Does the Central Limit Theorem prove a Creator/Deity?

reply to post by John Matrix

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?

I was a christian for 19 years up until a year or so ago. No, I believe what can be deemed to be reasonable. Evidence plays a big role in that and not many theories come more evidence packed than ToE. Science is my guide which I base my opinions and conclusions on because there is no better method for building knowledge than the scientific one, which is why we base all our technology on it.

Actually it was the 6th and 7th Biology class that made me start to rethink creationism, then years later it was the realisation that there was nought but hearsay for the support of Chritos Yeshua, and in the end I had to admit that it all no longer made sense unless it's a myth.

My life has greatly improved since then.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


We have already destroyed your entire theory of evolution on this thread with DNA evidence, mathematical evidence(the purest know science there is), and by exposing the complete abscence of any proof for speciation.

Your assumptions, theories, speculations and hypothesis disguised in fancy scientific jargon and word smithing does nothing to prove that your theory is more resonable or logical than ID and God's Special Creation.

Now where does that leave us?

reply to post by John Matrix

Now where does that leave us?

It leaves us with you declaring a false victory. Your mathematical evidence signified nothing as I explained (because the chances of us happening are equal to any of the alternates that didn't happen actually happening) and your objection to scientific terms as word smithing is also incorrect as these are the explanations for witnessed phenomena. And besides, I reduced evolutionary theory to 3 terms. How much simpler would I have to make it?

Mutation + Natural Selection + Speciation = Evolution

You've yet to beat me on any point let alone destroy me in this debate. But keeping hoping, it seems to be your thing.

Edit to add: You ought ask your friend, OT, for evidence for speciation because he knows damn well that it happens and that there is plenty of recorded evidence for it from a previous debate I had with him.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by sirnex
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.

Must you continue on with your condescending and disrespectful attitude? I see it as nothing more than a vain attempt to pump yourself up and placate yourself for loosing ground in this debate.



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

reply to post by John Matrix


1. This still doesn't retract from religious authorities who wholeheartedly accept the theory of evolution as a process.

2. Alright then, thank you for finally answering a simple question rather then skirting around and ignoring it. I appreciate that!

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.

Outdated translations that utilize words that no longer have meaning in modern language, ok I can accept that. Now let's see where there is a problem with that! Despite those outdated words or words no longer used and have no meaning in modern language doesn't detract fro the original meanings and usage in ancient times. You can't put modern words and thoughts attributed to ancient people who didn't have those concepts.

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

I already gave you a BASIC rendition of evolutionary theory without going into the entire evolutionary process as we understand it at this point. I don't have time nor patience to write a book describing all the interactions and individual processes taking place. The basic concise description I gave a few pages back is sufficient enough.

You cannot convince me of your faith, so you attack me?

I'm not attacking you, I'm pointing out where you are wrong, where you are hypocritical and where you are just plainly trying to illicit responses of dubious nature.

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.

Your beating around the bush trying to take focus off of YOUR arguments. YOU are YOUR own person. YOU don't need to use anyone else mistake as an excuse for YOUR own mistakes. You talk to me about humility ... Yet, do YOU even understand humility and pride?

YOUR own faults are not the blame of others. If YOU wish to use faulty logic and dead terminology in YOUR arguments without checking those things out YOURSELF, then it is rightfully so that YOU should be accused for YOUR use of those dead terms.

Don't blame others for your own faults and mistakes.

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?

My BASIC description of evolutionary theory touch's base with these variations, read back a few or so pages ago and reread the description. Like I said, it is a BASIC description and does NOT encompass the entire processes involved as that would take an entire textbook to lay out all the interactions involved in the various processes.

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?

This is one reason you get criticized. Your disregarding the processes that create electricity by using this analogy to describe an entirely different process. You describe the process of electrical generation as that as something 'not seen' while discrediting the process of evolutionary theory as something that should be seen. This is faulty logic, as neither process is readily apparent upon throwing a switch, nor by looking directly at a cat and waiting for it to turn into a lion.

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

So long as YOU choose to utilize dead terminology as a basis of argument against evolutionary theory, then YOU will be blamed for.. yes... YOU using dead terminology. Either know what your arguing or use a little humility and take blame for YOUR actions.

Originally posted by Welfhard

Mutation + Natural Selection + Speciation = Evolution

Mutations: harmful to the species, some benign as you stated.

Helpful mutations are extremely rare, in fact I don't know of any of the type which leads to speciation, nor am I aware of any species speciating into two or more new species.

So, Show me a helpful mutation that

1. cannot be explained by ID and the DNA application;
2. is carried to successive generations;
3. is a proven precursor to speciation,
4. has lead to speciation.

Originally posted by Welfhard
[...... Your mathematical evidence signified nothing as I explained (because the chances of us happening are equal to any of the alternates that didn't happen actually happening) .....

All, who cares how OLD the earth universe is....really

but this statement above is severely wanting...its really sticking one's head into the sand...

let me re-state it, for you...

it's really called a "null hypothesis" look it up...

what you are saying is this is "no difference" (odds, chances, probability, etc)....that an all powerful God would create...or that time, chance, adaptation, would create...

this simply is mind-boggling to me, that smart people believe this...please help me out here

OT

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by John Matrix

 

1. This still doesn't retract from religious authorities who wholeheartedly accept the theory of evolution as a process.

Yes there are some who believe in both...I' cool with that, but what do they do with biological entropy?

OT

PS: Or the fact that JC believed the Genesis story...

Jesus Regarded Genesis as Real History

If Jesus was (and is) both the Creator God and a perfect man, then His pronouncements are always and absolutely trustworthy. And Jesus referred directly to details in each of the first seven chapters of Genesis fifteen times. For example, Jesus referred to Genesis 1:26-27 when He said in Mark 10:6, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Man was created male and female "from the beginning of the creation," not after millions of years. In the very next verse, Jesus quotes directly from Genesis 2:24 when He said, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh." Five times Jesus refers to Noah and/or the destructive global Flood as real history. If He, as the Creator, was actually a witness to the events of Genesis 1-11, then we have no alternative but to regard these opening chapters of the Bible as reliable history.

www.icr.org...

reply to post by John Matrix


There is a species of bacteria that can digest nylon. Good enough? How about all the billions of species of that common cold that evolve because the body keeps a record of encountered germs fought and the newly mutated bugs are recognised by the body? There is also the London underground mosquito that cannot cross breed with the above ground species of which it originated.

One could go on with contemporary evidence but I know that you creationist will never recognise even evidence as evidence.

But to start you off...

Nylon-eating bacteria are a strain of Flavobacterium that is capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture. This strain of Flavobacterium, Sp. K172, became popularly known as nylon-eating bacteria, and the enzymes used to digest the man-made molecules became collectively known as nylonase.

Wiki

Nylon didn't exist in the 1920's and before and doesn't occur in nature. HENCE this is an organism mutating and suddenly filling a new niche subsequently pressuring it to become more numerous.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by sirnex
1. This still doesn't retract from religious authorities who wholeheartedly accept the theory of evolution as a process.

Very thorough disposition on this here....

www.answersingenesis.org...

Excerpt:

From the study of these Jesus AGE verses we see that Jesus believed and taught that man has existed essentially as long as the entire cosmos has. Given His evident belief in the literal historical truth of all of Genesis 1-11 and historical reliability of the rest of the OT (including its chronological information such as in the genealogies of Gen. 5 and Genesis 11), we have strong grounds to conclude that He believed in a literal six-day Creation Week which occurred only a few thousand years ago. No other understanding adequately accounts for Jesus AGE verses and His approach to the historicity of Genesis.

But, as I will seek to demonstrate below, the vast majority of Christian old-earth proponents have not taken into account the Jesus AGE verses. and the arguments of the few who have commented on them lack cogency, are inherently self-contradictory, fail to deal with all the evidence or are inconsistent with the evidence.

Enjoy...

Originally posted by platipus
i believe there has to be a god if not how did everything in the universe come to be....

Good question...math-wise!

OT

ps: really the CENTRAL issue....

reply to post by John Matrix


Hey John, keep firing away friend...smart opponents, for sure...

I'm enjoying reading your thoughts between meetings...btw, Tampa is sweet!!!!!

OT

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by Welfhard
[...... Your mathematical evidence signified nothing as I explained (because the chances of us happening are equal to any of the alternates that didn't happen actually happening) .....

All, who cares how OLD the earth universe is....really

but this statement above is severely wanting...its really sticking one's head into the sand...

let me re-state it, for you...

it's really called a "null hypothesis" look it up...

what you are saying is this is "no difference" (odds, chances, probability, etc)....that an all powerful God would create...or that time, chance, adaptation, would create...

this simply is mind-boggling to me, that smart people believe this...please help me out here

OT

Not exactly sure what your cryptic post is asking so I'll clarify. The probability of any one event occurring is next to zero because there is almost an infinite other possibilities happening, all as likely as the next. The so called mathematical "proof" suggested that since the evolution of man and the universe into it's current state is so unlikely that it therefore means that it was designed. The problem with that is that it wouldn't matter which of the nearly infinite number of possibilities actually did happen instead of this one, the probability would remain the same. I tried to explain that it's no miracle that someone will win the lottery because in a fair and blind lottery the probability of any participant winning exactly 1. Something had to happen, so the fact that this one happened means nothing.

Furthermore, a great majority would also develop intelligent agencies not unlike ourselves and some very different and the chances are that they would all think about this and also think "Gee, aren't we lucky." just as a person does who wins the lottery.

Also finally, in a determined universe like our own, there is only one possible outcome to every interaction and that statistics doesn't actually exist beyond us simply quantifying out uncertainty about an interactions.

The numbers mean nothing.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Welfhard
.....but I know that you creationist will never recognise even evidence as evidence.

Here's some....

PS: Please don't ignore....please don't discredit the website.....please don't discredit the article author.....

JUST LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.....ok

Stunning New Evidence of a Higher Ancient Sea Level
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
According to the record in Genesis, there was a time when the entire surface of the earth was inundated with water. This possibility has been ridiculed because of questions regarding the origin and destination of all the extra water that supposedly would have been required to accomplish this.1 But newly described fossils of marine creatures found in a rock quarry in Bermuda indicate that ancient sea levels used to be 70 feet higher than they are today, which presents a puzzle to standard geological thinking.2

Geologist Paul Hearty’s investigation a decade ago into similar sea-level signs “was met with skepticism among geologists,” but his team’s new data is even more compelling. Hearty and Smithsonian zoologist Storrs Olson, whose research appears in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews, found “cobbles and marine sediments,” along with “rim cements.” These features could only exist where they were found if the sea level had been sustained at a higher elevation.3

There is little room for doubt now that sea levels have changed over time. This evidence does not fit with naturalistic theories of origins, which assume that presently observable processes were responsible for all past geologic events. Such an assumption arbitrarily omits the testimony of ancient written records, including the Bible and its account of Noah’s Flood. According to Scripture, the ancient earth was overflowed by water entirely. Thus, at some point, the sea level would have been higher than it is today.

The evidence at Bermuda can be interpreted according to either a creationist or an evolutionary viewpoint. However, the naturalistic evolutionary view must blindly guess at what could have caused the ocean to be 70 feet higher in the past, while Bible-based history relies on the eyewitness account of a world-destroying flood—a fitting place to begin an interpretation of the Bermuda marine fossils.

The scriptures are consistent...same author, same TRUTH!!!!

link: www.icr.org...

PS: And did you notice this was released by the Smithsonian Institution, are they young-earthers

Originally posted by Welfhard
.....The numbers mean nothing.

Translation...."I'm getting used to that sand now"

Oh well...

Check out the next EVIDENCE/post...

reply to post by OldThinker

but what do they do with biological entropy?

They do nothing with it because it doesn't exist.

PS: Or the fact that JC believed the Genesis story...

And people back then believed the earth was flat. It's a shame that ancient peoples did not have a modern education, but despite what they claim and knew back then doesn't mean that any new advances and discoveries are null and void just because we think of them as a god or religious leader.

reply to post by OldThinker


Goodness sake, OT! When will you learn that the flood myth came out of Ancient Sumeria?! I'm sick and tired of having to think critically for you, I'm not your conscience.

Besides there have been times when sea levels have been much higher and much lower than it is now. Why does that fact make you scream "GENESIS WAS RIGHT." When in actuality the best that you could reasonably argue is that the myth that your myth was based on was itself based on oral traditions handed down from anecdotes about a time when sea levels were higher.

Camp fire stories have to be inspired some how.

Translation...."I'm getting used to that sand now"

Oh well...

That's no refutation to a single point in my post. I'm not even going to bother replying if you're not even going to try and argue honestly.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker

 

Goodness sake, OT! When will you learn that the flood myth came out of Ancient Sumeria?! I'm sick and tired of having to think critically for you, I'm not your conscience.

Gotta run, but your argument that someone else said something the same way means its false is laughable

reply to post by OldThinker

Gotta run, but your argument that someone else said something the same way means its false is laughable.

No, but rather that if both have a common origin, then neither is believable and neither can be accepted as more accurate as the other.

If you support the flood myth, you have to support ALL of the hundreds of flood myths, end of story.

AND YOU STILL haven't addressed my other points!

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by sirnex

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

So long as YOU choose to utilize dead terminology as a basis of argument against evolutionary theory, then YOU will be blamed for.. yes... YOU using dead terminology. Either know what your arguing or use a little humility and take blame for YOUR actions.

I made the point because someone said microevolution was a creationist term. I proved it is not.

Then you accuse me of using outdated terms as if I am doing it for some evil purpose. Who says they are outdated and not used anymore? Who are you to say it? How many papers do you have peer reviewed or contribute to scientific literature? What gives you the right to speak for all evolutionists. How do you know all evolutionists have abandoned the terms.

You are upset because you are losing so you turn to personal attacks. If you had a strong argument you would be presenting it, rather than trying to correct what you perceive as my faults and short comings.

Everything you said in your post regarding me, or my posts, indicates a faulty perceptual screen. To correctly interpret someones writings, you don't ask yourself "what does this mean to me" you ask yourself "what is the meaning the author is trying to convey".

Your condescending remarks, name calling, belittling comments, and personal attacks really don't make you look as great as you think they do.

As far as me knowing what humility is, I accept God, His divine nature, His son, His Spirit, His grace, His forgiveness, His gift of eternal life.

I don't put down others in a vain attempt to make myself look good. That is self arrogating and the result of false pride.

As for being a hypocrite, the biggest one's I know are the one's Jesus pointed out in scripture for denying God.

No joice for me than to give a double thumbs down for you last few posts.