Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But that has nothing to do with irresponsible complexity.What specific piece can you remove from a mousetrap and it still catch mice?
-- then --Uh-huh.
And I'm Genghis Khan.
Embedded Age is: maturity without history.
Without history ≠ false history.
No, I'm a college math professor. I know what real teaching of science is.Rhetoric.
No, I'm a college math professor. I know what real teaching of science is.
But we set up the system to make teaching science possible, therefore, we must understand it.Teachings maths is no the same as teaching science.
But we set up the system to make teaching science possible, therefore, we must understand it.
Okay, let's state the argument from basics.Mmmm... yes and no. You can know the system FOR teaching science if you can teach maths, but just because you teach maths does not necessarily mean that you know how to teach science.
Okay, let's state the argument from basics.
Science serves two purposes, to know how to engineer the world to get it to do what we wish to do, and to help us gain new understanding of the world.
Evolution or creationism, or for that matter, any statement of what happened thousands of years, serves no purpose in helping us engineer the world today. Whether God created the world, or the big bang did, and whether it was a billion years ago, or six thousand years ago, means nothing if we know how the world works today. So, this part of science must be to help us gain understanding of the world.
What we have is several competing theories, normally summarized by two extremes, called creation and evolution. If we are to use them to teach people to gain new understanding of the world, then learning the supposed facts of either theory is irrelevant, until we learn to take these assertions and prove them out one way or the other.
And that is what my first post claimed. Either theory can give us something to prove or disprove.
Okay, let's state the argument from basics.
Science serves two purposes, to know how to engineer the world to get it to do what we wish to do, and to help us gain new understanding of the world.
Evolution or creationism, or for that matter, any statement of what happened thousands of years, serves no purpose in helping us engineer the world today. Whether God created the world, or the big bang did, and whether it was a billion years ago, or six thousand years ago, means nothing if we know how the world works today. So, this part of science must be to help us gain understanding of the world.
What we have is several competing theories, normally summarized by two extremes, called creation and evolution. If we are to use them to teach people to gain new understanding of the world, then learning the supposed facts of either theory is irrelevant, until we learn to take these assertions and prove them out one way or the other.
And that is what my first post claimed. Either theory can give us something to prove or disprove.
Not by the same person with the same numbers . Which is more probable than abiogenesis or the DNA, cell structure and function of an "alleged simple"living single cell occurring on it's own ..
Since it is currently not known how life came about, by definition one cannot calculate the probability of it happening.
Oh really , that's why billions of years are continually added to attempt to cover the improbability , maybe Ken knows the mathematical theory that states when a thing becomes so statistically improbable it becomes impossible ..
Please show us your calculations that show this impossibility.
Sorry Skreep. I've seen it explained but I don't remember the name, that is why I thought Ken may know it..
Then you will excuse me when I dismiss your claim as unsupported.
Guys: Stop talking about evolution. For the purposes of this hypothetical, it's already been defeated. You've won. You get to teach an alternative. So what do you teach, and how do you get the entire creationist movement to agree on it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?