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: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by OldThinker
 


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



Nah, don't worry, here's some more ok?


In his book The Design Inference, William Dembski introduces the "explanatory filter" as a device to rule out chance explanations and infer design of observed phenomena. The filter also appears in his book No Free Lunch, where the description differs slightly. In essence, the filter is a variation on statistical hypothesis testing with the main difference being that it aims at ruling out chance altogether, rather than just a specified null hypothesis. Once all chance explanations have been ruled out, ‘design' is inferred. Thus, in this context, design is merely viewed as the complement of chance.

To illustrate the filter, Dembski uses the example of Nicholas Caputo, a New Jersey Democrat who was in charge of putting together the ballots in his county. Names were to be listed in random order, and, supposedly, there is an advantage in having the top line of the ballot. As Caputo managed to place a Democrat on the top line in 40 out of 41 elections, he was suspected of cheating. In Dembski's terminology, cheating now plays the role of design, which is inferred by ruling out chance.

Let us first look at how a statistician might approach the Caputo case. The way in which Caputo was supposed to draw names gives rise to a null hypothesis H0 : p = 1/2 and an alternative hypothesis HA : p > ½, where p is the probability of drawing a Democrat. A standard binomial test of p = 1/2 based on the observed relative frequency ˆp = 40/41 ≈ 0.98 gives a solid rejection of H0 in favor of HA with a p-value of less than 1 in 50 billion, assuming independent drawings. A statistician could also consider the possibility of different values of p in different drawings, or dependence between listings for different races.

What then would a ‘design theorist' do differently? To apply Dembski's filter and infer design, we need to rule out all chance explanations; that is, we need to rule out both H0 and HA. There is no way to do so with certainty, and, to continue, we need to use methods other than probability calculations. Dembski's solution is to take Caputo's word that he did not use a flawed randomization device and conclude that the only relevant chance hypothesis is H0. It might sound questionable to trust a man who is charged with cheating, but as it hardly makes a difference to the case whether Caputo cheated by "intelligent design" or by "intelligent chance," let us not quibble, but generously accept that the explanatory filter reaches the same conclusion as the test: Caputo cheated. The shortcomings of the filter are nevertheless obvious, even in such a simple example.


source for more: www.talkreason.org...

OT




posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Well, the chance of a royal flush is 1 in 649,740. Now, given billions of years or trillions of years, what is the chance of getting a royal flush?

You say it's impossible in a few years. You are right. It's very improbable in a few years. But it's more probable in a million of years, right?

You based your assumptions on that this is the only one universe and that it is not this long.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Posters, OT's got to go to dinner....


I'll check back later....


Just fly into LA (America)...


Thank you all for the many replies....I am glad you have seen fit to join....


See you all in a bit, OK?

OT



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I do get your meaning as to your question. Why are all or most of the scientists that are believers looked down on by mainstream scientists? I at least think that is your question. My answer would be this. For any brilliant mind to make a leap forward, they have to take a leap of faith first. Like a knowing first with no physical proof yet. Some people need their own kind of proof and will not accept your proof. If they do not accept your proof then their is no convincing them. And since mainstream science is in charge of science, at least in their minds, they will see you as unfit to observe. ... correct ....proof.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


maybe if you had read my entire post before replying to me then you would have got to the bit where i explain that.......



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by madeioo
 

lol. I do not consider gravity a theory. It is a fact. I don't need to jump off a cliff to know i will fall. I call that commen since.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


science calls it a theory, so when crazy creationists say 'but thats just a theory' thats why we laugh at them - they don't even know how to use science words properly, do we really think they know more than the scientists?!?!?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Just a couple of questions:

If a creationist couple, both white skinned, blond and blue eyed get pregnant and when the baby is born it comes out brown skinned, brown eyed and brown hair, did Jesus made it that colour?

Do creationists believe in selective breeding?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NatureBoy
 


lol. Words used properly. Lol. No I have always lacked with english and grammar skills. I guess i will have to look up the definition of theory.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by NatureBoy
 


6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

Well one of us is wrong.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by madeioo
 


lol...Well yeah.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I do get your meaning as to your question. Why are all or most of the scientists that are believers looked down on by mainstream scientists? ....


Back from dinner...

Conclusion, you have got it!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do others, good folks, IGNORE?

This is not TRYING to prove a THEORY...

But........

An ANSWER...to a question???????

IS IT HARD?

Well, here it goes again......re read the OP...


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

hm???????




Come on guys, let's try and NOT OUTSMART EACH OTHER...answer the OP, ok?

OT



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Because 'god did it' isn't science.

Because you never sift through facts in order to build a predetermined conclusion - and Creationism or whatever other flavor of 'god did it' cannot be anything other than that - after all, you already have all your answers in the bible.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by madeioo
Just a couple of questions:

If a creationist couple, both white skinned, blond and blue eyed get pregnant and when the baby is born it comes out brown skinned, brown eyed and brown hair, did Jesus made it that colour?

Do creationists believe in selective breeding?



PLEEEEEEAse.......

I have NO hair.....so did my 4 kids!!!!!!!!!!!!


Irrevelant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Answer the OP....ok?

Is it FAIR that those who follow JC, believe in a creator are 'ostracized'?

Main Entry: os·tra·cize
Pronunciation: \-ˌsīz\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): os·tra·cized; os·tra·ciz·ing
Etymology: Greek ostrakizein to banish by voting with potsherds, from ostrakon shell, potsherd — more at oyster
Date: 1649
1 : to exile by ostracism
2 : to exclude from a group by common consent


Simple link.... www.merriam-webster.com...

OT



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Maybe that is it. Maybe they are afraid that Creationists will start pointing out well the proof that they have and get more and more followers and well you know the rest of the story.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jadette
Because 'god did it' isn't science.

Because you never sift through facts in order to build a predetermined conclusion - and Creationism or whatever other flavor of 'god did it' cannot be anything other than that - after all, you already have all your answers in the bible.




Are you reading another thread? Maybe posting on the wrong one...... ????????


OT



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jadette
Because 'god did it' isn't science.




???????

Who said it was....the OP is asking ANOTHER question, did you read?

Come on!!!!!!

OT

PS: btw, many many DISAGREE WITH YOU....MANY SMART ONES like....

Napoleon, Emperor of the French (1804-1814), 1769-1821
“The gospel is not a book; it is a living being, with an action, a power, which invades every thing that opposes its extension, behold! It is upon this table: This book, surpassing all others. I never omit to read it, and every day with some pleasure.”


Pascal, French philosopher and mathematician, developed the modern theory of probability, 1623-1662

“I prefer to believe those writers who get their throats cut for what they write.”


Isaac Newton, English mathematician and scientist, 1642-1727

“We account the scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.”


Voltaire, French infidel, died 1778

- said that within 100 years of his time, Christianity would be swept away from existence and pass into the obscurity of history.

-Yet 50 years after his death, the Geneva Bible Society used his house and printing press to produce stacks of Bibles.


Robert Dick Wilson, fluent in more than 45 languages and dialects

Concluded after a lifetime study of the Old Testament:

“I may add that the result of my 45 years of study of the Bible has led me all the time to a firmer faith that in the Old Testament, we have a true historical account of the history of the Israelite people.”


The Cambridge History of the Bible

“No other book has known anything approaching this constant circulation.”


Pope Pius X, 1903

On p. 763 Revision of the Challoner, Rheims version, edited by R. C. Scholars:

“The more we read the gospel, the stronger our faith becomes.”


St. Jerome, Roman Catholic church father

“Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”


Sir Ambrose Flemming, British electrical engineer and inventor, 1849-1945

“We must not build on the sands of an uncertain and everchanging science…but upon the rock of inspired Scriptures.”


Jean Jacques Rousseau, French skeptic

“Jewish authors would never have invented either that style nor that morality; and the Gospel has marks of truth so great, so striking, so utterly inimitable, that the invention of it would be more astonishing than the hero.”


Patrick Henry, American Revolutionary leader and orator, 1736-1799

“There is a book worth all other books which were ever printed.”


President Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States

“Of the many influences that have shaped the United States into a distinctive nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible.”


President George Washington, First President of the United States

“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”


Immanuel Kant, German idealist philosopher, 1724-1804

“I believe that the existence of the Bible is the greatest benefit to the human race. Any attempt to belittle it, I believe, is a crime against humanity.”


Robert E. Lee, Civil War General who fought for the Southern Confederacy:

“In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength.”


Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States, 1809-1865

“I am busily engaged in the study of the Bible. I believe it is God’s word because it finds me where I am.”

“I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good of the Savior of the world is communicated to us through the Book.”


Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States, 1856-1924

“When you have read the Bible, you know it is the word of God, because it is the key to your heart, your own happiness, and your own duty.”


Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States, 1858-1919

“A thorough understanding of the Bible is better than a college education.”


Citations

- There are 32,000 citations of the N.T. in the writings of the Church fathers written prior to the Council of Nice (A.D. 325).


Daniel Webster, American politician and noted orator, 1782-1852

“I believe that the Bible is to be understood and received in the plain and obvious meaning of its passages; for I cannot persuade myself that a book intended for the instruction and conversion of the whole world should cover its true meaning in any such mystery and doubt that none but critics and philosophers can discover it.”

“Education is useless without the Bible.”


source: www.why-the-bible.com...

I only raise these, because you asserted some foolishness....but the OP still stands, please answer, if you will




OT



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I think science has become a religion. Any thoughts on this?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I think science has become a religion. Any thoughts on this?




Friend, that is a deep question....can we save it for another thread?


I am trying to get the skeptics/atheists/non-beleivers to STEP UP here....

failing miserably, I might add...


Why can’t Creationists teach an alternative?

That's all....

Why can’t Creationists teach an alternative?


OT just ASKIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

C, you are great for stepping in here.....



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
Oh my.... this should be interesting.


Creationism (Intelligent Design) should not be taught in school for two very good reasons.

1. Evolution is only a Theory.

2. Intelligent Design does not even QUALIFY as a theory.

Do you want to know more?

-Edrtick


No problem with your choice of beliefs but think about this for a moment ???

Ref. 2.

Intelligent Design does not even QUALIFY as a theory.


Didn't YOU Create Your Post to this thread ???

Perhaps Not after all ???

You seem to deny, what YOU Create, or are you just Automatic Biological Robotics, that has No Life ???

I would suggest if I may, that there are two parts to you ???

a. The observer or Cognisance ???

b. That which is being Observed, Human, Biological Robotics and its Environment; the Earth & Universe ???

Take a look at your Hand...

Is it Aware of You ???

Or are YOU, the "Cognisance" aware of the Hand ???

What's your Problem with Intelligence ???

I know Intelligence exists behind most Biological Robotics, and I for one don't have a problem with this.

Are people Really that ashamed of LIFE or "Cognisance" being Intelligent, that they should Reject the very existence of Intelligence and "Cognisance" ???

I would hope, that their "Cognisance" makes choices and Create Threads, Posts, other experiences, and situations, based on "Intelligence" or should I say Intelligent Design ???

Have YOU really never Created a Situation in your Life ???

I find that hard to believe.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join