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: 33
11
<< 30  31  32    34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TangoVooDoo
 


Nice clarification Tango!

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

OT




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:25 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.

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]


I understand this and grasp it but there are problems.

This statement of yours I find troubling.




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.


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



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TangoVooDoo


Originally posted by Maslo
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.


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?


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..



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TangoVooDoo

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?


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.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by TangoVooDoo


Originally posted by Maslo
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.


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?


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..


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



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

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.



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.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
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!



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


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

Quote.


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.


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?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by malcolm420
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.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
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 ???



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by malcolm420
 


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



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
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?



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by HeHasNoName
 


Because TRUTH is not so cut and dry my friend!

Period...

OT



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Why can't holocaust deniers teach their alternative hypothesis? What are historians and anthropologists SO afraid of? I thought they had well documented proof that the holocaust transpired?

Additionally, just because Newton says something doesn't make it true. And what evidence do you have that Einstein or any of these scientists would be refused tenure? You make a bold claim along the lines of "they factored God into the framework of their ideas" and then don't elaborate on it at all. Don't just assert, explain.
edit on 14-10-2010 by Tetrarch42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 03:17 AM
link   
If we were to teach creationism along with evolution, we could also teach alchemy along with chemistry, astrology along with astronomy, numerology along with maths etc..
There is a reason why we teach only theories accepted by scientific community.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted 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?


[edit on 17-8-2009 by OldThinker]


1) I didn't bother to watch it - I've seen all these tired issues done better by Kent Hovind, Michael Behe, William Dembski, and all that circus.

2) Newton was an avid practitioner of alchemy. Einstein remained unconvinced by quantum mechanics despite its incredible predictive success. We keep good ideas and leave dumb ideas on the turd pile of history.

3) It is possible to be so open minded that your brain falls out. This is the 21st century, not the bronze age.

4) Absolutely love it. If we teach creationism in science class, why don't we also teach Buddhist reincarnation?



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Creationism is not a scientific theory, that is why it cannot be taught. It makes no predictions, has no level of testability whatsoever, and doesn't really explain anything.

I've provided a thread where people can try to prove creationism, nobody seems to have even bothered. Why? Well, there's no proof, no evidence whatsoever. The closest they get is by trying and failing to poke holes in evolution.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Creationism is not a scientific theory, that is why it cannot be taught. It makes no predictions, has no level of testability whatsoever, and doesn't really explain anything.

I've provided a thread where people can try to prove creationism, nobody seems to have even bothered. Why? Well, there's no proof, no evidence whatsoever. The closest they get is by trying and failing to poke holes in evolution.


Not to mention even if evolution were proven wrong tomorrow it would do nothing as far as proving any creationist beliefs.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 30  31  32    34 >>

log in

join