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: 13
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


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


You are referring to me and I did not. I said that these are outdated terms that science no longer uses and that creationists like yourself pretend deceptively that science still does.

... WHICH I ALREADY SAID here.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Welfhard]




posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard


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.


Looking at the context, I think OT was saying that you are getting used to the very large number of mathematical odds against mutations leading to speciation. The odds being like grains of sand in number. So getting used to the sand is used as an analogy to getting used to the many billions of odds against evolution processes. I could be wrong, but I made that connection.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by John Matrix
 


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


You are referring to me and I did not. I said that these are outdated terms that science no longer uses and that creationists like yourself pretend deceptively that science still does.

... WHICH I ALREADY SAID here.


No it was not you, it was someone else. But I said it anyway, for his benefit.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 



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 absolutely correct there! This is most definitely the tactic I have been taking in regards to your arguments. Unfortunately, you've been unable to comprehend the simplicity for arguments sake that your arguments are demonstratively upheld with false statements.

If your trying to convey that science is wrong for previous held theories and hypotheses, then you are in error of understand the scientific method, and this is what we are trying to correct with you. Your arguments are surrounded with errors, but your pride is to great to learn and understand that problem. You speak to me of humility as if you exercise the trait yourself, yet you show a remarkable strength of defense against reason and logic when confronted with hearing about errors in your arguments.



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.


Good for you for accepting god, yet that's not what humility is, so now we're left with another problem of you arguing another term that you don't even understand the meaning of.


I don't put down others in a vain attempt to make myself look good.


You sir are a hypocrite. You most certainly do, and I can demonstratively show that you do as such. You not only have done that in previous post's, but in an attempt to lead yourself to think your winning you've dropped whole lines of arguments in favor of other lines of argument when backed into a corner and unable to proceed. I can demonstrate this as well.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by John Matrix
 


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


I said that these are outdated terms that science no longer uses and that creationists like yourself pretend deceptively that science still does.

... WHICH I ALREADY SAID here.


Maybe science doesn't use them. Have they pulled the terms from their text books?

Since evolution is not science, nor is science evolution your point is moot because evolutionists still use the term. I seen more than a few evolution supporters use those terms on ATS threads when presenting their arguments and putting down creationists. So stop knit picking.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


It's a stretch.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Good for you for accepting god, yet that's not what humility is, so now we're left with another problem of you arguing another term that you don't even understand the meaning of.


Do you really have to keep on with your knit picking, personal attacks, and accusations?

Can't you give us a good, sound, reasonable, and logical argument for believing in evolution?

Accepting God is an act of humility. It indicates one possesses humility.

Humility, is the opposite of pride. Pride refuses to accept God.
Humility is not putting yourself above others, for example: by putting others down.
Humility is seeing yourself as you are, and having an honest appraisel of one's self.
Humility is demonstrated through courtesy and respect for others.
Humility is obeying God and showing honor for God, above all else.
Humility is to drop your lies and delusions like a bag of dirt when confronted with the truth.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Maybe science doesn't use them. Have they pulled the terms from their text books?


I never saw them in my text books at school. And I've only seen advocates of evolution use the terms in debates with creationists.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by John Matrix
 


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


You are referring to me and I did not. I said that these are outdated terms that science no longer uses and that creationists like yourself pretend deceptively that science still does.

... WHICH I ALREADY SAID here.


This post and source posted by you: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Clearly states: "The consensus of the scientific community is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct made by creationists....."

I proved that statemenbt to be wrong with the following:

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.

Can you at least admit that your Wiki source is wrong?



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Maybe science doesn't use them. Have they pulled the terms from their text books?


I never saw them in my text books at school. And I've only seen advocates of evolution use the terms in debates with creationists.


I see nothing wrong with creationists using evolutionists' own terms in their arguments. If the evolutionists now say their terms are outdated, why accuse creationists for having created it and then discredit them for using the very terms evolutionists created. Geez....I just found another evolutionists going back to 1909 that used the term.


Perhaps evolutionists should just come out publicly in their public debates and inform the masses that they coined the terms 100 years ago but no longer wish to use them.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 



Can't you give us a good, sound, reasonable, and logical argument for believing in evolution?


Cause and effect and change. For every effect there is a cause and for every cause there is an effect coupled with thing's are in a constant state of change, always in motion.

As for evolutionary theory itself, it states as much, but in a more broader sense and with different terms and processes. You were already given a basic description, and despite repeating that fact again, I won't repeat the description again just because your being to lazy to bother going back a few pages to find it.

But I just want to point out one of my so called attacks, insults, accusations, or whatever your going to feel the need to call it to make yourself feel better in this discussion.

I've accused you of dropping whole lines of arguments when backed into a corner and unable to proceed further with that argument in favor of picking a new argument.

Example of your most recent one.




I don't put down others in a vain attempt to make myself look good.



You sir are a hypocrite. You most certainly do, and I can demonstratively show that you do as such. You not only have done that in previous post's, but in an attempt to lead yourself to think your winning you've dropped whole lines of arguments in favor of other lines of argument when backed into a corner and unable to proceed. I can demonstrate this as well.


See, you made sure you responded to the humility point, but never once decided to defend against the accusation of being a hypocrite when confronted with the possibility of having evidence brought against you that you were indeed lying and knowingly being hypocritical. Why is that? Why do you drop whole lines of arguments like this? Does it actually make you feel like your winning when you have to give up so many different arguments in favor of picking something else? How does that even get justified by yourself to the point where you are making statements about your winning am argument?

[edit on 23-9-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


As we're not sure where you are getting your "modern" sources, both of us at the very least have stated that not only are these terms not used anymore, but that neither one of us has ever seen them used in our textbooks.

So, we're left wondering how you come up with and idea such as:


Perhaps evolutionists should just come out publicly in their public debates and inform the masses that they coined the terms 100 years ago but no longer wish to use them.


I even checked my kids science book last night, and I can't even find the terms used in there. Were you home schooled, are you over 50 yrs of age, or did the school you used to go to (or does and do go to) not have a lot of money for modern textbooks? Where are you getting this idea from? Where do any of you creationists get these stupid idea's from? You try and use OLD theories when we're working with something NEW, the two arguments meshing together like that is just madness, it's stupid. Your not three, so STOP ACTING LIKE IT!



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



I will respond to the first lines of your post shortly.

As for the rest:

Why do I drop whole lines of arguments? It's the way you package them by being condescending insulting, attacking, and accusing.

Since you mentioned my response concerning Humilty, but said nothing specific about it. Is that an admission that your assessment was wrong?


Then you mention your accusations about me being a hypocrite, in a manner that suggests my not responding to you somehow qualifies your accusation as legitimate.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


No, your assumptions are wrong. I didn't bother with the religious aspects of humility, but if you'd like I can pin point exactly every single point quoted word for word where you do not exercise humility as seen from a non-religious (without god) stand point.

It's been brought up more than once now that your being very hypocritical in all your arguments. When a person doesn't defend against certain thing's, usually they are trying to hide from the fact of it by ignoring it, this is just simple psychology. It's like confronting a child after finding out they did something wrong and they'll pretend they don't know what your talking about, or will change the subject ignoring what you were confronting them with initially.

So in essence, your displaying child-like mentality. Mind you, it's not an insult, it's a simple observation on how YOU are conducting yourself and your manner of debating. You are your own person, if you don't want to be seen as something you don't think you are, then you need to conduct yourself in a fashion so that others don't misconstrue you as such. It's plain and simple and riddled with common sense all over it. I'm not attacking you, I'm pointing out your faults so that you may IMPROVE upon them and perhaps one day debate in a more mature and intelligent fashion.

I'll ask again, how old are you?



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Cause and effect and change. For every effect there is a cause and for every cause there is an effect coupled with thing's are in a constant state of change, always in motion.


My belief is as follows:

Cause = Creator
Effect = Creation
Constant state of change = Decay
Things Always in motion = Self Evident by looking at atoms.

Cause and Effect: Explanation from external source;


If we trace this series of events back in time, then what do we find? There seem, at first glance, to be two possibilities: either we eventually reach the first event in the series, the cause at the beginning of the universe that set everything going, or there is no first event in the series and the past stretches back into infinity.

The first cause argument tells us that the second of these is not possible, that the past cannot stretch back into infinity but rather must have a beginning. The argument then proceeds by suggesting that if the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence.


Source: www.existence-of-god.com...

Constant state of change is Decay: The second law of thermodynamics.

Cause and effect supports ID, God, and belief in creation.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by John Matrix
 


No, your assumptions are wrong. I didn't bother with the religious aspects of humility, but if you'd like I can pin point exactly every single point quoted word for word where you do not exercise humility as seen from a non-religious (without god) stand point.

It's been brought up more than once now that your being very hypocritical in all your arguments. When a person doesn't defend against certain thing's, usually they are trying to hide from the fact of it by ignoring it, this is just simple psychology. It's like confronting a child after finding out they did something wrong and they'll pretend they don't know what your talking about, or will change the subject ignoring what you were confronting them with initially.


It could also be time constraints, having more than one person attacking me, or attempting to communitcate, my ignoring insuting posters or posters who bragg about how many degrees they have, it could be that I am on more than one thread, it could be a lot of things that went right by you. But it's definately not the picture you are painting.



So in essence, your displaying child-like mentality. Mind you, it's not an insult, it's a simple observation on how YOU are conducting yourself and your manner of debating. You are your own person, if you don't want to be seen as something you don't think you are, then you need to conduct yourself in a fashion so that others don't misconstrue you as such. It's plain and simple and riddled with common sense all over it. I'm not attacking you, I'm pointing out your faults so that you may IMPROVE upon them and perhaps one day debate in a more mature and intelligent fashion.


So I can be just like you....right?




I'll ask again, how old are you?


I'll U2U



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 



It could also be time constraints, having more than one person attacking me, or attempting to communitcate, my ignoring insuting posters or posters who bragg about how many degrees they have, it could be that I am on more than one thread, it could be a lot of things that went right by you. But it's definately not the picture you are painting.


Stop making excuses.

It's tiring trying to debate when you beat around the bush, ignore arguments against point's you've made and just generally act how your acting now. If you don't want to debate, then fine, we can stop now. I personally would dislike stopping, I believe through debating an issue I can not only learn new thing's, but also learn where my argument may be weak and in need of strengthening.

You on the other hand make excuses and hypocritical statements. You've been jumping all across the board from one topic to another like some kid with ADHD. My kids aren't even that hyper and we think one of them might have ADHD. o_0



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Stop making excuses.


Reasons, not excuses. There is a difference.



I believe through debating an issue I can not only learn new thing's, but also learn where my argument may be weak and in need of strengthening.


Or....how about admitting you are wrong and accepting the truth?(aka:humility in action)




You on the other hand make excuses and hypocritical statements. You've been jumping all across the board from one topic to another like some kid with ADHD. My kids aren't even that hyper and we think one of them might have ADHD. o_0


More brush strokes by the spin artist.


Your discription is analogous to the wanna be artist that cannot properly depict the model he is trying to paint because his glasses are severely damaged.

I responded to your cause and efect argument above. Cause and Effect supports the Creation model perfectly. Now what?


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



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Alright, let's start over. Pick one part of any argument I've given that you feel wasn't valid and we'll take it from there. We can continue evolution if you want, just restate in numerical order each aspect of the theory you think is in error or outright wrong. All we ask is that you don't base your point's on outdated terminology that is no longer used to describe the theory or it's constituent processes.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I responded to you here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can we start there?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join