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: 11
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


1. You most certainly are, especially when knowingly acting out in such a manner as with the atom example. You asked a specific question, got a specific answer, and decided to go off on an entirely separate approach that had nothing to do with the original question.

2. Observations are not insult. You may take offense to being observed as acting in such a manner and being told so, but that is a personal issue that lays within your own conduct and arguments.

3. You mean something like this LINK? Seriously? Anyone using common sense can see that this article purposefully disregards the physical processes and laws at play.

4. You do agree with some aspects of evolution while disregarding the theory in it's entirety. The parts you do accept are parts of evolutionary theory.

5. Answered in point 4

6. This was previously answered by another person within this same forum, your disregarding that these terms are not used anymore. I understand your not liking those terms, but utilizing dead terms as an end all for your argument is faulty and show's a lack of knowledge in what you are arguing.

7. I've never discarded your sources for being of creationist sources, I've discarded them for being wrong in what they are teaching. Take the chimp to man chart, it's wrong because such a chart doesn't exist within the evolutionary theory and I went so far as to show you a chart as it really exists and not as some creationist wishes it to exist. If you misconstrued that as discarding the creationist version of the chart as discarding it for being a creationist chart, then I'm sorry. It's simply discarded for being wrong and not depicting a proper evolutionary tree as it should exist within the evolutionary theory.

8. Again, the link provided utilizes dead terminology that doesn't apply to evolutionary theory anymore. It's not discarded for being on a creationist site, it's discarded for being wrong because it's argument is based on dead parts of the theory.

9. I disagree, you've given hypocritical arguments, jumped from one argument in favor for another rather than finishing the original line of argument. Like I said, all these things rely on you, yourself, and only you. How you conduct yourself determines how you will be received. It's not unfair, it's just how it is. If you argue with the mentality of a child, you will get received and responses as if you were one. You use poor judgment in your arguments and yet ask me to be 'nicer'?

10. This is my point exactly! We're getting a little closer to agreement if you can keep your mind open to that very last statement! You sit there and utilize dead terms as the main point of your arguments, I mean really... talking about delusion-ally blind!




posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
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.


I read all of what you said. It's mostly outward observational stuff. What do you see when you look within and behind people's motives?

Do you know anything about the divine nature of God as described in scripture?

Do you know what Humility is? Patience? Kindness? Compassion? Love?

Do you know what the nature of man is? Pride? Envy? Wrath? A never ending feed back loop of: Want continually Desiring and Desire continually Wanting?

If you studied religion or the bible you would understand these things and you would know about the enmity that exists between the nature of Man vs. the nature of God. You would also know that turning to the one, is turning from the other. There is no standing still. You cannot walk in two directions at the same time. When you live for one, you deny the other.

Evolution is at enmity with God.

If you ever made something with your own hands, only to be called a liar by people who would not believe you made it,
and,
If you were falsely accused,
maybe you would be able to understand the offensiveness that evolution is to God and His believers.



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



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


And yet, you disregard that some religious authorities are trying to reconcile evolution with the genesis account of creation. Trying to show that evolutionary theory can and does fit in with the biblical accounts.

One question before I answer the rest of the post. Do you take the bible literally, word for word as the infallible word of god?



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Your criticisms of me might have something to do with the fact that I am only one person and I am getting responses and insults thrown at me from all directions....also...others have responded to you, so I leave it at that....why respond when someone else enlightened you already.

But I will try.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


I responded to others, I will look back and double check to make sure I have not missed any direct responses to me and reply accordingly. Right now, you and I are in a discussion and I also asked you a simple question. You ask not to be criticized, but then act in ways that allow for criticism.

When someone else is ready to respond to something they and I were discussing, then I will continue that discussion with them. Other discussions have no bearing on your own frame of mind and ability to coherently discuss your own beliefs. It's a poor judgmental argument on your part.

Stop and ask yourself why your receiving observations of your character and intelligence. You argue with dead terminology and argue with hypocritical statements, and yet you seriously wonder why I ask you to argue with more maturity and intelligence. It's been pointed out that your arguments are born of disused terms and thoughts, yet you continue with that line of thought.

I will say this one last time, how YOU act and conduct YOURSELF determines how YOU will be treated. If YOU act in a knowingly manner that appears to be of sub-par intelligence for the sake of annoying someone else, then YOU will be treated as if YOU have sub-par intelligence. If YOU wish to be taken seriously in YOUR arguments against any subject, then YOU need to understand and know what YOU are arguing. If YOU wish to use dead terms and theories in YOUR arguments, YOU will not receive open arms in YOUR thoughts on the subject.



[edit on 23-9-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


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.


They don't and haven't done for a long time. You saying that they do when they don't is misleading.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by John Matrix
 


And yet, you disregard that some religious authorities are trying to reconcile evolution with the genesis account of creation. Trying to show that evolutionary theory can and does fit in with the biblical accounts.

One question before I answer the rest of the post. Do you take the bible literally, word for word as the infallible word of god?



1. Some religious authorities try to avoid controversy by attempting to reconcile a lot of things, it doesn't mean they are correct. Jesus never backed away from conroversy....he confronted people with the scriptures, confronted people by pointing out their own sins, confronted people with the truth.... and in all this he caused controversy!


2. I do not accept the bible as the literal word of God. It is paper and ink, like other texts, and most, if not all contain grammatical errors. Older Bibles, such as the 1611 King James contained plenty of errors.

There are many versions and revisions of the Bible, which is why I am careful to choose a good modern scholarly version that has relied on more recent discoveries of ancient manuscripts and scrolls, such as the Dead Sea scrolls, and the use of the Koine Greek language at the time when Jesus walked the earth.

So I choose the NIV version, which opens things up for me. A good concordance, Greek lexicon, and set of commentaries is also helpful in understanding the Bible. Let's not forget that there is 2000 years of scholarship available to anyone who wishes to research the Bible and it's all over the Internet now.

I'm not saying the older versions are completely useless, for indeed scholars agree that the gospel message survives well in all versions, even in the old 1611 King James.

I believe most of what is written in the Bible concerning historical events happened literally. I believe many prophecies have already been fulfilled with literal accuracy.

Hermeneutics is the scientific study of interpretation theory. The methods can be applied to the Bible or any literature. I use hermeneutics for interpreting scripture. Simply put, I look at the who, what, when, where, why. Who wrote it? Who was it written too? What is the meaning the author is trying to convey(not: what does this mean to me)? What was the political climate at the time? What do we know about historical events from other texts and sources? What archaeological evidence do we have that might help us in interpreting the script? Where was it written? What was happening in the authors life at the time?, etc. etc.

Too many people disregard the Bible because they don't understand it, and quite often it's because they attempt to read an out dated version that contains hundreds of words no longer used in the English language. People are also lazy, so they use baseless criticisms to write off the best book of books ever written.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by John Matrix
 


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.


They don't and haven't done for a long time. You saying that they do when they don't is misleading.


Then give us your definition of modern evolution so we can have a starting point.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Stop and ask yourself why your receiving observations of your character and intelligence. You argue with dead terminology and argue with hypocritical statements, and yet you seriously wonder why I ask you to argue with more maturity and intelligence. It's been pointed out that your arguments are born of disused terms and thoughts, yet you continue with that line of thought.


Stop and ask yourself why I reframe from making negative observations of your character and intelligence, and why I ignore responding to most of your insults. Then ask yourself why you even bother with personal attacks and insults. Could it be from frustration? You cannot convince me of your faith, so you attack me? Me thinks so.


Perhaps there is more to me than you have judged, and perhaps you are not as great as you think you are.

Let's start by you giving me YOUR "updated" definition of evolution in 100 words or less.

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



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Well firstly I don't need to because my understanding of evolutionary theory has nothing to with the fact that macro and micro-evolution are not scientific terms because they are one and the same but on different scales.

Micro-evolution is to macro-evolution what metres are to kilometres.

And secondly, I already did, not that either of our understandings are as good as the scientific one. I should not have to spoon feed you information about what you're arguing against.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Since I am accused of making reference to out dated terms such as micro-evolution, I find myself checking up to see if the accusation is true.

One poster said that creationists made up the term.....LOL.

The accusations fall apart with a little research. www.darwinismrefuted.com...
Evolutionists made up the term microevolution or micro-evolution themselves.

If they abandoned it sometime in the past, show me the sorces for your opinion, don't just accuse me of using out dated terms and insult me.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Some religious authorities try to avoid controversy by attempting to reconcile a lot of things, it doesn't mean they are correct. Jesus never backed away from conroversy....he confronted people with the scriptures, confronted people by pointing out their own sins, confronted people with the truth.... and in all this he caused controversy!


Did he? Did he really? I've yet to see any evidence the man existed. I do not take things on faith like you do.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
Well firstly I don't need to because my understanding of evolutionary theory has nothing to with the fact that macro and micro-evolution are not scientific terms because they are one and the same but on different scales.

Micro-evolution is to macro-evolution what metres are to kilometres.


Ok. Variation within species, and adaptative responses are observable and proven as fact.

These variations and adaptive responses are the result of the DNA application.

How does any of this support the theory of evolution?

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



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


The accusations fall apart with a little research. www.darwinismrefuted.com...
Evolutionists made up the term microevolution or micro-evolution themselves.


Lol. Yes because we all know how impartial creationist websites are.

Wiki says...

The consensus of the scientific community is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct made by creationists and does not accurately reflect the actual processes of evolution. Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence, while controversial with the public at large, is not disputed within the scientific community.

And goes on to cite talkorigins which is a compendium of science's responses to creationist claims. Citation 1, 2 and 3

If you are seeking a definition and evidence with which to argue then I suggest looking into talkorigins simply because 99% of all creationists claims here and on other websites can be refuted by simple copy and pasting from Talkorigins.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Some religious authorities try to avoid controversy by attempting to reconcile a lot of things, it doesn't mean they are correct. Jesus never backed away from controversy....he confronted people with the scriptures, confronted people by pointing out their own sins, confronted people with the truth.... and in all this he caused controversy!


Did he? Did he really? I've yet to see any evidence the man existed. I do not take things on faith like you do.


You have never studied the historicity of Jesus, with 2000 years of scholarship and research behind it.

I can't see the electricity in my walls, but I know when I flip the switch the light will go on? Do you have to see everything to believe it? Then why believe in evolution?



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Ok. Variation within species, and adaptative responses are observable and proven as fact.

These variations and adaptive responses are the result of the DNA application.

How does any of this support the theory of evolution?


That's incorrect, at least not a complete view of even so called 'micro-evolution'.

Variations and adaptive responses are a result of environmental pressures due to some phenotypes being more helpful to survivability and therefore reproduction also than others.

Add to this that when one gene pool drifts to far apart in the centre, the organisms at the extremes become genetically incompatible for reproduction resulting first in the birth of sterile individuals (mules) and then in the more extreme, no young is viable at all (humans/chimps). This is the slow occurrence know as speciation, which is effectively the divide between micro and macro evolution.

Add to this mutations, the majority of which are completely benign, some of which are deleterious (less helpful - eg. albinism, genetic disease) and a few which make more sense than the original code (more helpful - eg. stronger bones, better food processing, cholesterol processing, heightened senses, etc. all things recorded in contemporary history) and get selected for by the environmental pressures.

Evolution has three main constituent parts; Mutation, Natural Selection (or artificial selection in the case of selective breeding) and speciation.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
Lol. Yes because we all know how impartial creationist websites are.

Wiki says...

The consensus of the scientific community is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct made by creationists and does not accurately reflect the actual processes of evolution. Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence, while controversial with the public at large, is not disputed within the scientific community.

And goes on to cite talkorigins which is a compendium of science's responses to creationist claims. Citation 1, 2 and 3

If you are seeking a definition and evidence with which to argue then I suggest looking into talkorigins simply because 99% of all creationists claims here and on other websites can be refuted by simple copy and pasting from Talkorigins.


I see the error and deception now. Evolutionists blame creationists for making up the terms mico and macro evolution. How cute.

It wasn't us that came up with the term, it was the creationists. How dishonest is that!!


The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko, in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was the first attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution.

Now stop accusing creationists for coming up with these terms, and stop accusing me...OK???



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eight


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?


Trinity...all three are GOD...

like you are a son, friend, and father...three distinct personalities and ways of relating, just ONE YOU tho....



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Now stop accusing creationists for coming up with these terms, and stop accusing me...OK?


I didn't. I accused you of using out dated and no longer scientific terms when science has developed new and more accurate terms.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



Thanks for the transparency friend...I'm at an airport again, I'll respond in more detail later of why I think it does relate...

Again


OT



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join