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

reply to post by TangoVooDoo

---

Nice clarification Tango!

Here's a new one for your pondering...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

OT

I understand this and grasp it but there are problems.

This statement of yours I find troubling.




This would require an outside intelligence to create a program that could identify when a correct letter/punctuation was typed. If not then we are giving the monkey an intelligence it doesn't have, agreed?

Thank you

In the monkey theorem, yes It would require outside intelligence. But as I wrote, in evolution the natural selection is accomplished by the environment conditions (survival of the fittest), not by any outside intelligence..

Hi,

well, I dont think it is the wording that is so important, but the concept behind it is. The point of the whole theorem is that random data generators can, given enough time, replicate for example Hamlet. As the running time and number of generators approaches infinity, the probability approaches one. And yes, it substitutes intelligence with brute force and long time.

Very well. Glad to see we are able to agree upon that, thank you.

This overlooks a few very important details and the critical one being that Hamlet is an already crafted piece. It was created by an intelligent being with reason, imagination and sought to convey a story or message. A monkey would seek to then copy an already created piece.

Should not the monkey create his own literary piece, especially given that he has already been given the paper, ink and typewriter? Yes I know, all analogies when stretched too far crumble, perhaps I have taken it to its breaking point.

Interesting thoughts though.

Guys, thx for the effort on this thread, OT thinks it may be done....

Here's a new one, with new ideas, your thoughts?

About the Central Limit Theorem here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

OT Out!

reply to post by Maslo

---

I find all this very Interesting and you raise an interesting point...

Quote.



All these theories are just fine, but where the hell, did the concept of anything come from in the first place, and what caused concepts to evolve?

What produces a Concept?

Religion is perhaps based on Faith, but Science is also based on faith.

i.e. the faith in the ability of human primates to observe and understand what they observe fully and correctly.

If all is produced by chance, which may be in Fact the case, what was the first thing to exist, even if it has always been.

Time is only a human concept...

Time is "a measurement of the rate of change in things".

Time and a duration of time are two different things.

One is the rate of change, and the other the duration the change is recorded over.

Perhaps it is like in the case of a musical or video CD?

All exists at the same time, but it only releases the impression of time, when plaid in the CD Player.

It is all very well to portray Ideas and Concepts, but Where did these come from and how are they implemented and by what.

It is easy to write a book for some, but Concepts are still required first, or the book never gets written. Motivation and action is also required...

So where do these come from and what are the mechanics behind this?

It is easy to say a concept comes from the Mind, but What produce this whole happening in the first place and Why?

Evolution is Conceptual and requires Faith in that Concept, to Support whether it may be right or wrong?

For natural sellection to take place, there has to be something in the first place, for this to occure in and to ?

Perhaps Concept is a byproduct, of something humankind is not willing or unable to perceive at this stage of their development ?

What is your understanding on this?

this may not pertain exacally to this subject but i have a theory of existance and i need some open minded peoples thoughts on it:
everything is nothing and nothing is everything just like a thought or memory can hold colors, textures, and even smells. everything we know in existance is just an echo of a thought and every thought we have is just amplifying the echo that is our existance while possibly creating new echos of existances. like they say god always was and always will be and is inside of everyone just like nothing always was and always will be and is inside everyone (if this is correct). the nothing is everything and something in itself, it may be a creation of a higher power or god himself.

If everything is nothing does this not contradict itself?

First you would have to define what you mean by "nothing"? In other words what exactly is "nothing" because we can't really think of it?. One might say, "Well nothing is like a blank chalk board" Yet this is something, not nothing.

Others might say, "Nothing is non-existence" How though do we know that?

If you mean to say that what we are experiencing is an "illusion" of "something" then I would have to ask how is it you can know what is an "illusion" if you have no idea what reality is? In other words in order for you to claim this is an illusion you must first know what reality is, much like being in a dream. How do you know you're dreaming? Well you wake up.

"A" cannot be both "A" and "B" at the same time likewise something cannot be also nothing.

reply to post by TangoVooDoo

---

But Nothing is a very, very, strange component indead, as it is the only component this both at the same time.... LOL

Nothing is Something, which is Nothing.... Think about it ???

i have a better understanding of it in my mind but its hard to form into words. i stumbled upon it all at once while i was thinking one night and it felt realy strange and overwelming almost like a sudden fear of the fact that i had figured it out.

reply to post by malcolm420

---

Nothing can also have shape, defined by the shape of its boundaries, or that which contains it ????

To answer the thread title:

Creationism, and any number of its variations and alternatives can be taught. And are taught. Theyre taught in places called churches (or mosques, or whatever), and by parents.

Theyre even taught in Schools. Schools who have a religious leaning, or in subjects about religion.

The whole issue comes down to when its shoehorned into science classes.

Why cant evolution, and the alternative to god (ie. there isnt one, or there is a different one) be taught during sunday mass?

reply to post by HeHasNoName

---

Because TRUTH is not so cut and dry my friend!

Period...

OT