Page 14 of 75 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 749

Thread: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164, 712]

  1. #131
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    Well it isn't.

    Sorry.

  2. #132
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,713

    re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    You know, it's actually OK to say "I don't know what happened during the creation of the universe." instead of either making a bearded sky man responsible for it or trying to deduce it on a white board.
    Right....the 'Now' theory.

    Whats funny to me is people that get their faith and belief system from Google and competing theories composed by others then ridiculing others for a belief system. And I mean that just as it is written. Its FUNNY to me to see condescending people that have never done a days research themselves, read theories and articles and research done by others and promote that as their own version of faith...but a superior faith because...while those theories are often proven wrong or at LEAST cant be proven right, they are based on 'science'.

  3. #133
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,713

    re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    1. Particle decay is not a theory. It was proven true less than 2 years ago.
    2. They are emitted when a charged particle is accelerated. They also can be released when a molecule, atom or nucleus goes from one energy state to another. Finally, photons are released when a particle and its antiparticle are annihilated.




    What about them? Some have been discredited, some are being studied in an effort to prove them. You're shooting yourself in this foot by following this approach. The creator origin simply can't be proven by any means. So it's not even a competing theory. The fact that there are competing theories for how the universe came to be is not a sign that science itself is wrong, it is proof that the religious answer (i.e. the creator) was found to be insufficient. So what exactly are you arguing against?
    Im waiting for you to state definitively that without question, the science is settled and you know of the origins of the cosmos including the origins of the photons (which ALSO includes the origins of whatever MADE them).

    All you have done is Googled and posted articles, many of them competing and disagreeing with each other, that offer theories into what MAY have happened. My point is not that the religious faith based foundation that there is a God and that God somehow made all this happen is 'right'...only that you and people like you speak derisively of faith based individuals while you desperately Google articles to give you your own version of faith and knowledge, then offer up competing 'theories' as your 'proof' are no different. Unless someone actually has proof they do not know (religious or science based), they 'believe'. They theorize. And worse...some cling to someone ELSES theory and belief.

  4. #134
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,587

    re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Right....the 'Now' theory.

    Whats funny to me is people that get their faith and belief system from Google and competing theories composed by others then ridiculing others for a belief system. And I mean that just as it is written. Its FUNNY to me to see condescending people that have never done a days research themselves, read theories and articles and research done by others and promote that as their own version of faith...but a superior faith because...while those theories are often proven wrong or at LEAST cant be proven right, they are based on 'science'.
    I have no idea what you're talking about with a "now" theory, but at least they're trying to determine what happened and not simply saying "I'm done learning and searching for answers because I read the answer in an ancient book."

    The religious have a nasty habit of sticking their fingers in their ears and just believing what makes them feel the most comfortable. I'm always looking for answers, and if god ever decides to give us some evidence of his existence, I'll be the first to change my view of the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Im waiting for you to state definitively that without question, the science is settled and you know of the origins of the cosmos including the origins of the photons (which ALSO includes the origins of whatever MADE them).

    All you have done is Googled and posted articles, many of them competing and disagreeing with each other, that offer theories into what MAY have happened. My point is not that the religious faith based foundation that there is a God and that God somehow made all this happen is 'right'...only that you and people like you speak derisively of faith based individuals while you desperately Google articles to give you your own version of faith and knowledge, then offer up competing 'theories' as your 'proof' are no different. Unless someone actually has proof they do not know (religious or science based), they 'believe'. They theorize. And worse...some cling to someone ELSES theory and belief.
    That's the beauty of science over religion. Science is NEVER settled. They are always looking for more evidence and more answers.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  5. #135
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,713

    re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    At least they're trying to determine what happened and not simply saying "I'm done learning and searching for answers because I read the answer in an ancient book."

    The religious have a nasty habit of sticking their fingers in their ears and just believing what makes them feel the most comfortable. I'm always looking for answers, and if god ever decides to give us some evidence of his existence, I'll be the first to change my view of the world.
    Some religious people do that. MANY are scientists, researchers, doctors, lawyers, astronauts, physicists, hell...even presidents...that just go on every day working to learn something new.

    Just as MANY people (not YOU obviously) do NO research but are just obnoxious little pricks clinging to the works of others and looking for ways to ridicule others.

  6. #136
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,073

    re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Im waiting for you to state definitively that without question, the science is settled and you know of the origins of the cosmos including the origins of the photons (which ALSO includes the origins of whatever MADE them).

    All you have done is Googled and posted articles, many of them competing and disagreeing with each other, that offer theories into what MAY have happened. My point is not that the religious faith based foundation that there is a God and that God somehow made all this happen is 'right'...only that you and people like you speak derisively of faith based individuals while you desperately Google articles to give you your own version of faith and knowledge, then offer up competing 'theories' as your 'proof' are no different. Unless someone actually has proof they do not know (religious or science based), they 'believe'. They theorize. And worse...some cling to someone ELSES theory and belief.
    Sorry Mack, you're really way out of your league here and it becomes more and more obvious with every post as you desperately grasp at straws. Whether it's the Big Bang, the Incredible Husk or Time's Arrow, does not matter. What has been established is that these SCIENTIFIC THEORIES are backed by more evidence/arguments than the religious explanations which stall at the philosophical level. Now, whether people "cling" to one idea in a way that you think is religious does not matter because that's not what actually happens. What actually happens is various theories compete, arguments are presented, experiments are carried out - the ones to conclusively provide the most evidence & experiments to back up its claim wins. At no point are religious explanations even considered.

    You ask any of the atheists here whether they'd have an existential crisis if the Big Bang was proven false and the Time's Arrow turned out to be true. They would not. It's not because they don't care, it's just that to them these logical, validated, experimented & alternate explanations (even if little understood by them) still provide far more closure than "An absent creator did it".

    In short, when any of these theories are proven true (and again, this argument completely ignores the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific world), people will simply acknowledge it and there will be people like Grimm & Mr. Ham who will continue to abide by the same unchanging book because it provides an existential raison d'Ítre. That's not necessarily a bad thing. However, they shouldn't expect to disprove science with it.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  7. #137
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,713

    re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Sorry Mack, you're really way out of your league here and it becomes more and more obvious with every post as you desperately grasp at straws. Whether it's the Big Bang, the Incredible Husk or Time's Arrow, does not matter. What has been established is that these SCIENTIFIC THEORIES are backed by more evidence/arguments than the religious explanations which stall at the philosophical level. Now, whether people "cling" to one idea in a way that you think is religious does not matter because that's not what actually happens. What actually happens is various theories compete, arguments are presented, experiments are carried out - the ones to conclusively provide the most evidence & experiments to back up its claim wins. At no point are religious explanations even considered.

    You ask any of the atheists here whether they'd have an existential crisis if the Big Bang was proven false and the Time's Arrow turned out to be true. They would not. It's not because they don't care, it's just that to them these logical, validated, experimented & alternate explanations (even if little understood by them) still provide far more closure than "An absent creator did it".

    In short, when any of these theories are proven true (and again, this argument completely ignores the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific world), people will simply acknowledge it and there will be people like Grimm & Mr. Ham who will continue to abide by the same unchanging book because it provides an existential raison d'Ítre. That's not necessarily a bad thing. However, they shouldn't expect to disprove science with it.
    It would have been a much shorter post had you just said "you are right...I too have faith in theories"

  8. #138
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    First off, its science not philosophy. Any philosophical or religious beliefs interjected into such a debate would be irrelevant. As to the question about the prospect of a creative intelligence as in a higher power, that would be introducing a supernatural argument into a scientific debate which is inherently naturalistic. There is no evidence that either proves nor disproves the existence of God, thus science only looks at probabilities when it comes to the existence of God. From a scientific perspective any higher power existing is highly improbable.

    For example, I could assert that a teapot orbits the Sun in an elliptical orbit between Mars and Jupiter. The logical rebuttal to such an assertion would be to ask how do you know there is a teapot in orbit around the sun when have never seen one? To that I would respond that we have not seen the teapot because we do not yet have telescopes strong enough to see such a small object from here, and because it is so small and the search area so vast, it would be extremely hard to find it. I would then go into how you have no evidence at all to disprove the notion that a teapot orbits the Sun between Mars and Jupiter. Science cannot disprove that a teapot orbits the sun, but it can address the probability of that being the case. As one can imagine, the probability of a teapot being in orbit around the Sun is astronomically small. The same is true when science tries to address the question of a supernatural creator capable of creating the universe and all life.
    Science came from philosophy.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #139
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,419

    re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    I'm more concerned with the "ignorant fundamentalists" who come up with fundamental laws that are fundamentally false and only serve to illustrate that many people fail to understand that there is more.to evolution than natural selection.
    If you have a point you should expound on it. Of course there is more to evolution than natural selection. There is gene flow, random mutations as DNA is replicated and so on. Or do you mean some supernatural force at work? If so, what positive empirical evidence can you cite for that one?

    Natural selection simply means that changes in an organism are accumilated gradually as different traits result in different success rates for an organism in its environment. If it's not natural selection then its something supernatural and that is not science.
    Last edited by SouthernDemocrat; 01-04-14 at 10:15 AM.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  10. #140
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,713

    re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    I have no idea what you're talking about with a "now" theory, but at least they're trying to determine what happened and not simply saying "I'm done learning and searching for answers because I read the answer in an ancient book."

    The religious have a nasty habit of sticking their fingers in their ears and just believing what makes them feel the most comfortable. I'm always looking for answers, and if god ever decides to give us some evidence of his existence, I'll be the first to change my view of the world.



    That's the beauty of science over religion. Science is NEVER settled. They are always looking for more evidence and more answers.
    Thats the thing...I'm ALL ABOUT the science and research and discovery. As a person that does have very personal reasons for believing in a God, I can tell you that I believe IF the 'creation' story is true, that it came about DUE TO some form of scientific operation and not magic. I dont believe in magic. I have faith (again for very personal reason) that there is a God and that all things are done through scientific method that we cant even BEGIN to comprehend. But I think the theory and research is great...Im just not so arrogant and stupid as to to ridicule others for their limited belief system and anyone that does that...ESPECIALLY someone that does that based on Googling a few articles...well...thats a hell of a mirror in my book. My position is not which theory is correct but made as to those who promote the theories.

Page 14 of 75 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •