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: 31
8
<< 28  29  30    32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Your source is questionable.

Perhaps they did say those things, but in my eyes, they are not true scientists as they refute empirical evidence and sit on the fence of a dubious religious deity to explain creation.

Again, can you explain to me that if there is a God, who created God?

Also, what's the explanation for the immaculate conception; was in-vitro fertilisation known 6,000 years ago?




posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


First prove the creator before you attribute a process to it in which you, yourself know nothing about nor have bothered learning anything about as it is stated in today's modern day and age.

Secondly, your misunderstanding what was meant by what was said on the news. Look up a *real* evolutionary tree chart and you'll see what was meant, doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

Make sure you *pay attention* to what you read and hear as your showing a clear misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. The basic gist of the theory is easy enough for an elementary student to learn, in fact my own daughter is picking up on it rather quiet well! Don't you think that is sad? An eleven year old has a better grasp on a complex theory than you...



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety
 


PrisonerOfSociety, having a cold one friend...

OT'll get back with you later tonight, ok?



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Oh, before I forget ... Here is the answer to your question again. Not sure why you keep ignoring it.

Chance is merely a term indicating extant causes not recognized or perceived.

There is no such thing as chance because chance is a term used to describe an event in which there is no recognizable or perceived causation.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Oh, before I forget ... Here is the answer to your question again. Not sure why you keep ignoring it.

Chance is merely a term indicating extant causes not recognized or perceived.

There is no such thing as chance because chance is a term used to describe an event in which there is no recognizable or perceived causation.


another try....


what does the above mean?

OT



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Your source is questionable.


Fair!

I'm sure you will do your due diligence....

You seem sincere....

One who is seeking truth....

Remember HE said, "And you shall seek me, and find me, when you shall search for me with all your heart." Jeremiah

Are you doing it with ALL?

OT

PS: the quotes are "findable"....weird word i know, but you understand ok?



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


what does the above mean?


Have you heard of Dictionary?



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 




Remember HE said, "And you shall seek me, and find me, when you shall search for me with all your heart." Jeremiah


Eh?!

What's made-up, campfire / story telling scripture got to do with the price of cheese?

btw OT, i'm an atheist



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I have provided the best and most adequate rewording and explanation that I can. I'm sorry if I can not "dumb it down" any further than it already has been. If there is any language barrier or any lack of understanding certain words, then by all means tell me what it is you don't understand and we can work out something closer to the level of a three year old type of explanation.

We can use cookie's as an example, or maybe dollie's if you prefer.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I have provided the best and most adequate rewording and explanation that I can. I'm sorry if I can not "dumb it down" any further than it already has been. If there is any language barrier or any lack of understanding certain words, then by all means tell me what it is you don't understand and we can work out something closer to the level of a three year old type of explanation.

We can use cookie's as an example, or maybe dollie's if you prefer.



oh well....

God bless you and your family!

OT out!



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
reply to post by OldThinker
 




Remember HE said, "And you shall seek me, and find me, when you shall search for me with all your heart." Jeremiah


Eh?!

What's made-up, campfire / story telling scripture got to do with the price of cheese?

btw OT, i'm an atheist



atheist? i know friend. I only wish you the best!

I've accepted the scriptures, you haven't....I'm still prayin for you



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety
 


Friend if you are still around tonight.....

Have you thought about.....


Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars


OT guesses SIZE MATTERS!!!!!


Man that was funny, don't care who ur?


more: www.godandscience.org...



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


WOW! You just described the perfect conditions required for the formation of black holes! Without those number's being exact in where they are, black holes would never form and the universe would be unable to collapse back on itself and start anew. It's a shame we're just a side effect



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 



OT guesses SIZE MATTERS!!!!!


You speak of yourself in the the 3rd person, is that a religious thang'?

You like that God site, don't ya ?


There are four fundamental forces, EM, gravity, strong & weak nuclear forces. They explain the current physics, but there must be a unification of these into one common denominator.

In the force equation: F=GMm/r2, scientists refer to the gravitational constant as the 'God force', not because God created this force, but because it just fits and makes maths work as we know it. It's called a constant of proportionality.

As frequencies are continually discovered with evolving technology, such as the LHC, then a grand unification will be complete and we as humans can flee this hermetically sealed fish-bowl, and journey to distant stars and indeed the Multiverses from whence we came.

An analogy i like to use is that we are in a big, dark cave, looking at the walls with candles. We won't know the full beauty as the cave will remain unlit. One day, as we evolve biologically and technologically, we will invent equipment that will point us to the exact location of the light switch, so we can see the whole cave in all its glory.

That is when man has evolved to join the stars with quantum tech and anti-gravity et al. Until then, we are mere monkeys still throwing rocks at each other!



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety
 



ok, have you considered....the co-rotation radius, the stabilization of the inner solar system, our orbit, our tilt and our THIN atmosphere?

Please explain the cause of these....

see:

Unique location in our galaxy - co-rotation radiusMilky Way Galaxy (reconstructed) (NASA/JPL-Caltech)The Sun and our Solar System have been located in a stable orbit within our galaxy for the last 4.5 billion years. This orbit lies far from the center of our galaxy and between the spiral arms. The stability of our position is possible because the sun is one of the rare stars that lies within the “galactic co-rotation radius.” Typically, the stars in our galaxy orbit the center of the galaxy at a rate that differs from the rate of the trailing spiral arms. Thus, most stars located between spiral arms do not remain there for long, but would eventually be swept inside a spiral arm. Only at a certain precise distance from the galaxy’s center, the "co-rotation radius," can a star remain in its place between two spiral arms, orbiting at precisely the same rate as the galaxy arms rotate around the core ( Mishurov, Y.N. and L. A. Zenina. 1999. Yes, the Sun is Located Near the Corotation Circle. Astronomy & Astrophysics 341: 81-85.). Why is it important that we are not in one of the spiral arms? First, our location gives us a view of the universe that is unobstructed by the debris and gases found in the spiral arms. This fact allows us to visualize what the Bible says, "The heavens declare the glory of God." If we were within the spiral arms, our view would be significantly impaired. Second, being outside the spiral arms puts us in a location that is safer than anywhere else in the universe. We are removed from the more densely occupied areas, where stellar interactions can lead to disruption of planetary orbits. In addition, we are farther from the deadly affects of supernovae explosions. The 4+ billion year longevity of life on earth (the time needed to prepare the planet for human occupation) would not have been possible at most other locations in our galaxy.

Medvedev, M.V. and A. L. Melott. 2007. Do extragalactic cosmic rays induce cycles in fossil diversity? Astrophys. J. 664: 879-889 (arXiv:astro-ph/0602092v3).

Unique stabilization of the inner solar systemA recent study reveals some unusual design in our solar system. With the continuing growth in the capabilities and sophistication of computer systems, scientists are gaining the ability to model the dynamics of the Solar System and ask "what if" questions regarding the presence and size of planets. The presence of Jupiter is required to allow advanced life to exist on the Earth (see below). However, Jupiter's large mass (along with the other gas giants) has a profound destabilizing effect upon the inner planets. In the absence of the Earth-moon system, the orbital period of Jupiter sets up what is called resonance over the period of 8 million years. This resonance causes the orbits of Venus and Mercury to become highly eccentric, so much so, that eventually the orbits become close enough so that there would be a "strong Mercury-Venus encounter." Such an encounter would certainly lead to the ejection of Mercury from the Solar System, and an alteration of the orbit of Venus. In doing the simulations, the scientists learned that the stabilizing effect of the Earth-moon requires a planet with at least the mass of Mars and within 10% of the distance of the Earth from the Sun. The authors of the study used the term "design" twice in the conclusion of their study:

Our basic finding is nevertheless an indication of the need for some sort of rudimentary "design" in the solar system to ensure long-term stability. One possible aspect of such "design" is that long-term stability may require that terrestrial orbits require a degree of irregularity to "stir" certain resonances enough so that such resonances cannot persist. (Innanen, Kimmo, S. Mikkola, and P. Wiegert. 1998. The earth-moon system and the dynamical stability of the inner solar system. The Astronomical Journal 116: 2055-2057.)

Unusually circular orbit of the earthThe unique arrangement of large and small planetary bodies in the solar system may be required to ensure the 4+ billion year stability of the system. In addition, it is readily apparent from the cycle of ice ages that the earth is at the edge of the life zone for our star. Although the earth has one of the most stable orbits among all the planets discovered to date, its periodic oscillations, including changes in orbital eccentricity, axial tilt, and a 100,000-year periodic elongation of Earth's orbit, results in a near freeze over (Kerr, R. 1999. Why the Ice Ages Don't Keep Time. Science 285: 503-505, and Rial, J.A. 1999. Pacemaking the Ice Ages by Frequency Modulation of Earth's Orbital Eccentricity. Science 285: 564-568.). According to Dr. J. E. Chambers, simulations of planetary formation "yield Earth-like planets with large eccentricities (e ~ 0.15)," whereas the Earth has an e value of 0.03. He goes on to say, "Given that climate stability may depend appreciably on e, it could be no coincidence that we inhabit a planet with an unusually circular orbit." (Chambers, J. E. 1998. How Special is Earth's Orbit? American Astronomical Society, DPS meeting #30, #21.07) With this new information, it seems very unlikely that stable planetary systems, in which a small earth-like planet resides in the habitable zone, exist in any other galaxy in our universe. This does not even consider the other design parameters that are required for life to exist anywhere in the universe.

Axial tilt and eccentricity of orbitThe earth is titled on its axis at an angle of 23.5°. This is important, because it accounts for the seasons. Two factors impact the progression of seasons. The most important is the location of land masses on the earth. Nearly all of the continental land mass is located in the Northern Hemisphere. Since land has a higher capacity to absorb the Sun's energy, the earth is much warmer when the Northern Hemisphere is pointing towards the Sun. This happens to be the point at which the earth is farthest from the Sun (the aphelion of its orbit). If the opposite were true, the seasons on the earth would be much more severe (hotter summers and colder winters). For more information, see Aphelion Away! from the NASA website.

The presence of an "impossibly" large moonThe earth has a huge moon orbiting around it, which scientists now know 1) did not bulge off due to the earth's high rotational speed and 2) could not have been captured by the earth's gravity, due to the moon's large mass. For further explanations, see "The scientific legacy of Apollo" (2). The best explanation (other than outright miracle) for the moon's existence is that a Mars-sized planet crashed into the earth around 4.25 billion years ago (the age of the Moon). As you can imagine, the probability of two planets colliding in the same solar system is extremely remote. Any "normal" collision would not have resulted in the formation of the moon, since the ejecta would not have been thrown far enough from the earth to form the moon. The small planet, before it collided with the earth, must have had an unusually elliptical orbit (unlike the orbit of any other planet in the Solar System), which resulted in a virtual head-on collision. The collision of the small planet with the earth would have resulted in the ejection of 5 billion cubic miles of the earth's crust and mantle into orbit around the earth. This ring of material, the theory states, would have coalesced to form the moon. In addition, the moon is moving away from the earth (currently at 2 inches per year), as it has been since its creation. If we calculate backwards we discover that the moon must have formed just outside the Roche limit, the point at which an object would be torn apart by the earth's gravity (7,300 miles above the earth's surface). A collision which would have ejected material less than the Roche limit would have formed only rings around the earth. Computer models show that a collision of a small planet with the earth must have been very precise in order for any moon to have been formed at all (coincidence or design?). (see What If the Moon Didn't Exist?, by Neil F. Comins, professor of Astronomy and Physics).

Unusually thin atmosphereWhy is the moon important to life on earth? The collision of the small planet with the earth resulted in the ejection of the majority of the earth's primordial atmosphere. If this collision had not occurred, we would have had an atmosphere similar to that of Venus, which is 80 times that of the earth (equivalent to being one mile beneath the ocean). Such a thick atmosphere on Venus resulted in a runaway greenhouse affect, leaving a dry planet with a surface temperature of 800°F. The earth would have suffered a similar fate if the majority of its primordial atmosphere had not been ejected into outer space. In fact, the Earth is 20% more massive than Venus and further away from the Sun, both factors of which should have lead to a terrestrial atmosphere much thicker than that of Venus. For some strange reason, we have a very thin atmosphere - just the right density to maintain the presence of liquid, solid and gaseous water necessary to life (coincidence or design?).
.


much more: www.godandscience.org...



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
reply to post by OldThinker
 



OT guesses SIZE MATTERS!!!!!


You speak of yourself in the the 3rd person, is that a religious thang'?


nah, more like a marriage thang....old men are always watering the lawn with a hose...why?

takes longer....


OT

just a joke, I'm just one guys opinion, that's all, k?



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
.....we are mere monkeys still throwing rocks at each other!


who wins?

and why?

You sound like a republican????


OT



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
[.....You like that God site, don't ya ?


.....


web sites are SOURCES only....

you know the quote/point/etc...originated some where else/other...


due diligence/whole heart/ THANG...

OT



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Please explain the cause of these....


Whoa whoa whoa. Back this train wreak up!

Are you saying that if he couldn't deliver on this stuff (of which I am confident you have no understand whatsoever given your lack of understanding on the statement of chance) that you are therefore right?

Even if he doesn't know the answer, you can't simply declare "therefore god!", that's just moronic. There are some holes in science and science knows that, if science were complete, it would stop. But just because there are some holes still unfilled in science doesn't simply mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairytale most appeals to you - that's not honesty.

So demanding explanations - when you ought to actually look this stuff up for yourself - makes no difference anyway.


OT guesses SIZE MATTERS!!!!

In a multiverse of infinite universes, size makes no difference and nor do chances. I've explained to you time after time, the statistics make no difference.


black holes? who made um?

Nature + causality.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

WOW! You just described the perfect conditions required for the formation of black holes! ....



black holes? who made um?

German astronomers announced this week there is a whopper of a black hole in the middle of the Milky Way. It's 27,000 light years away, 4 million times larger than our sun, and has 28 suns orbiting it.

And it is spooking at least one radio reporter.

I caught the story on BBC's World Update. An astronomer involved with the project was explaining the 16 year study. It was fascinating. Using two telescopes in Chile, they were able to ascertain that this big ol' black hole is out there and gobbling stuff.

"Is it coming for us?" asked Dan Damon, the radio host.

I laughed out loud. The astronomer did too and assured him that, no, it's way too far away. The interview ended but not before the host summed it up and added "I find it rather nerve wracking."

I can imagine what he's thinking. Black holes consume space material---stars, comets, asteroids---anything that comes near it disappears with the efficiency of a Dyson vacuum cleaner. I'm sure he pictures it sucking us in as well--ending earth, his life, and all we know.

BBC guy found a new bogeyman. You know the bogeyman, right? He's the creature who pursues us and lurks in the darkness. Except, if you are a believer in God and have salvation in your heart---the bogeyman shouldn't scare you. BBC guy will wake up a night and think about the black hole---and while I don't know him, I'm going to assume he is not a man of faith.

When I wasn't a man of faith, my middle-of-the-night wakeups were awful. The junk in my life paraded across my ceiling and it usually ended when I came to the realization that I had to die someday. That freaked me out.

My old Fish Morning Show partner, Margo, has a saying that sums it up. I'll paraphrase, it's basically 'Let there be no rest until that rest is in God'. It's usually directed at someone who has a trail of bogeymen. She's right. When you are pursued by bogeymen, peace doesn't come easily--if at all.

God created black holes and butterfly wings---both, quite spectacularly. He knows what He's doing. Hang in there BBC guy. Find your rest in God and you'll wake up much more rested in the morning.
more: dannyclayton.blogspot.com...


romans 8:28 , solice, aaahhhhhhhhhhh!



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 28  29  30    32  33 >>

log in

join