is like watching a game of intellectual pinball: ideas bouncing wildly, logic drained, and the flippers are broken. It's an absolute mess. It’s clearly a monument to the chaotic ingenuity of its creator.

Believe me, I’d sooner read a manual on toaster repair than wade into this bedlam.

 

[AN2]

James, the scar of shame on your ego over that probability blunder

lol Why do you keep on lying.. or are you so incredibly thick that you think a quip was a "blunder"?

seems to run deep—but alas, you’ll have to find another to soothe it. I don’t do belly rubs.

You have some cheek demanding responses from people that you never answer any questions to. I’ve only ever had one way conversations with you. You never answer anything, because you think every question is a trick question.

This thread is like watching a game of intellectual pinball: ideas bouncing wildly, logic drained, and the flippers are broken. It's an absolute mess. It’s clearly a monument to the chaotic ingenuity of its creator.

Believe me, I’d sooner read a manual on toaster repair than wade into this bedlam.

You write a helluva lot of words to say nothing.

Are you going to have a go at the question, yes or no?

 

[AN2]

And by the way, this is a simple probability question.

A deck of 45 cards, containing 3 of a particular type, what is the probability if two cards are picked that one, or both, will be of the particular type? We know the answer, it's 13%

If @Tiger knew the basics of probability he'd be able to say how that's calculated in his sleep

 

[AN2]

And to assure that there's no trickery, to calculate we will make use of two basic principles of probability, namely:

1. The relationship between and/or and multiplication/addition, respectively

2. The especially useful number in probability - a haon

The probabilistic range lies between 0 and 1. A nifty fact is that the probability of something happening and not happening adds to 1

 

[Tiger]

James, Probability for card games? Really? Your level of ability as a 50 year old man is the same as a 9 year old kid.

It’s child’s play, which is exactly why you can handle it. But the second we start talking about evolution, you get all cagey—like you know you’re in over your head.

On record you’ve dropped the most embarrassing probability take ever: "50/50!.......It either happened, or it didn’t."

No wonder you stick to card games. Basic, simple—right at the level even a 9-year-old could handle without humiliating themselves.

The fact that you are asking the question implies that you think the answer is difficult.

 

[AN2]

James, Probability for card games?

See, this is the reason I made my previous two posts in the thread, to remove any notion that it's about card games.

It's a probability question

And he hasn't the slightest fucking clue how to answer it

Really? Your level of ability as a 50 year old man is the same as a 9 year old kid.

It’s child’s play, which is exactly why you can handle it. But the second we start talking about evolution, you get all cagey—like you know you’re in over your head.

On record you’ve dropped the most embarrassing probability take ever: "50/50!.......It either happened, or it didn’t."

No wonder you stick to card games. Basic, simple—right at the level even a 9-year-old could handle without humiliating themselves.

You're determined to embarrass yourself

 

[AN2]

.. at this stage, I don't think the dummy could figure the probability if just one card was picked

 

[AN2]

How fucking retarded do you have to be to not understand when someone makes a quip, not necessarily at the first attempt.. but to babble on about it for months on end as if it proves something

@Tiger, a classic case of someone who's too retarded to know he's retarded

I THINK the first time I thought of the quip 50-50 was in relation to (the existence of) God.

I could be wrong (I don't read his books) but I believe that Dawkins has a scale, going from 1-7, a sort of probabilistic scale (for the existence of God) and one would need to be at least a 5 on the scale to qualify as an atheist, or something like that.

How could one assign such a probability?

I say - I don't know, there either is or there isn't. It's 50-50

 

[AN2]

View: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/XtE3k5TaVuA

 

[AN2]

To calculate we will make use of two basic principles of probability, namely:

1. The relationship between and/or and multiplication/addition, respectively

2. The especially useful number in probability - a haon

The probabilistic range lies between 0 and 1. A nifty fact is that the probability of something happening and not happening adds to 1

Let's do the math

Bearing in mind the two basic principles above.

So the probability that the turn comes a queen is easy, right (I think that it's only beyond @Tiger), and the same for the river.

Instead of turn and river I will use the alternative terms - 4th and 5th street.

4th street: 3/45 = 0.067
5th street: 3/44 = 0.068

But notice that the 5th street probability is anding with a queen not coming on 4th street, so to use that figure we can't just add those two probabilities.

Remember that the probabilities of happening and not happening add to 1. So the probability of 4th street not coming a queen is the probability of it coming a queen subtracted from 1.

So the calculation using the above probabilities is:

0.067 + (0.068 * (1 – 0.067))

"The probability that 4th street comes a queen or 5th street comes a queen and 4th street didn't."

We could also use the probabilities of 4th street and 5th street not coming a queen.

4th street: 42/45 = 0.933
5th street: 41/44 = 0.932

And then calculation is:

1 - (0.933 * 0.932)

"The probability that 4th street and 5th street don't come a queen subtracted from 1."

You can click on the calculations above (they're links) and see that they're precisely the same number.

0.13, or 13%

 

[AN2]

 

[AN2]

Is there nobody online to play poker with today?

Still trying to pretend that your ignorance of probability has something to do with poker, I see

 

[AN2]

You’re such a needy loser.

View: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/jimpijp_jPs

 

[AN2]

The Trio of Calmuny and Cowardice

I have decided to name the following three Sarsfield's posters (you know who you are) as titled above.

All three are now currently on the run (<- obviously they run the wrong way because they're stupid ) from the following questions:

Why the Confused emoji @PlunkettsGhost?

At this stage, I think I can only ask you to write your conclusion of your gibberish


lol Do you think that something different happens during a solar eclipse, something that isn't happening all the time?

How old is the Earth?

 

[AN2]

The Trio of Calmuny and Cowardice

I have decided to name the following three Sarsfield's posters (you know who you are) as titled above.

All three are now currently on the run (<- obviously they run the wrong way because they're stupid ) from the following questions:

Wow!

First of all, thank you for sparing my blushes dear reader for the spelling mistake in the title above.

Funnily enough, no word of a lie, I selected a bunch of the text from the title and googled it for the correct spelling of 'calumny' and an article was returned in the results that I clicked on and which is highly relevant even though all I had googled was - Calmuny and Cowardice. Freaky

It's quite short, I'll post it in a few excerpts and hopefully you can see how accurately it describes the Origins censored thread by @Tiger..

 

[AN2]

<begins>

On Monday, November 30, 2009, Occidental College paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Donald Prothero and I teamed up against Intelligent Design (ID) proponents Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg. The topic was suppose to be on the origins of life and whether evolutionary theory or intelligent design best explained it. Then it evolved to just: "Has Evolutionary Theory Adequately Explained the Origins of Life?", and finally, five minutes before the start, it changed again to "Has Neo-Darwinism Adequately Explained the Origins of Life?"

Why the word games? Because ID creationists have no science, no theory, and no research program. The only thing they can do is attack evolutionary theory and hope people don't notice that they are employing the fallacy of false alternatives: If A is wrong then B must be right. If evolutionary theory is wrong then intelligent design must be right. Wrong. In order to displace a prevailing theory or paradigm in science it is not enough to merely point out what it cannot explain; you have to offer a new theory that explains more data, and do so in a testable way. In their public debates IDers never define intelligence or design, and if they can help it they never tell anyone who they think the designer is, even though everyone in the room already knows that they think it is Yahweh, the God of Abraham.

 

[Professor]

What do you think of the Origins of the distinctive 'Half Caste' race?
They have evolved from a mix of the 'Black' & 'White' races.

 

[AN2]

What do you think of the Origins of the distinctive 'Half Caste' race?
They have evolved from a mix of the 'Black' & 'White' races.

A mulatto? An albino? A mosquito? My libido?

I think misegenation is kind of tragic. And I don't think that I would count it as evolution

 

[Professor]

A mulatto? An albino? A mosquito? My libido?

A Latina? (Spanish empire)

Half Caste'ism is common and far more prevalent within the colonial societies - Some blend, others remain distinctive, religion (culture!), not only colour & build, also plays a part in the progressive evolution

 

[AN2]

 

[AN2]

<begins>

On Monday, November 30, 2009, Occidental College paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Donald Prothero and I teamed up against Intelligent Design (ID) proponents Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg. The topic was suppose to be on the origins of life and whether evolutionary theory or intelligent design best explained it. Then it evolved to just: "Has Evolutionary Theory Adequately Explained the Origins of Life?", and finally, five minutes before the start, it changed again to "Has Neo-Darwinism Adequately Explained the Origins of Life?"

Why the word games? Because ID creationists have no science, no theory, and no research program. The only thing they can do is attack evolutionary theory and hope people don't notice that they are employing the fallacy of false alternatives: If A is wrong then B must be right. If evolutionary theory is wrong then intelligent design must be right. Wrong. In order to displace a prevailing theory or paradigm in science it is not enough to merely point out what it cannot explain; you have to offer a new theory that explains more data, and do so in a testable way. In their public debates IDers never define intelligence or design, and if they can help it they never tell anyone who they think the designer is, even though everyone in the room already knows that they think it is Yahweh, the God of Abraham.

<reading more>

In this latest debate, each side got 25 minutes. I opened with two short points: (1) the religious agenda of ID creationists calls into question their motives, and (2) regardless of their religious beliefs, the flaws in their arguments doom their program. I noted that my friend Francis Collins, who was the Director of the Human Genome Project and is now head of the National Institutes of Health, is a born-again evangelical Christian who fully accepts all of evolutionary theory and has never been discriminated against for his religious views because he practices good science (which puts the lie to the claim by IDers that they are not given a hearing because of their religious beliefs). Prothero devoted his time to instructing the audience on where the science of life's origins is today, basically covering his 15-week college course in one minute per week's worth of material. You can read Don's account here: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/12/battle-in-bever.html#more

So how do Meyer and Sternberg think life originated on Earth? Who knows, because in their entire 25 minutes they never once even mentioned the origin of life, and instead attacked "neo-Darwinism," population genetics, rates of mutation, etc., none of which has anything whatsoever to do with the origins of life. Then, without even a hint of hypocrisy, Meyer accused us of dodging the debate question! He then announced that he was not there to defend intelligent design theory, nor would he speculate on how he thinks life came about. I was amazed. Meyer has a brand new 600-page book subtitled "The Evidence for Intelligent Design" that they were selling in the lobby, and he flew thousands of miles with no intention of telling us how he thinks life arose? This is what bothers me about creationists more than anything else--they don't have the courage of their convictions. They're cowards. They want to hide behind scientistic jargon and try to sneak in their religion later.

 

[Tiger]

For context of Jambo’s latest bout of idiocy, here’s the actual link to the debate which he decided to copy and paste someone else’s interpretation of. Being an unemployed alcoholic, this is all we can really expect in terms of his level of debate.


View: https://youtu.be/L-KPfFPIaVU?feature=shared


For anyone who listens to this, you will see that the interpretation he posted is horses gockey.




James, posting someone else's biased rant about a 15-year-old debate that went poorly for your side doesn’t help your case—it just highlights that you don’t really understand the subject at all. Prothero’s account is riddled with ad hominem attacks, emotional rhetoric, and strawman arguments rather than substantive points. If you had actually listened to the debate you would see that he spends more time insulting his opponents, complaining about the moderator, and patting himself on the back than actually addressing any of the scientific issues.

You obviously never listened to a single word of the 2 hour debate (as you clearly don't have the attention span capable of lasting that long) so lazily reposting Don Prothero’s 15-year-old tirade about a debate does nothing to help your case—it just highlights how out of touch you are with the subject. Prothero’s account is riddled with emotional bluster, ad hominem attacks, and smug self-congratulation, but it’s remarkably light on substantive science. Instead of addressing core issues like the origins of specified information or irreducible complexity, he resorts to mocking his opponents and appealing to his own authority—a hallmark of someone defending a crumbling paradigm. In fact it's very similar to your level of argumentation. No science, just childish ad homs.

What’s even more damning is your failure to recognize how much the landscape of microbiology and genetics has advanced in the last 15 years. Discoveries in epigenetics, molecular machines, and information theory have only deepened the challenges to Neo-Darwinism while providing strong support for Intelligent Design. By clinging to Prothero’s outdated rhetoric, you’re showing that your grasp of this topic is stuck in the past, ignoring the significant body of new evidence that has emerged. If anything, this just underscores your unwillingness to engage with the real science at play.

 

[AN2]

<begins>

On Monday, November 30, 2009, Occidental College paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Donald Prothero and I teamed up against Intelligent Design (ID) proponents Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg. The topic was suppose to be on the origins of life and whether evolutionary theory or intelligent design best explained it. Then it evolved to just: "Has Evolutionary Theory Adequately Explained the Origins of Life?", and finally, five minutes before the start, it changed again to "Has Neo-Darwinism Adequately Explained the Origins of Life?"

Why the word games? Because ID creationists have no science, no theory, and no research program. The only thing they can do is attack evolutionary theory and hope people don't notice that they are employing the fallacy of false alternatives: If A is wrong then B must be right. If evolutionary theory is wrong then intelligent design must be right. Wrong. In order to displace a prevailing theory or paradigm in science it is not enough to merely point out what it cannot explain; you have to offer a new theory that explains more data, and do so in a testable way. In their public debates IDers never define intelligence or design, and if they can help it they never tell anyone who they think the designer is, even though everyone in the room already knows that they think it is Yahweh, the God of Abraham.

<reading more>

In this latest debate, each side got 25 minutes. I opened with two short points: (1) the religious agenda of ID creationists calls into question their motives, and (2) regardless of their religious beliefs, the flaws in their arguments doom their program. I noted that my friend Francis Collins, who was the Director of the Human Genome Project and is now head of the National Institutes of Health, is a born-again evangelical Christian who fully accepts all of evolutionary theory and has never been discriminated against for his religious views because he practices good science (which puts the lie to the claim by IDers that they are not given a hearing because of their religious beliefs). Prothero devoted his time to instructing the audience on where the science of life's origins is today, basically covering his 15-week college course in one minute per week's worth of material. You can read Don's account here: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/12/battle-in-bever.html#more

So how do Meyer and Sternberg think life originated on Earth? Who knows, because in their entire 25 minutes they never once even mentioned the origin of life, and instead attacked "neo-Darwinism," population genetics, rates of mutation, etc., none of which has anything whatsoever to do with the origins of life. Then, without even a hint of hypocrisy, Meyer accused us of dodging the debate question! He then announced that he was not there to defend intelligent design theory, nor would he speculate on how he thinks life came about. I was amazed. Meyer has a brand new 600-page book subtitled "The Evidence for Intelligent Design" that they were selling in the lobby, and he flew thousands of miles with no intention of telling us how he thinks life arose? This is what bothers me about creationists more than anything else--they don't have the courage of their convictions. They're cowards. They want to hide behind scientistic jargon and try to sneak in their religion later.

<ends>

Here are a few quotes from the leaders of the intelligent design movement that I read aloud to the audience:

"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God.... The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ. ... And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ as the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view."
--William Dembski, February 6, 2000, National Religious Broadcasters convention in Anaheim

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." --William Dembski, Touchstone magazine

"Christians in the 20th century have been playing defense. They've been fighting a defensive war to defend what they have, to defend as much of it as they can. It never turns the tide. What we're trying to do is something entirely different. We're trying to go into enemy territory, their very center, and blow up the ammunition dump. What is their ammunition dump in this metaphor? It is their version of creation."
--Phillip Johnson, U.C. Berkeley Law Professor, National Religious Broadcasters convention in Anaheim

"This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science.... It's about religion and philosophy." --Phillip Johnson

Over a century ago, during the first round of evolution-creation debates in England, Herbert Spencer observed: "Those who cavalierly reject the theory of evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all."

The Cowardice and Calumny of Creationism

The Cowardice and Calumny of Creationism

www.huffpost.com

 

[AN2]

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

I have decided to name the following three Sarsfield's posters.

So when are you gaing to name them?

 

[Tiger]

There’s that arrested development again.

You’re a 50 year old bum.

It doesn’t suit you.

 

[AN2]

So when are you going to name them?

They were all named in the post, follow the links. And they're all still on the run

 

[AN2]

There’s that arrested development again.

You’re a 50 year old bum.

It doesn’t suit you.

You don't think that someone almost fifty would be a Nirvana fan?

You realise that Kurt died like thirty years ago?

How old r u btw?

My guess would be twenties, possibly teenager

 

[AN2]

By the way, the lack of self-awareness in this post is truly staggering (and comical ) -

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-120646

Of course, I can't reply to it because I'm banned