Tunnel-Vision Science Miss Evidence of Creation. Jesus Loves Statistics, too!

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Good day ATS-ers from OT! I trust you are enjoying the autumn (if your area is so fortunate to have one). It is beautiful where I am. Last month I floated a bit of a controversial thread (nearly 800 replies) about statistical variability lending itself to a high probability of a creator God. It wasn’t much of a deep thread per se’, meaning I didn’t use a bunch of statistics or other related facts…I sorta just floated the idea, to kinda see the reaction…to learn of the holes, if any, in the premise, to gage others opinions and to further my thoughts and research on the matter. I’ve had a little time since then to go back and review the skeptic’s points and consult a number of disciplines…that being more in-depth statistics, atomic research, dark matter, astronomy, quality rules, more on variability, more on the central limit theorem, the empirical rule, normal distribution, evolution, the Galton experiment, genetics….and yes, heaven forbid, the BIBLE…no spiritual pun intended:

And here are my 5 conclusions….
1) The God of the Bible created everything we see (and don’t see)
2) The earth is a unique place
3) Evil has blinded the minds of unbelievers
4) Science observed in a holistic/multi-disciplinary manner confirms #1 and #2. i.e. visual-spatial lenses.
5) This thread may make people angry with me, but they won’t forget it 

Want to know how I got here? If the answer is yes, you can’t half-ass read this OP….you must get engaged…
---learn first WHAT I am saying, ---next SEE the linkages-this may take time, ---next OPEN yourself to the possibility you can learn a few things…and maybe together we can get somewhere. With that said here goes….ready?

Here the OP’s outline:
1) Galton Experiment and ‘math’ independence
2) Central Limit Theorem
3) The Empirical Rule (68-95-99.7) within Normal Distribution
4) System Variability
5) Evolution’s Premise
6) Space Matter (ingredients)
7) Evolution’s Dilemma?
8) Pulling it together with some observations and questions from OT
9) Your turn…

First, ever heard of the Galton experiment? Go play the applet on the link below. It simulates Galton's Board, in which balls are dropped through a triangular array of nails. This device is also called a quincunx. Every time a ball hits a nail it has a probability of 50 percent to fall to the left of the nail and a probability of 50 percent to fall to the right of the nail. The piles of balls which accumulate in the slots beneath the triangle will resemble a binomial distribution. To reach the bin at the far left the ball must fall to the left every time it hits a nail.
Because Galton's board consists of a series of experiments the piles in the slots are the sum of 10 random variables. Therefore, this simulation provides also an illustration of the central-limit theorem, which states that the distribution of the sum of n random variables approaches the normal distribution when n is large.

Try it: www.stattucino.com...


Second, ever heard of the “Central Limit Theorem?” - The means (X) of random samples taken from ANY distribution (mean μ and variance σ2) will exhibit an approximately normal distribution (mean μ and variance σ2/n)

In less mathematical terms, it is any of a set of weak-convergence theories. They all express the fact that a sum of many independent random variables will tend to be distributed according to one of a small set of stable distributions. The amazing and counter-intuitive thing about the central limit theorem is that no matter what the shape of the original distribution, the sampling distribution of the mean approaches a normal distribution. Furthermore, for most distributions, a normal distribution is approached very quickly as N increases. The CLT is considered the heart of probability theory, although a better name would be normal convergence theorem.
The CLT is why we can predict the American President while surveying only 1100 people! Amazing isn’t it?

Question? If randomly distributed samples, “approximate” the make-up of the population, then does the observed “design” prove a “designer”? Certainly is consistent to OT! But hold off just yet, keep going please…

The CLT is ingrained in truth; remember…“according to Platonism, the reality of mathematical objects is independent of our knowledge of them. Math is not some abstract science, but an absolute reality of the universe. Every mathematical object is definite, with a definite purpose – some known, many unknown. While some do not exist within the space of physical existence, they were neither created, nor will they disappear. Math is simply “out there,” floating around, regardless of what we as a human race say about it. In short, according to the creed of Platonism, mathematicians are empirical scientists [like a geologist] – they cannot invent anything, only discover things that are already there.” Quote: www.bluwinterashes.com...

Third, what about the Empirical Rule? Please go and watch this 2 minute video on the “Empirical rule” www.youtube.com...

Here’s the details, the 68-95-99.7 rule or empirical rule, states that for a normal distribution, nearly all values lie within 3 standard deviations of the mean.
-About 68% of the values lie within 1 standard deviation of the mean (or between the mean minus 1 times the standard deviation, and the mean plus 1 times the standard deviation). Represented as: .
-About 95% of the values lie within 2 standard deviations of the mean (or between the mean minus 2 times the standard deviation, and the mean plus 2 times the standard deviation). Thus: .
-Nearly all (99.7%) of the values lie within 3 standard deviations of the mean (or between the mean minus 3 times the standard deviation and the mean plus 3 times the standard deviation). And….. .
This data shape is called NORMAL DISTRIBUTION, please remember that ok?

Fourth, what about the 94/6 Rule? Ever heard of that? Quality guru W. Deming defines a system as "a network of interdependent components that work together to accomplish the aim of the system. . . . An example of a system, well-optimized is a good orchestra" (1994, p. 50). Source/Book: Deming , WE. Out of Crisis, 1986:314-316 MIT, Center for Advanced Engineering Study Cambridge, MA.
More here: surfstat.anu.edu.au... “Deming substituted the term special cause for assignable cause. Deming said that uncovering special causes was the responsibility of the local work force (those who had day-to-day contact with the process). Common causes were part of the system. The system is the responsibility of management. If the common cause variation is too large, it is the responsibility of management to change the system. Deming, stated that 85% of the problems with processes were system problems; later he increased this to over 94%, based on his own experience”

And here: www.qualitydigest.com...
“Every system has variation; some of this is due to the system itself, known as common cause variation; some of it is due to singular incidents or special situations; this is special cause variation. In his book, Out of the Crisis (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1982), W. Edwards Deming estimated that 94 percent of problems (or possibilities for improvement) lie with the system as common-cause variation; 6 percent are special causes.

And lastly here: www.poppendieck.com... “W. Edwards Deming first popularized the theory of variation, which is now a cornerstone of Six Sigma programs. Deming taught that there are two kinds of variation: common variation and special variation. Common variation is inherent in the system, and special variation is something that can be discovered and corrected. Common variation can be measured and control charts can be used to keep the system within the predicted tolerances. But it is not possible for even the most dedicated workers to reduce common variation; the only way to reduce common variation is to change the system. And here’s the important point: Deming felt that most variation, (95%+)[2] is common variation, especially in systems where people are involved.

The other kind of variation is special variation, which is variation that can be attributed to a cause. Once the cause is determined, action can be taken to remove it. But there is danger here: “tampering” is taking action to remove common variation based on the mistaken belief that it is special variation. Deming insisted that tampering creates more problems that it fixes.

In summary: The overwhelming majority of variation is inherent in a system.”


“System,” huh? You mean like the universe? You mean like evolution? I thought they were one in the same, maybe not? “Inherent!” huh?… Remember that, ok? Keep going….

Fifth, what is the Evolutionist’s Premise? Well, the Evolutionary Strategy Methods are defined, “as far as real-valued search spaces are concerned, mutation is normally performed by adding a “normally distributed random value” to each vector component. The step size or mutation strength (i.e. the standard deviation of the normal distribution) is often governed by self-adaptation (see evolution window). Individual step sizes for each coordinate or correlations between coordinates are either governed by self-adaptation or by covariance matrix adaptation (CMA-ES).”
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

There’s that normal distribution again…hmm??

And here: thememorybank.co.uk...
“Statistical patterns can be found in nature and society. Their distribution may conform to mathematical models. Take a large sample of adult human beings and measure their height. Most cases will fall between five and six feet with very few less than four or more than seven feet. Because this is a continuous variable, the results can be plotted on a graph to which a curve may be fitted. It too will have a single peak with fan tails on the high and low ends. We call this the “normal distribution” or popularly the ‘bell-curve’. For more than a century statistical inference has largely been based on this curve with its parameters of mean and standard deviation.”

There it is again….And in nature, too? See: elsmar.com... “…. Normal Distributions are the most common type of distribution found in nature….”

And renowned statistician Arnold King from ‘AP Lectures,’ says here: arnoldkling.com...

“… The normal distribution is mathematically complex but occurs frequently in nature…”
Normal distribution is important for 2 reasons.
1. Many variables that we observe are distributed normally. --Physical characteristics of plants and animals, such as height and weight, fit a normal distribution quite well. Performance of stock prices tends to fit a normal distribution. Many types of prediction errors and measurement errors tend to be distributed normally.
2. The central limit theorem.--It proves that a particular type of measurement error will be normally distributed. This type of measurement error is called sampling error.”


Readers, are you beginning to see the connections? Let’s move to genetics, shall we? The Oxford English Dictionary defines evolution as ‘any net change in the genetics of a population’

Dr Herbie says, at drherbie.wordpress.com... “To all intents and purposes we can take this as ‘any change to the normal distribution of a characteristic within a population’. That’s why evolution is all about the “normal distribution”

There it is again! And what about the folks at Haaar-vard?
Here: adsabs.harvard.edu... “The evolutionary rates of protein-coding genes in an organism span, approximately, 3 orders of magnitude and show a universal, approximately log-“normal distribution” in a broad variety of species from prokaryotes to mammals. This universal distribution implies a steady-state process.”

And to bring it home, see: www.genetics.org...
“CHARLESWORTH 1993B …. also investigated the conditions under which a modifier of recombination rates will spread through the population and discussed the evolutionary advantage of sex and recombination under such scenarios. These authors assumed a “normal distribution” of phenotypic values that the genetic variance remains constant during evolution and that only the mean phenotype responds to selection.”

Straight from the horse’s mouth, huh?

Sixth, what can we learn about sample size? And the make-up of the space? Did you know the universe is made up of the same substances everywhere? At its base there are only 6 high-level substances / ingredients / matter. Here’s the break down…heavy elements 0.03%, neutrinos 0.3%, stars 0.5%, hydrogen and helium 4%, dark matter 30% and dark energy 65%. This percentage breakdown is typified in the smallest of elements known to man-atomic make-up/energy. In reality, largeness and smallness are the same thing.
“Space matter is filled everywhere in the universe. All matter in the universe (in the ordinary world) is made of space matter. Since the gravitational force is exerted on space matter, all massive bodies have a denser medium of space matter envelop. Bending of light when it passes through near massive objects like stars, lensing effects in some regions in the galaxies are because of the refraction of light by the denser space matter that present in these regions and are purely the demonstrations for the presence of space matter in the macro world. Increasing of mass of a fast moving body, change in shape of a body resulting from its motion; the effect known as the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction etc are also the evidences for the space matter in space. Also, electric field lines and magnetic field lines both are created by the alignment of space matter units. All form of energies (except gravitational potential energy) are released because of the explosion, expansion or releasing of space matter. For example, the releasing of energy in a nuclear reaction is due to the rapid-huge increasing of volume of ordinary matter to space matter. The missing mass (mass defect) in a nuclear or chemical reaction is converted into space matter. Since the ordinary matter is an extremely compressed state of space matter, when it released, they will explode violently and release energy.”

Physic.org short video explains it all, please view:
www.youtube.com...

Missing matter? Wonder what (WHO) that is? Paul said, “Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” All things ‘hold’ together? Hmm?? Let him who has ears, hear!

Seventh, what……therefore…….is Evolution’s Dilemma?
“Gregor Mendel studied mainly traits that have distinct alternate forms for instance, purple flower color vs white flower color. But many traits are more complex than this and basically can take on any number of continuous values. For example in humans there is not just two classes of people - short vs tall- but a whole range of possible heights. In addition many traits are not controlled by a single gene pair but by many genes interacting with each other and also with the environment.. The study of traits controlled by many genes and also by the environment is called quantitative genetics. This a complex area of genetics but some understanding of quantitative genetics is useful for evolution because evolution often acts on complex traits influenced both by genetics and by the environment.

This presents a problem for evolution …. since for evolution to happen by natural selection requires the presence of genetically based variation in the value of a quantitative trait. Yet if offspring tend toward the mean value of the trait for the two parents then, the necessary variation for evolution to happen would be lost. The inheritance of quantitative traits is typically viewed in terms of what is called polygenic inheritance.

Source: staff.jccc.net...

Eighth…“Whew, that was a lot OT”
“I know, thanks for hanging in there.”
“Now what, OT?”

OK, here are a few initial observations/questions…
1) If normal distribution is the foundation of evolution as stated by the above proponents…and the central limit theorem fits in the entire universe….meaning samples must fall within (approximate) the population…and the whole universe is made up of the same substances to nullify sample size….then why aren’t EARTH-TYPE planets prevalent?
2) If system variability follows a predictable pattern….and evolution is a system…why isn’t transitional life more observable? Like 94% of the time?
3) Why do evolutionists hold to the role of normal distribution and deny the central limit theorem….meaning, if nature did it only once it … it is not COMMON, and therefore must be assignable/special/God-breathed/Jesus-stuff? The math doesn’t add up, period, don’t you see this friend?
4) Doesn’t the biblical truth of Jesus’ ‘omni-present’ characteristic makes sense with him being the supposed “missing matter” Further … What’s missing in Quantum Physics? Mathematically, why doesn’t it all break apart? The more we learn about subatomic particles called ‘gluons’, the more the universe seems to be made of nothing at all? Scientist says that all the electrons and subatomic particles of an atom are held together in their precise position and orbit by an invisible force, by which without it, everything would fall apart and reality as we know it, would cease to exist in an instant.
Quotes from Discovery Magazine in 2000, “The weirdness comes from the gluons. Quantum chromodynamics, the force that holds protons together, is modeled closely on quantum electrodynamics, the force that holds atoms together—but the gluons change screening to anti-screening, intuitive to bizarre.” And, “The closer you look, the more you find the proton is dissolving into lots of particles, each of which is carrying very, very little energy," says Wilczek. "And the elements of reality that triggered the whole thing, the quarks, are these tiny little things in the middle of the cloud. In fact, if you follow the evolution to infinitely short distances, the triggering charge goes to zero. If you really study the equations, it gets almost mystical." More info here: discovermagazine.com...
5) Maybe God lives at the speed of light. I John 1:5 Verse: This is the message which we have heard from him and announce to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we lie, and don’t tell the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin. Thought: The language in this passage is not metaphorical. John does not assert that God is "like light" or that he "can be compared to light." He asserts that God is light, and contrasts this light to darkness. Darkness is the absence of light.
Speed of Light: Is defined such that the speed of light in a vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 miles per second.
6) Did you know Hebrews 11:1 ‘FAITH’ is the ‘SUBSTANCE’ of THINGS? Here’s one for ya: Check out these definitions
A) ‘Faith’- Greek ‘pitis’ Translation=belief (spoken)
B) ‘Substance’- Greek ‘hupostasis’ Translation=substructure/actual existence/real being/ substantial quality, nature, of a person or ‘thing’

Thank you for reading, God bless you…OT

Ninth, Any thoughts?




posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Umm, maybe it was a typo, but light travels at 186,282 miles per second, or 299,792,458 METERS per second. Maybe you just confused the two...but obviously the unbelievers are gonna jump all over that mistake, otherwise it's good stuff.



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Oh, yes...i wanted to add...the reason I said 'tunnel vision' is often engineering-types (God love um') see the world through a narrow lense...

I believe we need input from a number of disciplines for this discussion…"that being more in-depth statistics, atomic research, dark matter, astronomy, quality rules, more on variability, more on the central limit theorem, the empirical rule, normal distribution, evolution, the Galton experiment, genetics….and yes, heaven forbid, the BIBLE"

I just wanted to re-iterate that point.

OT



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Romans 10:9
 


Very good, I'm kinda tired of seeing words about now...good catch!




posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Sixth, what can we learn about sample size? And the make-up of the space? Did you know the universe is made up of the same substances everywhere? At its base there are only 6 high-level substances / ingredients / matter. Here’s the break down…heavy elements 0.03%, neutrinos 0.3%, stars 0.5%, hydrogen and helium 4%, dark matter 30% and dark energy 65%. This percentage breakdown is typified in the smallest of elements known to man-atomic make-up/energy. In reality, largeness and smallness are the same thing.


To put .5% stars is crazy since stars are hydrogen and helium and then making heavy elements only to decay to into other elements, so to put star with particles is like saying a mickyD's hamburger is made up of meat, bun, mayo, pickle, ketchup and special sauce, since mayo and ketchup are part of the special sauce it is redundant or misrepresenting what is in a hamburger. Also add all your parts up and it is over 100% so maybe you pulled some data from one place and other data from another, is this picking and choosing data, becuase then it should be invalid to use since it is not in the context you are trying to present it in. You are pulling dark matter and energy data from the Nasa WMAP mission, if you know it or not, so why not use all they data presented at, map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

4.6% Atoms. More than 95% of the energy density in the universe is in a form that has never been directly detected in the laboratory! The actual density of atoms is equivalent to roughly 1 proton per 4 cubic meters.
23% Cold Dark Matter. Dark matter is likely to be composed of one or more species of sub-atomic particles that interact very weakly with ordinary matter. Particle physicists have many plausible candidates for the dark matter, and new particle accelerator experiments are likely to bring new insight in the coming years.
72% Dark Energy. The first observational hints of dark energy in the universe date back to the 1980's when astronomers were trying to understand how clusters of galaxies were formed. Their attempts to explain the observed distribution of galaxies were improved if dark energy was present, but the evidence was highly uncertain. In the 1990's, observations of supernova were used to trace the expansion history of the universe (over relatively recent times) and the big surprise was that the expansion appeared to be speeding up, rather than slowing down! There was some concern that the supernova data were being misinterpreted, but the result has held up to this day. In 2003, the first WMAP results came out indicating that the universe was flat (see above) and that the dark matter made up only ~23% of the density required to produce a flat universe. If 72% of the energy density in the universe is in the form of dark energy, which has a gravitationally repulsive effect, it is just the right amount to explain both the flatness of the universe and the observed accelerated expansion. Thus dark energy explains many cosmological observations at once.
Fast moving neutrinos do not play a major role in the evolution of structure in the universe. They would have prevented the early clumping of gas in the universe, delaying the emergence of the first stars, in conflict with the WMAP data. However, with 5 years of data, WMAP is able to see evidence that a sea of cosmic neutrinos do exist in numbers that are expected from other lines of reasoning. This is the first time that such evidence has come from the cosmic microwave background.


I am not going to argue your premise, a belief in God is a belief, but just trying to get all your ducks in a row on the "facts" you are presenting.....



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by coolhanddan
 


Thank you for the reply...you seem very knowledgeable about space...good job!

See this when you have time: www.spacetelescope.org...



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by coolhanddan
 


Hey Dan, one other thought...I tend to think the percentage breakdown specifics is secondary to the OP's point...for the central limit theorem to be applied we would just need consistency of material THROUGHOUT the universe, and both our sources agree there is...

Again, thank you.

OT



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Oldthinker, that is great you got it from them, that should be a whole post to itself to poke fun at ePOD, I sent a email and asked them to explain that chart. Ill send a message if I get a reply but dont bet on it. I see your point on your next post and agree but would like to point out the information is still false and needs to be updated, I like your thread and hope you can pull a theory out of it to test. Have you thought of an experiment yet?



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by coolhanddan
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I like your thread and hope you can pull a theory out of it to test. Have you thought of an experiment yet?


What a great idea!

Where would I begin do you think?

The null hypothesis would be...there is no difference between a creator and natural cuases in the creation of the universe?



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Natural causes use measurements of the anisotropy of cosmic background radiation in multiple experiments to support the big bang. This is the only way the big bang theory ever held water, before testing it was just another guess. The only problem with that theory is that it involves a scientific inadmissible conclusion beyond the beginning of time, which is why it is still unproven. Any thoughts to testing the creator part of the hypothesis?



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by coolhanddan
 


Yes, good point...

I've been chewing on these several concepts for a few years now....and just am now trying to draw the linkages, granted the OP is a work in progress....

test the creator part?

I think I'm going to value stream process map the linkages, icluding sub-processes...kinda lay-it-out...see the big picture first....I'm a lil lost at the present....are you familiar with DMAIC? I'm at the "D"



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   


.... and maybe together we can get somewhere .....
reply to post by OldThinker
 



Thats what you wrote isn't it ??

Yet there is nowhere YOU, want to get, .... you only want to teach what you THINK you know.

Your old thread fizzles out so you start again with this 94/6 nonsense which has nothing to do with evolution. I dont know how many times I've explained it, as I'm sure this post will be looked over just as all my other ones were.

Your conclusions are false as they are based on a faulty premise. I hate to break it to you OldThinker, I know it may be late in life to completely dismantle your entire belief system, but constantly trying to validate it to yourself and others by trying to prove what can't be proven is all in vain.

I have a horrible secret to tell you , ........ god doesnt care how you spend your life, ... so do to so in effort of gaining entrance into some heaven is a complete waste of what god has given you here, ..... it is a tragic irony.

I don't blame you OT, ... nobody wants to hear that the belief's they've held dear for so long are faulty, everyone wants to be right. There are dozens if not hundreds of religions in this world OT, .... do you think you have it right ?? well so do they ?? heaven for the winner, damnation for the loser ?? is that the way it is ??

Unfortunately all of you are primitive interpreations of what is, ......

I know my words are heard on deaf ears, people will believe what they will, ... until the end of their days, Everyone is right in their own mind, ..... yet imagine if you werent, .... imagine if you knew nothing, nothing at all, ...... oh what the universe could teach you.



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by IntastellaBurst
 


Appreciate your "content" focused reply...


Where is it you would like to take me my left coast friend? I'll go gladly...


Maybe we could start with some discussion on the OP



edit on 29-9-2010 by OldThinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Great post Old thinker. What you have done thru such research I guess I just still take on faith. Well put together research. Star and Flag for you if I can figure out how to do that. I can wait to see what all non-believers have to dispute, argue or just rationalize away the probability of the above scenerio.
Thanks for the information.



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by IntastellaBurst

.... Your conclusions are false as they are based on a faulty premise. I hate to break it to you OldThinker, I know it may be late in life to completely dismantle your entire belief system, but constantly trying to validate it to yourself and others by trying to prove what can't be proven is all in vain. ...


How are they false? Are you a statistician? Well, so am I?

Do you want to "dismantle" my belief? Wonder why?


Are you trying to be helpful here?



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dakota1s2
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Great post Old thinker. What you have done thru such research I guess I just still take on faith. Well put together research. Star and Flag for you if I can figure out how to do that. I can wait to see what all non-believers have to dispute, argue or just rationalize away the probability of the above scenerio.
Thanks for the information.



dakota1s2, You have noooooo idea what this thread is in store for


The skeptics are U2U-ing one another as we speak.....it kinda goes like this, "hey did you see OT's at it again? Here's the link, let's go beat up on him a while over a beer,ok?"


"just rationalize away the probability of the above scenerio"---I loved that line!



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Another OT stir up thread to try to get stars and flags? Oh boy.
This is going to be fun.



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Another OT stir up thread to try to get stars and flags? Oh boy.
This is going to be fun.


2 for 2 guys, still no "content" rebuttal...at least you all are consistent



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


oh, btw...hi HC!

Thanks for stopping by!

T



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


So what this amounts to is a pathetic God of the Gaps argument... all that reading for nothing. So to summarize:

Premise 1 -

There are aspects to nature, the Universe and the origins of life we haven't quite figured out just yet. The math doesn't quite add up as elegantly as we thought it would.

Conclusion -

God done did it









top topics
 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join