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: 29
8
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Sorry to butt in but if the answer to your question was important enough to bring up why isn't it important enough to at least cut and paste?




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Are you flipping serious? How childish can you get, honestly? What *question* are you referring to? You've asked a lot of stupid thing's, I *need* to know which question your referring to in order to answer it. Unless your talking about the chance issue, in which it was already answered and again *not* my fault for your own failure to understand a simple sentence. Take remedial English if your having that much trouble understanding simple words.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Because he got into the paste and markers again. Give him about forty-five minutes and the high should wear off.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
More on embryology, Haeckel's Embryonic Recapitulation, Piltdown man and creationists consistently misrepresenting the science.




OT, Please define "Kinds".

This is a creationist term which is never defined.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Sorry to butt in but if the answer to your question was important enough to bring up why isn't it important enough to at least cut and paste?


Hi friend....

Sorry, I'm not understanding your post???

Are you talking about the question sirnex failed to answer?

If so, I cut and pasted in 3 times last night....

pls let me know...



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Are you talking about the question sirnex failed to answer?

He didn't fail to answer, you just failed to understand the plain english answer given.


OT, Please define "Kinds".

This is a creationist term which is never defined.


Ironically, I have now requested this of you 3 times. You shouldn't complain about unanswered questions if you, yourself, won't either.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Because he got into the paste and markers again. Give him about forty-five minutes and the high should wear off.


??????

Man that was disappointing....

This is a game to you huh?

you KNOW exactly the question you have ignored....


Sometimes you are so level - headed....and sometimes I dunno????

wow....


OT



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by sirnex
chance is merely a term indicating extant causes not recognized or perceived.



what does this mean?

flesh it out, pls.

OT



watcher, fyi...here it is, the first time....

OT



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Because he got into the paste and markers again. Give him about forty-five minutes and the high should wear off.


??????

Man that was disappointing....

This is a game to you huh?

you KNOW exactly the question you have ignored....


Sometimes you are so level - headed....and sometimes I dunno????

wow....


OT


*YOU* are the one playing games! As far as I am concerned I have answered every idiotic question you have managed to muster thus far. *IF* there is a question I have missed, please re-post or link back to it and I *will* answer it.

Till that time come's, I'm not playing this game with you tonight as it's childish, retarded and boring and I already have kids to deal with tonight.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Are you blind or are you purposfully IGNORING?

It was already answered dingaling.

LINK

Now cut the bull and grow up.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
.....Till that time come's, I'm not playing this game with you tonight as it's childish, retarded and boring and I already have kids to deal with tonight.



maybe....ahhhh...look at the 5th time, on the post above your last over-reaction.....

wow....

OT



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Ok, for the 4th time now, I'm making this simple request. I will keep asking until I get an answer.

OT, Please define "Kinds".

This is a creationist term which is never defined.

You shouldn't complain about unanswered questions if you, yourself, won't either.


[edit on 1-10-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
.....Take remedial English if your having that much trouble understanding simple words.



Another disappointing distraction.....


You are lucky I'm so patient!


OT



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by sirnex
.....Till that time come's, I'm not playing this game with you tonight as it's childish, retarded and boring and I already have kids to deal with tonight.



maybe....ahhhh...look at the 5th time, on the post above your last over-reaction.....

wow....

OT


There is no such thing as an over-reaction when someone is purposefully being annoying, ignoring answers given while constantly asking for the answer already given. There is seriously something wrong with you, GET HELP!



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


oh well thats the 6th time you avoided....

Like I said the 3rd time, OT's not trying to "beat you" my young father...

I'll be here when ever you step up....

praying you will...

OT



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


You are lucky I'm so patient!

I'm being pretty patient too, I'm up to 5 times now.


Ok, I'm making this simple request. I will keep asking until I get an answer.

OT, Please define "Kinds".

This is a creationist term which is never defined.

You shouldn't complain about unanswered questions if you, yourself, won't either.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Welfard:

About "Kinds"

"By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation." (Gish, 1978, p. 40)

"The creation model, on the other hand, postulates that all basic animal and plant types (the created kinds) were brought into existence by acts of a supernatural Creator using special processes which are not operating today." (Gish, 1978, p. 11)

"During creation the Creator created all of these basic animal and plant kinds, and since then no new kinds have come into being." (Gish, 1978, p. 40)


READ more from the SOURCE here:
www.geocities.com...



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Ok but what is the definition? Kinds could mean anything. By one standard of kind Golden retrievers and poodles are the same kind but not wolves, in another Golden retrievers and wolves are of the same kind but not cougars. Yet in another, Wolves and whales are of the same kind but not Komodo dragons.

What the hell is a kind supposed to mean?


Unlike the creationists of the 19th century, therefore, who refused to believe that speciation of any sort was possible, modern creationists instead assert that some "variation" is possible, but only within the Divine limits imposed upon the original "created kinds":


But by variation within a "kind", changes from a Golden retriever to a whale are perfectly acceptable via your terminology. But not even evolution allows for this. People and ferrets are one "kind".

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
..........................
READ more from the SOURCE here:
www.geocities.com...





Hi John!!!!!


You are going to love this one....I mean you will flip!

You mention the SOURCE above......

Wait till you read this one...wow!!!!!!

Readers say...."This is one of the most engaging, well-written books I have had the pleasure to read. Logical, thorough, and persuasive. Every person should read this book. With the measured prose of an intelligent person, Mr. Clayton manages to present his case without being dogmatic. I simply do not see how the existence of a Divine Creator could be denied after someone examines this work. Scientists and theologians can not only live side-by-side, but can buttress each other's finds."
Amazon here: www.amazon.com...



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


There are no new kinds being created.
There are no new species being created.
There are variations of the same species and same goes for kinds.

I am going to take my best guess and say that kinds means the same as species.

I'm doing more research.




top topics



 
8
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join