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: 25
16
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Maslo
What I find strange is why would a christian be biased against the theory of big bang. Contrary to earlier/other theories, the idea that the universe as we know it had a beginning fits neatly into christian worldview of creation, and it was even proposed by a christian.


I have an explanation -- they have a knee-jerk reaction to most science as we know it. So much so that even if an element of same is aligned with their belief, they tend to discard it automatically. It's anti-knowledge.


Absolutely not!

I have been nothing but respectful...and allow you to think for yourself...you guys don't extend that to me....I'm used to it here tho, been down this road before...

As a favor, I reviewed the world's 100 most influential scientists here:

www.adherents.com...

And about 15% were atheist....

I'll stick with Wernher Von Braun, the first Director of NASA, who said "Scientific concepts exist only in the minds of men. Behind these concepts lies the reality which is being revealed to us, but only by the grace of God."

Edit to add the first ten or so...
Albert Einstein Twentieth-Century Science Jewish
Neils Bohr the Atom Jewish Lutheran
Charles Darwin Evolution Anglican (nominal); Unitarian
Louis Pasteur the Germ Theory of Disease Catholic
Sigmund Freud Psychology of the Unconscious Jewish; Atheist; Freudian psychoanalysis (Freudianism)
Galileo Galilei the New Science Catholic
Antoine Laurent Lavoisier the Revolution in Chemistry Catholic
Johannes Kepler Motion of the Planets Lutheran
Nicolaus Copernicus the Heliocentric Universe Catholic (priest)
Michael Faraday the Classical Field Theory Sandemanian
James Clerk Maxwell the Electromagnetic Field Presbyterian; Anglican; Baptist




[edit on 18-8-2010 by OldThinker]


Damn, I can't stay away


Sorry to burst your bubble, but when it comes to figuring out whether the majority of scientists are religious or not, I'd prefer an ACTUAL study rather than your handpicked list. So 15%, huh? Maybe that's because most of them are either dead or old now!!

Either way, here's the official study with quite...different...results than what you got: LINK




posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Agreed! You sir, are a gentleman, a scholar and a wit


Peace



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by Maslo
What I find strange is why would a christian be biased against the theory of big bang.



BB was random right?

Natural right?

Did you read the OP 94% of all variability both in the negative and to improve is "within" the process....

Simple question why is there only one planet with intelligent life on it?

Why aren't there earths all over our solar system, if the BB did it?


And you're still going on with that argumentation...you can't apply your statistics to the universe since our observed sample size is so ridiculously small. The whole main argument of the thread, that 94% "rule", can't be applied in this case...it's statistically not doable! We don't KNOW if there's no other planets out there that harbor life. We've only seen such a tiny part of "everything", we can't even begin to speculate in a way that would allow us to come up with probability ratios in a good way.

How many times do people have to tell you this again???



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Simple question why is there only one planet with intelligent life on it?

Why aren't there earths all over our solar system, if the BB did it?


I can't believe this thread is still going on!

1) We DON'T know there is only 1 planet with life on it, can we agree that nobody knows that simple question?

2) Obviously if a planet is too close, too far away, or has too much of an irregular orbit, life cannot get started, let alone harbor intelligent life. There are lots of people, myself included, that believe that Mars had liquid water on its surface and possibly life, although we have no proof of this.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Baloney

There is better material to be found in the Peter Pan, Snow White and Dr Suess books honestly.

Since we are talking about fictional books, the ones I listed are a better source to get your daily dose of fantasy. Plus those books that I list actually make sense to the reader and are not violent, racist, sexist, and full of contradictions.

I suggest reading those books that I list.




Peter could use the SWORD OF THE SPIRIT

My sins are SNOW WHITE

And the good Dr Suess would get as kick out of the "IAM THAT IAM"



That was one of your best posts! I sincerely mean that.


BRAVO!!


= = = = = = =




It just came to me...maybe it was devine intervention?

Nah, seriously thank you for the sincere compliment. It meant alot to me.

Now why do you think its a fairytale??

OT

[edit on 19-8-2010 by OldThinker]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
And you're still going on with that argumentation...you can't apply your statistics to the universe since our observed sample size is so ridiculously small.


I'lll ask it again, have you considered the implications of the CLT here?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by MrXYZ
And you're still going on with that argumentation...you can't apply your statistics to the universe since our observed sample size is so ridiculously small.


I'lll ask it again, have you considered the implications of the CLT here?


The CLT is absolutely not important here. I'll say it again...our sample size is soooooo ridiculous small, that only a complete village idiot would try to make statistical predictions and then call them "proof"
Please tell me you understand the concept of sample size!!

[edit on 19-8-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by MrXYZ
And you're still going on with that argumentation...you can't apply your statistics to the universe since our observed sample size is so ridiculously small.


I'lll ask it again, have you considered the implications of the CLT here?


The CLT is absolutely not important here. I'll say it again...our sample size is soooooo ridiculous small, that only a complete village idiot would try to make statistical predictions and then call them "proof"
Please tell me you understand the concept of sample size!!



Wait, if you get to arbitrarily decide the sample size is too tiny, why can't he arbitrarily decide it's big enough?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





Wait, if you get to arbitrarily decide the sample size is too tiny, why can't he arbitrarily decide it's big enough?


The sample size is one partially explored star system out of trillions. If that is not too small to draw a conclusion, I dont know what is.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





Wait, if you get to arbitrarily decide the sample size is too tiny, why can't he arbitrarily decide it's big enough?


The sample size is one partially explored star system out of trillions. If that is not too small to draw a conclusion, I dont know what is.


You entirely missed my point. It wasn't with the size of the universe.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Wait, if you get to arbitrarily decide the sample size is too tiny, why can't he arbitrarily decide it's big enough?


The train of thought here obviously has the same speed as molasses on the night side of Pluto.

We KNOW that we have reliably surveyed a fraction of the Universe which is negligibly small. Regardless of imperial or metric units.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



I kinda was hoping the skeptics who threw out the Bible "contradiction" list (I mean myths) would have stepped up and admitted I answered them, there's a few more he gave me, but no need to answer if he isn't gonna stay engaged...

Oh well



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
It could be the works of powerful ETs, not God, but godlike.
In fact it actually makes more sense, since in Genesis there's more than one god.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
It could be the works of powerful ETs, not God, but godlike.


You mean, the omnipotent Supreme Being Zmorrg, who resides in the center of a large neutron star in Cassiopeia?

Yup, I thought that as well.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
It could be the works of powerful ETs, not God, but godlike.


You mean, the omnipotent Supreme Being Zmorrg, who resides in the center of a large neutron star in Cassiopeia?

Yup, I thought that as well.

What I am implying is that there could be another explanation besides God.
It could be ETs for example. Or it could be God.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyeguy
 


Thanks for your post, l got what u were asking the first time. sometimes skeptics default response is negative, i still haven't quite figured why ...i got some theories tho?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Wait, if you get to arbitrarily decide the sample size is too tiny, why can't he arbitrarily decide it's big enough?


The train of thought here obviously has the same speed as molasses on the night side of Pluto.

We KNOW that we have reliably surveyed a fraction of the Universe which is negligibly small. Regardless of imperial or metric units.


And you missed the entire point of my statement as well.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



I kinda was hoping the skeptics who threw out the Bible "contradiction" list (I mean myths) would have stepped up and admitted I answered them, there's a few more he gave me, but no need to answer if he isn't gonna stay engaged...

Oh well


You must remember brother OT, there ARE numerous contradictions in the modern versions of the Bible, the skeptics are in fact correct to point this out. It's precisely the reason satan perverted the Word of God, for that argument to have real weight. Here is an example, look up 2 Samuel 21:19 in the NIV, (Non Inspired version), and tell me who killed Goliath.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
What I am implying is that there could be another explanation besides God.
It could be ETs for example. Or it could be God.


Which do you see more likely?

And why?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 





What I am implying is that there could be another explanation besides God. It could be ETs for example. Or it could be God.


Or it could be Nature.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join