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: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
OT, I think you seriously underestimate how large the universe is.



No I get it, thx for the video...

Time will tell tho




posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
......I want you to answer the question. I don't want some website to do your thinking and talking for you. Explain how the bible's creation account is validated by special cause argument rather than any other creation account.



ok....


94/6

There!

Please do the MATH


ok?


It's always the same. A theist presents an argument and invites skeptics to participate. Then, a skeptic asks a pertinent question and the theist scrambles to avoid answering at all costs.

I can only imagine that because of the intentional avoidance of answering a simple question that your original argument is indefensible against basic inquiry. Seriously, you thumpers should come better prepared.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
......I want you to answer the question. I don't want some website to do your thinking and talking for you. Explain how the bible's creation account is validated by special cause argument rather than any other creation account.



ok....


94/6

There!

Please do the MATH


ok?


It's always the same. A theist presents an argument and invites skeptics to participate. Then, a skeptic asks a pertinent question and the theist scrambles to avoid answering at all costs.

I can only imagine that because of the intentional avoidance of answering a simple question that your original argument is indefensible against basic inquiry. Seriously, you thumpers should come better prepared.



I simply do not have the time to fully answer this question...

Granted it will be my opinion, when I do present...but get this clear young man...I am avoiding nothing....

If really interested I have told you more than once I have 4K posts with reams of OT's research, look away...but let's cut the trashing of 'theists' and 'thumbers'

I've been here on ATS for 5 yrs, I'm not going anywhere....I'll get to the response..which I've answered a few dozen times before



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
yet my post goes ignored *sigh*

2nd line



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by Pauligirl
......I think first you have to explain what it means.
In plain English, please.



My beautiful sword-babe....
avatar-joke


look up at um tonight....


Not sure if they r speaking in English, but you'll SEE it, I'm sure...


"This planet is even the focal point of all stars… "

Sorry, but not even close.


www.universetoday.com...
When you look up into the night sky, it seems like you can see a lot of stars. There are about 2,500 stars visible to the naked eye at any one point at any one time on the Earth, and 5,800-8,000 total visible stars. But this is a very tiny fraction of the stars the Milky Way is thought to have! Astronomers estimate that there are 200 billion to 400 billion stars contained within the Milky Way.


And that's just the Milky Way.


imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
For example, in 1999 the Hubble Space Telescope estimated that there were 125 billion galaxies in the universe, and recently with the new camera HST has observed 3,000 visible galaxies, which is twice as much as they observed before with the old camera. We're emphasizing "visible" because observations with radio telescopes, infrared cameras, x-ray cameras, etc. would detect other galaxies that are not detected by Hubble. As observations keep on going and astronomers explore more of our universe, the number of galaxies detected will increase.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
...but let's cut the trashing of 'theists' and 'thumbers'


I did no such thing. I was, however, critical of a stereotypical behavior pattern. That is, theists present a case, invite skeptics to participate, skeptics do and ask a question, then the question is systematically avoided.

Even after pointing this out you still avoid the question - a simple and basic one - and instead devote a post excusing yourself and/or postponing a response. What's the point of starting a thread if you're unwilling to engage in discussion about it?



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by nophun
 



Randomness is another word for COMMON CAUSE....


Please don't go tothe patronizing post ok....

Really!

Did you google?

ASQ?

LSS?

MBB?

= = = =

Nope, you didn't



No it isn't, Randomness is having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective.
It is not common cause.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by nophun
 



Randomness is another word for COMMON CAUSE....


Please don't go tothe patronizing post ok....

Really!

Did you google?

ASQ?

LSS?

MBB?

= = = =

Nope, you didn't



No it isn't, Randomness is having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective.
It is not common cause.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
Snf for you OT

What a great mind you have. You bring proof to so much of the things I already KNOW thru faith. This is a perfect example of that. Seti hears nothing, because there is nothing of intelligent life out there. Deep space is still in our dimension. The only other intelligent life is in spirit form and on a different plain.
I believe Gods plan in the beginning was for men to be immortal, populate the cosmos, reproduce himself thru us, as we live to gain the knowledge
it takes for us to become Gods.
Satans jealousy has only caused that plan to be postponed not indefinetly.The Bible even says there will be an end to the universe some day.



ARE YOU KIDDING? HONESTLY, are you actually being SERIOUS??

The only PROOF this shows is that we haven't even explored a PIXEL of a PIXEL of a PIXEL, of a PIXEL, of a PIXEL, of the universe, but this PROVES for you that the absurd contradicted fictional stories that you have FAITH in are TRUE? WHOA!!!!


Sadly, it does not seem to take much at all to fool the Religious folks I guess.

AND, just so you know, I am the REAL son of God. YES, ME!! It is WRITTEN right here. SEE, that is PROOF!! PROOF!! I command you, ER, I mean, GOD COMMANDS YOU to donate LOTS of money to me right now. I will message you my Paypal info.


[edit on 12-8-2010 by Baloney]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Obviously this man cannot grasp the immensity of our universe.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mythic Chris


No it isn't, Randomness is having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective.
It is not common cause.


Chris , my friend, slow down, ok?

You are speaking from innocent ignorance, I can tell...


Common cause variability occurs naturally in every process. Common cause variation is fluctuation caused by unknown factors resulting in a steady but random distribution of output around the average of the data. This fluctuation defines process potential, or how well the process can perform when all special cause variation is removed.


more if interested...
www.wesixsigma.org...



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


OT why do you always refer to yourself in the third person?


Originally posted by OldThinker
OT curious



Originally posted by OldThinker
“Wow OT. Ru saying only 6% of all outcome of data is from SPECIAL CAUSE?”


Originally posted by OldThinker
BUT prove OT wrong..........................


Originally posted by OldThinker
OT honored!


Originally posted by OldThinker
OT is old



Originally posted by OldThinker
If really interested I have told you more than once I have 4K posts with reams of OT's research, look away...but let's cut the trashing of 'theists' and 'thumbers'


That's kind of odd man! Who do you think you are? Bob Dole?

IRM



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by Mythic Chris


No it isn't, Randomness is having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective.
It is not common cause.


Chris , my friend, slow down, ok?

You are speaking from innocent ignorance, I can tell...


Common cause variability occurs naturally in every process. Common cause variation is fluctuation caused by unknown factors resulting in a steady but random distribution of output around the average of the data. This fluctuation defines process potential, or how well the process can perform when all special cause variation is removed.


more if interested...
www.wesixsigma.org...


I just keep learning new things on this site.


I think you will find this interesting
www.youtube.com...

Changed it to a better video

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Mythic Chris]

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Mythic Chris]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


It's true. I do exist. Yes it is me, because some statistics prove it.

And you've all been very naughty.

Now get back to making me feel good by getting into groups and talking about how wonderful I am.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Mythic Chris
 



OK...I'll check it out. Thank you!

Here's a lil on SPECIAL cause, notice it "assignable" hmm???


Special Cause Variation

Special cause variability is also unavoidable in most every process. Special cause variation is caused by known factors that result in a non-random disruption of output. Sometimes referred to as “exceptional” or “assignable” variation.


source: www.wesixsigma.org...



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by badw0lf
reply to post by OldThinker
 


It's true. I do exist. Yes it is me, because some statistics prove it.

And you've all been very naughty.

Now get back to making me feel good by getting into groups and talking about how wonderful I am.



GW?

2nd...

Funny post too



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

That's kind of odd man! Who do you think you are? Bob Dole?

IRM


Yep!

Just kidding my superhero


T



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Since I obviously won't get my question answered let's do some math and logic following rules similar to the OP.

We have one planet out of 8 (now) in our solar system in which we know life exists.

One divided by eight equals .125.

Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that in any other solar system that we look for life there is a 12.5% chance of discovering life.

This is more than double the chances you have attributed to a special cause argument.

And to polish off the argument using your logic: therefore the bible is false.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 
Good work...here's some more for you.
galaxy size (9) (p = 0.1)
if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun's orbit and ignite deadly galactic eruptions
if too small: infusion of gas would be insufficient to sustain star formation long enough for life to form
galaxy type (7) (p = 0.1)
if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy elements formed for life chemistry
if too irregular: radiation exposure would be too severe (at times) and life-essential heavy elements would not form
galaxy location (9) (p = 0.1)
if too close to dense galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally unstable, hence unsuitable for life
if too close to large galaxy(ies): same result
supernovae eruptions (8) (p = 0.01)
if too close: radiation would exterminate life
if too far: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to form
if too infrequent: same result
if too frequent: radiation would exterminate life
if too soon: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to form
if too late: radiation would exterminate life
white dwarf binaries (8) (p = 0.01)
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: orbits of life-supportable planets would be disrupted; life would be exterminated
if too soon: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption (9)
if farther: insufficient heavy elements would be attracted for life chemistry
if closer: nebula would be blown apart
timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption (9)
if earlier: nebula would be blown apart
if later: nebula would not attract enough heavy elements for life chemistry
parent star distance from center of galaxy (9) (p = 0.2)
if greater: insufficient heavy elements would be available for rocky planet formation
if lesser: radiation would be too intense for life; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits, making life impossible
parent star distance from closest spiral arm (9) (p = 0.1)
if too small: radiation from other stars would be too intense and the stellar density would disturb orbits of life-supportable planets
if too great: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient for formation of life-supportable planets
z-axis range of star's orbit (9) (p = 0.1)
if too wide: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be too great
number of stars in the planetary system (10) (p = 0.2)
if more than one: tidal interactions would make the orbits of life-supportable planets too unstable for life

source:www.godandscience.org...



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
more:

Jupiter mass (19) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit 9
if lesser: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from asteroid and comet collisions
drift in (major) planet distances (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be destabilized
if less: asteroid and comet collisions would be too frequent for life
major planet orbital eccentricities (18) (p = 0.05)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone
major planet orbital instabilities (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone
atmospheric pressure (9) (p = 0.1)
if smaller: liquid water would evaporate too easily and condense too infrequently to support life
if greater: inadequate liquid water evaporation to support life; insufficient sunlight would reach Earth's surface; insufficient UV radiation would reach Earth's surface
atmospheric transparency (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: too broad a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support
if lesser: too narrow a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support
chlorine quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too high for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too high for most life forms
if lesser: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too low for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too low for most life forms
iron quantity in oceans and soils (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: iron poisoning would destroy advanced life
if lesser: food to support advanced life would be insufficient
if very small: no life would be possible
tropospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: advanced animals would experience respiratory failure; crop yields would be inadequate for advanced life; ozone-sensitive species would be unable to survive
if smaller: biochemical smog would hinder or destroy most life
stratospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: not enough LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface to produce food and life-essential vitamins
if lesser: too much LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface, causing skin cancers and reducing plant growth
mesospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases would disturb relative abundance of life-essential gases in lower atmosphere
if lesser: same result
frequency and extent of forest and grass fires (24) (p = 0.01)
if greater: advanced life would be impossible
if lesser: accumulation of growth inhibitors, combined with insufficient nitrification, would make soil unsuitable for food production
quantity of soil sulfur (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: plants would be destroyed by sulfur toxins, soil acidity, and disturbance of the nitrogen cycle
if lesser: plants would die from An organic compound made of amino acids arranged in a linear chain, joined together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino groups of the adjacent amino acid residues.protein deficiency
biomass to comet-infall ratio (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: greenhouse gases would decline, triggering runaway freezing
if lesser: greenhouse gases would accumulate, triggering runaway greenhouse effect
quantity of sulfur in planet's core (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: solid inner core would never form, disrupting magnetic field
if smaller: solid inner core formation would begin too soon, causing it to grow too rapidly and extensively, disrupting magnetic field
quantity of sea-salt aerosols (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: too much and too rapid cloud formation over the oceans would disrupt the climate and atmospheric temperature balances
if smaller: insufficient cloud formation; hence, inadequate water cycle; disrupts atmospheric temperature balances and hence the climate
dependency factors (estimate 100,000,000,000)
longevity requirements (estimate .00001)


Total Probability = 1:1099

more: www.godandscience.org...



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join