It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 32
11
<< 29  30  31    33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
OT exiting STAGE right...question, why is the door frame so damn narrow....


Good night!

OT




posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I should probably warn you, OT, that Triarchic has a bigger arsenal than you. He has a compendium of creationist claims and their scientific rebukes/solutions. You cannot win by copypasting from creationist websites.

However, if you want to continue then by all means, go ahead. I would find it rather humorous to see your entire premise eviscerated.

Perhaps you would like a link to the compendium? It would do you some good, I think.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker


I am there, with you...it is true...and oh, yeah, JC thought it true, too...see:


Now, when we search the New Testament Scriptures, we certainly find many interesting statements Jesus made that relate to this issue. For instance:

1. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female (Mark 10:6).This makes it clear that Jesus taught the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed ‘from the beginning ’–not billions of years after the universe and Earth came into existence.



Doesn't demonstrate anything you want it to demonstrate.

All it does is confirm that Jesus was an initiated Jewish male and knew the Jewish mythology as passed down in the Torah.

Why you would turn this from a "why isn't it taught"? thread to a "Jesus" thread, I'l never know.

Have you decided that you have received a satisfactory answer? IN that case why not start another thread asking "And what about the Buffalo Empty Tomb?"

By the way, since you seem to be eager to hand out research question for others, here is one for you related to your off topic sub-plot: Does the Bible record whether Jesus was married or not? Here's a hint: the answer is much more obvious than some of your supposed proofs of 'unknowable science' recorded in the Bible.

And while I am on the topic of 'unknowable science' recorded in the Bible, we might as well have one that IS related to your topic. The Torah actually records an undeniable knowledge of an Earth that is well over 25 million years old (we know it is much older than that, but 25 mil is a loooonnnngggg way from 6000), although that is hidden a good deal deeper than any of your proofs. Put that in your research pile and find it.

Please don't come back until you have at least tried.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Answer to OPs question:
Simply because its not confirmed theory backed by evidence, only a wild unproven hypothesis with religious ideologic background. It doesnt belong to science class, because only proven theories should be teached there. Like evolution.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


????

Why would an all powerful God, who wanted to convey a clear message....hide information?

We have difference premises I guess...

Who would want a God who plays, "cat and mouse?"



OT



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Answer to OPs question:
Simply because its not confirmed theory backed by evidence, only a wild unproven hypothesis with religious ideologic background. It doesnt belong to science class, because only proven theories should be teached there. Like evolution.


please explain.....

"confirmed theory" Is that an oxymoron?

The word would be "LAW"

And OT doesn't see that word used much on the evolution sites/books/periodicals...

But there is a LAW that questions your evolution...you see...

Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements.6 Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.7

However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world


more if interested here: www.christiananswers.net...



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

please explain.....

"confirmed theory" Is that an oxymoron?

The word would be "LAW"

And OT doesn't see that word used much on the evolution sites/books/periodicals...



No, confirmed theory is not an oxymoron. Theory is a collection of laws explaining some phenomenon, and there are confirmed theories, like theory of relativity, electromagnetism, quantum theory AND evolution.
Even in school you learn theory. Does that mean its not proven? I dont think so...

And there are also some unproven theories (also called hypotheses) like string theory.


Originally posted by OldThinker
Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements.6 Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.7

However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.


Thats one of the classic arguments of wannabe creationists, and is of course wrong.
The law states that overall entropy of ISOLATED system cannot decrease (Complexity cannot increase). Is Earth an isolated system? Of course not.
The source of energy driving entropy decrease and evolution on earth is the sun. Overal entropy in the solar system is of course conserved, because entropy of the sun increases as its energy decreases..
Read here:
www.talkorigins.org...

It is simple to see why this statement is wrong, even serious creationists dont believe in such nonsense. That you linked to it only proves that you dont understand basic science so how do you want to disprove evolution?
You have no idea what you are talking about...

Every time a creationist comes up with the thermodynamics argument, god kills a puppy...



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
......It is simple to see why this statement is wrong, even serious creationists dont believe in such nonsense. That you linked to it only proves that you dont understand basic science so how do you want to disprove evolution?
You have no idea what you are talking about...

Every time a creationist comes up with the thermodynamics argument, god kills a puppy...



Funny line about the puppy!


Lil' disappointed in the "no idea what you are talking about..." line, why do you resort to cutting down one that disagrees with you....

6000? 60000? 600000? 6M?

Really not important....

OT

PS: What constitutes a "serious creationist" in your eyes?

Something from nothing?

Life from time, chance?

Very illogical hypothesis


[edit on 5-9-2009 by OldThinker]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



What about genetic entropy?

6 minute vid: www.tangle.com...

Have a nice holiday...OT'll check back Tuesday!




posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
OT - sorry about that line, it was not meant to be an insult. Its just that thermodynamics argument is so absurd.

On the other hand, the genetic entropy argument is a little harder to disprove, because it assumes (correctly), that beneficial mutations, speciation and all the other bells and whistles of evolution are real.

But then it concludes that the ratio of beneficial and harmful mutations and selection pressure is such that the genome is deteriorating, leading to extinction. This is actually a testable prediction, so we are getting somewhere, but I am not a biologist and my preliminary search on the web found nothing on this topic. I will return to it later..

A serious creationist is one with actual degree in biology related to this discussion (genetics, evolutionary biology (
) etc...)



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Why can't Creationists teach an alternative? It's simple really.
Separation of church and State.....it's kind of a big deal.

If people want their kids to learn about their respective religion, they should simply enroll them in a religious school, catechism, bible school, etc etc etc.

It's absolutely asinine to expect kids with different religious backgrounds to learn ONE specific religion. Which religion should be taught? And why should my tax money go to teaching something that I don't personally believe in?

Separation of church and State, the founding fathers were wise indeed.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by mpriebe81]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
OT - www.talkorigins.org...


[edit on 6-9-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien


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...



This is incorrect, is self-refuting and contradictory.

First it states "for an infinite amount of time..." How can it be stated as "time" if it's "infinite"?

Secondly, again if it is "infinite" then it could not also be a "complete" works of Shakespeare. It would of already been "completed".

In other words *IF* heaven is real then Adam died and goes to heaven and when I die I go to heaven and even though Adam dies thousands of years before me when I get to heaven we will have always been there.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TangoVooDoo

Originally posted by Deaf Alien


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...



This is incorrect, is self-refuting and contradictory.

First it states "for an infinite amount of time..." How can it be stated as "time" if it's "infinite"?

Secondly, again if it is "infinite" then it could not also be a "complete" works of Shakespeare. It would of already been "completed".

In other words *IF* heaven is real then Adam died and goes to heaven and when I die I go to heaven and even though Adam dies thousands of years before me when I get to heaven we will have always been there.


Why is it incorrect? Its pretty logical I think.. The mathematical proof is in the wikipedia link. The point is, as the time and number of monkeys approaches infinity, the probability of typing the wanted text approaches one. Of course, its just a thought experiment...
Whats wrong about "infinite amount of time"? And I dont understand your second paragraph...



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I want to point out that infinite monkey theorem is NOT how evolution works. It only shows how random mutation might work but is missing the other important side of the coin - natural selection.

How many strokes are needed to write Hamlet using "evolutionary enhanced monkey theorem" ?

The text of Hamlet contains 130 000 letters.
There are 26 letters in the alphabet (ignoring punctuation).

The monkey randomly types letters, incorrect letters "go extinct", but when it types the right letter, it stays written and the monkey moves to the next letter - simplified natural selection mechanism.

26 times 130 000 = 3 380 000 strokes!


And this is the worst case scenario, because mean probability of writing a correct letter is after 13 strokes, so divide it by two. This is not so implausible, isnt it?


Look at this, quite fascinating... vlab.infotech.monash.edu.au...

[edit on 8-9-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mpriebe81
Why can't Creationists teach an alternative? It's simple really.
Separation of church and State.....it's kind of a big deal.

If people want their kids to learn about their respective religion, they should simply enroll them in a religious school, catechism, bible school, etc etc etc.

It's absolutely asinine to expect kids with different religious backgrounds to learn ONE specific religion. Which religion should be taught? And why should my tax money go to teaching something that I don't personally believe in?

Separation of church and State, the founding fathers were wise indeed.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by mpriebe81]


Downriver, huh? I lived there for 7 years, back in the 90's....Woodhaven...

Miss it!

Now, onto the post, you didn't read the thread did you?

Who's pushing religion onto schools on this thread? You missed the point...

To summarize...those scientists that work in the field, who have related-evidence, that support an ID/creation theory...should not be ignored...as they are now....



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
I want to point out that infinite monkey theorem is NOT how evolution works. It only shows how random mutation might work but is missing the other important side of the coin - natural selection.



Hey Maslo, thx for the clarification on an earlier post!
You have a good holiday?

OT

PS: Where'd the:
monkey,
letters,
typewriter,
keyboard,
ink,
paper...

...come from?



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
OT

PS: Where'd the:
monkey,
letters,
typewriter,
keyboard,
ink,
paper...

...come from?


So you are asking me how life started? I dont know, and if I did, I would get a Nobel prize, because nobody knows for sure. But we have a few educated guesses, like abiogenesis...
Notice that they DO NOT teach anything about how life started in school, because there arent any proven theories yet.

But this has nothing to do with evolution, it doesnt speak about how life started, only about its development after appearance. Just like infinite monkey theorem doesnt speak about how the things you mentioned came into existence, only what they do after that.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Hey, if you are still around, I started a new one here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Come on by, ok?

OT



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by TangoVooDoo

Originally posted by Deaf Alien


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...



This is incorrect, is self-refuting and contradictory.

First it states "for an infinite amount of time..." How can it be stated as "time" if it's "infinite"?

Secondly, again if it is "infinite" then it could not also be a "complete" works of Shakespeare. It would of already been "completed".

In other words *IF* heaven is real then Adam died and goes to heaven and when I die I go to heaven and even though Adam dies thousands of years before me when I get to heaven we will have always been there.


Why is it incorrect? Its pretty logical I think.. The mathematical proof is in the wikipedia link. The point is, as the time and number of monkeys approaches infinity, the probability of typing the wanted text approaches one. Of course, its just a thought experiment...
Whats wrong about "infinite amount of time"? And I dont understand your second paragraph...


Hello,

My point in that is the wording of the argument. If we are speaking of "infinite" then would it not mean that the monkey is typing forever? If so then why use the word "time" which indicates a period of time?

Also if a monkey is outside of time and space, which I believe would be required for the monkey to type for and "infinite amount of time" (I base that on the average life span of a money vs a monkey that is eternal) then could anything ever really be "completed", such as a book?

So we must first have a monkey that is eternal in order for him to type without end on an eternal typewriter with a never ending supply of paper, ribbon and ink. So to show the possibility of this complex universe just happening and that there is no need for an eternal being such as God to be the cause of it a theorem is created using an eternal monkey to demonstrate it?




top topics



 
11
<< 29  30  31    33  34 >>

log in

join