Why can’t Creationists teach an alternative? Are the ‘free thinkers’ - atheists scared of som

reply to post by Conclusion


STATISTICS, huh?

Now your'e talking OT's language!!!

Welcome friend!

OldThinker

Impressive list.

It really is a tough call for me. On one hand it seems unfair to include one but not the other, on the other I want children to just get the facts as science knows them in science class and leave the rest to parents. What if I am a Catholic that accepts the theory that "God used the process of evolution to perfect His creation?" and my children go to school where a hard-line Southern Baptist teaches that God only did a "poof" and the world was instantly made? How do I reconcile that with my child while dealing with the second influence in their life; which is a man who always undermines what I say as sin?

There are so many reasons I can think of why it should stay out, and not that many that think it should go in.

reply to post by Edrick



18 INCHES.????

DOES THAT COUNT AS A mower?

OT

reply to post by Conclusion


You are talking about abiogenesis,evolution doesn't study how life started.Just how it evolves.



[edit on 17-8-2009 by Solomons]

reply to post by OldThinker


Thanks for the welcome. I have been reading some of your stuff. Although i am sure i am not as educated as you, I do seem to understand your points.
Great thread S&F.

reply to post by Conclusion

Do you know that there is a greater chance for a blind man to complete a rubics cube than life just to begin.

LOL. That is hilarious. I don't mean this as an insult. I understand what you mean. I used to think that way for a long time. Actually I agree with you, however, I UNDERSTAND the skeptics side.

BUT...

Have you ever heard of the infinite monkey theorem?

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Deaf Alien]

reply to post by Deaf Alien


No. Please explain it.

OT, I am still waiting on your answers.

Originally posted by Conclusion

Creationism doesn't have proof? lol. Would you agree that statistics is a science? Well if you do then think on this statistically speaking of course. Evolution..a theory mind you...taught as science.....hmmm.

When was the last time you jumped off a cliff trying to disprove the theory of gravity?
Do you believe that I'm a pixie living inside your computer screen and writing this stuff?

Originally posted by niteboy82
Impressive list.

It really is a tough call for me.

Yes, buts that only the beginning...please research George Washington Carver, he had OVER 300 DISCOVERIES....

He said, "Without my Savior, I am nothing." With his Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, George Washington Carver was greatly used by God to discover countless numbers of scientific wonders and to lead a life which has inspired millions of Christians everywhere.

Too bad today, he'd be relagated to some small college, irrelevant...

We miss So much truth today because of censorship....sad!

Man's SLAVE became GOD'S SCIENTIST here: www.christianbook.com...

Yet, WE IGNORE>>>>>

Wonder who TODAY has been "SET ASIDE" and may never reach TRUTH to convey to us????

OT honored!

reply to post by Conclusion


In short:

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

en.wikipedia.org...

How long is infinity? Let's say trillions of years. Never mind that there may be multiple numbers of universes.

In this context, what is to stop us from saying that it's impossible for life to arise?

I am not disagreeing with you. I am presenting you with the skeptic's side to this idea.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by Conclusion

 

Do you know that there is a greater chance for a blind man to complete a rubics cube than life just to begin.

LOL. That is hilarious. I don't mean this as an insult. I understand what you mean. I used to think that way for a long time. Actually I agree with you, however, I UNDERSTAND the skeptics side.

BUT...

Have you ever heard of the infinite monkey theorem?

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Deaf Alien]

Well fellows, here's the math, on evolutions PROBABILITY...

Behe makes a point of his probability of 1 in 1020 being estimated from data, rather than calculated from theoretical assumptions. This approach leads to a catch-22 situation if we consider the human population with its 1012 members. Behe's claim is that there has not been a single CCC in teh human population, and thus Darwinian evolution is impossible. But, if a CCC is an observed relative frequency, how could there possibly have been one in the human population? As soon as a mutation has been observed, regardless of how useful it is to us, it gets an observed relative frequency of at least 1 in 1012 and is thus very far from acquiring the magic CCC status. Think about it. Not even a Neanderthal mutated into a rocket scientist would be good enough; the poor sod would still decisively lose out to the malaria bug and its CCC, as would almost any mutation in almost any population.

Source/more here: www.talkreason.org...

OT math dude

reply to post by Solomons


But, and like i said i am not very educated, it would seem to me that if evolution is real, i am not saying it isn't, then it would be an ongoing process. Now we have humans and our closest relative chimpanzees. Where are all of the evolutionary steps between us. Missing with no evidence. Not alive today. It makes no sense to me. I just don't understand.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Conclusion]

Originally posted by madeioo

Originally posted by Conclusion

Creationism doesn't have proof? lol. Would you agree that statistics is a science? Well if you do then think on this statistically speaking of course. Evolution..a theory mind you...taught as science.....hmmm.

When was the last time you jumped off a cliff trying to disprove the theory of gravity?
Do you believe that I'm a pixie living inside your computer screen and writing this stuff?

POINT?


That's a distraction friend....


Unless OT missed something....the eyes are going tho....please elaborate, ok?

Old OT

reply to post by Deaf Alien


Very good point.

haha well of course they would bar him from any good science course, crazy old fool with all that outdated and wrong science! Didn't you hear Newtonian model is old news, energy is equal to the mass times speed of light in a vacume squared, clocks tell diffrent times on trains, etc, etc - Did anyone even mention that light is both a particle AND a wave? lol, silly old newton thought Gravity was a PULL not a PUSH haha sorry old buddy, this is a science school you'll need to do a PHD at least.....

haha of course i jest, Newton wouldn't have sat around pondering what makes apples fall or whatever he did with himself back when you had to wear silly hats and ruffles - asumeing that somehow the same newton was born into todays world we can only assume that he would be out looking for 'the god particle' at LHC or debating fineman on the nature of 9,10,11 and 12 dimensional physics.

We must then assume that if his scientific and social upbringing were different, i'm sure the amount of times he says 'privy wench' would be drastically cut in the 21st C for example, then we must assume that his religious tendency would also be modeled in a more modernist vein. Who knows what he would have made of our modern society, maybe he would have made youtube videos about stupid statistical fallacys which seem to disprove evolution for a second, we just don't know. I get the feeling that he might well have joined with everyone else involved in serious rational study of the world and decided that god either doesn't exist or isn't interested so one might as well get on with the things we can know for sure, the things science hopes to prove through study, observation and repeated experiment.

OT does believe there are those ATS-er's that will do their due diligence....

For those ready, willing, and have the time, here's a good start...

Elsberry, W, and Shallit, J. (2004) "Playing Games with Probability: Dembski's Complex Specified Information." In Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism, Rutgers University Press: Piscataway, New Jersey.

Häggström, O. (2007) "Intelligent Design and the NFL Theorems." Biology and Philosophy, 22:217-230.

Matzke, N. (2007) "Book Review: The Edge of Creationism." Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22:566-567.

National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine (2008). Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog/11876.html

Olofsson, P. (2008) "Intelligent Design and Mathematical Statistics: A Troubled Alliance." Biology and Philosophy (in press).

Perakh, M. (2003) Unintelligent Design. Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York.

Shallit, J. (2002) "Book Review: No Free Lunch." BioSystems, 66:93-99.

Sober, E. (2002) "Intelligent Design and Probability Reasoning." International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, 52:65-80.


U2U me after you have read....

2 and 2 = 4 OT

reply to post by OldThinker


lol. I am afraid that would be over my head.

Originally posted by NatureBoy
haha well of course they would bar him from any good science course, crazy old fool with all that outdated and wrong science! ....

friend you are better than that right?

You are not judging one from the 200 yr later vantage point are you? come on now....

??????

OT


Please articulate the discoveries learned SINCE....be careful realy cause OT's gonna show you.....followers of Jesus found them toooooooo.....

Oh well, Humble OT just askin'

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by OldThinker

 

lol. I am afraid that would be over my head.

lol!!!!

No prob....


Its the heart friend...where EFFECTIVENESS lies.....

Remember Solomon? Proverbs 4:23

OT