Creationism being taught in schools is a not all bad

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    Same could be said for your faith in evolution'ism', the biggest hoax known to mankind.
    [citation needed]
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rather_Cynical)
    [citation needed]
    You are not going to get any evidence from Racoon, he just denies the science in favour of his almost total literal interpretation of the bible. His actually scientific knowledge is ZERO, a big fat one at that. The best you are going to get is some biblical verses.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    You are not going to get any evidence from Racoon, he just denies the science in favour of his almost total literal interpretation of the bible. His actually scientific knowledge is ZERO, a big fat one at that. The best you are going to get is some biblical verses.
    I don't expect any - I hypothesize that with sufficient indoctrination of any ideology, especially religious ideology, something messes up certain neural connections that critical thinking is no longer possible with notable psychiatric features like marked inclination to violence and verbal abuse, among other symptoms.

    I'd be interested to see if it ever makes it to ICD-11/DSM-6
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    What exactly are you basing this on? Why do you not think that 545,000,000 years is enough time for that? Also, as an aside, multicellular and eukaryotic life predates the Cambrian.
    I remember William LC stating some tiny fraction of a number representing the chance of unguided evolution happening to 'produce' man. I think it was a debate with Hitchens.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    I remember William LC stating some tiny fraction of a number representing the chance of unguided evolution happening to 'produce' man. I think it was a debate with Hitchens.
    The wonder of the immensity of geological time is that even incredibly slow processes become significant. I have no idea who William LC is, by the way.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    I remember William LC stating some tiny fraction of a number representing the chance of unguided evolution happening to 'produce' man. I think it was a debate with Hitchens.
    I think these statistics tend to get quite confused, similar to the "entropy" discussion, because it simply doesn't represent what actually happened. It was never inevitable to create man, it was simply the environmental conditions being right to favour mammalian species - including ones that develop new brain structures for advanced communication and tool use - at the time.

    The geological timescales involved are hard to imagine, not to mention that evolutionary processes aren't random. The "favourable genes" are kept and the vast majority in orders of (100 - 10^{-100})% die. The miniscule chance becomes reasonable when you consider these pieces of the puzzle.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    The wonder of the immensity of geological time is that even incredibly slow processes become significant. I have no idea who William LC is, by the way.
    Well yes. But apparently there wasn't enough 'time' for man to evolve (the chance of it happening was really low).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rather_Cynical)
    I think these statistics tend to get quite confused, similar to the "entropy" discussion, because it simply doesn't represent what actually happened. It was never inevitable to create man, it was simply the environmental conditions being right to favour mammalian species - including ones that develop new brain structures for advanced communication and tool use - at the time.

    The geological timescales involved are hard to imagine, not to mention that evolutionary processes aren't random. The "favourable genes" are kept and the vast majority in orders of (100 - 10^{-100})% die. The miniscule chance becomes reasonable when you consider these pieces of the puzzle.
    Or we could assign a number to the chance of any mutation happening by observation and sort of work from there? I'm not sure how many of the concepts of natural selection was taken into account.

    I think what creationists mean by guided is the helpful mutations are brought by God quicker than they should be if unguided. Bad explanation. :/
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Well yes. But apparently there wasn't enough 'time' for man to evolve (the chance of it happening was really low).
    These arguments aren't quantative in any way to come to that conclusion, it's based mostly on poor argument and conjecture. It can be safely dismissed as unsupported nonsense.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Well yes. But apparently there wasn't enough 'time' for man to evolve (the chance of it happening was really low).
    I have absolutely no idea what William LC's credentials or what is methodology or rationale is but the overwhelming and pretty much undisputed scientific consensus is that there has been plenty of time for man to evolve. It is an outstanding scientific theory that does an excellent job of explaining observations and if this William LC had come up with a scientifically valid argument disproving evolution as the mechanism behind the emergence of man then he would be the proud owner of a Nobel prize by now.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    I remember William LC stating some tiny fraction of a number representing the chance of unguided evolution happening to 'produce' man. I think it was a debate with Hitchens.
    William Lane Craig deals in philosophy/religious apologetics, he has no science, so he is probably quoting. Of course it is easy to find scientists who will pooh pooh these kind of things. If you are going to believe what non-scientist/mathematician say about the universe then you are just regurgitating the apologetics. We have no way of determining how long it would take for an intelligent species to evolve. You are probably talking about probabilities of an uncreated universe, and we are then in the realms of philosophy not science.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    William Lane Craig deals in philosophy/religious apologetics, he has no science, so he is probably quoting. Of course it is easy to find scientists who will pooh pooh these kind of things. If you are going to believe what non-scientist/mathematician say about the universe then you are just regurgitating the apologetics. We have no way of determining how long it would take for an intelligent species to evolve. You are probably talking about probabilities of an uncreated universe, and we are then in the realms of philosophy not science.
    I think he is talking about times when Craig alludes to the sheer improbability of a protein assembly naturally by random chance (mostly I think he is talking in terms of the origin of life but it think he tries to make the point for random mutation too). You look for citations and you realise its from Stephen Meyer He should leave that crowd alone rather than try to balance a fine line between the two sides.

    The typical creationist spiel tends to go something like this:
    'If we assume 10^30 life forms with a fast replication rate of 30 minutes and a huge genome with a very high mutation rate over a period of 10 billion years, an extreme upper limit for the total number of mutations for all of life’s history would be around 10^43. Unfortunately, a protein domain such as Ribosomal S7 would require a minimum average of 10^100 trials, about 10^57 trials more than the entire theoretical history of life could provide – and this is only for one domain. Forget about ‘finding’ an average sized protein, not to mention thousands.'

    winteryknight.com/2015/07/30/new-software-calculates-the-probability-of-generating-functional-proteins-by-chance


    Unsurprisingly its not kidding anyone.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    The arrogance of atheists knows no bounds. How are you going to contradict creationism when there is just so much evidence for it.
    There's no evidence for it.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 16, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.