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

reply to post by OldThinker


If someone explains the way a magician performs his magic show on stage.
Does that mean there is no need for a magician?

It sure as hell dosn't mean the magician never existed.

Explaining the way a magician does his magic and performing the magic yourself, are two entirely different things.

No Magician. No Magic.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

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?

You see, science doesn't "arbitrarily decides" things. I didn't just make up the sample size thing. it's pretty clear the sample size is too small, and there's no way around this. So any conclusions, statements, or claims made based on any statistics regarding this, ARE COMPLETELY WORTHLESS.

As for OT "answering" the bible contradiction claims. You haven't answered anything, you just typed a lot of nonsense (no offense). I already answered every single one of your answers...which you conveniently ignored while continuing to claim "I answered everything, there are no contradictions".

I'm not expecting you to change mate, but omfg you are one blind obedient sheep who refuses to accept facts when it comes to religion. Hope you're at least a happy sheep, as logic doesn't seem to be your strength when religion's involved

reply to post by randyvs



Hey Randy, welcome back!

Check out the new signature and "Rage against the machine" youtube

it has been 3 years since I changed it!!!

Originally posted by MrXYZ

As for OT "answering" the bible contradiction claims. You haven't answered anything, you just typed a lot of nonsense (no offense). I already answered every single one of your answers...

hmm???

better double check that one

Originally posted by MrXYZ
....I'm not expecting you to change mate, but omfg* you are one blind obedient sheep who refuses to accept facts when it comes to religion. Hope you're at least a happy sheep, as logic doesn't seem to be your strength when religion's involved

* I'd watch the language bro

Time will tell on the logic scale...just make sure you are following my signature's advice and you'll be fine.

Originally posted by randyvs
Explaining the way a magician does his magic and performing the magic yourself, are two entirely different things.

No Magician. No Magic.

Yeah, remind me to tell you about my "self-made" DIXON 61" ZTR

Here it is, one day it just poped into my garage...man I love it

images.motorsportdealers.com...

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You’re mostly right. The M-U experiment, as performed almost 60 years ago, doesn’t accurately model the secondary atmosphere. However, you’re overstating what’s understood about the secondary atmosphere at this point in time. The reason most geochemists disagree with it is because their models of the secondary atmosphere are based on volcanic gases found in modern eruptions (water, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen, etc.), which isn’t a bad start but it’s not the sole possible source of gases which could have been found in the secondary atmosphere. Work has been done to study the gasses that would be expelled from layers of accreted chondritic material from which this planet was likely formed and those gases were found to include methane and ammonia.

Further, you’re misrepresenting the potential of formaldehyde and cyanide. Yes, both can be quite toxic to life on this planet as we know it today. But you neglect to mention that both are building blocks in the formation of glycine, the simplest amino acid, via the Strecker synthesis. And the same synthesis can be carried out with slightly more complex aldehydes to form other amino acids readily.

Originally posted by OldThinker

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?

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
In fact it actually makes more sense, since in Genesis there's more than one god.

reply to post by Jazzyguy


Thx!

So you think Elohim is an ET, not the Trinity?

How many are there in your mind?

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by Jazzyguy

 

Thx!

So you think Elohim is an ET, not the Trinity?

How many are there in your mind?

(((In my mind and in the minds of 6 billion, there are many true gods. My guess is that they are all the same creator. I'm not sure I understand how big bang theory is mutually exclusive from god the father. Enlighten me.

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by Jazzyguy

 

Thx!

So you think Elohim is an ET, not the Trinity?

How many are there in your mind?

Always One God, but there are maybe about 4 ETs or more, Christ doesn't count.
The ETs could work for God btw.

reply to post by Jazzyguy


How do you know this?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Jazzyguy

 

How do you know this?

I don't. I'm just guessing.

Genesis 6

1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

reply to post by OldThinker


I'm a little upset with myself for even posting in this thread but I feel that I must.

As several posters have pointed out, you are making a mistake in assuming that we have a large enough sample in order to apply variation to the universe.

The following are quotes from the article you linked in your OP. This is your own source.

How does one tell the difference between special cause variation and common cause variation, and avoid the mistakes that can ensue from misunderstanding these concepts? The answer lies in the use of control charts where data is collected and analyzed with respect to trends and patterns that can be acted upon. In the 1920s, Walter Shewhart developed the idea of three-sigma control charts. Control limits—which are generated by the data itself, collected over time—clarify the distinction between common cause and special cause variation.

Notice the author states that telling the difference between special cause and common cause is determined with the "use of control charts where data is collected and analyzed with respect to trends and patterns that can be acted upon."

So I must ask what data you are using to come to your conclusion? Do you have a "three-sigma control chart" in order to accurately compare data with regards to intelligent life in the universe? Do you have control limits collected over time to clarify the distinction between common cause and special variation? Also notice that in the first sentence of the quoted paragraph, the author clearly states that this data vital as to not misunderstand these concepts.

Once the concept of variation is grasped, one can begin to work on the system, to reduce the amount of variation. This work involves collecting data, studying causes, testing improvement theories, and constantly evaluating the consequences of improvement strategies. Jumping into improvement strategies without understanding variation is like taking ibuprofen for a broken leg: You will never get to a genuine solution of the problem. But do consider ibuprofen for a one-time fever.

Notice again the author states, "once the concept of variation is grasped" Which I doubt that most do, including me, unless they happen to have direct experience or education in this field. "...one can begin to work on the system, to reduce the amount of variation." "This involves collecting data, studying causes, testing improvement theories, and constantly evaluating the consequences of improvement strategies."

Have you done any of this leg work? Do you have a source from someone who has? I know the answer to that question is no because we simply do not have the proper amount of data to make any claims for variation on our solar system let alone the entire universe. Did you even read the whole article that you posted? It seems like you read the first two paragraphs and then decided to come up with your own theory (which according to you is just a guess, so that makes sense). Which by the way, a scientific theory is NOT a guess. Look it up.

You have taken a complex concept and applied it very vaguely to a system that does not have enough data points to make any conclusions. You claim that the sample size does not matter. If that is the case then according to you, there should be more intelligent life on this planet than just us. 94% of the species on this planet should be as intelligent as us. But then at other points in this thread you act as though there are enough data points because you claim “Voyager is waaaaaayyy out there.... what has it seen? Not much....“

You challenged people to comment and attempt to debunk this thread(not your actual words but in so many you have said that) and then you have refused to answer any of questions proposed by other members with any respect at all. You have dodged most questions and the ones you attempted to answer, are usually just a post with random bible quotes, youtube videos, smiley faces and obscure acronyms.

This is insulting. And while you think you are being cute, or clever, you are actually being quite rude. This is YOUR thread, you asked for skeptics to come in and challenge it. And when they do, you refuse to accept or acknowledge their well thought out and knowledgeable posts.

Many here have posted A LOT of great information. They have posted facts and scientific data that is completely relevant to YOUR thread. Yet you dismiss all of their complete scientific data, and only acknowledge your limited understanding of scientific concepts that fit your world view.

I understand that your belief in god comes from faith. Thats all it takes, quit trying to prove your faith with science. Its forcing you to pick and choose which science fits your belief system and reinforces your bible. If you want to try to use science to prove your faith, then you must accept the scientific data presented by others.

Dont make a thread and ask for skeptics to come in and then disrespect them by not acknowledging any of there data as relevant. I know you feel you are the victim in this whole world and that everyone is rude to you. But you have it backwards, you are the rude one and we are the victims of your ignorance.

And seriously, stop with the 3rd person. You sound crazy.

Understanding Variation

Originally posted by Jazzyguy

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Jazzyguy

 

How do you know this?

I don't. I'm just guessing.

Thanks for admitting it was a guess rather than truth.

Genesis 6

1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

What's this? Proof that God created man, or proof that man wrote a story about God?

Evolution is a fact, and it shows that God didn't create us in our current form, he didn't teach us to talk, and he doesn't teach too much science in the bible,

As an atheist, i don't even think God exists, I can't prove it though, it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, I couldn't prove invisible unicorns are pink.


If a "GOD" does exist- will be nothing like the tyranous accounts of the bible. How could man know the thoughts of God 2000 years ago when we are still looking for them now, and finding nothing.




[edit on 21/8/10 by awake_and_aware]

[edit on 21/8/10 by awake_and_aware]

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

What's this? Proof that God created man, or proof that man wrote a story about God?

Me and OT were talking about ETs. You misunderstood.

[edit on Sat, 21 Aug 10 by Jazzyguy]

Sorry a little flirtation with statistical theory that applies to games of chance and is extrapolated to economics doe not prove or disprove the existence of god.

If we look at God (Who is said to work in mysterious ways. There is no way that such a numinous concept or being could be sensibly linked into your special clause arguement as perceived by statisticians.

I just don't buy your OP.

reply to post by Jazzyguy


fair enough, C YA

Originally posted by Tiger5


If we look at God (Who is said to work in mysterious ways. ....

???

Where'd you get that myth?

reply to post by OldThinker


What myth? The myth of God, of the Christian God, the Anglo-Saxon God Thor, the ancient Greek god Zeus.

All myths, no evidence, all invisible but allegedly omnipotent.

We arn't buying it, and we arn't buying your shoddy exuse for proof for God.

I can't prove God does or doesn't exist. But what i can prove is that Christians and Muslims and Jews all seem to have different ideas, no one can claim to know the morals of God. Simple deductive logic shows that GOd is designed by man, and NOT the other way around.