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

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by OldThinker

 

I do have a strong faith, but not in the God of any branch of the Judaiac Religion. If that were a fairy tale, it would be Grims Fairy tale. Soul, life, INFINITY, Quantum Mechanics, The Holographic Universe all lead to the Infinite Family of Light, in progression, not a hierachy, pyramid system, or theocracy. We need to turn the pyramid upside down, power to the many,.

I'm cool with that...thank you so very much for replying friend...

Power to the many....www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by lifecitizen
Ive seen you attack people COUNTLESS times OT.

I have no patience for you at all.

Get a life. Go outside. Be with your family

Anything. but please stop with the crappy baiting threads

You didn't read the OP, oh sorry

I never initiate attacks...

RU a social worker/family counselor?

Not bait in the OP...I post/you decide...its that simple

Originally posted by Kailassa
.....

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?

As I explained earlier, evolution is not a system.
All life is transitional life. It has all evolved from something, and is all still evolving.

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?

So if it's not common God must'a did it?
You seem to misunderstand central limit theorem. CLT does not state the samples will be "normal", it states they will have a normal distribution.
This does not suggest there is anything weird about something happening only once.
......

You misunderstood point 2 above....I'm not saying in that point that evolution is a system perse, I'm talking about the nature of variability...that 94% is inherent all all things...including the universe make-up...

Point 3 99.7 % of a variation is common/within/system-related...most assuredly if it happens once it is not COMMON, I clearly understand the CLT friend...

Google ASQ LSS MBB when you have time...

As an aside resist the easy temptation to join the rude skeptics/satellite fish looking for bait...please continue to stay focused with me and avoid the distraction ok?

OT

reply to post by OldThinker

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…

OT, you seem to be using a definition of the word 'consistent' that is alien to the English language.

Most people think that it means something along the lines of the Merriam-Webster definition:

1 : archaic : possessing firmness or coherence
2 a : marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity : free from variation or contradiction
2 b : marked by agreement : compatible —usually used with with
2 c : showing steady conformity to character, profession, belief, or custom
3 : tending to be arbitrarily close to the true value of the parameter estimated as the sample becomes large

which has nothing to do with your apparent definition of "two concepts that don't have anything to do with one another and are not linked in any way what-so-ever".

“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….

See there you go again! 'the universe' and 'evolution' are 'the same' where the word 'same' is defined as "two concepts that don't have anything to do with one another and are not linked in any way what-so-ever".

Readers, are you beginning to see the connections?

Nope. You'll have to spell them out for us less gifted readers who have trouble figuring out what dictionary you are using.

...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...

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.”

This would be a great concept for you to keep in mind as you continue. But you don't.

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.

What you are talking about here, is the biological version of what Deming would call 'common variation': Mendelian genetics - e.g. the continuum of skin color from albino to jet black; different eye colors, hair color, height, etc. Evolution, on the other hand, is rooted in the equivalent of Deming's 'Special Variation': random mutation, and driven by natural selection. There is no bell curve here.

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?

How do you know Earth type planets are not prevalent? Have you surveyed every solar system in the universe yet? Furthermore, Earth-type planets make up 1/8 of the planetary population of our own solar system. Gas giants make up 4/8 of the planetary population. Shouldn't the conclusion be that Gas Giants are more likely to be the mean and Earth-type the outlying oddity?

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?

Exactly what are you trying to apply you statistical method here? Here is an example from real design: the iPhone is a system. Why don't we see engineering transitions from iPhone generation 1 to iPhone Generation 4? The only transition fossils we have are iPhone 2 and iPhone 3, where are the transition fossils for iPhone 1.0001, iPhone 1.0002, iPhone 1.0003, etc? That is right: they didn't reach the public for what ever reason; or in some cases they did reach the market as engineering changes that are invisible at the fossil level (unless you can get at the 'DNA'). Likewise, some biological transitional states may have only existed for a generation or two before giving way to something else again and they didn't get fossilized or were invisible until the environmental equilibrium changed and exposed them.

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?

Why do you hold to "assignable/special/God-breathed/Jesus-stuff?" for low probability events? The statistics for winning the lottery are vanishingly small, yet somebody usually does, often several people; how does that happen? The math doesn’t add up, period, don’t you see this friend?

Anyway, in evolution, what exactly is it that you think happened only once? And even if that is true, in what way does it imply "assignable/special/God-breathed/Jesus-stuff?".

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...

Belief is belief. Science is science. The Quantum 'realm' is weirdness inside of weirdness inside of weirdness. The English language, rich as it is, is not rich enough to describe the weirdness. Scientists can use mathematics to succinctly describe what is going on to others who understand the mathematics, but when they have to convey that weirdness to those who cannot be expected to understand the mathematics they have to resort to English (or other 'natural' languages). That many find it useful to discuss it in terms that are familiar to philosophy in general, or one religion or another in particular, is unfortunate, but unavoidable. That doesn't mean you have to fall for the trap that they are talking about religious topics, however poetic the parallels may be.

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.

You are implying that God is a mortal being here, only mortals "live". You are anthropormorphising God, and that is naughty.

Maybe God "lives" at the speed of sound. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

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’

Did you know Mathew 22:21 "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s"
A) "the things which are Caesar's" - earthly, secular, considerations
B) "the things that are God’s" - spiritual considerations

reply to post by OldThinker

Change? Walk me through that process in a logical manner

'Your' (I know they are someone else's) odds calculation for the first cell 'popping' of 1 in 10 x 340,000,000 is founded on a false premise; and you know it - it has been explained to you often enough. You claim to be a statistician, you should be able to spot the fallacy in the arguement. I fail to see the motivation to expose your own incompetance.

The first form of 'life' was not a 'cell' as we would know it. For those who came in late (OldThinker has had the benefit of this information for a long time), the discipline in biology that deals with the question of how life first appeared is called 'Abiogenisis'. 'Evolution' discusses how life changes once it has appeared. Before abiogenisis, no evolution; after abiogenisis, evolution. They are two different disciplines and method of abiogenisis is irrelevant to evolution as long as the end result of abiogenisis is the existence of life.

A video refresher on abiogenisis:

Tunnel-Vision Religion Misses Evidence of Evolution. Darwin Loves Statistics, too.

Religion vs. Science.

They are both tools to different ends.

To say there are MANY different types of religion would be an understatement.

www.adherents.com...

Even the Christians who have had over 2 Millenia to get their
religion sorted out can't seem to do it.

en.wikipedia.org...

But as Dawkins has said if you happened to be born in a remote area
where all the ppl were of a religion different than Christianity and
you never came to even know of it you were doomed to hell.

The catholic church did not want the bible read by the public in their
native tongue as was an issue with Martin Luther in Germany.

I could go into the Inquisition and Crusades but why bother,
it is all a bad joke, and quite lethal.

Galileo was forced to recant his theory of the Earth revolving around
the sun on pain of death.

If religion is the foundation of ANY argument, you have truly built a house of cards.

The inconsistencies in the bible alone are laughable.



So while science may not have all the answers, I am not going to base
my theory of the universe on religion simply by the fact that science
has proven religion wrong time and time again.

reply to post by rnaa


Thanks for stopping by rnaa...

My use of "consistent" is consistent!

Just not "consistent" with your paradigm...its just that simple

reply to post by rnaa

See there you go again! 'the universe' and 'evolution' are 'the same' where the word 'same' is defined as "two concepts that don't have anything to do with one another and are not linked in any way what-so-ever".



I believe you are complicating the issues here....

Very simply (A) was evolution COMMON?

Very simply (B) was it ASSIGNABLE?

If you say A, but not related to the universe/natural rythyms/nature/"just happened" you are inconcruent man...

not "consistent"

Originally posted by IntastellaBurst
reply to post by OldThinker

 

You are skewing science to suit your belief's, that is why I called your logic faulty. Everyone does it, everyday, no matter how big, or how small, actively creating the reality we choose to experience.

Really you sort of look foolish tossing rhetoric at his presentation. Show how he is "skewing" things here back up your statments.

reply to post by rnaa

Belief is belief. Science is science. The Quantum 'realm' is weirdness inside of weirdness inside of weirdness. The English language, rich as it is, is not rich enough to describe the weirdness. Scientists can use mathematics to succinctly describe what is going on to others who understand the mathematics, but when they have to convey that weirdness to those who cannot be expected to understand the mathematics they have to resort to English (or other 'natural' languages). That many find it useful to discuss it in terms that are familiar to philosophy in general, or one religion or another in particular, is unfortunate, but unavoidable. That doesn't mean you have to fall for the trap that they are talking about religious topics, however poetic the parallels may be.



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.



You are implying that God is a mortal being here, only mortals "live". You are anthropormorphising God, and that is naughty.

Maybe God "lives" at the speed of sound. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."



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’



Did you know Mathew 22:21 "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s"
A) "the things which are Caesar's" - earthly, secular, considerations
B) "the things that are God’s" - spiritual considerations


There you go again - smile

Why do you split truth into categories my friend...this is the whole point of Christianity...what you call "spiritual" became "flesh"

Please get this.............there is NO SUCH THING AS SECULAR!!!!!!

(srry for yelling) your first paragraph is getting there...

Good point, too, about 'lives', probably should have said "exists"

Also what does Matt 22 have to do with Heb 11?

2X11? smile...

let's talk about "substance" of things....real existence, substructure, actual existence ...

bottom line...............MATERIAL....the "and God said...and SAW, stuff repeated over and over and over in Gen 1 and 2...now your talking QUARKS

btw, your post was nicely written and formatted too

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by IntastellaBurst
reply to post by OldThinker

 

You are skewing science to suit your belief's, that is why I called your logic faulty. Everyone does it, everyday, no matter how big, or how small, actively creating the reality we choose to experience.

Really you sort of look foolish tossing rhetoric at his presentation. Show how he is "skewing" things here back up your statments.

Logarock...

Great point! There are a number of young ones playing, "let's stump OT" game over a few brewskies...not sure bout IntastellaBurst, buts she's pretty darn stubborn.

One "consistent" (sorry rnaa) trait amoungst um, is the lack of OP=content-replies....thank you for posting friend, you are always welcome!

reply to post by OptimusPrimate


OP



Nice shot

Originally posted by OldThinker

2) The earth is a unique place

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Odds of Life on Newfound Earth-Size Planet '100 Percent,' Astronomer Says

An Earth-size planet has been spotted orbiting a nearby star at a distance that would makes it not too hot and not too cold comfortable enough for life to exist, researchers announced today (Sept. 29).

If confirmed, the exoplanet, named Gliese 581g, would be the first Earth-like world found residing in a star's habitable zone a region where a planet's temperature could sustain liquid water on its surface.
And the planet's discoverers are optimistic about the prospects for finding life there.

"Personally, given the ubiquity and propensity of life to flourish wherever it can, I would say, my own personal feeling is that the chances of life on this planet are 100 percent," said Steven Vogt, a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, during a press briefing today. "I have almost no doubt about it."

Just my 2c.

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech
'''''''So while science may not have all the answers, I am not going to base
my theory of the universe on religion simply by the fact that science
has proven religion wrong time and time again.

My engineer...in your profession, or mabe X-professional it paid to be Left Brain...

(Logical

Sequential

Rational

Analytical

Objective

Looks at parts)..........

especially helping with SM3 1B for MDA or what ever version you worked on

but not life, it pays to use the other side of the brain...

and btw, who mention "religion"???

OT

PS: There are NO contradictions in the Bible, the only "contradiction" is ignorance from disbelief...often driven by one's behavior...sorry for gettin so deep

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by OldThinker

2) The earth is a unique place

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Odds of Life on Newfound Earth-Size Planet '100 Percent,' Astronomer Says

An Earth-size planet has been spotted orbiting a nearby star at a distance that would makes it not too hot and not too cold comfortable enough for life to exist, researchers announced today (Sept. 29).

If confirmed, the exoplanet, named Gliese 581g, would be the first Earth-like world found residing in a star's habitable zone a region where a planet's temperature could sustain liquid water on its surface.
And the planet's discoverers are optimistic about the prospects for finding life there.

"Personally, given the ubiquity and propensity of life to flourish wherever it can, I would say, my own personal feeling is that the chances of life on this planet are 100 percent," said Steven Vogt, a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, during a press briefing today. "I have almost no doubt about it."

Just my 2c.

Thank you so very much for contrasting these two threads....

Certainly a conspiracy website will get excited about the above article, heck just look at the Flags

K, you honestly think it is in the realm of any possibility they "just" discovered this?? As Chris Berman says, "COME ON MAN!"

Mark, my words...if IT happens...remember what you've read here

- - - - - -

Yes these two threads are most definetly related...the choose will be, which comes out in the END as true bro

Originally posted by filosophia
1) The God of the Bible created everything we see (and don’t see)

Let's say there is a God, why does it have to be the God of the bible? Why not the God of the Koran? Or the God of the Vedas? If they are all the same, doesn't that put the bible equal to (and not greater than) the Koran, the Vedas, the Buddhist Sutras, etc?

.

Well there are some big problems with putting all of these text into a basket. Really not preaching here but this current flow one hears these days about the interchangablity of these works is a very poor intellectual holding. You may know that but are just flinging things out there.

We could look at the Popol Vuh for creation stories even but the two books, bible and popol vuh soon part ways after that. Point is that it should be no mystery that creation tales are found everywhere but it is where these books/stories take off after that that render them very diffrent for many reasons. Eventualy the bible drops a big bomb right in the mix by making the claim that this man Jesus Christ was the creating mind, intelect and power behind this universe we live in and has come in human form. And strangly he didnt lay it down in a science lession but a spiritual one. Supposedly this man could simply speak and conditions would reverce or change on command.

"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?"

--OP

First habitable planet outside solar system is found

www.washingtonpost.com...

"The presence of Earth-like exoplanets in what is called the "habitable zone" has been predicted for some time, but actually identifying and measuring one was referred to Wednesday as the beginning of a new era in the search for life beyond Earth.

"This is our first Goldilocks planet - just the right size and the right distance from its sun," said astronomer and "planet-hunter" Paul Butler with the Carnegie Institution of Washington. "A threshold has been crossed."

Looks like you might have wasted your time writing up this OP. It was a nice read though.

reply to post by Come Clean


The timing makes a nice reply post for sure...please read a few posts above yours as to the link...

btw, the point wasn't earth perse', the point was intelligent life being PREVALENT 94% of places...

(1) one (supposed) planet hardly reaches that level, right?

reply to post by OldThinker

Why do you split truth into categories my friend...this is the whole point of Christianity...what you call "spiritual" became "flesh"

Please get this.............there is NO SUCH THING AS SECULAR!!!!!!

Those are not my words, they are, according to the author of Matthew, the words of Jesus Christ. It is Christ that is nominating those categories; are you disputing with Christ now?

(srry for yelling)

No you aren't. If you were you would have found the caps lock key, turned it off, and retyped the line. Disingenuousness earns you no brownie points.

Good point, too, about 'lives', probably should have said "exists"

If God created existence, how can it be said that he/she/it 'exists' before that creation in order to execute the creative act. Did God create God too? Where does your particular rabbit hole end?

Also what does Matt 22 have to do with Heb 11?

Each presents an hypothesis about the nature of God. One says it is 'light', and that fits your fantasy so you weave it into your psychedelic acid trip diary. The other say that it is 'the word', but it confuses your fantasy so you feign ignorance and obtuseness.

By the way, since you like to refer to the Greek roots, the original word that was translated as 'light' in Heb 11, was 'gnosis' which is better translated as 'knowledge', especially spiritual knowledge as in enlightenment (thus the justification for the translation as light), true, but also knowledge in general including scientific knowledge.

So the question is: if you believe that God is light as told to you by Hebrews 11 (i.e. gnosis, enlightenment, knowledge) why do you so strongly reject mankind accumulating knowledge and thereby getting closer to God? Isn't that a good thing?