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

reply to post by mithrawept



Its good to see another with a sense of humor...hope it spreads!

OT

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by mithrawept
I think it is simpler than the creationists make out - by concocting a complex, convoluted argument, the creationists attempt to 'lock-out' an alternative to the irrational basis of creationism. This is why creationists will not include any alternative in their teaching.

Consider this argument:

It's all about probability. the probability that the universe was created by:

- God (whichever god you happen to believe in)

or

- A giant intergalactic immortal lobster called Colin

Are the same.

While this sounds preposterous, it makes evolution look rather probable.

I know Colin, you should see his CLAW SHARPENER...rough dude!

Move along....

OT

Okay, I'll move along if you can provide any (yes any) argument that proves god over Colin.

reply to post by mithrawept


1) www.everystudent.com...

2) www.allaboutcreation.org...

3) www.josh.org...

4) video.google.com...:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBS_en&resnum=0&q=ravi+zacharias&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=aJSMSvaNHpDgt gPb4-nACQ&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4#

I'll take Colin to dinner, while you do some due diligence, ok? does he like Italian?

OT

reply to post by Welfhard

Prove yourself right. It's not on my head.

Why would I need to do this ???

After all consciousness develops from childhood - it's an evolved attribute an countless of other creatures have it too but not to the degree that we do.

Another assumption on your part.... Where is the Proof...

It may be just a "Down Load" in a processing System you are unaware of...

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


I have had a vision!!!!

It was a guy named SINBAD!!!!!


A bunch of people where jumping/piling on him....

And he was yelling, "Rodney King....Rodney King.....!"

Something about "can we all just get along?"



OT made a funny!

reply to post by OldThinker


I was hoping for a rational argument, not some links. Okay, lets have a look at your first website:

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

Our planet looks perfect because that's how you perceive it. If the Earth was uninhabitable, you wouldn't exist. The human brain is amazing, that's for sure but that's no argument for god, that just argues that the brain is amazing.

2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?

The universe was created by Colin the intergalactic giant immortal lobster - I'm still waiting for a counter argument.

3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

Because you exist in a universe where the laws of physics allow you to exist, it is perception only.

4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.

Your proof or argument that god was the programmer is? Could it not have been Colin?

5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

Don't seem to work with me - god has never asked me to come to him because he doesn't exist. What nonsense. And why is god always a 'him'? Are women second-rate creations?

6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.

Last night Colin (the intergalactic giant immortal lobster) reveled to me in a vision that I should go out and heal the sick, by laying hands of them, except of course for amputees, we don't heal them.


Next.

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

Why would I need to do this ?

Because that's how arguments work.

Another assumption on your part.... Where is the Proof...

The fact that as the brain grows so too does the mind and consciousness. Variables in developments and circumstances creates great variance in peoples consciousnesses. The "consciousness is a property of the brain" model predicts this precisely as well as that other animals having taken different evolutionary paths, leading to different brains have consciousness of a different form. Change the brain's form and function -> change the properties (including consciousness).

It may be just a "Down Load" in a processing System you are unaware of...

Where does this "down load" come from? What produces these consciousnesses? How are they downloaded?

Why make all these extra assumptions when we have a model that accounts for everything when there is no proof that consciousness is anything more than a cognitive construct?

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

Man what are U on???

Correction: Some expect. (Very very few have time to expect anything.) You only find this at the theatre ..

Uhhh no. Most people have a belief regarding the afterlife. The mere act of believing establishes and expectation. Those people who are lucid during a trauma which initiates an NDE think they are dying and they start to see exactly what they expect to see.

This is the only logical explanation for why Christians see Christ, Muslims see Allah, Buddhists see Buddha, etc..

I see you do regard the Mind as some entity, that is separate from the Brain after all.... Are You starting to learn by your own words ?

What? No.

A runner. His health deteriorates -> his running deteriorates.
The brain. It's condition deteriorates -> the mind deteriorates.

Simplest ???

I don't recall mentioning anything Spiritual ???

Or am I missing something here?

You don't think you implied that? Or do you agree that the mind, consciousness and NDE's are a naturalist and materialist phenomena.

Sorry to disappoint you again...

Not into assumptions, as your self takes on board.

Good, I'm glad so shall we run with the explanation that requires the least amount of assumptions? That would be the one that doesn't assume the supernatural in which to harbour the consciousnesses.

Originally posted by mithrawept
.......
5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

Don't seem to work with me - god has never asked me to come to him because he doesn't exist. What nonsense. And why is god always a 'him'? Are women second-rate creations?

OK, nice job...waiting on next....it's probably late where you are....we'll do more tomorrow....


You say, "does'nt SEEM to work for me,"

What if he did?

Would you respond?

OT

btw, I've got 70 threads of OT's opinions...you are more than welcome to view....

reply to post by OldThinker


So yea OT. That science in the bible stuff. I hoped you watched that video I posted here.

Also there is this post regarding the same "science" that you copy-pasted (rather sheepishly from the very same thread conveniently ignoring that all your claims of science in the bible have been disproved and discredited by out ATS friends - I am disappointed in you).

What I would also suggest is that you look at any holy text and you will see that there is 'some' ancient science in there. In fact compared to the others, the Bible has virtually no science in it at all.

But I personally wanna address the point you made that apparently:

"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing."

Now if I were God and I was inspiring a Holy Book with just these little hints of astrology (which the ancients were all about by the way), I would go much further and make it so the science could not be mistaken. The stuff you have quoted from the book is very ambiguous and could be interpreted a dozen ways from sunday.

But this bit here, "suspends the earth over nothing" is wrong. It doesn't even flirt with science fact. The Earth is not "suspended" at all by any stretch of the imagination.

The Earth is on the move and at great speed and science actually explains that the Earth is falling - which is technically what orbit is.

The bible says nothing of the earth Orbiting the sun. The bible does say that the earth be eternal which is scientifically wrong - it will perish when it is swallowed by an expanding sun.


I want to take a second to bring up some other stuff not featured in your book but another, the Rig Veda - another book you know nothing about. The Rig Veda suggests some rather interesting things.

- According to the Rig Veda, the Cosmos is cyclically created and destroyed.
This mirrors the Big Crunch and Big Bang theories of modern cosmology.

- The God Brama, the creator has a lifespan of 100 Brama-years and surprisingly one day in a Brama is about 4.32 billion years. While Brama is alive he maintains the Cosmos meaning that the expected lifespan of the cosmos is 311 trillion, 40 billion earth years.
Amazingly 4.32 billion years is almost precisely the length of time that life has been on this earth according to science.

Now there clearly is some stuff in the Rig Veda which mirrors modern science and it's not just some ambiguously phrased descriptions of the night sky being like a cloak and earth being in "nothing" (it's note worthy that space isn't actually empty - it's awash with hydrogen atoms and solar winds, not to mention radiation, neutrinos and the like), rather these are actual unambiguous descriptions and figures. The science-like material in the Rig Veda is more significant and more reflective of reality than that of the bible.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Welfhard
...Now if I were God and I was inspiring a Holy Book with just these little hints of astrology (which the ancients were all about by the way), I would go much further and make it so the science could not be mistaken. The stuff you have quoted from the book is very ambiguous and could be interpreted a dozen ways from sunday.

But this bit here, "suspends the earth over nothing" is wrong.

As I got older I eventually came to the conclusion, anything worth it, mandated I LOOK intently...are you? No, not yet!


And the earth suspended bit, talk to astronaut James Irwin who said, "The earth was very small," Irwin recalled the view from the moon. "(It was) the size of a marble. I thought it the earth is that small, how small am I? Just a speck in the universe, but yet significant enough that God would love me and create me and love me enough to touch my life….I felt privileged like an angel to get God's view of the earth."

You know he covered the entire earth with the end of his thumb while on the moon.....gone....


OT believes the Bible...we are in emptiness...

Its VANTAGE POINT friend...my age.......and James on the moon

OT

reply to post by OldThinker

As I got older I eventually came to the conclusion, anything worth it, mandated I LOOK intently...are you? No, not yet!

Yes I do, hence the deconversion. And no you don't - you don't even understand evolutionary theory yet you will argue against it.

And the earth suspended bit, talk to astronaut James Irwin who said

I don't care what he said, the scientific fact of the matter is that the earth is not suspended.

OT believes the Bible...we are in emptiness...

The bible is wrong, we are not in emptiness. Space is awash with matter and energy as I explained.

Its VANTAGE POINT friend...my age.......and James on the moon

No, it's not. You say there is science in the bible, not vantage points. The earth is not suspended & space is not empty - that is the science and it disagrees with the bible so your premise is wrong.

Period

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by OldThinker

1) Thoughts on the video?
2) Thoughts on Newton’s quotes?
3) Thoughts on freedom of thought?
4) Thoughts on the banning of creationists?

The video was ok, not a big fan of Ben Stein, ever since he editted the Movie Expelled, and pretty much twisted everyones words, and tricked them, by saying it was about something else, yeah pretty gross.

2) Newtons been wrong before.....just saying. His view of the universe was trumped when Einsteins big head came along ;D

3) When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at a nice distance from the sun. Although life evolved around a semi stable condition, only some of the earth is habitable, some of the time... let's not forget, the earth was once just molten rock, and at another time it was completely frozen over. We just got a good time slot.

I also look at all the other galaxies, and see oops, didn't work over there, nor overthere, well really, it's quite hard to find another.

Of course noone looks at other planets and think god, what an awful place to be. Why, because really noones there, there was no other place we could of emerged.

4) I'm not for banning creationist, it's still an alternative, I suppose, and, I just don't think it should be taught in the schools, nor should evolution, when a child asks, where did life come from, the best answer is "I'll tell you when I find out". Not Evolution, or Creationism. Leave that for college students. School is for learning facts, not theories or suggestions to suggestable minds that are still growing and absorbing.

If we find the origin of life, the missing stone, the first replicating material. Then we can say hey evolution is right, that should be taught. Now saying a giant being in the sky, shouldn't be thrown in there, because that's making it to were your shaping reality, to what it says in a 2000 year old book.

Not to what it actually is. Now if jesus comes down on a cloud, then we can start teaching that God did it all. Allahu Akbar!

Till then, school is for learning, they want to learn about DNA and Atoms fine, great. If they want theories, wait till college.

Nice Thread. Provoking.

reply to post by Welfhard


I'll respectfully "agree to disagree" friend...

And I know you are impressed with the ole guys patience, because you know i know,....its all about GRACE!

Tell GW I said hi, ok?



OT

reply to post by Republican08


My respected atheist!!!!!

So glad you joined, critical as always, but never deceptive!!!!

Please allow OT to view the post more thoroughly tomorrow, late here...


Hope all is well, good night!

OT

reply to post by OldThinker


The bible doesn't even outline the role of the most significant object in our solar system - Sol, our sun.

It doesn't say that is is a star not unlike any other in the night sky.

It doesn't describe it's grandness of the Sun which puts earth's size to shame.

It doesn't describe the heliocentric model of the solar system (sun at the centre) so the foolish believers naturally believed that this massive object orbited the earth. And our poor friends Copernicus and Kepler were persecuted because the bible didn't inform the church of the facts.

It also doesn't describe the orbit of the planets as elliptical, another scientific fact which we can credit Kepler for.

It doesn't describe the fact that the energy from the sun sustains life on earth - it feeds the plants which feed the entire food chain.


Even the ancient Pharaoh Akhenaten knew some of this stuff 1300 BC and the authors didn't even think to copy him. Bible science is most unimpressive.


reply to post by OldThinker

I'll respectfully "agree to disagree" friend...

This isn't a matter of opinion.

I presented you with the facts.

The facts do not fit what the bible vaguely describes, the bible is therefore unscientific in these regards.

That is the truth of the matter - and I do not use that term lightly and infact I barely use it at all.



Checkmate.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


Are you a Lawyer by any chance???

If you are, then I would want you to represent me, if ever required... LOL.

Truly:- take this as a compliment.

But don’t get carried away, with receiving flattery, by letting it go to your head....LOL..


Lawyers may win cases, debaters may win debates, but this is Not a competition, so lets concentrate on the subject at hand.

“Why can’t Creationists teach an alternative? Are the ‘free thinkers’ ........”

All Creationists are certainly Not Religious but may be looking from the angle of the experience may be based on a processing system ...

Why do you think a very large industry exists, involved in producing virtual reality games ???

Maybe they are trying to reproduce such a system again, by taking on board the Idea the universe is much of the same Concept ???

It is important to Understand, I am Not looking for followers or to prove anything at all, but only to air my views....

I am Not that insecure, that I need to prove anything at all to anyone.

If people wish to know more, then I will answer their questions if I can, if Not it doesn’t matter...

Often some label “Creationists” as religious just to try and derail the subject, in order to justify their own beliefs involving what they fear most.

Yes, humanity is very insecure and you find this throughout the whole of society.

It really comes down to ones own belief as you have said yourself.

This debate is as you know in both the Scientific and the Medical Professions and you have taken your position on one side of that debate.

But you pretend that the other side does Not exist !

I can’t help wondering why you are so adamant that the Mind is somehow generated by the Brain.

It doesn’t take a rocket Scientist to Understand this...

There are two Base Components at work here.

a. The Observer.

b. The Observed.

In this case the “Observed’ is the species Biologic Robotics and its interactive environment.

And in the case of The Observer, this is where the roots of your arguments are.

The only thing that can observe is Awareness or Consciousness.

When unconsciousness is observed one is said to be in either a coma or may be dead.

But humankind defines death in a number of different ways as you know.
There is No single test...

To establish Death requires the presence of certain symptoms, that are still being debated today.

There is No conclusive test!

This is because of the debate regarding Consciousness...

In fact many have been buried alive because of this problem.

Very little is understood about death, and that is why most wish to avoid or close the subject. Mainly because of their own psychological condition.

But my answer to these people is, “Get over Yourselves” Now re-approach the subject again Intelligently without beliefs of preconceived convictions.

Being involved in researching this field is actually very interesting and easy for me, having experienced this.

I certainly don’t have all the answers but there is one thing for certain...

Neither do You...

So why are You so Anti ID ???

Is this because you feel you don’t or can’t Know The LIFE as others may ???

I really think this is at the root of your beliefs...

I can understand this...

What you claim, as accepted by the Medical world, is absolutely False, in that your statement is Incomplete and Inaccurate.

You only have to observe the behaviour of most doctors and nursing staff, who are extremely caring to know this.

You have only mention one small minority that adopt the Conclusions that you have regarding Death.

It is well known, that this is mainly a Western belief.

In your case, it is only a belief and that which you adopt, in order to retain some degree of psychological security and peace.

I can understand this.

But we all have to ask many more questions before we find the answers or understand the reality of ourselves and our experience.

To put the record straight, my Death was so fast, I had No preconceived ideas about Death in the way, of perhaps religion of philosophy goes.

I felt No Fear or Insecurity, as it happened so quickly.

But back to the subject again...

In the case of the concept, of experiences being down loaded...
Unless you are involved with programming, this may be very hard to entertain, and I can understand this.

The world you experience may be nothing more, than like a virtual reality game, plaid on a computer in fact you would not know or even comprehend this unless you had knowledge of such a system.

If these programs were of such quality, you would be completely convinced you are in a Universe, when in fact you may Not be even human, or look anything like Biological Robotics.
And that you exist Not in the Program but Out side it.

So this leads to the question that is often debated regarding the basis of experience.

The only reason you see your universe as a vast expanse, is because you compare things, with the size of your own body.

But this does Not dictate the Size, of the total experience or Universe as if something is outside it, would see it in an entirely different way.

If you existed as the Centre of something and compared your existence to the outer regions, it would have no relevance, to what may be the size of what you exist in.

The reason being, that the Centre of something has No Size or Shape, even though it exists.

So like wise, we can try and perceive the size of the universe, by comparing it with something inside it, but at the end of the day, this is futile as measurement is only the comparing of two entities, in this case in an environment, that may or may not be nothing more than an elaborate computer game.

For all you know, you may be Consciously on the outside of the universe you experience, and are in fact looking at something very small.

If you are involved with programming, this would be a very, very easy Concept to understand.

So the notion of your universe being designed and manufacture is Not stupid at all, but requires certain Qualities of Intelligence to even contemplate this.

Many reject the Idea, because they simply do Not have the resources or perhaps the ability or capacity to conceive this.

So rather than show any inadequacy, (pride) they can only reduce themselves to ridicule of the possibility.

But in your case, if you are Not Aware of Such a system existing, then this would explain your views.

We can’t all be the same....

Personally I enjoy diversity...

reply to post by OldThinker


I'm a little confused by this thread. There are scientists that are religious and do believe in god, but they choose to leave it out of their discussions of science because it may not be relevant to what they are teaching or studying.

Why would a biology teacher need to bring up god or religion at all? For arguments sake lets say that evolution, creation and any other beginning type hypothesis you can make were on equal ground with the evidence supporting them. Which possibility do you teach? Do you present every possible hypothesis, spaghetti monster, kid with ant farm, infinite universe, etc.

These discussions are valid, because no one knows if there is a god or what created the universe or maybe nothing created it and it is infinite. But these are not discussions for a science class, they are not the same subject. These questions belong in a philosophy or religion class, or if you want create a new subject called Origins.

We would not discuss photosynthesis in a math class. Why would we discuss religion in a science class?

reply to post by OldThinker


"Why can’t Creationists teach an alternative? "

Could you clarify? I'm not sure what you are even asking. Teach an alternative what? Can you please ask questions in complete sentences.

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by OldThinker

 

"Why can’t Creationists teach an alternative? "

Because they're not really interested in alternatives, or else we would have debates about Friedrich Nietzsche, evolution and all the pantheon of religions in sunday school. What they are interested in is promoting their medieval beliefs.

The western world stayed for 1000 years in the dark ages following their world views, only when we decided to start questioning the "Book" did our society advance, and these "terrorists" want us to go back 500 years in time!

They use this ruse of "alternative" and free-speech as a way of victimizing themselves, as to appear as they are being silenced.
If they are so interested in debate and alternatives why not start with their own flock?

What is the value of ID or creationism to science? What are it's practical applications? How are we to utilize such theories in the further advancement of science? How will it contribute objectively to a better world?

Practical applications of evolution

[edit on 20-8-2009 by madeioo]