Does the Central Limit Theorem prove a Creator/Deity?

reply to post by John Matrix

---

Why not? That's just silly speaking in confidence when you admit you don't know. Since you're such a fan pretending the statistics are overwhelmingly against us, why not realise the statistics also suggest that the universe is awash with life.

It seems a fair waste of time to create the whole universe just for us when we can only see a fraction of it.

reply to post by OldThinker

---

Are you familiar with the Drake equation (en.wikipedia.org...) and the Rare Earth hypothesis (en.wikipedia.org...)? This is an attempt to calculate the number of intelligent civs in our galaxy or universe.

There are cca 10^22 stars only in the observable universe. So even when we use the most conservative estimation of Rare Earth hypothesis that probability of appearing of Earth-like planet with complex Earth-like life around a star is is 10^-15, we get 10 000 000 planets only in the observable universe. And the real universe is probably much bigger.

As I said earlier, nobody (not even scientists) know how many civilisations are out there. These are all speculations.

reply to post by Maslo

---

Yes its mindboggling....

I certainly can't say we are alone, its only a hypothesis.

OT

reply to post by OldThinker

---

And it's a pretty silly one when all the numbers suggest otherwise. I thought you liked numbers.

But anyway you can't state or even suggest that energy is focused on earth and then say "I don't know." That's moronic.

Welfard:

It's funny how the numbers work when it comes to believing other life is out there in the Universe, and you say those who don't agree are silly.

By the same logic, the evolutionists are silly to believe in obiogenesis or speciation by way of natural processes and mutations, cuz the numbers show otherwise, and I like the numbers.

BTW, I don't say there is no other life in the Universe. I just say that the other life forms are hyper-dimensional beings that are far more advanced than we are.

Great, I like the numbers, too.

Abiogenesis may be inprobable, but how did you came to conclusion that evolution (speciation by way of natural processes and mutations) is improbable? The numbers and math support evolution, I would say its inevitable once you have reproducing life.
Your mathematical "proof" which you probably mean only disproved completely random abiogenesis, not evolution.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by Maslo]

I wouldn't go so far as to describe abiogenesis as improbable. That's like equating physics and chemistry as improbable. We don't know the specific physical and chemical variables that lead to self replicating molecules and that lack of knowledge doesn't detract from the physical laws that allow it to happen. If abiogenesis did not happen, then everything we know about physics, chemistry and the biology of organic compounds is all just plain wrong and all of our advances in those fields should not exist.

reply to post by John Matrix

---

You don't understand the numbers. You think that because of the near impossibility of how we came to being what we are now is somehow also meaning that it couldn't have happened any other way either. The numbers say that if not us, the there is almost an infinite amount of other natural paths life and evolution could have taken.

And what's more, you still haven't defined kinds or when even you admit variation, by what mechanism that variation is limited to within one of these "kinds".


I you fail to see how not only would these beings couldn't be defined as alive, nor how the numbers suggest biological life throughout the universe.

You are dead on this opinion sirnex. Listen to the experts:

YouTube Link

[edit on 7/10/09 by John Matrix]

reply to post by John Matrix

---

Sound is broken, so if there are any specific points in the video you wish to bring up then your going to have to write them out for me.

Regardless of what the video states anyways, the DNA molecule works through biology and chemistry, it follows the laws of those two sciences. If it didn't then any advances made in the field would be false and impossible. I'm not sure what points you were trying to bring up, but if you raise any specifics. I'll be more than happy to take you off the pedestal and put you in your place.

why?


What is your point here, with the signature?

Are you willing to share that tagline with the kids? Want them to champion this approach as well?

please share with me your strategy in communicating this to them...what was your dialog?

OT

ps: please change it, ok? ur r better than that!!!!!!!!!!!


can you listen to? www.tonycampolo.org...

Most should!!!........ listen that is...

OT

reply to post by OldThinker

---

Click on the link and read through the thread if your interested. I won't be changing the sig anytime soon, just as you won't stop talking like a tool anytime soon as well.