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.

 

Does the Central Limit Theorem prove a Creator/Deity?

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


it took you long enough to find an updated generic chart without all the stages of so called human developement from the nuckle dragging chimp to modern man.

Evolutionists must have been seriously humiliated by the older charts.




posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I mean christ... I've never even seen one of those diagrams in my science book when I went to school. Perhaps your schools curriculum is a little lacking compared to where I went, or maybe your a bit older than me, which would explain the gap in your knowledge of what your arguing compared to me.


It would explain why so few in America believe in evolution;, too much religion, not enough science and education. Everyone knows that America's educational system is in the toilet, I guess the one should expect a little anti-intellectualism.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Oh I'm sorry... I went out with the family to the grocery store. I needed to get something for dinner as I didn't have anything in the house I was interested in. I should have informed you of my daily activities before I left so you wouldn't erroneously assume without warrant that it took me a long time to find that chart.

In actuality, it took a total of 5 seconds, thankfully I'm a can type at a decent speed and I knew exactly what I was looking for without even having to "look hard for it".

You still haven't proven your point, and as so much your digging yourself a bigger hole by not even arguing the point. You laugh and laugh and laugh and make thing's up without showing your work. Tsk Tsk, glad someone finds sloppiness so funny, surely I do not.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 
Just sneakin in...you being good?



OT



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Oh I'm sorry... I went out with the family to the grocery store. I needed to get something for dinner as I didn't have anything in the house I was interested in. I should have informed you of my daily activities before I left so you wouldn't erroneously assume without warrant that it took me a long time to find that chart.

In actuality, it took a total of 5 seconds, thankfully I'm a can type at a decent speed and I knew exactly what I was looking for without even having to "look hard for it".

You still haven't proven your point, and as so much your digging yourself a bigger hole by not even arguing the point. You laugh and laugh and laugh and make thing's up without showing your work. Tsk Tsk, glad someone finds sloppiness so funny, surely I do not.


Ahhhh!! So you ignored all the charts that you knew darn well I was referring to......nice!



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Let me know when your ready to continue the conversation like an intelligent person and not some half-witted imbecile. You've given up trying to argue anything of substance. I'm disappointed in you, but then again you have shown a clear cut case of giving up one line of argument and moving to another when cornered an unable to further argue a point.


Like I said, let me know when your ready to continue in an intelligent manner and not knowingly acting dumb and unable to comprehend simple concepts.


[EDIT TO INFORM]

Just to let you know, I'm going to bed now. In other words, don't get your hopes up if it takes me till the time I wake up to reply to any new post's, this is not a sign of me being unable to argue against anything you've got to say. This is just simply me sleeping now and unable to reply while doing so. It's a shame I have to go this far as explaining my daily actions so you don't get your hopes up in that your winning here and shouting for joy.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by sirnex]

[edit on 22-9-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Let me know when your ready to continue the conversation like an intelligent person and not some half-witted imbecile. You've given up trying to argue anything of substance. I'm disappointed in you, but then again you have shown a clear cut case of giving up one line of argument and moving to another when cornered an unable to further argue a point.


I did not mean to offend you. I posted plenty of posts with enough substance to bury evolution for good.

Nighty Night. Catch ya tomorrow.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


I did not mean to offend you. I posted plenty of posts with enough substance to bury evolution for good.


Ha! You're not saying anything new; nothing that hasn't been refuted and as long as you rely on creationist websites and their profoundly hypocritical "search for truth" when in reality they start with the conclusion and then work to find some support then you'll never achieve a realistic view of nature.

There may be one microbiologist in the world who could take on an educated person and win against evolution, however even then it will only be against our understanding of the phenomenon and science's incomplete picture of it, but then "what has been seen and no be unseen." Or in this case, observed.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Woke up to use the little boy's room and decided to check the forum. Anywho, thanks for the U2U, I appreciate the concern, but you've not upset me nor offended me. I'm not sure where your even getting the idea that you are, I'm just simply asking to continue the discussion when your ready to act a little more intelligently than you are right now.

With that out of the way, tomorrow morning we'll recap every single post between you and I on the subject of evolution and hopefully developing a clearer picture of where your going wrong in your conclusions. It could just possibly be that I'm not being clear enough in my explanations to you. Then again, you have been arguing in a very hypocritical manner and just plain outright knowingly and willfully acting dumb to illicit an attack/insult from me.

An example would include your question regarding why don't atoms evolve. I gave you a clear and concise answer and you run off on how they can bond together into this or that and evolution of life and so on.

Whatever, like I said, we'll pick through each of your post's tomorrow and hopefully get a better understanding of where you are going wrong and where your just being an idiot on purpose to illicit attacks and insults and frustration.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Excellent post OT. It amazes me how you come up with all this. I know why you do and consider it a crown.

Now do I believe that it proves the existence of God? Hmm. Only to believers I guess. It's hard to convince someone that a glass is half full when they are thirsty.

I think that the time is at hand. Well done my friend.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
OldThinker:

Does the Central Limit Theorem prove a Creator/Deity?


In a nutshell, the theorem cannot prove the reality of anything that does not actually exist...God being the pinnacle of the case in point. Using statistical means to foundate the veracity of self-evidencies is like taking the amount of showings of Mickey Mouse cartoons to validate the actual existence of a real Mickey Mouse. Strangely enough, both God and Mickey Mouse appear from the same fertile ground...that of human imagination.

You begin with assumptions that are not later deassumptified, they remain assumptions. Levy's 9th Law for instance...'Only God can make a random selection' is a Levy assumption with no basis in fact or truth, but entirely based in self-evidency out of which the opinion has been formed. A generalised statement can be made, the statistical basis of which due to the absence of solid evidence of any kind, makes all 'God' assumptions redundant, and that is mathematics cannot map infinity, and therefore no accurate means can be summed to give a accurate holistic account of the universe. Determinate (God present) or indeterminate (God absent) are irrelevant and meaningless concepts whilst infinity cannot be brought within local and meaningful understanding. Quite simply, the variable scale of infinity is too vast for our minds to encompass.

No amount of assumption from self-evidency, nor the intensity of passion in opinion or faith, will ever make either assumption or opinion into truths without solid empirical evidence supporting such claims. Currently, throughout the history of our species, no such evidence exists or has existed that supports there ever having been a God.

Of course, one can make the claim that the lack of evidence does not preclude God actually existing, and that is an opinion that can be enjoyed until such evidence emerges that either supports or denies God's existence. The point being, therefore, is that God arguments are both meaningless and irrelevant, and that makind would vastly err to make decisions affective upon life based upon such assumptions and opinions. History itself teaches us that.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


It's kind of funny. I finished my post, but then deleted everything. I came to the sudden realization that your not actually trying to debate, persuade, or argue any real points. All your doing is purposefully playing games.

You claim a few thing's, but never show your work on why you claim those things. Your post's are small and without any substance. You purposefully try to post in such a manner attempting to illicit insults and attacks. You conceptualize your idea's as if your still a young kid *which may be the case, I don't know your age*.

You accept parts of evolutionary theory, but then claim to reject it in it's entirety. You've been nothing but purposefully hypocritical in all your arguments.

In other words, I'm not playing games with you. You almost got the type of response you were trying to illicit from me, but I'm not going to stoop that low to act like a complete imbecile like you.

Hopefully you'll mature enough to continue in an intelligent manner.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
Guys, I am going to dinner....

I'll be back in an hour...


OT's really looking for some stat guys to comment here...


This is an original idea, I believe...and I know we can finetune it...because ATS has the world's smartest posters, I know!!!

OT


This maybe a little simplistic but many thing are, so here it goes.

If there is only one common designer as you suggest, why is it that this "one" being uses the words "us" and "our" during the creation of Adam and Lillith?



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by elysiumfire
 


Well spoken!!!



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by John Matrix
 


I did not mean to offend you. I posted plenty of posts with enough substance to bury evolution for good.


Ha! You're not saying anything new;


I didn't realize TRUTH is NEW???

OT



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Sirnex, why do you not believe?

Did you ever?

Did your views chance after college? That happens you know...??

OT



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
Excellent post OT. It amazes me how you come up with all this. I know why you do and consider it a crown.

Now do I believe that it proves the existence of God? Hmm. Only to believers I guess. It's hard to convince someone that a glass is half full when they are thirsty.

I think that the time is at hand. Well done my friend.





Hey thank you for the props, gotta catch a plane....I'll touch back later all



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I didn't realize TRUTH is NEW???

OT


What truth? I see not truth here. Just more unpleasant and unintellectual faith.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Do you mean why I don't believe in a god? I'm not sure what your asking really.

I'll assume this is it, so here goes. I've never believed in a god, even though I've been baptized and forced to go to church when I was a kid. At eight years old I told my mom I didn't want to go anymore, that it was stupid, they were wrong, and they were boring me to death. I actually got jabbed in the chest too many times to count for falling asleep listening to the silly stories of jesus.

The reason I didn't believe what I was hearing was because no where that I looked, I never seen any evidence for what they were saying. I probably did not know at that young of an age that the word 'evidence' is what I was looking for, but case in point, I saw nothing that showed they were telling the truth.

I did try to go to college, that lasted three months, didn't care for it really. Went in to get a degree in IT, but first had to learn how to deal with people in a business setting. Being PC and polite and all and not calling a meter maid a meter maid, I mean wtf lol... I never knew meter maids were called by anything else, pissed off my teacher when I brought that new PC term up.

Anyways, I started learning everything I could about not only science, but also about religion. Turns out both are pretty similar in their belief structures and inner workings. Both expound a 'truth' and both have faulty logic and misunderstandings to back up that 'truth'. Both forms of belief also 'evolve' in a sense in what they believe. Religious thoughts have changed many times in the thousands of years it's been recorded, so has scientific reasoning's.

Yet, when we objectively look out at the universe, we don't even see a universe that had a beginning, either by god or by some cosmic scale C4 military grade explosive device. Nothing went boom and we see no one saying let there be light. We have both parties saying there was a beginning without showing enough evidence that there was a beginning.

I see science looking in every direction and showing the same age for the universe in every direction, which shouldn't be possible unless we're in the direct center of the universe. I see some fundamentalist religious folks giving the universe an age of no more than 6,000 years following what their scripture says while ignoring evidence contrary.

So, by using the most simplest answer, the universe is infinite and follows the laws of physics as they exist.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

You accept parts of evolutionary theory, but then claim to reject it in it's entirety. You've been nothing but purposefully hypocritical in all your arguments.


1. I am not trying to illicit insulting responses from you or anyone else.
2. I'm going to ignore your insults.
3. I have presented arguments by well educated people, and have given you the sources.'
4. I do not agree with "evolution".
5. I said What I agree with is variation within species, and adaptive response is an observable fact. I also said it is explained by the designer having encoded adaptive responses and variations into the DNA.
6. I believe the use of the term micro-evolution by evolutionists is misleading and deceptive because it has nothing to do with macro-evolution or abiogenesis, nor does it prove them.
7. I think it's unfair for you to discard my sources, simply because they are located on websites that are associated with Christians, the bible, or creation science.
8. If you cannot see the clear deception after reading this, then I cannot help you:www.isthebibletrue.net...
9. I think your criticisms are completely unfair.
10. How can anyone have an intelligent debate with people who blindly accept a delusion, believe in it's lies, and reject the truth?


[edit on 23/9/09 by John Matrix]




top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join