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.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
OT, I think you seriously underestimate how large the universe is.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
Originally posted by OldThinker
...but let's cut the trashing of 'theists' and 'thumbers'
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
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
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.
Originally posted by Mythic Chris
No it isn't, Randomness is having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective.
It is not common cause.
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.
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'
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...
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.
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.
Originally posted by InfaRedMan
That's kind of odd man! Who do you think you are? Bob Dole?
IRM