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.

 

‘Variability’ % proves God is the SPECIAL CAUSE, skeptics, why are you ignoring?

page: 15
16
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas

I do think I understand variation, but I fail to understand your explanation.

Sorry.




The basic rule of statistical process control is:

Variation from common-cause systems should be left to chance, but special causes of variation should be identified and eliminated.

This is Shewhart’s original rule.


Left to chance? That's a biggie for evolution right? Again, why aren't there 94% EARTHs in our system?

TD get out of Baby Ruth and stay in the Milky Way




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Things slowing down on the death thread and the brew kicking in




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Things slowing down on the death thread and the brew kicking in



*Sigh*

More stealthy avoidance.

Imagine that...



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by iditenahuiats


2. that article that you posted that i took apart; does it not contradict itself in that it sais the law is wrong(because god creates energy) yet that law proves god exists? so is the law wrong or right?




Answer: Well I guess its a question...ru denying the 2nd LAW of thermo-dynamics? and that it appears polar opposite to evolution? I didn't get the tearing apart point?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

*Sigh*

More stealthy avoidance.

Imagine that...


I'll take that as a "yes"


I'll get to the contradictions, al in good time, what's the hurry...you must not have much responsibility? I got a life bro...



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
I'll take that as a "yes"


I'll get to the contradictions, al in good time, what's the hurry...you must not have much responsibility? I got a life bro...



Ohhhhh you got me so good there. Why answer a question when you can claim you have no time whatsoever, but by posting such a thing you tacitly admit you do have the time. Ooops. Duck And Cover! They taught ya well in school I see.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
btw, what was unclear abount my first answer?


If people are unclear about an answer, I think you should simply try and
rephrase so that they may understand, otherwise it just sounds
condescending (not saying you are). It just comes off that way. If an
answer is unclear, then it's difficult for someone to say "which part" is
unclear. One could surmise that the entire answer was unclear and not just a
part. I think it is fair to possibly try and answer any question in a manner
that they we understand. No?!

You seem to be going over a bunch of peoples heads, the evidence of this is
clear since many people are not following you on this. And asking again to
re-answer questions or justify your statements.

So the only thing I have really gathered from this thread is:
Your faith leads you and no one can steer you off what you believe.
as is the same with your detractors. So it's just become a silly game of
"prove me wrong".

And if your statements leave others baffled you seem to acknowledge it
as a small victory or it gives you a feeling of a more superior knowledge.
Since they cant understand or make sense of some your replies it just seems
silly to only respond with, "which part didnt you understand".

I mean no negativity here or disrespect, but you must see that your
sometime evasive answers are doing nothing to help any discussion of what
it is that you actually believe. We all believe in something, and it's great that
you have this belief to hold onto and that you are trying to spread it, but
help make this a more cohesive thread. Because after all these pages, it's a
jumbled mess.

Best of luck!



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
This thread is funny! Talking about statistics...when our sample size is so small, there's no way we can draw any conclusions. I'm not even sure why we're discussing this still as it's totally clear it's statistically irrelevant.

Oh, and OT, sry to burst your bubble...but evolution is largely accepted as scientific fact. Every single evidence we found points to that conclusion...and exactly ZERO evidence points towards the whole "and there was light and man and then a woman from the rib of that man and a snake that messed it up for everyone" theory


Ricky Gervais said it nicely:



Now, keep in mind he's reading directly from the bible. To any scientist there's no way you can accept this literally as it's written. Too many contradictions with the knowledge we have now...knowledge we didn't have 2000 years ago when the bible was written. Go figure why it diverts so much from our scientific knowledge


[edit on 13-8-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Who said it was here by chance ?

What about a self organized system ?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Who said it was here by chance ?

What about a self organized system ?


But that wouldn't allow for god's existence...so it can't be possible. Do you see why?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 
what? Y r u asking me if I'm denying the law. U didn't answer my question. Is the law right or wrong according to that article?
I told u the law makes perfect sense and disproves creator. Energy always been. Stop dodging questions

2. Does that article contradict itself or not when it states god creates energy, so the law is false according to that article , yet they say that law proves there's god.

3. U said probably to number one, which asked if we explored 7 percent of our solar system. So ur thread is based on speculation, correct?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Another great biblical truth...pride goes before a fall....stay tuned my "self-made" super hero.


PMSL OT!

What's with this superhero angle you've been taking with me over the last couple of posts? It's hilarious!

IRM



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


No I can't. Why ?

Isn't God the system ? If God exists. God isn't special... We are.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Sarcasm doesn't translate well on forums
I totally agree with your post and the fact that no divine intervention is necessarily required for the universe to come into existence.

I'm agnostic, as in: I admit to not knowing everything, and I'm totally ok with that. I'm of course curious, but won't be a blind sheep by disregarding SCIENTIFIC FACTS just because they don't fit with my world view...unlike some posters in this thread.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 



I think it's wrong how they get away with claims like that, "It's scientific fact that God exists"..


It is a scientific fact, that life comes from preexisting life.

It is impossible to prove otherwise.





[edit on 14-8-2010 by dusty1]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 



Sarcasm doesn't translate well on forums


No it doesn't. But I did read it in your reply. It made me laugh.




I'm agnostic, as in: I admit to not knowing everything, and I'm totally ok with that. I'm of course curious, but won't be a blind sheep by disregarding SCIENTIFIC FACTS just because they don't fit with my world view...unlike some posters in this thread.


I totally agree with your attitude and the reason why.


Personally, I think we are part of creation, just don't pin me on it. I feel very much the same way you do.
I'm absolutely convinced there is more to life then what we can perceive. Is it a higher plain of existence, another dimension, the afterlife....? I really don't know.

I like the idea that there is life after life, but maybe that is just because I can't possibly imagine what it would be like not to exist. If it turns out that there is nothing. To bad , it would be a petty, but I won't be around to experience it.

If there is an afterlife, I don't think fear will be a tool from God to get people to live up to His standard. I don't think it is God like to be jealous or that He wants to be praised.

My view on God does not involve the hypocritical way of thinking I see so much happening in religion.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by RestingInPieces
.....I took statistics for 8 months in college and NEVER heard of that ratio.

... and what exactly are you applying the 96/4 to? You certainly aren't


Did you listen much? Remember sigma level? Remember the standard deviation? It is a measure of the spread of a distribution. Remember bell curves? .....with the same center, but different population standard deviations: As the spread of the distribution increases, so does σ. Therefore, the area of the curve lying within a certain number of standard deviations from the mean is fixed, over all normal distributions. Specifically: 68% of the area of the curve is within the range of μ ± 1σ 95% of the area of the curve is within the range of μ ± 2σ 99% of the area of the curve is within the range of μ ± 3σ Commit these numbers to memory: 68-95-99!


Wow. You certainly have made a big deal out of the first... I don't know, 2 days of classes. I'm pretty sure the distribution of a standard deviation was the very first thing we learned, so thanks for reducing 2 semesters of statistical analysis to what was covered in the first 30 mins.

Something tells me you just stumbled across this while doing "internet research".



Every system has variation; some of this is due to the system itself, known as common cause variation; some of it is due to singular incidents or special situations; this is special cause variation. In his book, Out of the Crisis (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1982), W. Edwards Deming estimated that 94 percent of problems (or possibilities for improvement) lie with the system as common-cause variation; 6 percent are special causes.


... exactly how and why are you applying this to a system with a sample size of n = 1 ? common cause is usually used in project management and production to figure out where problems in the chain of development/manufacturing arise.



Describing variability over a period of time helps one to understand how the system is working and to predict how it will continue to work in the future. The alternative is a constant tampering with the system, responding to every whim it may have.


How in the world are you able to describe the variability regarding life in the universe when you only have sample size n = 1 ? (if even that).



Didn't appreciate the wise-arsh comment about medication....but this line seems like common cause because 94/% of ATS Skeptics say it one time or another...thx for for being the test tube for OT


I don't appreciate you not answering my questions, so I guess we are even.

How does any variation that is represented by 10+ percent of a population result in you jumping to the conclusion that no life exist in the universe where our entire sample, as it relates to solar systems, show that life exists in 100% of the solar systems that exist.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Our solar system may be a minority, but Gould said that the outcome of the study is actually positive.

"With billions of stars out there, even narrowing the odds to 15 percent leaves a few hundred million systems that might be like ours," he said.

This research was partly funded by the National Science Foundation.

Link to ScienceDaily article

people should not try mixing science and religious faith into the same conversation. They are two different things.

My personal view is that people who try to prove/convince others that their religious belief is true, are subconciously, very insecure in their own faith. They will also get on their high horse about this statement and be offended, which will only prove the statement regarding thier inner most doubts.

In the words of Lau Tzu: "Those who know, don't speak. Those who speak, don't know."

Sidenote: Thread posts like these seem inappropriate on a conspiracy website. I would have thought a religious website would have suited better?? Everyone there would have just replied to your post with 'amen, brother', and you could have felt very smug indeed [just having a rant
- I'll pray for forgiveness to the appropriate one true authority]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   
created? doubtful, outdated theory from people who thought the world was flat, the theory that came before? the creator was the sun.

spread to different planets from an unknown origin through foreign objects or aliens? Id take that over the theory that someone just pooped out the universe on a whim.

there is also the chance that life, this planet, is a universal fluke and in fact we are not special. Its egotistical to believe we are a special little creation being watched over and listened to at every moment. With the billions of galaxies atleast 1 solar system has to have to perfect scenario for an earth like planet to exist, atleast 1. mathmatically it HAS to happen atleast once, maybe we just got lucky and hit the lottery so to speak.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Still waitin for answers to 2 and 3... heres something I derived from your single short "answer". This thread is based on a speculation of yours.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join