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.

 

God/Intelligent Design proved Mathematically?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by CallMeMaury
Where exactly is the mathimatical proof in that long rambling permanent digression. For your viewing pleasure my favorite quote from the OP's link.

"-However, the researchers would have evidence to produce a virtually conclusive proof of complex specified information from intelligence if they then also received (from another solar system) the following 200 decimals in sequential order:

3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751
05820974944592*64062862089986280348253421170679
82148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128
48111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196"

On what planet does proof = dependant on a hypothetical future transmission from beyond venus that says just what the author wants.

Bloody ridiculous stuff IMHO.


The author is just giving an example of what would constitute "proof" in this case. Since we haven't received any ET transmissions he has to come up with some type of example. He could of used any number of examples that would make the same point. I do agree he could have just used SETI's own formula (Drake equation which assumes a lot of unknowns), instead of making his own example, but his example is more straight forward without the unknowns.



[edit on 15-3-2009 by B.A.C.]




posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Well, the reason I put in brackets (Not as random) is because there are levels of randomness. One of the main problems with software programming applications or games, etc, is to generate a truly "random" number, which we still have a hard time doing (we can't generate a "true" random number). What I meant was Natural Selection is random to an extent. There is that "random" variable that has to be included.


Aye, pseudorandom.

But when we say random for mutations, it just means it is not correlated to the needs of the organism.

Selection is the non-random aspect of evolution.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
The author is just giving an example of what would constitute "proof" in this case. Since we haven't received any ET transmissions he has to come up with some type of example.


I mentioned this not long back, SETI are looking for very simple signals.

Not complex signals. SETI is nothing like what the IDers suggest it is.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I mentioned this not long back, SETI are looking for very simple signals.

Not complex signals. SETI is nothing like what the IDers suggest it is.


Agreed. Although if SETI does receive a very simple signal I have no doubt that it will be contested as being "proof" of ET's. Unless of course we can then transmit/receive signals with ET's.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Agreed. Although if SETI does receive a very simple signal I have no doubt that it will be contested as being "proof" of ET's.


Well, I would hope that any such evidence would be closely assessed. It would just be a starting point.

The point is that often simplicity is more a sign of intelligent design.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Agreed. Although if SETI does receive a very simple signal I have no doubt that it will be contested as being "proof" of ET's.


Well, I would hope that any such evidence would be closely assessed. It would just be a starting point.

The point is that often simplicity is more a sign of intelligent design.


Agreed again.

Sort of like how simple an idea is that we came from 1 cell prokaryotes from a pre - biotic ocean? *wink wink

[edit on 15-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Agreed again.

Sort of like how simple an idea is that we came from 1 cell prokaryotes from a pre - biotic ocean? *wink wink

[edit on 15-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


I'm sure many wish it was so simple, but it's a bit more complex than that.

Pity it wasn't as 'simple' as evolution. We'd probably have another well-supported theory for you to huff and puff about.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Agreed again.

Sort of like how simple an idea is that we came from 1 cell prokaryotes from a pre - biotic ocean? *wink wink

[edit on 15-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


I'm sure many wish it was so simple, but it's a bit more complex than that.

Pity it wasn't as 'simple' as evolution. We'd probably have another well-supported theory for you to huff and puff about.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by melatonin]


actually my Bible agrees with the idea of Abiogenesis. Although, you are right, I'd be huffing and puffing to blow Science's explanations for it down.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by WildWookie
 


All such arguments are self contradictory.
For if our Universe is too ordered and complex to not have a creator, than said creator would have to be far more ordered and complex, and thus the same argument could be used against such an intelligent being existing without a creator. The result is a never ending series of creators, each getting more complex each time.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by hulkbacker
... I have faith that my naturalistic philosophy will be proven true. Just give it more time.-

You realize what you just said?

Besides that, we've given it 150 years. That's long enough for any "theory". It's not accurate, predicts nothing, and cannot be falsified. Sounds more like "faith" than "theory" to me.


I said a little later that I was merely parroting the points that naturalists often make.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join