The math deals with aided or unaided processes; that may or may not be God. The math shows that some form of bias is required.
Posted on 01/22/2005 7:38:12 AM PST by PatrickHenry
A movement to drag the teaching of science in the United States back into the Dark Ages continues to gain momentum. So far, it's a handful of judges -- "activist judges" in the view of their critics -- who are preventing the spread of Saudi-style religious dogma into more and more of America's public-school classrooms.
The ruling this month in Georgia by Federal District Judge Clarence Cooper ordering the Cobb County School Board to remove stickers it had inserted in biology textbooks questioning Darwin's theory of evolution is being appealed by the suburban Atlanta district. Similar legal battles pitting evolution against biblical creationism are erupting across the country. Judges are conscientiously observing the constitutionally required separation of church and state, and specifically a 1987 Supreme Court ruling forbidding the teaching of creationism, a religious belief, in public schools. But seekers of scientific truth have to be unnerved by a November 2004 CBS News poll in which nearly two-thirds of Americans favored teaching creationism, the notion that God created heaven and earth in six days, alongside evolution in schools.
If this style of "science" ever took hold in U.S. schools, it is safe to say that as a nation we could well be headed for Third World status, along with everything that dire label implies. Much of the Arab world is stuck in a miasma of imam-enforced repression and non-thought. Could it happen here? Our Constitution protects creativity and dissent, but no civilization has lasted forever, and our current national leaders seem happy with the present trends.
It is the creationists, of course, who forecast doom if U.S. schools follow a secularist path. Science, however, by its nature, relies on evidence, and all the fossil and other evidence points toward an evolved human species over millions of years on a planet tens of millions of years old [ooops!] in a universe over two billion years in existence [ooops again!].
Some creationists are promoting an idea they call "intelligent design" as an alternative to Darwinism, eliminating the randomness and survival-of-the-fittest of Darwinian thought. But, again, no evidence exists to support any theory of evolution except Charles Darwin's. Science classes can only teach the scientific method or they become meaningless.
Many creationists say that teaching Darwin is tantamount to teaching atheism, but most science teachers, believers as well as non-believers, scoff at that. The Rev. Warren Eschbach, a professor at Lutheran Theological Seminary in Gettysburg, Pa., believes that "science is figuring out what God has already done" and the book of Genesis was never "meant to be a science textbook for the 21st century." Rev. Eschbach is the father of Robert Eschbach, one of the science teachers in Dover, Pa., who refused to teach a school-board-mandated statement to biology students criticizing the theory of evolution and promoting intelligent design. Last week, the school district gathered students together and the statement was read to them by an assistant superintendent.
Similar pro-creationist initiatives are underway in Texas, Wisconsin and South Carolina. And a newly elected creationist majority on the state board of education in Kansas plans to rewrite the entire state's science curriculum this spring. This means the state's public-school science teachers will have to choose between being scientists or ayatollahs -- or perhaps abandoning their students and fleeing Kansas, like academic truth-seekers in China in the 1980s or Tehran today.
Question. What exactly is the probabability you have for life to have been created without God?
Another method.
Each day, throw a single die twice (re-throw on a 6). Do this 5 times; take the 5 digit number as seed to your RNG. Let the RNG select the articles.
Please cut to the bottom line. What is the probability?
The math deals with aided or unaided processes; that may or may not be God. The math shows that some form of bias is required.
No it is not. It applies only to random processes.
What is the probability for the unaided process?
How long is your sequence, and do you have more than one?
It's your math. What is the probability?
That's incorrect. It applies to unaided processes; "randomness" (as opposed to merely being "unaided") is used merely as an educational tool to dumb down the mathematical discussion.
Which, as you can see by the sheer volume of drivel posted already in response to that math, was a minimum required intellectual tool.
Yet another mistaken impression, then.
"It's your math. What is the probability?"
The precise mathematical answer will differ based upon the above two questions that you've been avoiding (this was discussed in the link that you seem to keep avoiding).
I offered to walk you through this point earlier (about 100 posts ago when you were bizarrely claiming that you didn't have the time for such learning).
First, identify the shortest amount of base-pairs in the viable DNA of any simple organism.
Come on, you *can* do this; surely this little step isn't so beyond you that you'll have to post non-sequitors, diversions, ad hominems, or otherwise avoid this one simple exercise.
Then provide the probability that I have requested.
Sadsack definitly is off the deep end. But I don't know if I believe that most creationists who make that claim are lying. I think most are honest, they just don't have a clue.
But those on these threads where such discussions have been brought up numerious times and still make claims like this (and the "theory" thing too), I agree are just dishonest. If they had any real way to rebut our claims, they would. But they never even try.
They just shout louder "IT'S ONLY A THEORY" like they were James Carville. Unfortunatly, 45% of the country believes Carville, and these clowns might have an even bigger following.
The word random has a well understood meaning and is fundamentally relevant to the math you presented. The words "aided" and "unaided" are in fact words that are uniquly used to replace the normal "random" used when modeling processes with those functions. Since you have little in the way of knowledge regarding the actual biological process that occurs in reality,; you can't possibly represent the real process with random linear constructions.
Why should I have to answer your questions in order for you to prove your math? Please provide the probability.
Do you not understand that the equations that I gave to you require *you* to plug in values in order to see the corresponding mathematical probabilities?!
Oh, You haven't done your math yet. How can you come to a conclusion if you haven't done your math yet.
We know that viable DNA sequences are long series of base-pairs in precise sequences.
Calculating such probabilities for unaided processes correctly forming any of the known or probable (viable) sequences is therefore well within the realm of modern math.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.