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: 35
16
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible


There is nothing easier to observe than ones own emotions. I feel them, I can observe their effect on myself. Belief is not required.

I do not "believe" I am unhappy when I am unhappy, I know, due to the obvious effect.Again observable to the tester (ones self).

Though, frankly, at best that is a spurious argument on your part.



Spurious? translation-I got ya


Notice he wasn't asked to verify HIS OWN emotions, but another's...big difference my friend

NEXT!




posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I find it curious that you use science to back up your religious text but disregard that same science when it conflicts with your religious text.

Just an observation.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Actually a Deist believes in a Personal, infinite, solitary, divine deity.

What separates them from a theist is the deist does not believe in modern day miracles, but they do believe the miacles happened in the past.

They say, we are no longer in the age of miracles.

So learn this from me or go back to school awake and aware.

Time to deny your ignorance about deism and theisn.

You have it confused with Naturalism.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


lmao, is it clear that the likes of myself and MrXYZ are wasting our time with you.

Enjoy your thread,

Laters



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 

Go back to school?

Are you serious?

I stated that Deism was a belief in a God. Theism proposes a theory of God, Theism claims to know God's desires. it's that simple.

Deists don't conform to any theory, they just believe in a God, be it a personal God or just be it the creator of the universe.

As a deist you can believe God interferes with humanity and you may also believe God doesn't. Deism is non-conformist, you don't have to subcribe to proposed theories of God.

Thanks for trying to patronise me though, as if i don't know the difference between Deism and Theism.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by xEphon
 


This doesn't even need to be pointed out.

Christian logic - twists science to use it in favour of their belief or argument and when it proves it wrong, they deny it.

Also they have a habit of cherry picking the bible - I doubt you will ever see these guys quote God when he rants about rape/murder of foreigners is ok.

Close-mindedness? Denial of Truth? Abolishment of Reason/Logic - I think so.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


1.God creates the heavens (the universe, stars, sun, moon) and the earth. The universe had a finite beginning. Genesis 1:1

Fact: Scientists also agree that the universe had a finite beginning starting with the Big Bang.

2.The earth was covered in water and darkness was over the water. Genesis 1:2

Fact: Research has confirmed both theoretically and observationally (via studies of Earth’s oldest rocks) that indeed water initially covered most of the earth’s crust. The first atmosphere was also full of volcanic debris and other harmful gases from the initial creation that would have prevented any light from coming through it.

3.God allows light to permeate through the darkness unto the earth. Genesis 1:3

Fact: After a while, the solar winds would have blown away the volcanic debris and gases exposing some light in the first atmosphere. Scientists also agree that light would have been the first thing needed to conduct plant life through photosynthesis and heat up the earth.

4.God creates thick clouds or water vapor in the earth’s atmosphere. Genesis 1: 6-7

Fact: Scientists agree that the earth would require a stable water cycle of condensation and future precipitation for life’s survival. This water vapor cover would be an ideal environment (greenhouse) for growing plants, trapping heat and melting ice. Also known as the second atmosphere, this vapor layer was so thick that the stars, sun and moon were not clearly visible.

5.God separates the dry land from the water in one place. Genesis 1: 9-10

Fact: Most scientists agree that the land was one land mass called Pangaea that formed out of the water then split apart to make the other continents

6.God creates plants on earth. Genesis 1: 11-12

Fact: Scientists agree that plants were the first living organisms to colonize the earth before the complex land animals (deer, fox, bear) and fish. Plant life is crucial for the creation of oxygen, the removal of carbon dioxide, and creating sugars and food for the mammals.

7.God clears the clouds and allows the sun, moon and stars to be discernible in the skies and to mark the days and seasons. Genesis 1: 14-16

Fact: In the first and second atmospheres a water vapor canopy, gases, and other debris surrounded the earth. After the plants started to develop, these dense atmospheres diminished (exposing the stars, sun and moon) as the plants produced enough oxygen to produce our third atmosphere which includes the ozone layer which now protects us from the ultraviolet radiation. The ozone layer is critical for sustaining life and giving us clear skies to see the heavens

8.God creates marine life. Genesis 1: 20-22

Fact: Most scientists agree that marine life did indeed arise before the land animals and man. With light, breathable air, dry land, oceans, plants, water cycles, and an ozone layer to protect them, the world is now ready for sea creatures and animals and eventually humans.

9.God creates animals. Genesis 1: 24-25

Fact: Scientists agree that virtually every animal phyla (including chordates and many phyla now extinct) appeared during a short geological moment.

10.God creates mankind. Genesis 1: 26-27

Fact: According to the geologic time scale, scientists agree that mankind was one of the last mammals created on the earth. Exactly like the Genesis account.

The scientific proof for Genesis
by Gman » Fri May 22, 2009 10:48 am





great points



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Ok, i'll discuss these next.

FIRST, explain why i need to go "back" to school, and explain your ranting about Deism and how i was wrong.

A survey carried out shows majority of scientists in the top institutions are atheists, why would that be? Why would top scientists throughout history doubt any theory of religion? It's because they have analytical minds, logical minds that require evidence and data, and if scientists don't have that data, religion would be the last institution to trust to provide it.

If they were great points, and bible was so evidently true, why would scientists and philosophers alike reject such theories.

Besides, all of the numbers need to be stated as "MYTH" and some of them facts need research, and need the relevant data to back those "FACTS" up.

If you can provide me with the scientific evidence that humans were the first "species" on earth then go ahead and prove it to me, go ahead and provide the facts. Besides evolution shows clearly that man species evolve and come from a common ancestrial legacy, we all started from lesser species and there isn't enough evidence to prove what evolved first, even fossil dating can only provide so much knowledge.

[edit on 2/9/10 by awake_and_aware]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by xEphon
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I find it curious that you use science to back up your religious text but disregard that same science when it conflicts with your religious text.

Just an observation.


I find it curious you haven't explained yourself here

Just an ob...

Another "drive-by" skeptic post



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by slugger9787
 

Ok, i'll discuss these next.

FIRST, explain why i need to go "back" to school, and explain your ranting about Deism and how i was wrong.

A survey carried out shows majority of scientists in the top institutions are atheists, why would that be?

1. Top scientists in specifically what list of top institutions are atheists.



Why would top scientists throughout history doubt any theory of religion?

2. Top scientists, throughout history, doubt theism because they made a decision to deny the existence of deity. In fact this denial of deity and affection of the scientific method probably attracts, more proportionally, individuals who deny deity. Theism and atheism have coexisted for centuries. Theists and atheists support social institutions which further their beliefs. Theists traditionally have built schools, hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, clinics, abused spouse homes, proper burial of deceased, publication of theistic material, books, and you get the point. Atheists support social institutions that further their cause as well, and borrow from theists greatly in that fashion, and as such are moving to staff institutions of higher learning with like minded individuals.


It's because they have analytical minds, logical minds that require evidence and data, and if scientists don't have that data, religion would be the last institution to trust to provide it.

3. Covered I think in my prior conversation.


If they were great points, and bible was so evidently true, why would scientists and philosophers alike reject such theories.

4. The points are good due to the fact that when the scientific evidence found in the bible, was revealed, made known, there was no scientific community of atheists who discovered the facts first.



Besides, all of the numbers need to be stated as "MYTH" and some of them facts need research, and need the relevant data to back those "FACTS" up.

5. Okay


If you can provide me with the scientific evidence that humans were the first "species" on earth then go ahead and prove it to me, go ahead and provide the facts.

6. Humans according to the facts of the bible were NOT the first species on earth.
Science has concluded the same fact.


Besides evolution shows clearly that man species evolve and come from a common ancestrial legacy, we all started from lesser species and there isn't enough evidence to prove what evolved first, even fossil dating can only provide so much knowledge.

7. Creationism includes everything evolutionism studies. Creationism predates the big bang with the factual biblical account describing WHO said bang.
Evolutionists must stop at the big bang theory.


8. The bible said God created man in His own image and likeness. How God did that is a mystery. Perhaps He took an ape and put it to sleep, and then operated on it, gave it a conscience and morals, and a free will, breathed His spirit into its nostrils and woke the new creature up and called him a man. Maybe He even permitted the species of beings called man to evolve from an ape to a human. Since the Genesis account was writen five thousand years ago, maybe God did not reveal the gruesome and gory details of the instantaneous creation or the evolutionary process which produced the species man. Why? Maybe it was none of their business to know and understand, or maybe He did not choose to overburden the knowledge or overextend the understanding of early man.


[edit on 2/9/10 by awake_and_aware]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Hardly.

It's a shame I have to explain what I mean when only 1 page previous you go on listing biblical text and refering to scientific FACTS to support those texts. Yet, you disregard any other scientific FACTS which do not support your, or should I say your borrowed, which I've noticed is common in this thread, beliefs that have gone on for 35 pages.

I'd also be curious to know what your qualifications are for calling someone a 'skeptic?' You seem to love and throw that term around like it's somehow deragatory. Do you even know what you're accusing me of being a skeptic of? Cause I sure don't.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Dunkin Donuts coffee is most excellent! There is a secret to the coffee (keep it on the down low). You can purchase the coffee from them but it never tastes the same as when they make it in house. The reason is the method.

1- They use EXTREMELY HOT water for brewing purposes.

2- They grind their coffee beans coarser when most people grind finer for a typical drip coffee brewer.

3- They use something called "A French Press" to brew the coffee with. It is not like a normal drip coffee maker than runs hot water over the ground up beans.

Here is a quote from

en.wikipedia.org...


A French press requires coffee of a coarser grind than does a drip brew coffee filter, as finer grounds will seep through the press filter and into the coffee. Coffee is brewed by placing the coffee and water together, stirring it and leaving to brew for a few minutes, then depressing the plunger to trap the coffee grounds at the bottom of the beaker.

Because the coffee grounds remain in direct contact with the brewing water and the grounds are filtered from the water via a mesh instead of a paper filter, coffee brewed with the French press captures more of the coffee's flavor and essential oils, which would become trapped in a traditional drip brew machine's paper filters. French pressed coffee is usually stronger and thicker and has more sediment than drip-brewed coffee.


I am sure that also being in a coffee shop surrounded by all of the different aromas of coffee, pastries and breakfast sammiches' adds to the experience. Damn I love Funkin Gonuts coffee!



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


That's exactly the problem when discussing with you. We talk about speciation and science...and you counter by talking about "wind in a test tube" and "love".

You really shouldn't make science related threads because you obviously have ZERO interest or capabilities to discuss science. Oh well, we tried...gl dude.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


well, no answer?

do you, others, ever notice l never degrade you.

Could you prove wind or love, yet we KNOW it exists...

NEXT!



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Specization is micro evolution.
Macro evolution cannot be proved.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Spurious? translation-I got ya


Notice he wasn't asked to verify HIS OWN emotions, but another's...big difference my friend

NEXT!


He asked someone else to prove their emotions actually.
Your argument was and is spurious based on the fact that proving ones emotions is not relevant when discussing proof of a deity.

When I feel love toward someone or something it does not automatically define that other as even being tangible, it merely describes my feeling.

Many children will tell you how they love their imaginary friend. The feeling is genuine, the friend however is not.

Do you understand now ?
Your variability argument is flawed in exactly the same fashion. It is your interpretation and distortion of a non applicable formula. It in no way verifies anything beyond the statement:

"I believe"

(oh and NEXT? Really, you must control that ego.)


[edit on 2-9-2010 by Noncompatible]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Specization is micro evolution.
Macro evolution cannot be proved.



Should we run the gauntlet of all the creationism claims and debunk them all ?

Naaa, let's not and say we did. Running over the same hackneyed material is tiresome.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


well, no answer?

do you, others, ever notice l never degrade you.

Could you prove wind or love, yet we KNOW it exists...

NEXT!



Of course you can prove wind, just set up a wind turbine. It's tangible. Love is a mix of psychology, human instinct, and chemical processes in the brain. It's something intangible and we just use the world "love".

Funny enough, nothing of that has anything to do with creationism/evolution/search for god. But nice try.

Look OT, I really tried to be nice to you. But you are sooooo stubborn when it comes to science, it's hard to stay that way. Imagine you told someone "the sky is blue", and that person looks up and tells you "no, it's red" when everyone can see it's blue. At first you might laugh, but in the end you'll start believing that person isn't sane.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Specization is micro evolution.
Macro evolution cannot be proved.



You apparently don't even know what macroevolution is. Read up and pay special attention to the part where they explain how much creationists love to misdefine that word.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Hahahaha

This is beautiful, really it is.

I am a six sigma master black belt, lean six sigma and purveyor of statistics. ;P

Two words my friend. drakes equation.

The Drake equation states that:

where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.[3]
[edit]Alternative expression
The number of stars in the galaxy now, N*, is related to the star formation rate R* by

where Tg = the age of the galaxy. Assuming for simplicity that R* is constant, then and the Drake equation can be rewritten into an alternate form phrased in terms of the more easily observable value, N*.[4]

[edit]R factor
One can question why the number of civilizations should be proportional to the star formation rate, though this makes technical sense. (The product of all the terms except L tells how many new communicating civilizations are born each year. Then you multiply by the lifetime to get the expected number. For example, if an average of 0.01 new civilizations are born each year, and they each last 500 years on the average, then on the average 5 will exist at any time.) The original Drake Equation can be extended to a more realistic model, where the equation uses not the number of stars that are forming now, but those that were forming several billion years ago. The alternate formulation, in terms of the number of stars in the galaxy, is easier to explain and understand, but implicitly assumes the star formation rate is constant over the life of the galaxy.

Statistically, it is improbable that we are the only source of intelligent life in the universe. We are not an assignable cause... We are common cause.

And another fact, qualitative for sure.

You are a greenbelt at most cause you don't understand the mathematical brilliance behind statistics as determined by your responses. And that's fine, intuitiveness is a good trait.. Just step aside when the people who demand data stepnup.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by ArcAngel]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join