Does the Central Limit Theorem prove a Creator/Deity?

reply to post by OldThinker

Terrorists=willing to die WHILE killing
Christians=willing to die for TLJC

Big difference.

It's not the difference that concerns me, it's the similarities.

"Willing to die"
"Willing to die"

.... for a faith.

Also when are you going to learn that that's not even his name. Christ is a title and comes before the name.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by OldThinker

That's the kicker my young scholar....they didn't need FAITH....in fact that was irrelevent for them....

WHY?

Because they SAW firsthand....

You need faith to believe this ever happened. Darth Vader died for his son, does that mean the force is real?

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by OldThinker

 

Terrorists=willing to die WHILE killing

History Lesson

The Crusades were a series of religiously-sanctioned military campaigns waged by much of Latin Christian Europe, particularly the Franks of France and the Holy Roman Empire. The specific crusades to restore Christian control of the Holy Land were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291. Other campaigns in Spain and Eastern Europe continued into the 15th century. The Crusades were fought mainly against Muslims, although campaigns were also waged against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes.[1] Crusaders took vows and were granted penance for past sins, often called an indulgence.

Not much different then your definition of a terrorist, or did you also not know about this?

Have you considered this?

Religion and politics were the SAME THING then.....really bad, right?

Power hungry carnal men HIJACKING a loving religion, heck you are right, sounds like Bin Laden to me....

Read.......between......... the....... lines....... for the truth.....

OT still awaitin an honest apology....

reply to post by sirnex

But, if you subscribe to historical and archeological evidence, but still push your sources as facts, then you are yourself perpetuating a lie making you no worse than the lie itself.

I'm sorry you don't like hearing that, but it stands as is until further input is received on your part.

This, to me, summarised OTs character rather well. I've been arguing with this guy a long time.

Originally posted by Welfhard
......Also when are you going to learn that that's not even his name. Christ is a title and comes before the name.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Welfhard]

bro its TLJC.....

OT

PS: kinda like "Ms. Jackson" if ur nasty.....sorry, that reference is a bit too old for you...

reply to post by OldThinker

Power hungry carnal men HIJACKING a loving religion

WHAT? You can't be serious. Christianity is a vile religion spreading hate and just because you may subscribe to Christianity lite+ doesn't make it any less so.

If you want a loving religion, look at Buddhism, but please stop pretending that your horrid religion is morally superior. Your god apparently murdered the world but a hand full of people and then much later committed infanticide.

He told us not to murder and he murders tens of thousands of times. Satan only killed a few people. These character are worse than the drunkard, quarrelling gods of Greek myth.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by OldThinker

bro its TLJC.....

I'm not your bro and no it's not. Hell, his name doesn't even start with a J for petesake. It always amazes me how you believers can revere a figure so much and not even know it's name.

And stop pretending to be my friend, it's pathetic.

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by sirnex

 

But, if you subscribe to historical and archeological evidence, but still push your sources as facts, then you are yourself perpetuating a lie making you no worse than the lie itself.

I'm sorry you don't like hearing that, but it stands as is until further input is received on your part.

This, to me, summarised OTs character rather well. I've been arguing with this guy a long time.

".....OTs character........"


God love you two.....

I am so glad our ATS is a record....let's put a few decades on the opposing worldview? ok?

Your posts no more define your character than the RUM /1800/etc do...I know that...

Maybe one day (I pray) you go back and re-read this...and re-calibrate

OT
Philippians 1:3

Originally posted by OldThinkerOT still awaitin an honest apology....

No apology for you, [snip] for perpetuating a known and bold faced lie. And your a holocaust denier. Don't even know your own religions history.



Removed mild personal attack and trimmed Big Quote

Please read Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote

[edit on 24/9/09 by masqua]

reply to post by OldThinker

Your posts no more define your character

I didn't say defined, I said summarised.

As a poster you are fairly consistent in your arguing. You show a barrage of logical fallacies and lies then run from the confrontations and you never ever win an argument yet you still falsely claim victory.

If your messiah does exist, then he has chosen a poor representative.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Welfhard]

He's correct.

I defined your character as you portrayed it. You knowingly lied by posting obviously false sources pushed as factual information. That makes you a liar.

Originally posted by sirnex
He's correct.

I defined your character as you portrayed it. You knowingly lied by posting obviously false sources pushed as factual information. That makes you a liar.

You obvously believe that right NOW....

SO....

OT is very sorry for posting/believing/adhering to "lies"

When you are ready, it's after 8pm somewhere, please list my lies...

so i may understand your frustration, because, as Saul of Tarsus, has said... "Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others."

So OT will....

OT's pizza gettin cold, so can I go...for a while?

reply to post by OldThinker


I've already told you, no sense in repeating it again if you were unwilling to reply to it the first time around.

reply to post by OldThinker


I've highlighted your logical fallacies many many times yet you take no notice. You ignore the rules of argument so why should we believe that you'd actually listen to a list of your lies?

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker

 

Your posts no more define your character

I didn't say defined, I said summarised.

As a poster you are fairly consistent in your arguing. You show a barrage of logical fallacies and lies then run from the confrontations and you never ever win an argument yet you still falsely claim victory.

If your messiah does exist, then he has chosen a poor representative.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Welfhard]

your edit????? to whom to I claim victory????

Yes, welhard, you are right....I am a a poor representative...thank you for the point....I will try and do better. i.e. "I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service. Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen." (1Timothy 1:12-17, NIV)

Man, I can't wait to meet him.....

OT

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by John Matrix

 

You're thinking too small. I say genetics and you immediately jump on Chimp-Human genetic similarity discussion as if that's the only genetic sequencing we have that shows common descent.

There is much more than that in the articles and sources that I posted for you. Sheash....come on man!!

You humble opinion doesn't match the opinion of actual scientists whom work are studied and experts in this field - not such a humble opinion if you completely disregard what the experts say.

MHO was due to the GROUP of scientists who published their findings.
You are disregarding those scientists who are experts in their fields, not me.

I see more and more reports like this coming as knowledge is exponentially increasing. That's why I say evolution is going down.

John Matrix says: IMHO: Similarities in DNA are evidence for a Supernatural Intelligent Designer, and NOT evidence for Evolution.

Welfhard says: That's foolish. You're effectively saying that the designer is setting us up to be deceived by the evidence.

No I'm not. I'm saying evolutiuonists are foolish for ignoring ID and replacing God with a theory.

Human DNA is becoming degraded because natural selection doesn't work on us as much as it used to. Bad mutations are more survivable now because we have medicine (and help the poor and deathly) and inturn these things get passed on to future generations effectively polluting the gene pool. You don't see this in other animals which are much more subject to NS.

This is your rebuttal to the international group of scientists called Encode and their report? www.abovetopsecret.com...

You asked me my background in biology....well I have none. Does that disipate all argument, or disqualify me from doing research and presenting my findings in this discusssion?

John Matrix says: The Evolution theory is imploding on itself. Within a few years it will be an embarassing chapter in human history.

Welfhard responds: I find this delusion particularly astonishing. There is very few theories in science that string together all aspects of the field of study like evolution does, as such it's considered the backbone of biology. There is no contender theories to rival it and there is no dispute in the scientific community. How can you possibly think it's going to fall from favour?

No dispute?
I just posted two nice size paragraphs with source links to the full articles......what more do you want as proof to demonstate that indeed their are some serious disputes within the field.

There is no proof quite like genetics. It's not just how similar we all are to one another genetically, it's the specific mutations that tag family lineages that we can track that paints a common ancestor picture.

I have no problem with a common human ancestor(ie; Adam and Eve, Noah). Evolution's idea of a common ancestor is ......wait....here it comes....ok..maybe not a nuckle dragging ape man or chimp like they used to teach us in school in the 60's....but their idea of an ancestor is still a sub-human species of some sort.


[edit on 24/9/09 by John Matrix]

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker

 

bro its TLJC.....

I'm not your bro and no it's not. Hell, his name doesn't even start with a J for petesake. It always amazes me how you believers can revere a figure so much and not even know it's name.

And stop pretending to be my friend, it's pathetic.

I will be.....eventually! your "bro"

"Hell" you say? interesting, hmmmm????

"Petesake?" who would that be? "Pete" I mean?????? Saul?

Who's "pretending"???? What does that mean?

Wow, that was a "freudian" post if ever I saw (read) one....

OT

OT:

I never mentioned God...no anthropomorphizing friend...

Actually friend, the very theme of your faith anthropomorphizes the universe, there isn't a second that goes by in which it never does so. By the way, good morning to you, too.

Power hungry carnal men HIJACKING a loving religion, heck you are right, sounds like Bin Laden to me...

Huh? Just how old do you think bin Laden is exactly? And which version of Christianity are you calling a 'loving religion'...the Old or New Testament? To be sure, there is something of a difference between the two in tone and scope, so much so that one would be forgiven in being bewildered by the bible's 'bad cop/good cop' routine.

Man, I can't wait to meet him...

How sad it is that you will never get to feel the disappointment of an eternal wait, for the finite natural life span of a human being is all you have in which to meet your fictitious character. Thus, when it comes the time that your mortal coil is shed, you will not gain anything of the gnosis of your faith-inspired misjudgement. Once we die, the only meeting that takes place is with the oblivion of non-existence...the very same oblivion of non-existence before each of us were born. It's a harsh and garish truth, but nevertheless it's the truth...there is no post-mortem resurrection, there never was and there never has been, and no amount of biblical hearsay will ever change that fact.
Bear in mind, it is not you that I criticise, but the belief system you hold, as it is in the last analysis, nothing more than a ancient idea propagated as truth, and that opens it up to rightful critical analysis and opposition.

[edit on 24/9/09 by elysiumfire]

[edit on 24/9/09 by elysiumfire]

reply to post by OldThinker

your edit????? to whom to I claim victory????

Every time you make a thread on something, be it science in the bible or the laughable idea that a crucifix like molecule proves not just a god but the christian one (despite the cross being a Persian invention), all your ideas and premises get shot down (that space is empty and the earth hangs on nothing - both wrong). You then do no acknowledge defeat and in other thread redirect people to your threads saying something along like lines that the proof is their.

That is disregarding failure and pretending victory if I've ever seen it.

Wow, that was a "freudian" post if ever I saw (read) one...

This is another of your characteristic disgustingly underhanded posts that not only doesn't address my point whatsoever, but then goes on to suggest that I'm a closet believer because I use words and phrases common in our lexicon. And I wouldn't have said 'hell' or 'pete's sake' if the T&Cs allowed swearing.

reply to post by John Matrix

MHO was due to the GROUP of scientists who published their findings.
You are disregarding those scientists who are experts in their fields, not me.

I see more and more reports like this coming as knowledge is exponentially increasing. That's why I say evolution is going down.

But it's not. These reports aren't challenging evolution at all. Neither article mentions god or a designer nor ID but to still does talk about evolutionary change. So for you to say that the near impenetrable mess of the human genome is a sign or a designer is ill founded extrapolation.

This....

An international research consortium today published a set of papers that promise to reshape our understanding of how the human genome functions. The findings challenge the traditional view of our genetic blueprint as a tidy collection of independent genes, pointing instead to a complex network in which genes, along with regulatory elements and other types of DNA sequences that do not code for proteins, interact in overlapping ways not yet fully understood.

... implies no divinity.

No I'm not. I'm saying evolutiuonists are foolish for ignoring ID and replacing God with a theory.

Neither God nor ID are scientific because they both start with unnecessary assumptions. Scientists are not going to write in a God into Evolutionary Theory when there is no empirical proof of god other than dubious 'personal experience', and certainly no evidence of a designer. Science doesn't start with conclusions like you do.

This is your rebuttal to the international group of scientists called Encode and their report?

No actually I was making a separate point explaining what mutation does when natural selection is removed or lessened.

No dispute?
I just posted two nice size paragraphs with source links to the full articles......what more do you want as proof to demonstate that indeed their are some serious disputes within the field.

There are disputes in every field but not whether atoms exist or not, or gravity or evolution. Deputes over the nature of genomes isn't deputes over the whole of evolutionary theory - this is hardly stuff which id going to bring down the theory like you hope it will.

I have no problem with a common human ancestor

Adam. 60,000 years ago.

Eve. 150,000 to 250,000 years ago.

Problematic isn't it.

Evolution's idea of a common ancestor is ......wait....here it comes....ok..maybe not a nuckle dragging ape man or chimp like they used to teach us in school in the 60's....but their idea of an ancestor is still a sub-human species of some sort.

Please tell me you aren't arguing here and now with ideas based on your impressions of evolution from the bloody 60s.

No ancestor species of human is sub-human, but pre-human. You therefore paint our cousins the chimps and gorillas with the same sub-human brush.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by Welfhard]