‘Variability’ % proves God is the SPECIAL CAUSE, skeptics, why are you ignoring?

reply to post by OldThinker


Doesn't change the fact that you can actually CHECK their work and claims. You can prove them and their claims wrong by doing experiments and looking at the evidence presented.

If you do the same with religious claims, you just end up with question marks because they don't use scientific method in their reasoning.

So you see, it doesn't matter if a few scientists are bad and falsify information...in the end they'll be caught by other scientists. It's how scientific method works, and why science is based on FACTS rather than fiction like religion.

I also like how you blatantly dodged the most relevant parts of my posts (bible contradictions and the flaws in the "proof" you posted) and picked this part. I'm assuming you'll respond to them later as not responding would clearly show you're out of answers and arguments against my posts

[edit on 13-8-2010 by MrXYZ]

reply to post by mothershipzeta


Wow! Appeal to ridicule arguments!! I've always dreamed of going back to the playground. Thanks for making me feel young today Sir.

God bless!

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by mothershipzeta

 

Wow! Appeal to ridicule arguments!! I've always dreamed of going back to the playground. Thanks for making me feel young today Sir.

God bless!

You must admit you opened yourself up to ridicule by making up the etymology of a word to coincide with your favorite religious text. You and the OP are in many ways the Laurel and Hardy of christian apologetics.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

 

Sinter Klaas, Hey!!

I'm not trying to 'argue' with you....have you ever thought about the 94/6 scenario before?

I'm mean should there be life 94 out of 100 times?

Since voyager left our solar system, did it see any...sure it's gotta a ways to go...but it should find some huh?

OT

Yes it should and will evenutally find some type of life. The reason it has not yet is other then the planets in our own little solar system what has voyager come in contact with. Astroids?? can u think of anything else that its been in contact with. Another problem is that the farther voyager gets from eath the more time it will take for the signal to reach us and under the simple rules of computers the farther a signal has to travel the more degraded it will be.

On another note maybe just maybe the supream being God, Allah, Jehova, budda etc...... knows that if by some chance if we came across alien life we would be compleatly destroyed by them because we would try to destroy them.

reply to post by OldThinker


Old Thinker,

i've read through your thread and i will keep this as civil as possible, i just want to explain something that doesnt add up in what you are saying. the quote im responding too is quite wrong in what it states.

it states that science has 1000's of instances of proof of god, yet it only gives one example that is so fallacious. it talks about the law of thermodynamics where no energy is ever created or disappears, it only changes into different forms of energy. then it states that it proves that there's god, because when we open our eyes, we see matter that has been created, and it must have been created by god... ok so that law is wrong is that what you're saying? if there is god, then that law is wrong, because the energy is just created by god? well if the law is wrong, how does it prove there is god? I think they got it all upside down. its actually the law states that the energy in our closed system has always existed. its only been changing shapes. thats why you see matter when you open your eyes, which disproves a creator, the matter has always been. but lets say for a second that article is correct, the law IS right and it proves there's god, who created god? he has always been, right? so wouldnt it be more logical to just say god IS the closed system(or more like infinite one) that has always existed? and we're all miniscule parts of god, but not like a god biblical creator person type god, but like universe, infinity, mother nature type god? that way, the law of thermodynamics WOULD prove that god exists and always existed, no creation ever happened, god is the universe, the intelligent design, like a big infinite brain and it has always been. so if by "created" you mean we came from god like, evolved out of the conditions of the universe..(i.e we are differnet form of god energy that has always been) yea i guess we were created by god. but not the biblical creator person type god. god is you he is in me he is everything... i dont know how to put it. and about life on other planets, i think there's strong chance that it DOES exist, and probably does exist in 94% of our universe too. have anyone been to any of the other planets? ok so far we've been to one, planet earth and its 100% got life, now when we go and explore all other planets, in and out, every cavern every crack, then we might know if theres life and if its 94%, but for now, we simply lack that knowledge, so without throwing anymore cut paste bible study links at me, could you please elaborate on your stand on this in YOUR OWN words? thanks alot, nice talking to you mate.

I have to say that I eagerly await for OldThinker to gather up the GUTS to explain or defend that list of Bible contradictions.

And perhaps maybe Randvs can step up to the plate and start on it as well.

Unfortunantly, it always seems to be the case that Bible supporters avoid this question, while diverting all attention to unrelated silly issues or little slight insults and digs towards the other side of the table.

But I trust that this will not be the case this time, and that OldThinker and/or Randyvs will answer the question clearly, rationally and thoroughly, right guys?

reply to post by iditenahuiats



iditenahuiats, thats good...civility...tell your boys.

I read all that you wrote and then you asked me to answer in my own words...gotta a clear question?

Originally posted by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy
I have to say that I eagerly await for OldThinker to gather up the GUTS to explain or defend that list of Bible contradictions.

You write as if I'm intimated?

The first supposed contradiction is no sort of one...God brings wrath, ooops, sorry for the "bible" word to those that deserve it, and peace to those that deserve it..simple. NEXT?

I'll get to them all, eventually...

Also remember the Father was preserving a nation , a heritage in Israel, for their benefit against some pretty hostle characters, just watch CNN....and the goal was to benefit Israel, so that messiah could be born to benefit ALL the world. Sometimes peace thru strength is the only option.

God is both JUSTICE and MERCY. One down, and a few to go...

reply to post by OldThinker


Yes, thats what I had figured. More of the usual replies that doesn't answer anything.

I was hoping that you could at least answer ONE of those contradictions in a clear and thorough manner for the many that view these boards everyday who are actually VERY CURIOUS to get answers on that topic, but that's apparently not going to happen.

Its a shame because I had about a few dozen more to add to that list.

Guess we will never get anywhere with you folks.

What a joke. It remains the same nonsense from you guys as always is the case.

Seriously, what a joke. Good bye.

Originally posted by OldThinker
God is both JUSTICE and MERCY. One down, and a few to go...

Yeah yeah.

I wonder why the god of the bible thought demons caused disease and told us that rainbows were a covenant instead of the result of light passing through water.

We have three options:
1. god is a liar.
2. god is a dumdum since he knows little about the world he allegedly created.
3. god is a fictional character

No matter which way you go it's a bad day for the dogmatic christian believer

reply to post by OldThinker


But you have no proof of your claims!! I'm sorry, but you sound like someone reciting from a Harry Potter novel. Until you use scientific method based on facts, the whole discussion is pointless.

Originally posted by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy
....I was hoping that you could at least answer ONE of those contradictions in a clear and thorough manner for the many that view these boards everyday who are actually VERY CURIOUS to get answers on that topic, but that's apparently not going to happen.

You are tipping your hand....relax.

did I not say, I would eventually answer them all?

I will.


btw, what was unclear abount my first answer?

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by iditenahuiats

 

iditenahuiats, thats good...civility...tell your boys.

I read all that you wrote and then you asked me to answer in my own words...gotta a clear question?

well yes i do

what im saying, and asking is, you claim we dont see life, therefore god created everything, a question is:

1. have we explored other planets on our solar system enough to conclude there's no life on it? have we landed on other planets and went through at least 7% of the planet's cracks, caverns to conclude there's no life?
have we discovered at least even 7% of our own solar system and found no life?


also about that article you posted:

2. that article that you posted that i took apart; does it not contradict itself in that it sais the law is wrong(because god creates energy) yet that law proves god exists? so is the law wrong or right?

two simple questions to get this discussion started, could you please answer those? and those are not "my boys"

Originally posted by iditenahuiats
1. have we explored other planets on our solar system enough to conclude there's no life on it? have we landed on other planets and went through at least 7% of the planet's cracks, caverns to conclude there's no life?
have we discovered at least even 7% of our own solar system and found no life?



2. that article that you posted that i took apart; does it not contradict itself in that it sais the law is wrong(because god creates energy) yet that law proves god exists? so is the law wrong or right?

two simple questions to get this discussion started, could you please answer those? and those are not "my boys"

1) Probably, voyager has seen up pretty close and is most likely outside of system now...we are talking about intelligent life here


2) I have to go cook on the grill, bride orders....I'll b back for #2

3. Probably? So ur thread is based on a speculation? Basically. And no its not outside the system. And there's no way it Explored 7 percent of the whole solar system by cruising thru darkness in straight line.

Still Waiting on answer to number two...

reply to post by OldThinker


Hi.

I've taken the time to read the link but the examples are a joke.

Can you count on finding exactly 49 pieces of candy in a package of chocolate covered peanuts? If you examine enough packages, you will find that there may actually be between 47 and 50 pieces in the packages. Are you being cheated? This is common cause variation.

This is not variation This is a result of a difference in weight in every single peanut. The bags are filled up to a certain weight.

. Jumping into improvement strategies without understanding variation is like taking ibuprofen for a broken leg:

It does reduce the pain for a while.

The child's fever is also questionable. The evaluated reaction caused children to die when they were really sick. Indeed variation, but from the opposite perspective.

Where did you get the 96 % from ? I couldn't found it.

I do think I understand variation, but I fail to understand your explanation.

Sorry.

Where did you get the 96/4 ? I took statistics for 8 months in college and NEVER heard of that ratio.

... and what exactly are you applying the 96/4 to? You certainly aren't applying it to solar systems because we've only ever visited about 0.05% of our own solar system over the last 50 or so years.

So far, we've found that 100% of the galaxies that we've explored contain life, so what your little theory might really mean is that 96 of the solar systems will have life, and only 4 won't.

You've basically created a situation for yourself that involves a warehouse full of boxes, and you walk right in the door and open up the first box only to find nothing. You then leave because you've made up your mind that all the boxes are empty.

If the Earth is the focal point of the stars, where is the lens focusing it and why does it sine on other planets as well?

I wouldn't think that you would dip an 8oz glass in the ocean, and not picking up a fish with it, come to the conclusion that no fish live in the ocean... so why do the same thing with the entire galaxy ??

It really doesn't make any logical sense. In fact, I don't think anything I've ever read of yours makes any sense at all.

I have to assume you are on medication for that and this is your outlet let it all out.

Originally posted by RestingInPieces
.....I took statistics for 8 months in college and NEVER heard of that ratio.

... and what exactly are you applying the 96/4 to? You certainly aren't

Did you listen much? Remember sigma level? Remember the standard deviation? It is a measure of the spread of a distribution. Remember bell curves? .....with the same center, but different population standard deviations: As the spread of the distribution increases, so does σ. Therefore, the area of the curve lying within a certain number of standard deviations from the mean is fixed, over all normal distributions. Specifically: 68% of the area of the curve is within the range of μ ± 1σ 95% of the area of the curve is within the range of μ ± 2σ 99% of the area of the curve is within the range of μ ± 3σ Commit these numbers to memory: 68-95-99!

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.

Describing variability over a period of time helps one to understand how the system is working and to predict how it will continue to work in the future. The alternative is a constant tampering with the system, responding to every whim it may have.

Source: www.qualitydigest.com...

Didn't appreciate the wise-arsh comment about medication....but this line seems like common cause because 94/% of ATS Skeptics say it one time or another...thx for for being the test tube for OT

Originally posted by OldThinker
Specifically: 68% of the area of the curve is within the range of μ ± 1σ 95% of the area of the curve is within the range of μ ± 2σ 99% of the area of the curve is within the range of μ ± 3σ Commit these numbers to memory: 68-95-99!

What percentage of the questions you've been asked in this thread have remained unanswered? Commit that number to memory and perhaps start addressing the questions arising from the errant nature of the proposition in the OP. Make OT proud, OT.

reply to post by OldThinker


Well, first of all, none of your explanation of frequency distributions mentions the numbers 94 or 6. Either way, those are statistical MODELS that are supposed to reflect reality. Now, even our economics models aren't perfect at predicting reality or else everyone using them would be rich beyond anything...what makes you think that creating a model of the universe, which has sooooooooo many more variables than any economic model, is even possible given our knowledge, amount of data about the universe (like others have pointed out thousands of times, we only examined a ridiculously small part of the universe), and technology?

To put it plain and simple, no matter what "universe model" you come up with, given our ridiculously small sample size and the severe lack of data, the amount of things we can predict with statistical analysis is relatively small. This means that the significance level is so low, that making any predictions is pretty much useless.

We haven't even fully examined our own solar system, yet you believe it's possible for us to build models taking the entire universe into consideration?? Not unless we make things up...like...you know...religion!

We can speculate about things all we want, in the end, we have to acknowledge to not having all the answers...and filling those gaps of knowledge with speculation and then calling that speculation fact is wrong and seriously flawed. It's also kinda sad given we live in the 21st century.

Just to make this clear:

Your entire thread is based on statistics that aren't relevant given our sample size. It's pure speculation, and nothing about it is "scientificly" relevant.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by MrXYZ]