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: 6
8
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:07 PM
reply to post by Welfhard

And using arguments from science is not "appealing to authority"?

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:05 PM
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

No, it's appealing to science. How is science an authority? People are authorities, not fields of study. Besides Science is science because it's demonstrable, it deals in evidence. It's not equal simply to any random's opinion.

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:27 PM
Why do theists strive to prove the existence of god?

Proof denies faith. If god were to be conclusively proved wouldn't faith be meaningless? Isn't a fundamental part of Christianity that the faithful be tested without proof?

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 10:11 PM

Originally posted by OldThinker
Does the Central Limit Theorem prove a Creator/Deity?

Math proves Jesus Christ is the CREATOR! “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” –Apostle Paul

Well, that may be a bit of hyperbole…

Well here goes…

Assumption #1: Levy's 9th law states: “Only God can make a random selection.”

Assumption #2: Have you ever heard of the “Central Limit Theorem?” - The means (X) of random samples taken from ANY distribution (mean μ and variance σ2) will exhibit an approximately normal distribution (mean μ and variance σ2/n)

In less mathematical terms, it is any of a set of weak-convergence theories. They all express the fact that a sum of many independent random variables will tend to be distributed according to one of a small set of stable distributions

Could Cicero have been right when he said, “Probability is the very guide of life.” And maybe eternity?

Also I wonder is there any connection between "theorem" and words like "theology" or "theist"?

Maybe Max Born was right? He said, “The conception of chance enters into the very first steps of scientific activity in virtue of the fact that no observation is absolutely correct. I think chance is a more fundamental conception than causality; for whether in a concrete case, a cause-effect relation holds or not can only be judged by applying the laws of chance to the observation.”

So what’s up with the CLT, huh? This is why we can predict elections, with great accuracy…way ahead of time.

Question? If randomly distributed samples, “approximate” the make-up of the population, then does the “designed” prove a “designer”?????

Any pro-God or anti-God statisticians out there? Thots?

OT

PS: Oh, btw "An infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar. The first one orders a beer. The second orders half a beer. The third, a quarter of a beer. The bartender says "You're all idiots", and pours two beers."

He is us though right? and we are him.....just on a whole different level...

So what paul says is true ......i think......we just can't comprehend it......

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:02 PM

Originally posted by mithrawept
Why do theists strive to prove the existence of god?

Proof denies faith. If god were to be conclusively proved wouldn't faith be meaningless? Isn't a fundamental part of Christianity that the faithful be tested without proof?

They are not trying to prove anything to themselves. They are trying to tell people that there are alternative explanations that very good and well educated scientist, biologists, archaeologists, geologists, historians, geneticists etc. offer in support of the creation model.

My motive is to wake others up and tell them that evolution involves faith in natural processes, natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, random mutations, and eons of time working together to manufacture thousands of life forms coming into existence through thousands of parallel evolutions happening at the same time(over millions of years). Evolution is a religion not a science. That scientists embrace evolution is more due to the government funding(the money train) than for love of science. I'm motivated to tell people that neither side can prove their theory. All either side can do is offer explanations for what they observe from the evidences. Only an informed person who takes the time to study both sides can make an informed decision. Most people are lazy and too trusting of our government, so they just believe whatever they hear from programs like Nova, Discovery, National Geographic, and teachers in our schools. Most people haven't got a clue about the creation scientists' explanations for the evidences.

I am not a scientist, and I have only spent a few years studying creation science, but I know how to use the Internet to do research, and I will share what I can find in support of creation.

[edit on 15/9/09 by John Matrix]

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:17 PM
reply to post by John Matrix

john, i am sitting with my daughter, with a bonfire, we made from five days of cleaning brush and noticed your latest post, i must say you have a way of saying things, that are right on...

i have been meaning to post a lil more but the honey-do list is growing.

OT

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:44 PM

Originally posted by John Matrix
That scientists embrace evolution is more due to the government funding(the money train) than for love of science. I'm motivated to tell people that neither side can prove their theory. All either side can do is offer explanations for what they observe from the evidences.

I disagree.

Most scientists support evolution because they understand it.

Most of these debates involve people who don't really understand evolution and the biological mechanics.

This debate doesn't really exist in the scientific world, it is a political tool of semantics and rhetoric.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Jezus]

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 03:35 PM
reply to post by Jezus

J, you are too simplistic, why do u deny that real subject-related scientists see creation-implications every day? Come on man...

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by John Matrix
That scientists embrace evolution is more due to the government funding(the money train) than for love of science. I'm motivated to tell people that neither side can prove their theory. All either side can do is offer explanations for what they observe from the evidences.

I disagree.

Most scientists support evolution because they understand it.

Most of these debates involve people who don't really understand evolution and the biological mechanics.

This debate doesn't really exist in the scientific world, it is a political tool of semantics and rhetoric.

Most scientists support evolution because it's supports their denial of God.
The Bible states: "The fool says in his heart, there is no God."

They also support evolution to stay on the money train.

They also support evolution because it's popular to do so.

It's popular because most people are fools according to scripture, and that can be observed daily as well.

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 05:46 PM

Originally posted by mithrawept
Why do theists strive to prove the existence of god?

Proof denies faith. If god were to be conclusively proved wouldn't faith be meaningless? Isn't a fundamental part of Christianity that the faithful be tested without proof?

Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you. - 1 Peter 3:15

What's the best argument we can give those who ask why we have accepted Jesus as our Savior? How can we most persuasively bear witness to our faith?

"Always be ready," Peter urged, "to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15). The Greek term for "reason" is apology. That doesn't mean a weak-kneed excuse; it means a convincing argument.

Philosopher William Alston of Syracuse University has written very helpful books in defense of the Christian faith. He has something to say that should encourage all of us: "The final test of the Christian scheme comes from trying it out in one's life, testing the promises the scheme tells us God has made, following in the way enjoined on us by the church, and seeing whether it leads to the new life of the Spirit."

Don't think that because you aren't a philosopher or a scholar that you can't be an apologist. You can bear witness to the truth and power of the gospel. Your life can be your own best argument - your best defense of your faith in Jesus Christ - to anyone who asks why you believe.

So put your faith into practice. Let people see the difference Jesus makes.

-Vernon Grounds

O that my life may useful be
As I serve Jesus faithfully;
And may the world see Christ in me -
This is my earnest prayer.

-Hess

source: www.lasan.org...

to not is irresponsible.....

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 05:47 PM

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

And using arguments from science is not "appealing to authority"?

what a greaaattttttttttttt! point...

OT

star for ya

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Maslo
OT - I have understood the CLT, but I just dont see how it disproves evolution... Can you elaborate on that?

Which part my friend?

OT

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:58 PM

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by John Matrix
That scientists embrace evolution is more due to the government funding(the money train) than for love of science. I'm motivated to tell people that neither side can prove their theory. All either side can do is offer explanations for what they observe from the evidences.

I disagree.

Most scientists support evolution because they understand it.

Most of these debates involve people who don't really understand evolution and the biological mechanics.

This debate doesn't really exist in the scientific world, it is a political tool of semantics and rhetoric.

Most scientists support evolution because it's supports their denial of God.
The Bible states: "The fool says in his heart, there is no God."

They also support evolution to stay on the money train.

They also support evolution because it's popular to do so.

It's popular because most people are fools according to scripture, and that can be observed daily as well.

Well that is an interesting theory on why it isn't debated in the scientific world.

I would argue it is because the theory as a whole is un-debatable by a scientists because they are forced to acknowledge the mountain of evidence.

However, I acknowledge the massive evidence but that doesn't mean I don't believe in God.

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:38 PM
So I was innocently wandering around the internet today and happened on this website. I lost some faith in humanity from reading some of the posts. The amount of ignorance I see is sickening. I got an account with a disposable email address because I wanted to flame as many boards as I could before I was kicked off. Unfortunately, I'm just too rational for that. I have never wanted to flame any other website with anywhere near the intensity required to get an account and actually do it. So you should be flattered at the strong feelings you stirred in me.

I chose this thread to post to first because it is the worst I have found in my rather short perusal. Statistics can prove creationism?? What universe are you guys living in? And the words "theist" and "theology" are related to "theorem"? My entire being rebels against that notion. The ignorance in this thread is sickening. I literally (and when I say "literally", I mean it) gagged and felt like throwing up. People wanting to post should do some research. Some examples:

Originally posted by platipus
i believe there has to be a god if not how did everything in the universe come to be, even with that big bang nothing to something sounds a bit absurd.

The big bang theory does not say that something came from nothing. It states that all the matter of the universe was compressed into a point infinitely small.

Originally posted by Gixxer
Without getting to scientific Different cultures have made their own forms of mathematics. The Mayans, Indians, Greeks, and Chinese all developed seperate math systems. Our mathematics today comes mainly from ideas developed in ancient India and Greece. Algebra and other topics were taken from India to Arabia, where they were then transferred to Europe. Most of our geometry comes from the Greeks. Calculus was developed in Europe by Sir Isaac Newton.

Our number systems are indeed different, but only superficially. The current dominant system (positional and base ten) evolved, if you will, and took out all the other competition because it is the best. It is easy to use and powerful. The same cannot be said of the Babylonian system of base sixty.

And to all those who are arguing that Jesus is a historical figure, the Gospels should not be taken as literal truth. They contradict each other more often than religious people like to admit. They were written by men many years ago and have been translated and embellished constantly. They are nothing more than myths and should be treated as such. They may well have their basis in fact, but they are no more true than, say, Amityville Horror.

Originally posted by John Matrix
Evolution is a religion not a science. That scientists embrace evolution is more due to the government funding(the money train) than for love of science. I'm motivated to tell people that neither side can prove their theory. All either side can do is offer explanations for what they observe from the evidences.
[edit on 15/9/09 by John Matrix]

Evolution is a religion? It is a scientific theory with some evidence behind it. I must admit that I don't trust a scientists idea of "proof" all the time, mathematical proofs are just so much more convincing, but evolution has more evidence behind it than creationism. Evolution is a theory much in the same way gravity is a theory. Tell me, do you plan on arguing that gravity is not true when so much evidence backs it up? Arguing with evolution is similar and I think that in time, it will come to be as obvious as the fact that the earth is round.

So thank you ATS for making me lose faith in humanity and want to bang my head against a wall. And not in a good way. My night has been irrevocably ruined because I found this site. If I have not been insulting enough, let me know and I will quickly remedy the situation. This was supposed to be a flame, but turned into a rational argument instead. That makes me angry.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by tfmt12]

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:36 AM
reply to post by John Matrix

Most scientists support evolution because it's supports their denial of God.
The Bible states: "The fool says in his heart, there is no God."

They also support evolution to stay on the money train.

They also support evolution because it's popular to do so.

It's popular because most people are fools according to scripture, and that can be observed daily as well.

Most scientists are not atheists, by and large more than half of scientists subscribe to some form of theism, and for those who do, they do not use evolution to deny their believed god or gods. Scientists believe in evolution because it is an elegant and wholesome piece of science that sews all of Biology together, it's considered the unifying theory of biology for this reason. It's also the only theory to do so and it has no rivals, nor has it for 100 years. Scientists believe in evolution because they are scientists.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Welfhard]

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 06:33 AM
reply to post by tfmt12

Well, welcome to ATS!

After your hangover
come on back and I'll give you another shot at being "rationale"

Because my friend, time chance and goo doesn't a creator make...and JC is a myth

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:34 AM

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by Maslo
OT - I have understood the CLT, but I just dont see how it disproves evolution... Can you elaborate on that?

Which part my friend?

OT

Well..Everything...
The CLT deals with random selection from a set. It states that when you make x random selections from some distribution and then average them, and do it more times, the averages would be distributed in normal distribution regardless of the original distribution, and this normal dist. becomes sharper as x becomes larger...

What does this have in common with a creator/deity or evolution? And just to be sure, evolution is NOT just random selection from a given set, so CLT does not even apply to it...

...and btw... theorem/theory are not related in meaning with theology or theist just because they have similar beginnings...

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:37 PM
I would like to make a contribution to this topic. Since I already posted this on another similar thread I will provide a link to the massive amount of evidence for an intelligent designer. My post and links are located here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have also begun to add links on my profile page for anyone interested in learning about the evidences for creation and the fallacies/fraud involved in the interpretation of the evidences by evolutionists.

[edit on 17/9/09 by John Matrix]

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:55 PM
reply to post by Welfhard

Wefhard:
Where is your source that says all these scientists who are evolutionists also believe in God. Many say they believe in God while lying to themselves and others.

Evolution is not even half what you think it is. Evolution is nothing more than an unreasonable and illogical explanation for all that is. People believe evolution because they want to. They want to because they don't believe in the bible or God. Pride blinds them from the truth and prevents them from seeing it.

[edit on 17/9/09 by John Matrix]

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:38 PM
reply to post by John Matrix

People believe evolution because they want to. They want to because they don't believe in the bible or God. Pride blinds them from the truth and prevents them from seeing it.

Again I'm stunned at the idea that one cannot be theistic and and evolution-ist at the same time. Most of the catholic church consider evolution to be a work of god and they have the bible.

Most people who believe in evolution (outside of the US anyway) happen to be fairly apathetic towards religion and the non/existence of god so I don't know where you get this idea that it's about the denial of god.

Being an ex-fundamentalist-christian, I happen to know the elegance of evolution. It makes sense of everything in biology as it explains the diversity of life. Without it, extinction would leave the earth baron as life would eventually cease with out a way to spawn new species and diversity, that's after one looks at the amazing story that DNA tells us about our journey from east Africa. Creationism doesn't do reality justice, no creation myth does.

new topics

top topics

8