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: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


It appears to me you are backing into your hoped conclusion.

And the Snopes pix looks like a cross to me to, only the vantage point/view is from the left...say 8pm, while straight on would be 6pm.

Well, anyway let me know about the vid after you see, ok?

OT




posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


It looks more like a lower case t to me or maybe an x as seen from a peculiar angle. Now the debate is just hitting an intellectual dead end. I'd much rather argue the point rather than what a molecule appears to look like. If we can resume focus, that would be great.

I suggest going back a few post's ago and picking up where we left off.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
This is realted to the topic at hand:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Scroll down after reading that, and read this one:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Those that have not accepted the delusion called evolution, know this junk science is in it's final death throes.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


The first link appears to be picking out what they want to see from different 'evidences' to further there own argument.

The belief that man came out of africa is not in doubt anymore due to the discovery of skulls in the middle east. I've read about these skulls and they are not even homo sapien sapien (modern man) skulls, they are from a more primitive species, even more primitive than homo erectus.

What these skulls show is that the migration of the primate species happened at an earlier time than previously though. Meaning we didn't have that evidence initially at hand when we first theorized the migration of the primate species eventually leading up to modern man. Now that this new evidence has been discovered we naturally must revise the theory to paint a more complete picture of primate migrations and changes that lead to modern day man.

Picking one thing out of context doesn't make a sound argument for a god, it's just being a complete moron and willfully so.

The other post appears to me as an argument that the universe was created because it is perfect for life to exist within it, this is faulty logic as the universe is equally if not more suited to the formation of black holes and life could just be a by product of that process.

While DNA is capable of error correction, that doesn't scream design because we hardly understand the full process behind it. This line of argument couldn't be used 2000 years ago by the religious crowed because DNA wasn't even known to have existed. It's like saying I don't know how the sun works, so it must be a god. Or praying for rain and receiving rain even though I am unaware of the process involved that creates rain. Even today we don't even understand HOW DNA fully works. That doesn't make DNA divine, it just means you nor I have a clue how it works, hence the reason to study and learn more about it.

Not knowing how something works is not a valid argument for a god either. You can't shout I DON'T KNOW and in the same breath say it was my god, that's just willfully being an imbecile. I'd rather argue the complexities of life with a three year old if I'm going to have to deal with faulty logic and reasoning such as that.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I cannot believe that is all you got out of those posts.

Since you refuse to see the obvious and you defend a delusion, we cannot help you.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Well, I stand by my previous statements.

Not knowing how a process works is not a valid argument for a god.

Meaning there is evidences for evolutionary processes but those processes are not fully understood as we are still in the development and learning stages of those theories involved. Lack of knowing does not make a god any more real.

From that first link I see a clear cut case of utilizing a process not understood to it's fullest extent, not even an evolution theorist will admit to understand how the process works as a whole. It's true that the theory has changed and developed over time as new evidences and discoveries are made, this is a natural process of learning and development. Revising a theory does not necessarily make a theory false, what makes it false is lack of evidence, not lack of understanding.

As for the second line again, the only argument put forward at it's most basic fundamental level is one of not having all the answers, so it must be false. Yes, DNA can repair itself, that doesn't mean DNA can't change over time and there is plenty of evidences showing that something as even basic as eating certain foods will change the base DNA of your offspring. How the process works may not be fully understood right now, but that doesn't make any evidence for a god.

You can't argue that because we don't have the answer that there must be a god. That's infantile and ridiculous. It's like me declaring you inability to quote from memory one specific verse proves your god doesn't exist, because you can't recite what that verse is. It's stupid, lacks any form of logic or reasoning and shows a sub par level of intelligence and understanding of the world around oneself.

We're not infants arguing over who get's to suckle mommies booby, so let's mature up and utilize our brains when we're trying to prove or disprove something. As it stands the only arguments your making is utilization of a theories inability to fully explain certain processes. That's not an argument in any sense, that's you kicking and screaming that you love your god so much that you strongly dislike using logic, reason and a brain.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Perhaps the confusion and conflict can be resolved by you revealing how you define evolution.

Before you begin: micro-evolution is a misleading term used by evolutionists. Variation and adaptive responses is not evidence for evolution because evolution requires speciation.

Many supporters keep saying that abiogenesis is not evolution.

Therefore, I think you should begin with defining what you think macro-evolution is.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Not only would you need to be lucky, your entire family tree would have to win the lottery every week for the next 100 billion years.


IF you were aiming for winning, and life isn't aiming for winning, i.e. us, it merely strives to replicate. We aren't lucky unless you think that we were actually trying to become what we are but we weren't. We could have just easily have been one of the other googolplex of non realised possibilities. Just because we became what we are in the end doesn't mean anything - it's not like the whole system would have failed if one simple interaction billions of years ago had been different. It doesn't mean anything.



This really explains the issue well...

"We aren't lucky unless you think that we were actually trying to become what we are but we weren't"

I knew their was something inherently illogical about the "chance" argument against evolution but I couldn't quite describe it.



[edit on 22-9-2009 by Jezus]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


In one way abiogenesis is not evolution, yet in one way it is.

When we speak of evolution, we're disusing evolutionary theory, this is a theory that deals with changes in life.

Abiogenesis is a theory that deals with how life forms, but seeing as how it's a complex process it can be shown to 'evolve' in a sense over time leading to life.

I'm hoping you understand what I'm saying so far. Put it this way, it's like the birth of a star. We start out with a mass of gas, this gas has no star like properties of it's own, but over time this gas coalesces into a denser mass of gas. Eventually millions of years later this dense mass of gas compresses to the point of initiating a fusion reaction, in a sense eating the gas to continue 'living' it's life as a star. Eventually over time this star will change and become something that is no longer a star.

Thing's change, that is a given, that is a fundamental property of anything that exists. Evolution is about those changes and possible functions and processes that bring about those changes. Sure, current idea's could be utterly wrong in how the process works, but the process still happens. What you eat today will change the genetic structure of your offspring when you procreate. This is called epigenetics, and no amount of DNA error correcting fixes changes like this because it's not entirely viewed as a 'bad' thing. That is another problem with people, they try and attribute properties to the theory that are human qualities, life doesn't work that way. Something doesn't change because it wants to or needs to. A giraffe didn't grow a long neck one day because it wanted to eat the leaves at the top of a tree.


There are two fundamentals here at play, both interrelated.

Cause and effect
Change.

We can't escape either, for without them we wouldn't exist.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I don't have a problem with variation of species, adaptive responses, changes in DNA due to breeding, environment, etc.

It's the "evolution" that says these little variations, adaptive responses, changes in DNA, rare helpful mutations, occurring over millions of years can turn a chimp into a human, or a sparrow into an eagle, a dinosaur into a chicken....it's that evolution I have a problem with. Each species is a kind, and one kind does not become another kind. Every species alive today, looked the same as in the past. Sometimes the fossil record reveals larger or smaller versions, or extinct species, but a human is still a human and a monkey is still a monkey, as a bird is still a bird....etc.


[edit on 22/9/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Evolution says nothing of a chimp turning into a human, where are you getting this from? Evolution doesn't state a preexisting species magically turns into a new species and it never has as far as I've known about the theory.

If you have an initial population of say ... 1000 whatever species and that population becomes isolated and over time any changes that occur cause those two populations from breeding together, then you have two new distinct species that originally came from on common ancestor. Any new changes between these two 'breeds' further the distinction and differences from the original common ancestor of the two species and if any split in these new populations occur and those new branches change even more creating ever more differences from that common ancestor etc etc etc and as many variations to the equation that you need.

But that is just a very BASIC explanation, it doesn't even touch on the many processes and variables that are involved an occurring.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Evolution says nothing of a chimp turning into a human, where are you getting this from? Evolution doesn't state a preexisting species magically turns into a new species and it never has as far as I've known about the theory.


Where am I getting this from?

Seriously?

Are you playing dumb with me?

C'mon man.....these charts have been in every nature museum and public

school across the USA and Canada for a hundred years

Open the Google site, click images, and then type in "evolution of man

chart" and see what you get. In fact, some people have already posted

them on ATS discussion threads.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


So let me get this straight. You're getting your ideas about evolution from... Google images?!

Ever heard of a thing called a book?

Also define what a "kind" is because it's not a scientific term. What a species is is seen to drift in it's nature as natural selection dictates. The use of "kind" by creationists seems to imply something fixed; an idea that has no evidential backing.

Finally, "macro-evolution" isn't a term "evolution-ists" (both creationist terms) use. Science sees that the only difference between micro and macro evolution is one of timescale.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by John Matrix
 


So let me get this straight. You're getting your ideas about evolution from... Google images?!



Of course images on Google is not my source for my opinions on evolution.

Stop twisting things. He asked me where I got the idea that evolution

teaches that we evolved from monkeys. All I am doing is pointing out the

FACT that evolutionists have presented their theory in very easy to

understand CHARTS....and they have done it for years.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard

Finally, "macro-evolution" isn't a term "evolution-ists" (both creationist terms) use. Science sees that the only difference between micro and macro evolution is one of timescale.


Wrong!! You are not following the links. It's not a creationist term.

Micro-evolution

Macro-evolution

Abiogenesis

Are Evolution Science terms:


There are two “sleights of hand” used to convince the public that the theory of evolution is a better description of physical reality than creation: #1 Use of the word “evolution” to describe micro-evolution, macro-evolution, and abiogenesis, even though these phenomena/ideas are not interchangeable: Micro-evolution has been observed, abiogenesis and macro-evolution have not been observed. There are many instances of micro-evolution that have been observed. The word “evolution” simply means “change”, and animals have been observed to change in order to adapt to their environments. Does micro-evolution, in itself, prove macro-evolution and abiogenesis? No.


Source: www.isthebibletrue.net...



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


He asked me where I got the idea that evolution

teaches that we evolved from monkeys. All I am doing is pointing out the

FACT that evolutionists have presented their theory in very easy to

understand CHARTS....and they have done it for years.


I think you'll find that that particular chart is very very old, going back to earlier and out dated concepts. Just because popular belief says that we evolved from apes/monkeys doesn't mean that that's what scientists have been representing it as. So show me where these scientists which you depict as a shadowy cabal are misrepresenting the theory to the masses?



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Wrong!! You are not following the links. It's not a creationist term.


LAWL! Actually it used to be a scientific term but basically got disbanded many decades ago.

Now show me a non-creationist, scientific source that says otherwise. I laughed when I read "isthebibletrue.net" lol!

Also the theory covers macro and micro but not abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is it's own field.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Wrong!! You are not following the links. It's not a creationist term.


LAWL! Actually it used to be a scientific term but basically got disbanded many decades ago.


I can see why, but ya better tell the scientists, teachers, and profs. that it's been abandoned....LOL and a LAWL and a LMAO right back at ya.

What is your definition of evolution? In a nutshell please.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


It was disbanded as a term by scientists because both macro and micro evolution became redundant terms, especially with the coining of the term 'Speciation'.

My understanding of evolution is descent with mutations which may or may not effect an organisms survivability either positively or negatively (most mutations do nothing) which therefore feeds into the and brings about drift in the gene pool of a species. Mutations compound overtime to bring about new species and diversity.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Playing dumb... OK.

Show me chimp for $500 Alex!

LINK

ARGH! NoOoOo!!! Stupid evolutionary chart forgot to add this mythical chimp to man. Shame though that this isn't even the full chart, must be a little old as there should be more sentient tool building primate species co-existing with homo sapiens.

Damn, don't tell someone to use a search engine unless you yourself know how to use it and how to actually research what your trying to argue. There is no such thing as chimp to man and there never has been. Those pretty diagrams that show chimp to man are creationist attempts at creating disbelief in naturalistic explanations for life.

I mean christ... I've never even seen one of those diagrams in my science book when I went to school. Perhaps your schools curriculum is a little lacking compared to where I went, or maybe your a bit older than me, which would explain the gap in your knowledge of what your arguing compared to me.
[edit on 22-9-2009 by sirnex]

[edit on 22-9-2009 by sirnex]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join