It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Incredulity complex and Evolution

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Ha ha, you really don't get it at all!

If English is your first language, I just feel bad for you.




posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Is there an issue with your comprehension skills, you been drinking to much and posting again


Oh yah, that's very classy of you there bud. So now I'm drunk posting because I don't agree with you and call you out on your dishonest tactics.

Nice form pal.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Noinden

Even the bible talks about "No other Gods before me" implying other gods.



Yeah, there are/were lots of gods. Baal, Oden, Zeus, Aphrodite, ...

Surely you understand what the word 'context' means?



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



So, if something is one chance in a billion, and you do it nearly infinite numbers of times, your probability comes closer to being exactly one chance in a billion, averaged over all the results. The actual probability does not change or become more probable.


Actually the probability does change. If at the beginning of an experiment, the probability of 'X' occurring is one in a billion over the lifetime of the experiment, and then 'X' does in fact occur, then the probability changes to 1. No matter how small the probability at the beginning, the longer the experiment goes on, the more probable that the event will indeed occur.

In the play "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead", Rosencrantz bets heads on a coin flip and wins 92 times in a row. Each individual coin flip is 50-50 probability but there is NOTHING preventing 92 heads in a row. The odds against 92 heads in a row are astronomical, yet still the possibility exists. It has nothing to do with being so unlikely that there must be a supernatural cause, it just is (R and G do debate the idea that they must have fallen into some unnatural or supernatural world for 92 heads to come up).

There are 2,598,960 distinct 5 card poker hands if you pay attention to suits. To get any one of those hands, I don't have to sit through 2.6 million deals - I get one of those 2.6 million hands with the first deal and the second deal and the third deal, etc. I have, in my lifetime, been dealt a Royal Flush - extremely low odds, but it happens.

I can't tell you how many deals it will take to get a specific pre-specified hand, but once I have been dealt a hand I can tell you exactly what the odds are that that hand will occur during the game: 100%.

No matter how improbable the existence of life may be (and they are not anywhere as low as some would have you believe), the fact is that life did not exist at some time in the past and that it does exist now: the odds of that occurring are 100%.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: MarsIsRed

I agree, the idea that evolution is contrary to Creation and the Bible is plain stupid.

Yet those that oppose Christian ethics, morality and belief continually argue against a case that was moot a century ago.

Evolution describes a process of biological change. It does not explain how that biology came to be in the first place.

Creationism describes a process of the initiation of biology. It does not describe any process of biological change.

Not are they mutually exclusive: God could have created completely formed species and they could have evolved from there or God could have directed abiogenic forces and there could have been biological change from there. All these ideas are compliant with the Bible and with science.


There is another possibility - that the universe is a simulation. This has been seriously discussed in several articles. I think this possibility needs to be included in any discussion of who, what, where and when the universe and its contents appeared.


Absolutely!

But the question then becomes 'what is it a simulation of' and what is the simulation running on (it's substrate)?

Turtles all the way down?




posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 05:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: chr0naut

Sorry I don't quite understand where you are coming from. I was talking about our universe being infinite not an infinite amount of universes. I also stated "seemingly" infinite due to our limited ability to actually measure it. I don't understand your stance you seem to be suggesting that god didn't create the universe(s), but that gods existence has to be, because the existence of the universe(s) and it's need for essentially a brain to be interconnected and function appropriately? What created the universe that created god?

I suggested that I see the potential for god to not only exist, but set it into motion. I didn't suggest it was action of random force, I believe our universe is a living organism.

I often wonder if a negative pressure ie a vacuum effect lead to the singularity, is our universe in some type of container?. Was the energy compressed together from an outside force or drawn together. I also question if an all knowing being created us, why the need to evolve? Why wouldn't the world/universe already be in perfect cohesion? In the amount of places we've atleast study by means of telescope, why are we the only ones of our kind? Shouldn't the cosmos be teaming with life in our form/his image.


The universe we observe is not infinite. There seems to be boundary limitations everywhere, no matter of scale and value (such as quantisation, planck values and the event horizon of the universe).

I was not suggesting that gods are created by universes. That would be backwards. The universe/s are the creations.

I was just trying to point out that a heirarchy in probability would likely resolve in the collapse of those probabilities with insufficient power to assert themselves but with sufficient power to vie against a supreme God.

The Casimir experiment showed that virtual particles could exert a force within a confined space that is less than the force generated by an unconstrained space. It is important to realise that the experiment proves that matter excludes the creation of vparticles. That is why there is a differential in vparticle pressure.

So, if matter excludes the spontaneous creation of vparticles, then how could a singularity (where matter and all particles are superimposed upon each other in the same confined physical space) arise from quantum fluctuation?

Also, Hawking radiation near the swartzchild radius of a black hole indicates that vparticles may be stripped apart and prevented from annihalating under extreme gravitational tidal forces. Yet for a protouniverse that does not yet contain any matter or force carrying particles, how can there be any forces preventing the annihalation of vparticles from quantum fluctuation?

Those two concepts, mathematically and observationally attested to, when combined together explain why quantum fluctuation is not able to produce a Big Bang singularity.

Similarly, trying to reduce a creative God concept to a simple and mindless physical force, or rule, simply fails to encompass the incredible variety of observed results. It is a rule of thermodynamics that chaotic closed systems (such as a universe) stabilize towards the lowest sum energy state. This means that every situation should be tending to a single lowest energy state. Yet despite that, we have significant and largely inexplicable variety, everywhere.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut



So, if something is one chance in a billion, and you do it nearly infinite numbers of times, your probability comes closer to being exactly one chance in a billion, averaged over all the results. The actual probability does not change or become more probable.


Actually the probability does change. If at the beginning of an experiment, the probability of 'X' occurring is one in a billion over the lifetime of the experiment, and then 'X' does in fact occur, then the probability changes to 1. No matter how small the probability at the beginning, the longer the experiment goes on, the more probable that the event will indeed occur.

In the play "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead", Rosencrantz bets heads on a coin flip and wins 92 times in a row. Each individual coin flip is 50-50 probability but there is NOTHING preventing 92 heads in a row. The odds against 92 heads in a row are astronomical, yet still the possibility exists. It has nothing to do with being so unlikely that there must be a supernatural cause, it just is (R and G do debate the idea that they must have fallen into some unnatural or supernatural world for 92 heads to come up).

There are 2,598,960 distinct 5 card poker hands if you pay attention to suits. To get any one of those hands, I don't have to sit through 2.6 million deals - I get one of those 2.6 million hands with the first deal and the second deal and the third deal, etc. I have, in my lifetime, been dealt a Royal Flush - extremely low odds, but it happens.

I can't tell you how many deals it will take to get a specific pre-specified hand, but once I have been dealt a hand I can tell you exactly what the odds are that that hand will occur during the game: 100%.

No matter how improbable the existence of life may be (and they are not anywhere as low as some would have you believe), the fact is that life did not exist at some time in the past and that it does exist now: the odds of that occurring are 100%.


The actual probability value does not change.

The more times you execute the 'toss of the coin' (or whatever is your randomising procedure), the closer the ratio of the results will come to represent the probability value (not a reduced probability, because it doesn't change).

If a coin toss has a 50/50 chance of showing heads, then each and every toss has a 50% chance of being heads, no matter how many times you toss the coin.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: MarsIsRed

I agree, the idea that evolution is contrary to Creation and the Bible is plain stupid.

Yet those that oppose Christian ethics, morality and belief continually argue against a case that was moot a century ago.

Evolution describes a process of biological change. It does not explain how that biology came to be in the first place.

Creationism describes a process of the initiation of biology. It does not describe any process of biological change.

Not are they mutually exclusive: God could have created completely formed species and they could have evolved from there or God could have directed abiogenic forces and there could have been biological change from there. All these ideas are compliant with the Bible and with science.


There is another possibility - that the universe is a simulation. This has been seriously discussed in several articles. I think this possibility needs to be included in any discussion of who, what, where and when the universe and its contents appeared.


Absolutely!

But the question then becomes 'what is it a simulation of' and what is the simulation running on (it's substrate)?

Turtles all the way down?



And the answer is: No one knows. All three options are speculative. All three are worthy of investigation as long as hard evidence is discovered. So it's back to square one....



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Once again neighbour. These have been provided previously and you ignored them. They have been provided by multiple sources too, or will you once again assert we are all socks of someone?

SO no I'm not going to provide something again. The ball is in your court.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

It would honestly be a real simple matter for ole raggedy to demonstrate that he even understand the science he so easily dismisses with a mere wave of the hand by going over the material presented to him, point by point and point out where the errors are in the science.

You and I both know that's never going to happen though because he doesn't actually understand the most basic aspects of any of it. It's pretty easy to see when he constantly throws in the strawman argument with the sole purpose of derailing people from the real subject matter where he attempts to refute MES in every thread by claiming that the BB isn't true as if that has anything to do with evolution. And the fact that he continuously makes idiotic claims about the BB such as the "everything from nothing" statement in his first reply in this thread when the BB never once makes such a claim.

It's the craziest instance of cognitive dissonance coupled with willful ignorance I've ever seen. And that's saying a lot considering how much time I spend on ATS! But sadly, he not only doesn't understand any of the science, he has zero interest in gaining an understanding of it in any way. I'm more than happy to admit that I'm wrong though if he were ever to refute the science by pointing out the errors instead of using his standard replies while refusing to look at any of the information presented.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

IF he did that he'd have to admit he's wrong. When was that last a thing with Raggy?

You are correct however, he has no understanding. OR (I lean to this) he's doing it for evangelical reasons. Much like Kirk Cameron and CrocoDuck


So are you my sock this week or me yours?



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: peter vlar

IF he did that he'd have to admit he's wrong. When was that last a thing with Raggy?


That's never been his bag to my recollection


You are correct however, he has no understanding. OR (I lean to this) he's doing it for evangelical reasons. Much like Kirk Cameron and CrocoDuck


Either that or he's a troll trying to make other biblical creationists look stupid. I'm on the fence as to which it may be.


So are you my sock this week or me yours?


At this point we may as well just flip a coin for it. Heads or tails?



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Not in my memory either. It usually ends with a moderator sin binning him for being naughty.

IF he is that Troll, I applaud him! He's doing a bang up job! I've shown him to some friends who refuse to engage here, and they laugh and face palm all the time


Now I need to see that coin before we flip it please



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden



Now I need to see that coin before we flip it please


Here ya go folks... use one of mine:

Android: Heads or Tails

iOS: Coin Flip

Windows 10 Mobile: Coin Toss OMG!




top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join