Does the Central Limit Theorem prove a Creator/Deity?

reply to post by John Matrix

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.

But apparently Noah gathered 2 or 7 of all "kinds" of the animals on the arc. There are in the order of a million "species" of land animals. Are you telling me that Noah had somewhere between 2 million and 7 million individual animals on the arc? Conservative estimates of the Arc would suggest that it could hold around 10,000. (That's ignoring food space for all those animals for 40 days)

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

And if it were, why not say species, the scientific word, so there is no ambiguity in debates.

It cannot mean species, so until you can accurately and definitively define, then you can't say that no new "kinds" have been observed because we don't know what they are.



Here's another question, if variation doesn't occur outside of the limits of a "kind", what is preventing that amount of variation? Why can't new kinds emerge if there is variation?
Without any sort of mechanisms to limit that variation, when there is some variation, then we would expect to see new kinds all the time.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by John Matrix



More detail on THE SOURCE

"In The Source, John Clayton (with the assistance of Nils Jansma, a geotechnical engineer and geologist) presents an informative, "reader friendly" and science-based argument for the existence of God and Bible traditions of creation. Written in a straight-forward text that is ideal for the non-specialist general reader, perhaps the most telling point is that when John Clayton, a second-generation atheist, credentialed scientist, and experienced educator, set out to disprove the Bible from a scientific perspective, he ended his six-year study with a profound faith in the God of the Bible and the determination to share his findings and insights with others through the pages of The Source."

Book: www.amazon.com...

reply to post by John Matrix



Found another take on the ground-breaking book....

"The description of the author and book say it all. A second generation atheist and scientist who approached the topic from "the opposite direction". Some have criticized this book with the admonition that potential readers should simply "stop doubting and believe"--an absurd proposition when reaching out to atheists. The OT and NT spend little time on the creation of the universe, and rightfully so. The message is the word of God, not an complete explanation of what we know of his entire creation. This book starts from the mindset of a curious nonbeliever and provides compelling evidence of God's eternal design and forces the reader to re-examine their nonbelief. He also details his own study into the religions of the world and how his study led him to become a Christian."


Sounds like our young (SMART/BLESSED) skeptics, huh?

OT

reply to post by John Matrix




John, here's another review of another GREAT BOOK, our skeptic friends will IGNORE....

"Revered and eminently readable essayist Stephen Jay Gould has once again rendered the complex simple, this time mending the seeming split between the two "Rocks of Ages," science and religion. He quickly, and rightfully, admits that his thesis is not new, but one broadly accepted by many scientists and theologians. Gould begins by suggesting that Darwin has been misconstrued--that while some religious thinkers have used divinity to prove the impossibility of evolution, Darwin would have never done the reverse.
Gould eloquently lays out not "a merely diplomatic solution" to rectify the physical and metaphysical, but "a principled position on moral and intellectual grounds," central to which is the elegant concept of "non-overlapping magisteria." (Gould defines magisteria as a "four-bit" word meaning domain of authority in teaching.) Essentially, science and religion can't be unified, but neither should they be in conflict; each has its own discrete magisteria, the natural world belonging exclusively to science and the moral to religion.

Gould's argument is both lucid and convincing as he cites past religious and scientific greats (including a particularly touching section on Darwin himself). Regardless of your persuasions, religious or scientific, Gould holds up his end of the conversation with characteristic respect and intelligence. --Paul Hughes

Product Description
"People of good will wish to see science and religion at peace. . . . I do not see how science and religion could be unified, or even synthesized, under any common scheme of explanation or analysis; but I also do not understand why the two enterprises should experience any conflict." So states internationally renowned evolutionist and bestselling author Stephen Jay Gould in the simple yet profound thesis of his brilliant new book.

Writing with bracing intelligence and elegant clarity, Gould sheds new light on a dilemma that has plagued thinking people since the Renaissance. Instead of choosing between science and religion, Gould asks, why not opt for a golden mean that accords dignity and distinction to each realm? "



link: www.amazon.com...

"Gould's argument is both lucid and convincing as he cites past religious and scientific greats (including a particularly touching section on Darwin himself)."


= = = = =

I hope you smart skeptics will take notice....??????????????

OT

reply to post by OldThinker

"Gould's argument is both lucid and convincing as he cites past religious and scientific greats (including a particularly touching section on Darwin himself)."


= = = = =

I hope you smart skeptics will take notice....??????????????

OT

More interested in the debate right now. Enough of these diversions.

Essentially, science and religion can't be unified, but neither should they be in conflict; each has its own discrete magisteria, the natural world belonging exclusively to science and the moral to religion.

I do love it when the religious claim moral authority. Religion has an immoral legacy and yet the most peaceful people are the irreligious. The most atheistic countries are the most peaceful, healthy, crimefree and ultimately moral countries in the world. Surely if religion had something to offer in the way of morals, the godless people would be the most corrupt, yet you see the reverse.

The difference is we can't turn to a book to justify anything we like, we have to think and take accountability for ourselves.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Welfhard]

Good night friends.....

sirnex....OT's still waiting.....I feel you are working on it, thx for the effort


CU tomorrow....

OT out

Originally posted by OldThinker
Good night friends.....

sirnex....OT's still waiting.....I feel you are working on it, thx for the effort

CU tomorrow....

OT out

Already answered, more than once. LINK

Essentially, science and religion can't be unified, but neither should they be in conflict; each has its own discrete magisteria, the natural world belonging exclusively to science and the moral to religion.

Mass murder: The killing of a large number of people over a short period of time

2 Kings 2:23-24:

"And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

So it is perfectly moral that if a group of children should insult an adult, that adult can morally and with justification of this passage lay out a curse in god's name upon those children and have them all killed should god answer that prayer/curse.

reply to post by John Matrix


John Matrix likes to suggest that Evolutionary Theory is corrupting and had a hand in the Holocaust and Stalin-ism. That is leads to war, rape, murder, etc. That government take power from the people via the Theory. But moreso, only the Bible and the moral guide of the Holy Ghost can lead to a truly good and virtuous person and, indeed, a better nation.

This is simply delusion.

A common criticism of atheists is that they have no values, no moral compass, and a philosophy of "if it feels good, do it." But is that really borne out by the evidence? And, if not, where does their moral compass come from?

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by OldThinker

Ok, I understand. There is proof everywhere of a common designer, and it's definately not evolution..LOL

(Note: I struggled to read the first page of this thread, so apologise for this incoherent interjection of opinion)

Presumption is the mother of all f# ups.

Sir, you confirm every tingling nerve ending that has evolved in my body, why i believe religion is for stupid people.

So because of an interpreted 'design', there must be a creator? Evolution works like time-lapse photography; you can't analyse each frame, but there are distinctions with comparative analysis over a millennium.

So if there's a God, who created God???????

p.s. i forgot to add some undeniable proof for design, as spouted by religious nut-jobs:



[edit on 2-10-2009 by PrisonerOfSociety]

reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety


Sigh. Ray Comfort is a New Zealander. I am a New Zealander. Ray Comfort makes me ashamed to be a kiwi.

He says that the Banana is the Atheist nightmare not realising that the Banana is a product of artificial evolution. And then when he gets destroyed about it so relentlessly, he apologises and says that he wasn't "aware" that's what happened. The evolution and cultivation of the banana are so easy to look up and learn about, it's clear, that if he's that lazy, why he has no understanding of Evolution.

reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety


Thx for your thoughts and joining, PrisonerOfSociety.

Isn't your question TIME BOUND?

OT

reply to post by sirnex



the hebrew word for kids has a whole lot of meanings...

remember we say "our kids in Iraq"...reality is they are big boys, right?

reply to post by OldThinker

the hebrew word for kids has a whole lot of meanings...

remember we say "our kids in Iraq"...reality is they are big boys, right?

"Well you idiots do for sending me over there in the first place."

You see that's the kinda offtopic post that addresses no issues that you are chronic for. Here's another example...

"Isn't your question TIME BOUND?"

I asked you a question 5 times yesterday and got nothing, not even an acknowledgement of the question, nor virtually all of my U2U's to you.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Welfhard]

I watched the news last night about our oldest ancestor being found. A scientist came on and said(paraphrasing). What we now believe is humans have evolved separately from chimpanzees, so we now have humans evolving on the one hand(he stretched out one hand and arm for emphasis) and chimpanzees evolving separately(he stretched out his other hand and arm). He mentioned two distinct evolutionary chains.

So it appears the evolution regarding humans and chimps that is now being talked about in science is nothing more than variations within the same two species.

Variations are the result of DNA programing. It's why we all look different. It would be boring if we all looked like Smith in the Matrix movies....right?

God designed variation into DNA when he created everything. Variation vary over time....LOL.

But evolutions won't admit there was a creator yet.....but they will soon enough.

reply to post by John Matrix

So it appears the evolution regarding humans and chimps that is now being talked about in science is nothing more than variations within the same two species.

The common ancestor was further back.

What's more is that our discussion about "kinds" is still unresolved.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by John Matrix


hi John,

Hope you are well...

OT

reply to post by John Matrix


Firstly, thanks for the kind welcome OldThinker

John, you have completely misunderstood the concept of evolution.

Think of spliced speciation / DNA metamorphosis as a tree or better yet as a forest; it really is that simple.

As a branch grows it splits (from 'inherited' code) to form twigs and they then grow leaves. Each branch grows differently through randomness or predetermination (whichever, it's neither here nor there). Now each tree in the forest has different code, so the plethora of DNA code results in a rich tapestry that is the forest floor.

As circumstances dictate from the environment the forest evolves within, then the branches will respond to ensure their survival to the maximum extent to bear fruit. If it becomes too hot in one part of the forest, then perhaps the leaves won't be as big to conserve energy from evapotranspiration and photosynthesis.

However, another branch on another tree somewhere else in the forest may be subject to more favourable climatic conditions and will have bigger leaves to exacerbate the growth cycle.

Basically, the same tree type has evolved differently in separate locations, to maximise longevity and continued DNA propagation.

Man and chimps are the same tree but have branched off and can thus CO-EXIST. Both branches of DNA are now independent, even though they were born from the same fruit; this fruit in man's case, was the primordial soup that was sparked into life by an alien spaceship 4 billion years ago, but that's probably for another thread.

Originally posted by Welfhard
The common ancestor was further back.

What's more is that our discussion about "kinds" is still unresolved.

Welfard, please inform those experts I saw on CNN last night.
They need to be corrected right away.

I've neen doing some research on kinds.
I'll get back to you when I find something good enough to stimulate one of such high intelligence as yourself.

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
..... why i believe religion is for stupid people.

Again thank you for posting....

There are many who would disagree with you....

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)

More: www.godandscience.org...