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: 30
16
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



It's only an alternative hypothesis...and you have posted not one thing to disprove it, sorry....




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


You mean apart from the countless posts about why you can't use your probability theory in this scenario? What more proof would you need??



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by OldThinker
 


You mean apart from the countless posts about why you can't use your probability theory in this scenario? What more proof would you need??


he needs ur faith... lol this thread is hilirious... especially 2nd of those two occ. razor videos.... rofl war on atheism. i dont know why you still here xyz i stopped talking awhile ago as soon as i realized im talking to a pre-determined bible freak who only speaks his side, doesnt even acknowledge facts or questions that ask for factual evidence...

when you run him into the corner with one of those questions, he just sais "hey look over there!" and runs to hide in another corner.



[edit on 26-8-2010 by iditenahuiats]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
and one more post to make to it 20, now i can finally start a thread
you should be honored i chose your thread to do this in..



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

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

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


You can "bro" me all you want, but I had a formal class in statistics.


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.


What does a Gaussian have to do with ANYTHING at all, much less with God? Are saying God is responsible for fluctuations? That's one garbage pile of an argument.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
OT can you please explain to us what you think Occam's razor is ?
No matter how you answer I fail to see how "God did it" is simple. You still have to prove God, then prove what he did.

The term simplest when used correctly here means the fewest assumptions. God is a pretty big assumption. You then assume what your first assumption did.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by nophun
OT can you please explain to us what you think Occam's razor is ?
No matter how you answer I fail to see how "God did it" is simple. You still have to prove God, then prove what he did.

The term simplest when used correctly here means the fewest assumptions. God is a pretty big assumption. You then assume what your first assumption did.


A lil' history lesson my young poster.

Occam’s (or Ockham’s) Razor, also known as the Law of Parsimony or the Law of Succinctness, is the name given to a philosophical principle. It was used so frequently and so cuttingly by the English theologian and philosopher, William of Occam (Ockham), in the fourteenth century, that it became known as Occam’s Razor.

Theologian, huh? Interesting, you probably didn’t know that…straight from the horses mouth

Assumptions?


1.The origin of matter and energy poses no problem—the omnipotent or all-powerful God created them in the beginning. Matter (nature) cannot be eternal, but God is. See God Q&A.

2.The origin of life poses no problem—the eternal, self-existent, living God imparted life to plants, animals and the first human pair in His creation in the beginning. See Origin of Life Q&A.

3.The origin of information poses no problem—the omniscient or all-knowing God designed the order and complexity in the universe, and then gave man the intelligence to see and understand it and to use it. He spoke things into existence—speech involves information.

4.As to dinosaurs developing wings and turning into birds, how much simpler it is to think that God created dinosaurs to be dinosaurs and that He created birds to be birds! He created different kinds of organisms to reproduce true to their type (Genesis 1). We observe that organisms reproduce only after their type and we now know the genetic basis for that. See Speciation Q&A.

Evolution has many assumptions and none of them provides an answer to anything.

According to Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation or the one with the fewest assumptions that explains the facts is to be preferred. Creation makes one assumption—that God is who He says He is in the Bible—because if this is so, then He must have done all that He said He did. This adequately answers all the problems of origins posed above.

Evolution has many assumptions and none of them provides an answer to anything.

According to Occam’s Razor creation wins!
source: creation.com...

Also, about your asumptions
Here's a few ridiculous one you have:

1. The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.

2. The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

3. The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related.

4. The fourth assumption is that protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms).

5. The fifth assumption is that various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

6. The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

7. The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and the reptiles to birds and mammals


Stop stealing people of faith philosopical underpinnings and using it for you excuse to live the way you want bro
sorry...

NEXT!!!!



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by iditenahuiats
and one more post to make to it 20, now i can finally start a thread
you should be honored i chose your thread to do this in..


I am honored

Welcome to the big time my friend, ATS is awesome, glad ur here



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Hahaha...

Wow, utterly embarrassing. Oh the bitter IRONY!!!

Fantastic post.


[edit on 27-8-2010 by NOTurTypical]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


LMAO - nice source there, I'm sure there's no bias whatsoever....

That websites take on Occam's razor is almost laughable, it claims we are the one's who assume without evidence, Science has done a pretty good job so far, and you theists are being left behind with your diluted pseduo-science and your crazy theories of "God"

You'll never approach a debate in an intelligent rational manner because in order to believe what you believe, you have to ignore evidence, be closed minded, be unscientific.

See you later, i have no respect for you and this thread whatsoever, i'm sure serious people will think the same.

Peace out to people who are not trying to decieve people with false and inacurate probabilities or statistics.

[edit on 27/8/10 by awake_and_aware]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
UUUUH, oh OT, they've pulled out the reductio ad ridiculum card.

What shall we do now? Do you have any mother jokes we could retort back with to salvage the debate???



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
UUUUH, oh OT, they've pulled out the reductio ad ridiculum card.

What shall we do now? Do you have any mother jokes we could retort back with to salvage the debate???


Yes, go ahead and scratch the bottom of the barrel... Good luck. Just don't bring back any scat jokes, OK?

In the OP:

“If 94% of all data is common cause, and only 6% special cause, shouldn’t there be “EARTHS” every where? I mean Earth’s with intelligent life on it? At least in 94 out of 100 areas?”


There is absolutely 0% common sense and/or logic in that, on many levels. Gaussian distribution has NOTHING to do with phase transitions and other salient events. Even in the logic of organic molecules being sporadically synthesized under extreme conditions, we are clearly talking about extreme fluctuations - otherwise instead of the Earth oceans we'd have a big puddle of chicken soup. So the OP looks pretty dim from that point of view.

Second, as many have commented, we have basically no statistics to work with, for starters. There are places in the Solar system which might harbor some form of life but we haven't had time and money yet to investigate in any amount of detail. To apply the already fallacious "Gaussian" argument to a negligibly small data sample is frankly pretty dumb.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

You can "bro" me all you want, but I had a formal class in statistics.


So 'bro' and 'stats' are discrete?

Not to me/my culture...bro is endearing

= = = = =

One whole class?

Good, keep going...

This is what I do for a living...probably longer than you have been alive...seriously.

Granted this is a new concept....but your juvenile "poo poo-ing" it after a wiki search is not becoming.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

WOPSIDAISY-double post-sorry


oh btw,

il.youtube.com...


[edit on 27-8-2010 by OldThinker]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
See you later, i have no respect for you and this thread whatsoever, i'm sure serious people will think the same.

Peace out to people who are not trying to decieve people with false and inacurate probabilities or statistics.


That's OK...

I have great respect for you. Thank you for taking the time to be engaged. See you around on the boards.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


OT, there is no way you are doing any work that involves proper statistics and quantitative theory. There's no way you could have made this statement fully knowing it's not applicable due to sample size. Unless you're really bad at your job of course


OT, you're not an evil guy, but arguing with you is utter pointless, because all you do is:

- Make random statements without any proof or evidence.
- If people show you clear hard evidence why your post is hogwash, you ignore it.
- You then post further random statements from sites like www.creation.com that also have no proof whatsoever. I mean, their proof for god creating life is "See God FAQ"...LOOOOOOOOOOL!!

So I'm not gonna bother participating in your threads anymore. There's no point arguing with someone who doesn't use logic and rationality...or someone who ignores every single fact that goes against his belief, no matter how much proof it's supported by.

Hope you enjoy being a blind drone rather than a thinking individual who looks at facts rather than fiction.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

NEXT!!!!


Are you #ing serious ? This is a real question, I am starting to think your account is a gimmick.



Poe's Law states: “ Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

rationalwiki.org...'s_Law



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by nophun

Originally posted by OldThinker

NEXT!!!!


Are you ___ serious ? This is a real question, I am starting to think your account is a gimmick.



I'm starting to think you ignored these pitiful assumptions



1. The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.

2. The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

3. The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related.

4. The fourth assumption is that protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms).

5. The fifth assumption is that various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

6. The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

7. The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and the reptiles to birds and mammals


[edit on 27-8-2010 by OldThinker]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
I'm starting to think you ignored these pitiful assumptions
1. The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.


The experiments so far have been imperfect, but that's a definite possibility.


2. The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.


Who said that? In fact, it's likely that the generation occurred MANY
times and only the fittest pre-life entities did survive.


3. The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related.


Given the role viruses play in mutations and carrying bits and pieces of genetic material around, that's patently true. Human DNA contains lots of viral debris. There are some weird cases of what is "half-life" -- prions, for example. They can f#$^k you up by converting proteins in your body to their own likeness, yet they aren't quite alive. That sounds like something like primordial life to me.


4. The fourth assumption is that protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms).


That's a tough one! I'm not qualified to comment.


6. The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.


That doesn't strike me as weird. Lizards gave rise to birds.


7. The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and the reptiles to birds and mammals


Trivial. There are morphological links in this case.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


1. The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, ,i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.

Abiogenesis is not a blind assumption. You have zero interest in spending your time learning what we actually know/not know so I will keep this short.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
publications.nigms.nih.gov...

science.slashdot.org.../05/13/2112215
www.sciencenews.net.au...


2. The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.
Where ? I am pretty sure humans have not even begun to explore the cosmos well enough to claim Earth has the only life.

3. The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related.

Okay, your questions are retarded that is enough. If you are counting this as a assumption against all all known biology and biochemistry you have to take "God made DNA so same creator same method", as a #ing assumption.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

4. The fourth assumption is that protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms).

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I got poker to play and woman to meet.


Just so you know, I know you got all 7 of these questions from the book "Implications of Evolution(1960)" by ' Phillip Eichman". All 7 of these "assumptions" are as #ing retarded as "There is no missing link, Show me the missing link" . (hey OT hit the next button on the page you found your list of 7 assumption, for the lulz)

Welcome to the year 2010 OT ... welcome to 2010.
I still say you trollin' .

[edit on 27-8-2010 by nophun]




top topics



 
16
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join