Originally Posted by
jrolland1975
That's your opinion. It's not what observation suggests.
Incidentally, let's say that at time 0, you have a population of 100. At time 1, 10 have died. Assuming that at time 0 everyone would drink water, which is your own assumption, there is absolutely no correlation between drinking water and dying (I wrote the series down for you so you can think about it). If you're trying to stun the rest of us, try at least to find an example that makes sense
Drinks Dies Lives
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 1
I cannot believe I am having to explain this
, but the water/death comment was a (slightly cliched) way of saying that just because there appears to be a correlation between two observations that is not evidence that there is a cause/effect relationship. I don't need a lesson in statistics.
And while I am eternally gratefully for you writing out columns of numbers (I'm guessing you did the rough draft in crayon?), again, you have catastrophically missed the point, which was, that just because everyone who at some point in their lives has drunk water eventually dies it does not mean that water causes death. In fact, as everyone knows, if you don't drink water you
will die, so the point of the
sarcastic comment was that the
badly applied statistics purport to prove the opposite of what is actually true.
The same can be true of meat-eating and longevity, and it is such a complex issue (biochemically, physiologically, sociologically, etc.) that there is no reasonable way of resolving the interwoven aspects of it to come to a certain conclusion either way.
PS: Please don't bang on about this any more. You've already become the guy who refuses to laugh a joke because it doesn't make any sense that a monkey could be a priest...