You can prove anything with a survey, just target your particular sample and expand it to the rest of the population of the US. This is just... stupid. Did you know that 100% of the U.S. watches breaking bad? Its cool, I asked two guys.
I did this when I was 2 years old. I thought women didn't eat meat. I ate meat, my dad ate meat, my brothers ate meat, but my mum didn't. Therefore women didn't eat meat.Ghaleon640 said:You can prove anything with a survey, just target your particular sample and expand it to the rest of the population of the US. This is just... stupid. Did you know that 100% of the U.S. watches breaking bad? Its cool, I asked two guys.
Ghaleon640 said:You can prove anything with a survey, just target your particular sample and expand it to the rest of the population of the US. This is just... stupid. Did you know that 100% of the U.S. watches breaking bad? Its cool, I asked two guys.
Of course, we're talking a sample size of 2,200, so that's not really at issue. Many polling companies use smaller samples. While numbers vary, Pew and Gallup both will rely on much less.Phantom Kat said:I did this when I was 2 years old. I thought women didn't eat meat. I ate meat, my dad ate meat, my brothers ate meat, but my mum didn't. Therefore women didn't eat meat.Ghaleon640 said:You can prove anything with a survey, just target your particular sample and expand it to the rest of the population of the US. This is just... stupid. Did you know that 100% of the U.S. watches breaking bad? Its cool, I asked two guys.
I didn't know much about having a representative sample size when I was 2.
I don't think that's relevant to the point Ghaleon640 was making, nor what I was referring to. As far as I am aware, he was pointing out that a survey can be easy to manipulate to say what you want, rather than a criticism of the sample size itself. Somewhat similar to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA (admittedly, it is a comedy sketch).Zachary Amaranth said:Ghaleon640 said:You can prove anything with a survey, just target your particular sample and expand it to the rest of the population of the US. This is just... stupid. Did you know that 100% of the U.S. watches breaking bad? Its cool, I asked two guys.Of course, we're talking a sample size of 2,200, so that's not really at issue. Many polling companies use smaller samples. While numbers vary, Pew and Gallup both will rely on much less.Phantom Kat said:I did this when I was 2 years old. I thought women didn't eat meat. I ate meat, my dad ate meat, my brothers ate meat, but my mum didn't. Therefore women didn't eat meat.Ghaleon640 said:You can prove anything with a survey, just target your particular sample and expand it to the rest of the population of the US. This is just... stupid. Did you know that 100% of the U.S. watches breaking bad? Its cool, I asked two guys.
I didn't know much about having a representative sample size when I was 2.
But yeah, it's pithy to compare this to a sample of two people. I mean, having a sample size 1,100 times that is totally the same.
Haha, yeah.. I did the same. There's at a few anonymous surveys I took through out grade school where I claimed to use copious amounts of several drugs. Any good survey has a way to eliminate immature responses like that, but you've got to wonder at how many people really answered truthfully.Avaholic03 said:I wonder how many kids were just fucking with the results. I can remember a few times taking these types of surveys in school, depending on how bored I was that day sometimes I'd just randomly pick answers, other times I'd intentionally pick the dumbest answer. Unless kids have an incentive to actually get the answers right, I don't know how reliable the results are.
(or maybe I'm just in the very small minority)
Oh? There's no such thing as facts? So 1+1 could actually equal 12? And 1 could actually be greater than 2? Oh, and while we're at it, the Earth could be flat! Or even, the Sun rotates around the Earth! Thanks, that's a real eye-opener. /sLoki_The_Good said:Ah yes just theories because there might be a 0.0000001% chance they are wrong they are not facts. Do you know what qualifies as facts under that definition? Nothing. Human existence, the ways we perceive the world are all so limited that it is impossible to say anything in the certainty you pretend exists when you say "they are just theories".
Telling it like it is isn't taking the piss. Like I said before, theories still have a chance to be proven wrong. It's happened many times in the past. There could be a test done tomorrow that explores evolution and the evidence provided could disprove everything before it. There's nothing stopping that happening, which is why they remain as theories. Like I said before, I believe in evolution and I'd take the piss out of people that think otherwise but I'd do the same to people who put their money on a horse that's going at over 100 to 1.Really getting sick of people taking the piss out of science because they dare to be honest. There comes a point where the probability is so low on something being wrong we consider it fact evolution is up there. Hell most of our understanding and the advancements we made in modern medicine relies on it as fact.
Then why make the argument abotu a sample size of two in the first place?Phantom Kat said:I don't think that's relevant to the point Ghaleon640 was making, nor what I was referring to. As far as I am aware, he was pointing out that a survey can be easy to
manipulate to say what you want, rather than a criticism of the sample size itself. Somewhat similar to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA (admittedly, it is a comedy sketch).
One can kill an engine, and they're not alive either. It means making it stop functioning. Don't pretend you don't know this.Hawkeye21 said:Also, how does one "kill viruses" anyway? Virus is a single organic molecule, it's not even an organism of any description. It isn't even alive.
I'd assume he was taking the point to its logical extreme. His point may have contained an implicit criticism of the sample size but that is essentially an independent point from what he stated explicitly. If he did imply said criticism then I apologise.Zachary Amaranth said:Then why make the argument abotu a sample size of two in the first place?Phantom Kat said:I don't think that's relevant to the point Ghaleon640 was making, nor what I was referring to. As far as I am aware, he was pointing out that a survey can be easy to
manipulate to say what you want, rather than a criticism of the sample size itself. Somewhat similar to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA (admittedly, it is a comedy sketch).
He didn't criticise their methodology.
That's not its logical extreme, it's reducto ad absurdum. It's taken it to the ridiculous extreme.Phantom Kat said:I'd assume he was taking the point to its logical extreme. His point may have contained an implicit criticism of the sample size but that is essentially an independent point from what he stated explicitly. If he did imply said criticism then I apologise.
Numbers 23:19 - "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?"iseko said:I believe in evolution but the evidence is not overwhelming if you break the rules.BigTuk said:Uhm arguing against evolution is like arguing against 2>1. The evidence is so overwhelming and it comes from so many different areas its almost embarrassing, between the fossil records, the DNA records and heck the very physiology of the human body not to mention the fact we see proof of it in every other living thing around us every day.Megazuurkool said:I am not going into the issue whether the universe was created by an explosion or whether we humans developed from animals, but those people did not believe that. Surely they knew there were people who believed it to have happened that way, but if you don't believe in this theory, of course you'll fill in that it isn't correct. There are a lot of people who don't support the evolution theory, big bang, my ancestors were apes etc.. and if that's what you believe you are not stupid for saying 'no' to the whole theory thingy.
I'm so sorry for my English.
It's only considered a theory because the results of it can't be properly predicted. I.e Laws are a case of where X then Y. All evolution says is that given time.. change will occur, that's pretty much a law of the universe so it doesn't really count. but beyond stating that change will occur... you can't predict what that change will be or when it will happen.
Evolution isn't speculation...it's fact.
1) Accept for a fact: god exists
2) some biological mechanisms are to hard to explain with evolution (as far as I know flagella fall under this categorie. Random mutation is a bit hard to believe to explain this one for the moment). This indicates intelligent design.
3) Accept for a fact: god created fossils etc to confuse non believers.
Bam. Evolution has been disproven. Offcourse you have to accept a few facts with no scientific proof whatsoever. I believe thats what they call having faith...