Islam IS the true religion of humanity.

[Kayenneh]

I wont answer irrelevant posts .

Petulant child. And here we all still answer yours..

[Jacob(smooth)]

Since you linked Gauss' curve, you see the 3 sigma(standard deviations) at right/left. According to the data I posted, the probability for homosexuality to be un-natural is 3 standard deviations away meaning in the 0.1% region so multiplied by 2 that's 0.2% chance for it to be an un-natural occurrence and over 99.8% chance for it to be of natural causes.

Nine sticks to that 0.2% chance because religion makes her feel good.

Indeed. (although I'm not convinced that one can determine causality from a distribution). However I'm thinking that when 19 says natural she does not mean it in the mathmatical sense. I certainly did not start to learn about gaussian distribution until I was at post grad level so I'm not holding that against her. However it does mean I don't really know what normal means to her.

That's why I'm interested.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Well, maybe we should stop? Pretty clear she's not here to learn anything about, well, anything, rather just to preach her religion over and over and reject everything else.

For a 19 year old (assumption of age here) to be so closed minded, when traditionally most young people are open to new ideas and exploring different things in the world, really shows how doomed she really is.

Assuming not a troll/POE.

[pocaracas]

Notice how her ignore list is in alphabetical order, until you get to 'feeling' at the end?

Were we put on ignore in that order and it's just a coincidence, or did she purposefully place us all in alphabetical order and forgot about feeling in her anger?

Maybe she was just tired. I'd be tired too if my only reason for being here was just to say "nuh uh!" to everything and act like a moron 24/7.

She may have done it alphabetical on the first time... and then just didn't give a crap about it, when adding new people.

I also noticed she told everyone when and why she put them on ignore... except me...
I must have angered her much and more!

[Duck]

Since you linked Gauss' curve, you see the 3 sigma(standard deviations) at right/left. According to the data I posted, the probability for homosexuality to be un-natural is 3 standard deviations away meaning in the 0.1% region so multiplied by 2 that's 0.2% chance for it to be an un-natural occurrence and over 99.8% chance for it to be of natural causes.

Nine sticks to that 0.2% chance because religion makes her feel good.

Indeed. (although I'm not convinced that one can determine causality from a distribution). However I'm thinking that when 19 says natural she does not mean it in the mathmatical sense. I certainly did not start to learn about gaussian distribution until I was at post grad level so I'm not holding that against her. However it does mean I don't really know what normal means to her.

That's why I'm interested.

I think we are wandering onto slightly dangerous ground here. I also feel people may start confusing normal with a normally-distributed data set. Hardly synonymous and the word normal doesn't mean the same in the two contexts.

I think Nineteen needs to define what she means by 'normal' before we can continue in even a vaguely meaningful fashion.

Nineteen? Can you do so please?

---

Oh, and I think Ksa is abusing statistics slightly too; chance isn't really the right word to use, it is more accurate to talk about the variation in the data being random or not.

[Jacob(smooth)]

I think we are wandering onto slightly dangerous ground here. I also feel people may start confusing normal with a normally-distributed data set. Hardly synonymous and the word normal doesn't mean the same in the two contexts.

I think Nineteen needs to define what she means by 'normal' before we can continue in even a vaguely meaningful fashion.

Nineteen? Can you do so please?

She sort of did, but only by synonymising it with "natural". Hence my question about the number of sexual partners a male will have. In nature, very high. Does that then make marital infidelity "natural" and thus "normal" and thus "right"?

Waiting for an answer from herself.

[Kayenneh]

Normal?

[pocaracas]

Normal?

I wonder how many will understand this...

[Duck]

Normal?

I wonder how many will understand this...

You should start a poll, see if there is a different between different religions/atheists and how many get it... it might shed some light on the matter (hohoho)

[Ksa]

Indeed. (although I'm not convinced that one can determine causality from a distribution). However I'm thinking that when 19 says natural she does not mean it in the mathmatical sense. I certainly did not start to learn about gaussian distribution until I was at post grad level so I'm not holding that against her. However it does mean I don't really know what normal means to her.

That's why I'm interested.

I think we are wandering onto slightly dangerous ground here. I also feel people may start confusing normal with a normally-distributed data set. Hardly synonymous and the word normal doesn't mean the same in the two contexts.

I think Nineteen needs to define what she means by 'normal' before we can continue in even a vaguely meaningful fashion.

Nineteen? Can you do so please?

---

Oh, and I think Ksa is abusing statistics slightly too; chance isn't really the right word to use, it is more accurate to talk about the variation in the data being random or not.

Ok let's do it simply for the 16 homosexual male sample. There is no complication here, grey matter was measured in straight men and homosexual men. Straight men scored an 856 figure and the homosexual males scored a 863 figure.

Question is, what is the probability for the variation to be due to baseline and not to a naturally occurring phenomenon. So first we average all uncertainties:

(59 + 68 + 45 + 52 + 53 x 2 + 67 + 59 + 64) = 57.78

Assuming that homosexuals represent 5% of the world population, we calculate the average grey matter in humans:

0.05 x 863 + 0.95 x 856 = 856.35+- 57.78

On second thoughts, those are big fucking uncertainties, we have a problem here I thought it was 0.57...hmmm well, lets see what it gives:

Standard deviation = (1/40[(856-856.35)^2+(863-856.35)^2+(863-856)^2/ 57.78 ])^1/2

Standard deviation =1.06

So according to the normal distribution the probability is under 30%...this study is shitty I thought the uncertainties were 0.57...if the uncertainty is 57 might as well have varied from 863 to 856, does someone else have another study?