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: 29
16
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


This guy has been refuted using a simple sample size analysis by another user. Don't let him fool you trying to use math to prove his fantasies or hopes.

[edit on 24/8/10 by awake_and_aware]




posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


For now, as i said earlier, ill concede the sample size argument, for the universe for lack of info, dispute the math on a smaller scale.

if you are going to contiue to post here pls stay read-up ok?

thx



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I'm sure people are well read enough to know not to carry on with this discussion on the basis of sample size alone.

Any other discussions or points you make are speculation, and speculation only.

I could say that earth like planets take up 50% of the universe, why would i dare suggest a proposterus statistic like that?

So thank YOU, and good bye.

Everyone else, i suggest you read this guys posts thoroughly.

[edit on 24/8/10 by awake_and_aware]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I'm sure people are well read enough to know not to carry on with this discussion on the basis of sample size alone.

Any other discussions or points you make are speculation, and speculation only.

I could say that earth like planets take up 50% of the universe, why would i dare suggest a proposterus statistic like that?

So thank YOU, and good bye.

Everyone else, i suggest you read this guys posts thoroughly.

[edit on 24/8/10 by awake_and_aware]


Translation:

"I didn't think it was important enough to read the technical post OT wrote because I'm an atheist and I can't get this guy out of my mind, cause he kinda bugs me, really can't explain it tho....so I see an out here, so I'll take it...whew, that was close"



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
Can you prove my math wrong?


Seriously? OT, now you're just shutting your eyes and ignoring people! Several people in here have proven your math wrong, including me! I don't wanna be mean to you, but you keep on pushing those ridic 94% as if it's valid. Let me make it perfectly clear:

THE SAMPLE SIZE IS TOO SMALL AND YOUR STATISTICAL CLAIM IS 100% INVALID AND IRRELEVANT, AND AS A CONSEQUENCE SO IS THE ORIGINAL OP!

I don't like shouting, but you refuse to listen. If you can't accept the FACT that statistically your claims are totally meaningless, then this whole discussion is worthless. It means you don't really wanna discuss, but just make a random claim without having to back it up properly.

Repeat after me:

"Sample size is too small, my statistical claim is invalid!"

Now go repeat that in the corner 100 times. That's what you get for refusing to listen to logic!

And saying "can you refute it on a smaller scale" is kinda pointless because your original post is trying to link it to creation. We've clearly shown you how that makes no sense statistically...so why are you still trying soooo hard to "make it work"?

[edit on 24-8-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Now go repeat that in the corner 100 times. That's what you get for refusing to listen to logic!


OK, see me here:

2.bp.blogspot.com...

You know while I was there, I noticed how intricate the walls and corner were....the clean edges, the angle of the molding etc....man it was neat!

And then I thought, gee, if these guys would think this artwork just popped into existence, after all the whole world, me, you, etc came about by chance and time, heck who needs labourers?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Why are creationists always using the word "chance" when they describe evolution? Evolution only has a tiny tiny amount of chance involved, it's mostly adaption to your environment.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Why are creationists always using the word "chance" when they describe evolution? Evolution only has a tiny tiny amount of chance involved, it's mostly adaption to your environment.




Just look up the definition of COMMON CAUSE? Remember Dr. Deming relabeled "chance" variation as "Common Cause" variation

And what, no love for my picture?


T



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Why are creationists always using the word "chance" when they describe evolution? Evolution only has a tiny tiny amount of chance involved, it's mostly adaption to your environment.




Dr. Shewhart identified two sources of process variation: Chance variation that is inherent in process, and stable over time, and Assignable, or Uncontrolled variation, which is unstable over time - the result of specific events outside the system. Dr. Deming relabeled chance variation as Common Cause variation, and assignable variation as Special Cause variation. Based on experience with many types of process data, and supported by the laws of statistics and probability, Dr. Shewhart devised control charts used to plot data over time and identify both Common Cause variation and Special Cause variation.


Your not gonna open da door and say its "assignable" ru?

More: www.moresteam.com...



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to ...
Any other discussions or points you make are speculation, and speculation only.

....


Did you try that one on your stats prof, too?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
OT, you do realize they already use the findings we got from studying evolution in modern medicin and gene therapy, right? They create entire models based on evolution in order to forecast the outcome of those experiments and procedures. Those models WORK...and they wouldn't work if evolution was hogwash.

Evolution is basically adaption to your environment, and you can witness it all around you. Why do you think giraffs have long necks, or why does the skin of sharks add some special aerodynamics under water? It's pure adaption to your environment, and since the environment of animals changes in time, so do they.

Giraffs don't just have a long neck because god thought it would be funny. Also, 95% of the species on our planet today haven't existed when life first started. They EVOLVED into what we see today...and they're still evolving.

Of course there's always an element of chance involved, an element of randomness...but the large majority of characteristics you see are the result of impacts on the creature by its environment.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware


Everyone else, i suggest you read this guys posts thoroughly.




Thanks, that's good advice, I've been saying that here for five years


OT



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

....Evolution is basically adaption to your environment....



"ADAPTION", hm?

So is that 'common' or 'special'?

Careful now



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


So, if life were found elsewhere in the universe, your "theory"(guess) would be invalidated...correct?


NASA to reveal "big news"

If your premise for the existence of god is based on their being a lack of life in the universe, then if life is found, god doesnt exist?

Or would you just move the goal post again?

[edit on 24-8-2010 by iamcamouflage]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


Thank you for the information.

The reality of Earth as a special place would continue...

If they discover something microscopic, that would be intriging, if "intelligient" strap on your seatbelt, you are in for some rough times ahead...

I'll be watchin. Oh and BTW, theories are always up for debate, iron sharpens iron, as one poster sharpens another.




posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninthaxis
reply to post by dbates
 


So we have one planet in one solar system that has life and you claim god has to be the highest probable answer?


Well let's apply Occums Razor...

Which is the more simple?

"All-powerful God vs. Time and Chance and Chance and Time in the Octogon Gage Match!!!!"

OT's gonna go with God...you?



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
Well let's apply Occums Razor...




I don't even have the energy to type out a reply to you anymore.



Oh ! for the lulz !



[edit on 25-8-2010 by nophun]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Back to the OP:

a) where did you get the 6%?

b) what's the set of objects you want to apply the 94% to?



Thx, haven't forgot you...just been out of pocket a day or so....

Demmings premise was 94% of all variability (and the ability to improve it) is common, within, natural....as opposed to 6% which is "assignable"


This fit the empirical rule too


I reviewed the link in the OP and I think your argument is without merit.

The statement that magic 94% of improvement potential is due to random factors is just too arbitrary to be taken seriously -- without regard to what system we are talking about. A group of students tweaking the thermostat in the classroom is simply not a representative case.

There is an optimization technique in computer science called Genetic Algorithm,
which has been successfully employed in a few problem domains. Notice that it worked on purely random factors to provide the better end result. So there.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Back to the OP:

a) where did you get the 6%?

b) what's the set of objects you want to apply the 94% to?



Thx, haven't forgot you...just been out of pocket a day or so....

Demmings premise was 94% of all variability (and the ability to improve it) is common, within, natural....as opposed to 6% which is "assignable"


This fit the empirical rule too


I reviewed the link in the OP and I think your argument is without merit.

The statement that magic 94% of improvement potential is due to random factors is just too arbitrary to be taken seriously -- without regard to what system we are talking about.


Thank you so much for the reply friend.....

Too arbitrary? Come on now?


You really didn't read/look up the empirical rule, did you?

There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about it...it's a law bro...

If a data distribution is approximately normal then about 68% of the data values are within 1 standard deviation of the mean (mathematically, μ ± σ, where μ is the arithmetic mean), about 95% are within two standard deviations (μ ± 2σ), and about 99.7% lie within 3 standard deviations (μ ± 3σ). This is known as the 68-95-99.7 rule, or the empirical rule.


If you say it's not normal....you are on your way to HIM?




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Still trying to apply statistics in a way that just doesn't work scientifically I see


No matter how many people will explain to you OT why it doesn't work, you will never stop believing in it...simply because a positive outcome would support your belief. So this whole discussion is sadly pointless. Why start a discussion if you're unwilling to accept facts?

The normal distribution and associated stdevs have nothing to do with all this, and it certainly doesn't prove "god is the special cause".



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join