Posted:

**Jan 24, 2012 11:54 pm**Byron wrote:logical bob wrote:Bayes’ Theorem has been proven formally valid. Any argument that violates a valid

form of argument is itself invalid. Therefore any argument that violates Bayes’ Theorem

is invalid. All valid historical arguments are described by Bayes’ Theorem. Therefore any

historical argument that cannot be described by a correct application of Bayes’ Theorem

is invalid. Therefore Bayes’ Theorem is a good method of testing any historical argument

for validity.

... so nerny-ner-ner-ner-ner.

I say bullshit.

I'll take your bovine leavings and raise you a steaming pile of horseshit. Carrier shovels.

What Carrier fails to do is match his chart to the land. So Bayes' says such and such. That's nice. How the cluster fuck does that translate to the available evidence?

I can't get over the chutzpah of a guy rewriting a discipline he's never practiced. If Carrier ever wants to get away from this amateur pundit shit and land himself gainful employment in the field, delivering a formulaic "screw you" isn't the way to go about it.

And damn, the brother of the Lord riff could have been lifted straight from the Thread Without End. Whoever first thought of it should copyright the brotherfucker and cash in. Oh yes, it was the church catholic and universal. There's irony in perfection, right there.

I see lots of cuss words, but no rational argument showing why Carrier is mistaken.

Got one?