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: 24
8
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


You and Welfard have it all figured out.

You might think the grass looks greener where you stand.

But I know grass grows real fine over a septic field.

I wouldn't bet my future on evolution.





[edit on 29/9/09 by John Matrix]




posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


But I know grass grows real fine over a septic field.

We are skeptics, skeptical of the creation myth.


I wouldn't bet my future on evolution.

Fine, don't. Why would we care?


You may care that we don't believe like you, but we really don't care that you don't believe as us.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


We don't have anything 'figured out'.

All I've been saying is that the observational evidences do not point to *any God*.

I mean, sure ... there are a lot of complex processes going on in the human body, from conception to death. A lot of those processes we don't understand and possibly won't in our life time. Then there are the processes that lead to change *read: new species* that are just undeniable to occur. I just recently read an article about this fish that became a new species due to some change in the sex chromosome and how it affected mating behavior, it's a great article and I'll look it up again if you'd like.

Evolutionary theory doesn't mean one species HAS to become a new species, it's a theory of changes within a species that leads to how that species can become a new species. You already agreed that the very basic fundamentals of the theory do occur, I can quote you on that if you'd like. Yet, you wish to deny that those fundamentals lead to any change at all. It's a contradictory statement, but your not even understanding that it's contradictory. Which astounds me, it's blatantly obvious that it's contradictory. You can't believe in the very fundamentals of the theory and then demand disbelief in the theory as well. It's like saying god made all life on earth, but I don't believe he made people. All life encompasses people as well, so the statement is contradictory. Only your contradicting from a backwards argument. So I guess the correct argument would be I don't believe god created people, but I believe god created all life on earth.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
......You may care that we don't believe like you, but we really don't care that you don't believe as us....



Whoa!

John, That about sums up the "survival of the fitest"

I believe it was Paul who said "care for another"

Oh yeah, that's a Christian thing, sorry...



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Whoa!

John, That about sums up the "survival of the fitest"

I believe it was Paul who said "care for another"

Oh yeah, that's a Christian thing, sorry...


How low must you sink? Instead of making any rebuttal to my points, you extrapolate things that I don't mean and certainly didn't say out of my posts.

It's not that I don't care about people, it's just that I don't really care what you believe. Why should I? It's non of my concern. ... not that that has anything at all to do with "survival of the fittest."

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


John, I fat fingered (deleted) your U2U, sorry....

Come back, ok?

OT



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
It's none of my concern. ... not that that has anything at all to do with "survival of the fittest."


welfhard, what a nice thought...man I wish I could be so EGO-CENTRIC...

Life isn't about YOU...or ME.

TLJC calls us "to give it away"....remember ITS FRI BUT SUN COMING?


the survival peice is your attitude....


OT



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
..... So I guess the correct argument would be I don't believe god created people, but I believe god created all life on earth.


alright, more info here please...

OT curious....



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard

I wouldn't bet my future on evolution.

Fine, don't. Why would we care?
.......


Exactly....


That is the point....

OT thinks your WORDS betray you....sorry, I know I'm like that ole grammar teacher that bled all over you papers....



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Your proof for god involves god?

That's like saying "I have proof unicorns exist:

1) Only 2 unicorns can create more unicorns, through the act of sex
2) Unicorns have sex ALL THE TIME
3) Therefore, many unicorns must exist!"

How illogical are you? Wait, don't answer that, because you're a christian. I already know.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


ass-ump-tions????


ass-u...not me!!!!!

A lil' more detail, ok? I sure hate "drive-by-posts"



OT

btw, An 'assumption' is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


ass-ump-tions????


ass-u...not me!!!!!

A lil' more detail, ok? I sure hate "drive-by-posts"



OT

btw, An 'assumption' is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.


Thats exactly our point. You ASSUME that complex life (or universe) requires some intelligent designer. That you take for granted, without preponderance of the fact that many complex systems can arise naturally from proper simpler ones, without intelligence involved. (given enough time and energy to do so...)



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   
It's quiet evident at this point who has the upper hand in the argument/debate over this issue.

OT was the original poster and he posted initially showing such great intelligent though behind what his initial idea was.

LINK

Since then his post's have devolved into pure nonsense and just utter weirdness that would make Jesus himself cry for having anyone represent him. That first post showed just how intelligent OT is capable of being as well as a few post's here and there, but he eventually just runs off on this wild weirdness that defies any regard for common sense.

JM on the other hand has shown throughout that he is capable of higher thought processes and does understand for the most part what he is talking about. His only problem is second guessing himself and arguing with contradictory statements. If he could get beyond that and develop a little more confidence in his arguments, I believe he could actually be a worthy opponent in this debate. I just want to say JM, your not confident enough is your own arguments, but you show great ability to try and understand. I know it took you awhile to muster the courage to post a new piece of 'evidence' in your favor, which shows you at least a mediocre amount of understanding what you read as evidence with enough confidence to post it after such a lengthy wait. You need to be more confident in your beliefs though, your beliefs should not appear to weigh so heavily on what I or Welfhard have to say. Meaning, if your convictions are strong enough, you should be able to quickly come back with an argument or point *against* what we have to say without contradictory arguments.

As these two have been the main persons in debate, and the given statements are to be held true either through personal opinion or through demonstration, then we can at least all agree that this thread is for the most part a dead end. The debate of whether or not there is a god and it's role in our universe has always been a debate of great interest to me. It poses a great intellectual challenge and honestly if an argument for or against is strong enough, then anyone could be swayed in either direction. As we can't literally prove or disprove a god(s) existence for the very nature of what a god is, we have to rely on observational evidences, reason, and logic to determine what the case for or against is. As it stand, these two were not the best representatives.

Thank you JM for being a decent opponent. And OT, keep taking those meds!



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


welfhard, what a nice thought...man I wish I could be so EGO-CENTRIC...

Life isn't about YOU...or ME.

Right so surely you can understand the sentiment of "Mind your own business." That what I'm doing. You can believe what ever fairytale most appeals to you, it's no skin of my nose.


TLJC calls us "to give it away"....remember ITS FRI BUT SUN COMING?
the survival peice is your attitude....

Not that that has anything to do with this situation, nor is it a rebuttal to any of my arguments that you plainly don't want to deal with so you change the subject.


Exactly....


That is the point....

What point? Your words couldn't be any more inane and cryptic if you tried.


welfhard, what a nice thought...man I wish I could be so EGO-CENTRIC...

OT you hypocrite! You are more egocentric than any atheist could possibly be. Your believe that you are divinely created - possibly the single most egocentric idea in the world ever. I don't need that crutch.


A lil' more detail, ok? I sure hate "drive-by-posts"

OT you hypocrite! You operate almost exclusively in drive-by posts.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by John Matrix
 


We don't have anything 'figured out'.

All I've been saying is that the observational evidences do not point to *any God*.


That's your observation of the evidences.
For some, the observational evidences do point to God.
It's to do with one's perception.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


That's your observation of the evidences.
For some, the observational evidences do point to God.
It's to do with one's perception.


Then peoples perceptions must be ignored. The actual science doesn't make any suggestions about god either way and we don't say it does. We deal conservatively with that the evidence explicitly indicates, not may implicitly indicate.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 



For some, the observational evidences do point to God.
It's to do with one's perception.


There is a remarkably huge difference here.

Observational evidence should be defined as an observed process or event occurring.

We determine evolutionary theory to be valid for the 'creation' of new species, because we observe these hypothetical changes occurring leading to new changes and species.

You observe complexity and just determine it to be of god without observing god to exist as the initial causation of complexity.

Do you see the difference? It's painfully huge and not really open to debate due to the obviousness of it's nature.

You can't claim X must = true because I will it so. You need to show that X is the causation of Y, not claim that because I see Y, I claim X to be true.

It's faulty logic and I won't accept that a person is incapable of thinking logically. So, your just going to have to try a lot harder if you wish for your argument to be taken with an grain of seriousness.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Sirnex: Not making excuses here, but evolution vs. creation is not my area of expertise and I wish I had more time to put into it.

I am satisfied that those on the side of creation have put forth enough research materials from credible sources to demonstrate that there must be a creator behind what some scientists and mathematicians say is so complex that it defies our ability to comprehend.

I may not be completely convinced of YEC, but I am fully confident that I am on the right side in this debate. I am also confident in saying that evolution caused a moral decline, and it's principle teachings of natural selection and survival of the fittest resulted in more mass killings in 150 years, than all previous human history combined.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


We are back to:

Faith in natural processes to come up with thousands of species over eons of time.

We can't observe God....nor can we timetravel back 20,000 or 20,000,000 years to observe what the earth was like.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 



Sirnex: Not making excuses here, but evolution vs. creation is not my area of expertise and I wish I had more time to put into it.


I know, it's obvious as much. You do show though that you are capable of understanding things to a point. Just try and find the time to look at both sides of the debate.


I am satisfied that those on the side of creation have put forth enough research materials from credible sources to demonstrate that there must be a creator behind what some scientists and mathematicians say is so complex that it defies our ability to comprehend.


Unfortunately, their evidence of God is lacking in any evidence of God. Anyone can point to anything and *claim* it came from something. I can equally and validly argue that the universe was created from the breath of a cosmic dragon and point to the evidence as shown by science that the early universe appears to have been hotter and denser. Etc Etc Etc.

Point being, you can't point at a process and claim that some higher entity controls that process without first proving that any such process couldn't exist without said entity.

IDism attempts this by pointing out complexity and claiming it must have been designed, but their whole argument rest's upon science not having any current understanding in whatever process/complexity they choose to use as proof of their desired deity of choice.

Like I said, we came up with Evolutionary theory, not as a first conclusion and then an attempt to make everything fit that conclusion (as is the case for arguing God), but it was observed as occurring and then with new discoveries the theory has changed into it's modern form and with new discoveries it will include new data/information that we don't currently have right now or haven't discovered.

Yet, your willing to accept the basic foundation of evolutionary theory and willing to accept that those processes do occur, but you turn around and contradict yourself by stating that evolution does not occur or that complexity couldn't occur through evolutionary changes alone. It's pure hypocrisy.


I may not be completely convinced of YEC, but I am fully confident that I am on the right side in this debate. I am also confident in saying that evolution caused a moral decline, and it's principle teachings of natural selection and survival of the fittest resulted in more mass killings in 150 years, than all previous human history combined.


Evolutionary theory is young compared to the whole of human civilization. If one wants to argue that evolutionary theory has had a role in more deaths than all that has occurred in history, then you sure better be able to prove that statement.

The church was the prime cause of the dark ages, did you know it even banned the use of soap for washing yourself? With it's total lack of respect for the human machine, people's immune systems and general health went into quick decline resulting in the wasteful death of millions. Because of this we've seen probably histories worst plague wiping out more people than any other disease or virus.

Let us not forget the crusades either, with the christian front burning books of knowledge now lost, wiping out entire civilizations all because they didn't believe in the christian god. The early Christians justified their acts of horror against mankind with their good old bible. Or let's discuss the years of oppression women have had to endure thanks to holy scripture. The list goes on, Christianity has been by far the worst scourge on the face of planet Earth.

Even Hitler was christian, despite what many religious authorities would have you believe. Look up the history of Hitler, he was so hardcore christian that he went out of his way to try and find the spear that pierced Jesus in hopes that any divine power latent in that spear would ensure his victory.

You really need to look at everything you read with a critical eye and with a logical mind. People will tell you anything, and if you naively go along with whatever they say, you will remain ignorant to reality and the inner workings of the world. For over two thousand years we as a species has endured monotheistic tyranny. The system of morality is good and all, but it's followers are for the most part hell bound heathen hypocrites. I have never met a real christian, you know why? Because they don't exist anymore.




top topics



 
8
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join