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: 18
8
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire
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.



Morning to you too...

Yeah, you are right regarding the overall theme of my posts...premises...but not that illustration, it was an appeal to "balance" "randoness" etc...

Why did all the things happen around our planet, and not others?

Luck?
Chance?
Probability?

Just doesn't add up, that's all...

OT




posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Why did all the things happen around our planet, and not others?

Luck?
Chance?
Probability?

Just doesn't add up, that's all...


Pardon??!! You can't be that daft. There are trillions of planets in the universe and we are aware of the state of about 20. And you so boldly claim that it only happened here. You can't seriously believe that we're the only life in the universe, you must be mad.

And for the third time now, as I've explained it doesn't matter how we formed or where in the universe, the very fact that we did in this specific way is meaningless when we could just have easily formed in any other way.

You used the analogy of a small empty room and in one corner of the room, life forms (and goodness). I said that you are foolish to presume that the room isn't awash with life and goodness as our understanding of cosmology and biology would seem to indicate, in which case there is nothing unique or special about our little life harbouring planet.

Also you must understand that the world is not tailored for us, we are tailored for it because it shaped us through 3 billion years of evolution.

You are going in illogical circles.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


I acknowledged that in the original posts...that you must have not seen. Good morning!



OT



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Then why the flawed line of reasoning?

You say "Why did these things occur around our planet and not others?" when the likelihood that it didn't is microscopically small.


The point remains as this: If we are not rare in the universe as living beings then you can't say that the slim odds (when they aren't) are indicative of a creator or designer.

Are we alone in the universe, OT?

[edit on 25-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Then why the flawed line of reasoning?

You say "Why did these things occur around our planet and not others?" when the likelihood that it didn't is microscopically small.



Simple...if the universe has only passive involvement, the work would be "random" "stratified" "dispersed"

Not "targeted" "earth-centric" "focused"

Surely you see this? Or are you anthropoo-ing it?

OT



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Simple...if the universe has only passive involvement, the work would be "random" "stratified" "dispersed"

Not "targeted" "earth-centric" "focused"

Surely you see this? Or are you anthropoo-ing it?

What makes you think it's targeted? And what do you mean by "the work" and "passive involvement"?
Your argument doesn't make any sense.


It also doesn't answer the question of why you think it didn't happen around other planets. You haven't submitted any reasoning for that conclusion at all.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
What makes you think it's targeted? And what do you mean by "the work" and "passive involvement"?
Your argument doesn't make any sense.


It also doesn't answer the question of why you think it didn't happen around other planets. You haven't submitted any reasoning for that conclusion at all.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by Welfhard]


the "effect" may be a better word than work...

My reasoning is from what is "observed"...as of yet tho.

OT



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


the "effect" may be a better word than work...


That's still meaningless. What effect? There is effect all around.


My reasoning is from what is "observed"...as of yet tho.


Presumptuous.

If we look at the figures, life appeared on this planet very soon after it's initial cooling and stayed in microscopic form for an other billion years. And as such we don't know that there isn't life elsewhere in our own solar system yet. Many scientists say that Europa could well harbour life. The chances that it's not around in microscopic form is almost negligible - organic matter is even found commonly in space.

Your reasoning is faulty.

The only planets we've "observed" close enough to know that there aren't any critters scurrying about are Mars and our own. That's like never leaving the house and presuming that no one lives in the area.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
But it's not. These reports aren't challenging evolution at all.


Points to Complexity in design =ID = Divinity


implies no divinity.

Ponints to Complexity in design =ID = Divinity


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.

There is no empirical proof of evolution either.
You start your science with the concusion that ID/God did not create.
Where does that leave you? Seems that it leaves you with starting your science with a conclusion.

Denying the complexity in design (that is self evident upon observation) and making dubious statements for the scientific community (as if you are their appointed spokesperson) and jumping to the conclusion that God does not exists is a poor foundation for launching your argument. Side stepping the obvious, does not a scientist make.
Complexity in design =ID = Divinity = GOD.



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


Who cares about that. It's a red herring argument. None of it proves evolution. But if you are such an expert, why not write a paper on it and submit it for peer review.....tell the scientists that are quoted in the articles I posted.



Deputes over the nature of genomes isn't deputes over the whole of evolutionary theory.


Never said it was. The evolution theory has been build and modified block by block for 150 years, so block by block it is coming down. But for those with foresight, the theory is done.



Adam. 60,000 years ago.

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

Problematic isn't it.


Prove it!



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


Sorry, I forgot the theory of evolution is subject to evolving, and it has evolved to be more palatable for the masses to swallow. My mistake.



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.


You are arguing by semantics.

You present nothing to support evolution here. You present nothing to counter ID.

I said from the beginning of this thread that neither theory can be proven.
I said that both sides use the same evidences.
I said that both sides begin with assumptions.
Evolution assumes ID/God did not create.
Creation assumes ID/God created.
I stated that both sides make observations of the evidences and form explanations and opinions based on their observations of the evidences.
I stated that, TO ME, the Creation Scientists' explanation of the evidences is more logical, reasonable, makes more sense, and does not lead to absurd secondary assumptions like Evolution has consistently done.

You, nor your supporters, have done anything to change that view. In fact, you inspired me to dig up research that flies in the face of evolution theory, and present it here on ATS, so anyone can click on it and view it.

Check my profile page people. The research, the evidence against evolution, is there.

While I was here, I witnessed your camp openly attacking people's characters, as well as name calling(sometimes under the guise of "observations") but still name calling and character attacks, and the mods did nothing. That demonstrates the obvious bias that Creationists have to endure, and on ATS that is just plain WRONG.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
There is effect all around......



That is the point welfhard....

"all around", yet only life in one tiny corner (again what we see)

Statistically it is out of balance (to be unintended)

OT



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Points to Complexity in design =ID = Divinity

Complexity does not imply design, in this case it's just messy complexity which would imply otherwise.


There is no empirical proof of evolution either.

Virtually the entire field of biology is evidence for evolution, geology and palaeontology as well. There there are documented mutations and speciation events. Simply putting your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALA" doesn't nullify this.


You start your science with the concusion that ID/God did not create.

No, science actually started with the opposite conclusion hundreds of years ago, and now assumptions like a god are removed. God, if it exists, is a supernatural entity meaning that it's undetectable by science because science works with the natural.


Denying the complexity in design

No one's denying complexity, AKA, diversity of life at all. Infact the whole point of evolution is about that every diversity.


jumping to the conclusion that God does not exists is a poor foundation for launching your argument.

I don't assume god does not exist at all. And indeed neither do the majority of people who believe in evolution who are in fact christian and likewise the majority of christians who believe in evolution.

Evolution is not an atheistic theory, no theory in science is and pretending otherwise is a poor foundation for launching your argument.


Who cares about that. It's a red herring argument. None of it proves evolution.

Actually it supports evolution. As negative mutations grow in number without being selected against, the population gets sicker. That's the evolutionary prediction.


Never said it was. The evolution theory has been build and modified block by block for 150 years, so block by block it is coming down. But for those with foresight, the theory is done.

Oh well I'll just have to apologise for scientists adhering directly to the scientific method, honing the theory. How naughty. We know more now than we did then, previous generations' picture of evolution was less complete.


Prove it!

Look at the research yourself, I'm not your tutor. This is the science meaning it is proved. It's also the work of geneticists so I find it amusing that you'll pick and choose evidence as it suits you.


Sorry, I forgot the theory of evolution is subject to evolving, and it has evolved to be more palatable for the masses to swallow. My mistake.

Yes that's right, because science forms it's theories just to appease the masses. It's a miracle that they can use those theories to extrapolate technology at all, what a fluke!


I said from the beginning of this thread that neither theory can be proven.

Evolution has been proven, not only can we see the long term effects in the fosil record but we can also see the mechanism slowly churning now. Denying this is tantamount to saying that the continents don't move because you can't see it, or erosion on the sphinx or anything that occurs very slowly.


Evolution assumes ID/God did not create.

Evolution says nothing of god.


I stated that, TO ME, the Creation Scientists' explanation of the evidences is more logical, reasonable, makes more sense, and does not lead to absurd secondary assumptions like Evolution has consistently done.

Because you are pandering to a faith constricting your ability to see reality for what it is. Your faith is a god, sciences faith is empirical evidence - it holds no opinion either way about the supernatural.


While I was here, I witnessed your camp openly attacking people's characters, as well as name calling(sometimes under the guise of "observations") but still name calling and character attacks, and the mods did nothing. That demonstrates the obvious bias that Creationists have to endure, and on ATS that is just plain WRONG.

Oh waaa waaa. It's not like you and your lot are completely innocent of mockery. I'm loosing count of how much you mock evolutionary theory and theorists for an "absurd" theory, being coy and making gross oversimplifications with the intent of making your impressions of the science look foolish. "My grandfather wasn't a monkey." is the kind of creationist catchphrase I've seen here since day one.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


That is the point welfhard....

"all around", yet only life in one tiny corner (again what we see)

Statistically it is out of balance (to be unintended)


No it's not. What you're basically saying is that statistically it's out of balance that the ratio of snow to rock on a mountain is "out of balance."

1) Life can't live everywhere because it can't evolve everywhere.

2) Modern astrobiology suggests that it's replete on uncountable worlds in the galaxy. Because organic matter exists in almost every place we've looked, the idea that life is nowhere but here is preposterous.

All that you are doing is ignoring the science and saying we are alone and therefore divine. This is poor reasoning, especially when you have to purposefully overlook science to reach this conclusion.

Astrobiology.


Let me explain this to you...



For the commonness of life, we have a total of 2 planets in our sample size. One of them has life, and the other may have life.

There are trillions of trillions of planets in the universe. A large proportion will be rocky and icy like ours.

Organic matter has been found in deep space.

Life appeared on this planet very soon after it's initial cooling.




The idea that life is statistically rare is laughable.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Hey guys...

This discussion is great...

Please remember, that your persuasiveness can be tied to your presentation...

Let's all take a deep breath ok? And not get wrapped up in the heat of the moment.

I, for one am thankful to the ldr-ship at ATS for giving us the vehicle.

OT



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
......

Organic matter has been found in deep space.....



Walk me through this ok?

OT



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
.....
Astrobiology.




I went there and found this...


As Carter said: "Although our situation is not necessarily central, it is inevitably privileged to some extent."[7] Specifically, Carter disagreed with using the Copernican principle to justify the Perfect Cosmological Principle, which states that all large regions and times in the universe must be statistically identical.[/ex] link: en.wikipedia.org...

and this...


Perfect Cosmological Principle

The Perfect Cosmological Principle states that the Universe is homogenous and isotropic in space and time. In this view the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale) as it always has and always will. It is the principle underpinning Steady State theory and Chaotic inflation theory.
link: en.wikipedia.org...

Who woulda thought? Some smart referenced guy, agreeing with lil' OT



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Comets and asteroids and gas clouds.

Remember that organic chemistry is just carbon-based chemistry. It's not something that is produced by life, it's just what life is made of mostly.

Carbon can form into a multitude of different forms and chemicals with no external manipulation. A stew of the stuff will naturally form these compounds because of their own reactive properties. Amino acids and some such.

Example


Perhaps the most powerful techniques for detection of individual molecules is radio astronomy which has resulted in the detection of over a hundred interstellar species, including radicals and ions, and organic (i.e., carbon) compounds, such as alcohols, acids, aldehydes, and ketones. One of the most abundant interstellar molecules, and among the easiest to detect with radio waves (due to its strong electric dipole moment) is CO (carbon monoxide). In fact, CO is such a common interstellar molecule that it is used to map out molecular regions.
Astrochemistry



Who woulda thought? Some smart referenced guy, agreeing with lil' OT

No it doesn't. A homogeneous universe say's nothing about it's life content because the presence of life doesn't alter the pattern of energy distributed across the universe (that is to say that one region without will have as much energy as a region with life). It means that energy-matter is going to be evenly distributed. Further IF you apply the principle to biology then it must be everywhere.

If the guy agreed with you, he would of said that the distribution pattern of the universe indicates a god and he doesn't even come close to hinting at that. You are dreaming.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by Welfhard
There is effect all around......



That is the point welfhard....

"all around", yet only life in one tiny corner (again what we see)

Statistically it is out of balance (to be unintended)

OT


Statistically based on what? The limitations of human technology doesn't say much statistically about something it can't yet find. In order for this statistically argument to be held true, then we must assume that life else where is an impossibility. I do not believe life is an impossibility because we exist.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Interestingly carbon based life may not be the only form of life out there. There is a lot left to be discovered.

LINK

Just thought you'd be interested in reading the link if you haven't already.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join