Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?

Faith writes:Exactly what is it you claim I have overlooked? Please repost.

[holmes] The theory of card counting completely relies upon the size of the deck and I will show you why. If I am playing a game of 21 and I identify that three queens, 2 kings, and 1 jack have gone out. Then based on the size of the deck and the number of cards already out of play I can precisely calculate my odds of obtaining an additional card worth 10 points. This prediction can be strengthened by what cards my opponents have in play and the likelihood of having a 10pt card hidden based upon the additions they ask for.[faith] You see but all of those things are just relating to the "characteristics" of the cards. In no way does the actual SIZE OF THE DECK matter when applying the theory. You can identify the cards that have gone out without regards to the size of the deck and you can guess the probabilities of your opponents cards based on their face cards without regards to the size of the deck. All of this terminology regarding the deck size is simply ingrained in the heads of professional gamblers and they will never be able to see that it is all just semantics with regards to the "characteristics" of the cards in question. The deck could just as well have 4 cards in it and the predictive power would be the same.[holmes] Wait! But don't you see? If I don't know how big the deck is then there is no way I can compute the actual probability of getting a 10pt card. The size of the deck is absolutely essential variable to the calculation. The whole theory relies on knowing the deck size so that the cards you count are adequately represented in the sample size which is the deck. How would you even begin to calculate the probability of getting a 10pt card without knowing the size of the deck? Please give us an alternative.[faith] Now, I am no professional gambler, but it seem to me like all you are doing is referring to deck sizes as FIFTY TWO when it really all that matters is what cards have been played out and the layout of the cards in play by my opponents. You can call the prediction based on the state of the cards a "probability" if you want to use that terminology but really it is just an educated guess. I am not here to present an alternative to "calculate" anything but rather just to point out the obviously silly flaws in your large deck theory. The deck size could easily be 4 or 5 cards but it does not matter when playing cards.[holmes] Well no. A probability is a precise mathematical calculation that will tell you the exact odds of getting the card you want out of a set based on the criteria I listed before. But you MUST know the size of the deck or there is no foundation to the calculation. Besides, if there are only 4 or 5 cards there might not be enough to have a whole game![faith] You can call it a "calculation" or "probability" but it is nothing more than a guess based on the "characteristics" of the cards. Plenty of small-deck-gambling sites that you all hate so much explain exactly how you can have a full game of 21 with only 4 to 5 cards.[holmes] *head explodes*

Faith writes:The evidence demonstrates what I said it does, that age is not of substantive value in any of the examples given, merely circumstantial or incidental labeling.

since the actual evidence shows that they were deposited quite rapidly and folded pretty soon after as previously discussed

I know. And since I'm not reading the text, what is the evidence that this sort of strain occurs to solidly lithified rocks rather than to them at some softer point in their lithification?

Am I to accept that a buried trilobite would simply elongate rather than break into pieces if it were already fossilized?

Am I to believe that hardened rock can acquire waviness or record rain drops?

In any case I don't see how your information affects anything I said. I don't care if they deformed before or after they lithified, only the way they buckled suggests something short of perfect hardness and I'm not sure anything you linked truly precludes that possibility. The Rockies appear to have been upthrust after total lithification which could happen pretty rapidly under the enormous pressures of the weight of the wet/damp column itself.

As I said, it doesn't matter to me but I don't see the relevance of this. I asked if there are signs of strain in the Alleghenies that deerbreh gave as an example, or in the downslope from the mounded area at the north of the Grand Canyon? You didn't answer. Are neat parallels maintained with strain? Those pictures don't look like strain maintains any kind of neatness whatever but produces deformities.

Just out of curiosity, how do you explain the difference between the soft-looking buckling of the Alleghenies and the jagged sharp straight stratifications upthrust at angles in the Rockies?

I'm not talking very soft, just not totally lithified. And also, has anyone SEEN a totally lithified rock deforming under strain? If not, how do you know it was totally lithified?

Something must have to happen awfully rapidly to preserve a raindrop impression.

I'm not sure this has actually been proven,

although again, it isn't important to the discussion as far as I can tell.

So what happens to soft strata/rocks/sediments under deforming pressures?