PDA

View Full Version : Ken Ham believes in Dragons...



goldfly
02-06-2014, 12:31 AM
like, fire breathing dragons

and they have a full display of "proof" of them being real


that is the biggest thing i took from going to the "Creation Museum" and the Bill Nye Debate

zitothebrave
02-06-2014, 12:39 AM
like, fire breathing dragons

and they have a full display of "proof" of them being real


that is the biggest thing i took from going to the "Creation Museum" and the Bill Nye Debate

There was an interesting thing on the history channel about Dragons and how you would have explained dragons.

goldfly
02-06-2014, 12:48 AM
There was an interesting thing on the history channel about Dragons and how you would have explained dragons.

was part of that being that a cowboy shot one down 120 or so year ago and using beowulf as factual evidence?

goldfly
02-06-2014, 12:57 AM
http://i1140.photobucket.com/albums/n579/goldfly66/F53EC9F5-0AF8-48B9-B36B-6EF10220C48E_zpsila1iltm.jpg

zitothebrave
02-06-2014, 01:16 AM
was part of that being that a cowboy shot one down 120 or so year ago and using beowulf as factual evidence?

It wasn't ancient aliens.

It was interesting, it basically talked about what it was like for someone who didn't have comprehension of what fossils were and that dinosaurs were extinct, etc. And how something like a dragon could be used to explain earthquakes, volcano's etc. Also partially explains the issues you have with various dragon depictions (like CHinese dragons being different than European dragons) It was interesting actually. Of course before that special they showed the Ancient Aliens special on Dragons which makes me lol.

Krgrecw
02-06-2014, 01:46 AM
Hams a nut job.

50PoundHead
02-06-2014, 09:33 AM
Are you guys trying to tell me that the Flintstones weren't real?

zitothebrave
02-06-2014, 10:41 AM
Are you guys trying to tell me that the Flintstones weren't real?

It would have if Government bureaucrats didn't give rights to those talking animals.

yeezus
02-06-2014, 12:30 PM
Are you guys trying to tell me that the Flintstones weren't real?

I always assumed it was based on a true story. The more you know.

jpx7
02-06-2014, 05:14 PM
It wasn't ancient aliens.

Hold your tongue.


It was interesting, it basically talked about what it was like for someone who didn't have comprehension of what fossils were and that dinosaurs were extinct, etc. And how something like a dragon could be used to explain earthquakes, volcano's etc.

That's always fun speculation. One of my favorites along that vein is the explanation of Mediterranean cyclops mythologies through the prevalence of dwarf elephant fossils across the panoply of small Mediterranean islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_elephant#Mediterranean_Islands)—which lent themselves to patterns of island-dwarfism—largely "because the center nasal opening was thought to be a cyclopic eye socket."

Runnin
02-06-2014, 11:04 PM
I say teach Creationism in schools as long as you also discuss the creation myths of other cultures and religions.

goldfly
02-07-2014, 12:37 AM
I say teach Creationism in schools as long as you also discuss the creation myths of other cultures and religions.

according to Ham

Christianity is the only religion that has the story of how the world was created

seriously



side note: none of them should be taught to kids

Krgrecw
02-07-2014, 08:45 AM
I'm no historian but where does the Christian version of 'God' originate from? Zeus?

yeezus
02-07-2014, 09:13 AM
according to Ham

Christianity is the only religion that has the story of how the world was created

seriously



side note: none of them should be taught to kids

He's just brainwashed. It's almost not his fault. It is legitimate brainwashing.

Gary82
02-07-2014, 09:25 AM
I say teach Creationism in schools as long as you also discuss the creation myths of other cultures and religions.

A mythology class or a world religions class would be just fine. That **** is fascinating, but it doesn't belong in science classes.

The thing is if you taught creationism and intelligent design, you'd have to teach about every religion and culture's idea of how the world began to be objective.

zitothebrave
02-07-2014, 09:27 AM
I'm no historian but where does the Christian version of 'God' originate from? Zeus?

The jewish version of "God"

Gary82
02-07-2014, 09:28 AM
The jewish version of "God"

LOL

Runnin
02-07-2014, 09:46 AM
A mythology class or a world religions class would be just fine. That **** is fascinating, but it doesn't belong in science classes.

The thing is if you taught creationism and intelligent design, you'd have to teach about every religion and culture's idea of how the world began to be objective.
That's why the Fundamentalists are shooting themselves in the foot on this one, as usual.

yeezus
02-07-2014, 09:58 AM
That's why the Fundamentalists are shooting themselves in the foot on this one, as usual.

Right, because if everyone heard the history of all the religions that have existed, and all their origins and stories and everything about them, a lot of them who grew up christian and aren't ingrained to the max, will jump ship. Then they'd just have the old people, and drug addicts.

I think an overall religion class and the effects it has/has had on the world would be great for learning and how things came to be the way they are. But, it's something to learn from, not continue.

weso1
02-07-2014, 03:12 PM
Sounds like Ken Ham believes in Puff, the Magic Dragon.

BedellBrave
02-07-2014, 08:31 PM
A mythology class or a world religions class would be just fine. That **** is fascinating, but it doesn't belong in science classes.

The thing is if you taught creationism and intelligent design, you'd have to teach about every religion and culture's idea of how the world began to be objective.

No you wouldn't. But why expect secular-statist schools to teach that there are other presuppositions out there other than their own? Wouldn't want to do that.

BedellBrave
02-07-2014, 08:32 PM
That's why the Fundamentalists are shooting themselves in the foot on this one, as usual.

Two fundamentalists were on stage. Only one knew it.

BedellBrave
02-07-2014, 08:33 PM
LOL


What's funny about that?

Dalyn
02-07-2014, 08:51 PM
No you wouldn't. But why expect secular-statist schools to teach that there are other presuppositions out there other than their own? Wouldn't want to do that.

Evolution is not a presupposition, and I think you know that.

Dalyn
02-07-2014, 08:53 PM
Two fundamentalists were on stage. Only one knew it.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/files/2014/02/wpid-Photo-Feb-5-2014-114-PM.jpg


Only one sounds like a fundamentalist.

Runnin
02-07-2014, 09:39 PM
Creation myths are fascinating and tell us a lot about the people that "created" them (The myth of the myth. LOL), but they have a shelf life. 2500 years seems long beyond the expiration date to me.

Gary82
02-07-2014, 10:00 PM
What's funny about that?

christian god derives from the jewish god. the fact he completely skip....oh i dont care anymore.

Gary82
02-07-2014, 10:02 PM
No you wouldn't. But why expect secular-statist schools to teach that there are other presuppositions out there other than their own? Wouldn't want to do that.

they can't teach it in science because it isn't science.

zitothebrave
02-07-2014, 10:07 PM
they can't teach it in science because it isn't science.

You mean the bible isn't a scientific text? Guess I need to cancel my plans to be eaten by a whale.

BedellBrave
02-07-2014, 11:55 PM
You guys are hoots!

BedellBrave
02-07-2014, 11:56 PM
they can't teach it in science because it isn't science.


That's convenient. Just write it off by definition. Life is easy for you isn't it?

BedellBrave
02-07-2014, 11:57 PM
You mean the bible isn't a scientific text? Guess I need to cancel my plans to be eaten by a whale.

Who said teach the bible?

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:01 AM
christian god derives from the jewish god. the fact he completely skip....oh i dont care anymore.


Come now. Humor me. "He" who? "Completely skip" what exactly? Surely you can explain the humor.

Gary82
02-08-2014, 12:01 AM
That's convenient. Just write it off by definition. Life is easy for you isn't it?

Hakuna Matata mother ****er.

Is there a scientific theory of intelligent design? Is there recorded observations verifying the hypothesis that life has been created by an intelligent being? Has it been scrutinized by the scientific community?

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:02 AM
Evolution is not a presupposition, and I think you know that.

It certainly entails them and that's what's so funny about this. Nye (and others) are oblivious of that fact.

Gary82
02-08-2014, 12:03 AM
Come now. Humor me. "He" who? "Completely skip" what exactly? Surely you can explain the humor.

kg went straight to Zeus-skipping the Jewish roots. I went HA. The End. Fin.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:05 AM
Hakuna Matata mother ****er.

Is there a scientific theory of intelligent design? Is there recorded observations verifying the hypothesis that life has been created by an intelligent being? Has it been scrutinized by the scientific community?

Better wash that mouth out with soap.

Is there a scientific theory of the origin of matter?

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:07 AM
kg went straight to Zeus-skipping the Jewish roots. I went HA. The End. Fin.

I thought you were laughing at Z. Gotcha.

Gary82
02-08-2014, 12:07 AM
Better wash that mouth out with soap.

Is there a scientific theory of the origin of matter?

**** your soap.

Start with the Big Bang theory and go from there.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:09 AM
they can't teach it in science because it isn't science.


And not all that passes as "science" is science.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:10 AM
**** your soap.

Start with the Big Bang theory and go from there.


Such a foul mouth.

Repeatable, observable?

What went boom?

Gary82
02-08-2014, 12:10 AM
And not all that passes as "science" is science.

like what?

Gary82
02-08-2014, 12:10 AM
Repeatable, observable?

What went boom?

nothing went boom. it's a terrible description of what really happened.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:12 AM
nothing went boom. it's a terrible description of what really happened.

Big bang of what exactly?

Gary82
02-08-2014, 12:17 AM
read up on the big bang. it's pretty neat that a priest of all people is at the forefront of its discovery. i have had too much wine and will depart.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:17 AM
read up on the big bang. it's pretty neat that a priest of all people is at the forefront of its discovery. i have had too much wine and will depart.


Nice, you don't have an answer.

Gary82
02-08-2014, 12:18 AM
Nice, you don't have an answer.

if you want answers. look for them yourself. i have other plans.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:19 AM
if you want answers. look for them yourself. i have other plans.


I don't think you can answer actually.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:44 AM
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/files/2014/02/wpid-Photo-Feb-5-2014-114-PM.jpg


Only one sounds like a fundamentalist.


Not to my ears.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:45 AM
Nice interview with Jack Collins (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geekgoesrogue/2014/01/ham-on-nye-pre-debate-coverage-interview-with-dr-jack-collins/?fb_action_ids=10152170074419275&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B573784336036678%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D)

goldfly
02-08-2014, 02:42 AM
Two fundamentalists were on stage. Only one knew it.

are you saying Tom Foreman is a fundamentalist?

cause if you are saying Bill Nye is a fundamentalist

that is just silly

not as silly as thinking humans and dinos and dragons lived together

but almost

goldfly
02-08-2014, 02:45 AM
Is there a scientific theory of the origin of matter?

it ok in science to say

you don't know

actually, it is the right thing to do

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 10:41 AM
General Relativity and Quantum Theory go a long way, especially when combined.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 10:59 AM
Not to my ears.

You are projecting.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 11:12 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEr-t17m2Fo

Oklahomahawk
02-08-2014, 11:19 AM
Both sides have their own agenda guys, sure you've noticed this. Bible experts tend to say the Bible explains everything (I this is painting with a broad brush Bedell but it's necessary in this case) and it just doesn't and I don't think it's supposed to. This is one area where creationists allow themselves to fall into the trap of "Well God just says so...." God didn't give us all those answers, at least in my opinion he didn't. To me this whole dragon and/or dinosaur thing and early men riding dinosaurs is just silly, it's trying to squeeze everything together into the whole 6 days to create everything philosophy, which IMO just makes Christians look foolish. It's kind of like the Warren Commission deciding before they left for Dallas that Lee Harvey DID act alone and then they just went down there looking for evidence that backed up their end game decision and destroyed or ignored any evidence that didn't support them. It's as if the old spirit of the Catholic Church from Galileo's day is still alive and busy trying to fit everything into its own neat little parameters of everything.

On the other side, science has so much going for it, but that isn't enough apparently. If you go back to the Big Bang, even if all that is correct it doesn't say where the original ingredients that "went bang" came from, does it? Where did those first two (or however many there were) things come from that went bang? Science can't explain that just like they can't explain a lot of other things, so their convenient catch phrase is, "well it happened millions or billions of years ago" line which explains it well enough and is much more of a "well you can't prove I"m wrong" response as anything from the Christian side. Also, why do some science guys choose to try and make old skulls look more ape-like by popping the jaw bone out of its place and "arranging the pieces" to make it look so? Why did they have to change BC (before Christ) to BCE (before the common era)?? Was this done for any reason other than to just remove any religious reference from the world or at least from their world? They didn't even change any of the date references, just the definitions of the letters and what they stand for. Christ existed, he lived and died, this is fact, the Romans, among others kept records. The question from a religious/faith standpoint is what happened after he died. I leave that up to the religious world. It IS a matter of faith, IMO.

Being in the education field I have learned a lot about science, at least the building blocks parts, not the high level theory, I don't need to know that and once you get up there, that's when the finagling of data takes place, to try to prove a point, rather than to try and prove what really happened. Oh and Goldy, do you REALLY think scientists are any more likely to say "we don't know" about anything than Christians are??? Seriously??? They might if it were something trivial or not pertaining to the direct argument of God created vs. It just happened, but it's in those areas you couldn't get them to admit they didn't absolutely didn't know one fact of any sort if you waterboarded them.

I am a firm believer in "evolution" just not a Godless evolution. It may seem silly to you that there's some creator up there somewhere who I can't see yet I still believe in, but how much sillier is it to believe it all just happened, all by itself, we don't know when exactly, we don't know how exactly, and we sure don't know why, "IT JUST HAPPENED", and we don't even know where the stuff that caused it to happen, or what the its were specifically, or what there was before that, or why we're even here, it's all one glorious accident, yeah that doesn't take faith.

You know, ironically Governor John Winthrop's philosophies on Calvinism are also relevant to this discussion as well and Anne Hutchinson's responses shot them to hell.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 11:22 AM
Scientists are DEFINITELY more likely to say "I don't know" than Christians. It happens all the freaking time. It is what drives all scientific discovery. They don't know. They want to know. They try to find out.

Oklahomahawk
02-08-2014, 11:29 AM
Scientists are DEFINITELY more likely to say "I don't know" than Christians. It happens all the freaking time. It is what drives all scientific discovery. They don't know. They want to know. They try to find out.

They might to each other, but they're just as hard headed as any religious person once we get closer to the "money" areas of the argument. I think you're giving the hard core science folks a little too much credit for open mindedness.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 11:30 AM
"We should not be ashamed of not having answers to all questions yet. ... I'm perfectly happy staring somebody in the face saying, 'I don't know yet, and we've got top people working on it.' The moment you feel compelled to provide an answer, then you're doing the same thing that the religious community does: providing answers to every possible question." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Oklahomahawk
02-08-2014, 11:33 AM
"We should not be ashamed of not having answers to all questions yet. ... I'm perfectly happy staring somebody in the face saying, 'I don't know yet, and we've got top people working on it.' The moment you feel compelled to provide an answer, then you're doing the same thing that the religious community does: providing answers to every possible question." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

I don't see anything wrong with this particular statement, because I don't think any side has all the answers if you want to break it down into very fine details. I've heard Mr. Tyson, who is very intelligent and very well spoken generally speaking and he has a lot of good quotes like this one, but check out some of his references to religion, God, etc., and see if those sound very open minded. Mr. Tyson has an agenda too.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 11:34 AM
They might to each other, but they're just as hard headed as any religious person once we get closer to the "money" areas of the argument. I think you're giving the hard core science folks a little too much credit for open mindedness.

That is simply not true. There are exceptions, of course, but a successful scientist is not one who goes in thinking they know it all. Why would they bother, if that were true?

Oklahomahawk
02-08-2014, 11:36 AM
That is simply not true. There are exceptions, of course, but a successful scientist is not one who goes in thinking they know it all. Why would they bother, if that were true?

Well if there are exceptions (even one or two) then how can you say it simply isn't true?

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 11:38 AM
I don't see anything wrong with this particular statement, because I don't think any side has all the answers if you want to break it down into very fine details. I've heard Mr. Tyson, who is very intelligent and very well spoken generally speaking and he has a lot of good quotes like this one, but check out some of his references to religion, God, etc., and see if those sound very open minded. Mr. Tyson has an agenda too.

His opinions on religion have nothing to do with his job--or how he approaches it. The only reason many scientists voice their opinion on religion (especially in America) is because of the constant attacks they are forced to defend themselves against. When they are doing their job, the last thing on their mind is the little church down the road.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 11:41 AM
Well if there are exceptions (even one or two) then how can you say it simply isn't true?

Because you used "they" as an umbrella term. Any "scientist" with a personal agenda (during the work hours) is quickly exposed through their own work and rarely (if ever) amount to anything.

Oklahomahawk
02-08-2014, 11:46 AM
His opinions on religion have nothing to do with his job--or how he approaches it. The only reason many scientists voice their opinion on religion (especially in America) is because of the constant attacks they are forced to defend themselves against. When they are doing their job, the last thing on their mind is the little church down the road.

This isn't true and you know it. If I have an obvious bias against any person or any thing it might not come up 90% of the time, but at some point it's going to cloud my reasoning. I don't even disagree with you or him about a lot of the science argument. I know that what most people, including Christian folk would call just common sense science is actually part of evolution. The only points where I would even disagree are at some of the points of origin, so he and I might agree on 95% of scientific matters,maybe even 99%, but at some point we're going to disagree. Do you deny that my belief in God might color my views on "points of origin", etc.? If my beliefs in "SOMETHING caused it to happen, some being, not just by accident" might color my decisions, his already preconceived notion that "NOTHING caused it" isn't going to color his?

Oklahomahawk
02-08-2014, 11:47 AM
Because you used "they" as an umbrella term. Any "scientist" with a personal agenda (during the work hours) is quickly exposed through their own work and rarely (if ever) amount to anything.

This sounds more like indoctrination or political partisanship than it does science. It also sounds like that good old argument that I"m "painting with a broad brush".

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 11:51 AM
This isn't true and you know it. If I have an obvious bias against any person or any thing it might not come up 90% of the time, but at some point it's going to cloud my reasoning. I don't even disagree with you or him about a lot of the science argument. I know that what most people, including Christian folk would call just common sense science is actually part of evolution. The only points where I would even disagree are at some of the points of origin, so he and I might agree on 95% of scientific matters,maybe even 99%, but at some point we're going to disagree. Do you deny that my belief in God might color my views on "points of origin", etc.? If my beliefs in "SOMETHING caused it to happen, some being, not just by accident" might color my decisions, his already preconceived notion that "NOTHING caused it" isn't going to color his?

The Theory of Evolution doesn't try to answer "what caused it" at all. Neither does The Big Bang. It isn't about that and anyone who took the time to read about both theories would know that. You are more than welcome to say, "God did it," as I mentioned in the other thread. That has no bearing at all on either theory.

Oklahomahawk
02-08-2014, 11:56 AM
The Theory of Evolution doesn't try to answer "what caused it" at all. Neither does The Big Bang. It isn't about that and anyone who took the time to read about both theories would know that. You are more than welcome to say, "God did it," as I mentioned in the other thread. That has no bearing at all on either theory.

Really?? Because I have heard over the years many Darwinists and Big Bangers go to great length to maybe not prove the extreme origins per se, but the definitely the parts that contain a lack of a creator at some point. In other words I don't care if I'm 100% right on where it all began, as long as I can disprove the God is a part of it element. You know this is true, the lack of a Supreme Being is at the root of everything they do, it's like any bias, it may not come to light today or tomorrow, but it's always there and will come out if the situation comes up.

The reason why you're OK with me saying that "God did it" is that you're a decent guy, and though we've often disagreed on these things, and probably always will, you've always treated me with respect, even when we disagree and I hope I've done the same with you. The main difference here is, these people not only don't like each other they basically (in my opinion) don't respect each other. I think most of these guys on both sides would really rather make the other guy look bad, than to actually discover something real by their own hard work.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 11:58 AM
This sounds more like indoctrination or political partisanship than it does science. It also sounds like that good old argument that I"m "painting with a broad brush".

If you want to attack theories by saying scientists have agendas, you need to show that the scientist who came up with the theory had an agenda that makes the theory flawed. You will quickly discover that no legitimate accepted theory can survive having flaws due to an agenda--because of peer-review. That is what I meant by "being exposed."

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 11:58 AM
are you saying Tom Foreman is a fundamentalist?

cause if you are saying Bill Nye is a fundamentalist

that is just silly

not as silly as thinking humans and dinos and dragons lived together

but almost


Hardly silly. They both have fundamentalist close-minded stances. In addition they both read ancient near eastern genres of literature as fundies.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 11:59 AM
You are projecting.


No. Not at all.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:00 PM
it ok in science to say

you don't know

actually, it is the right thing to do

Of course it is. The problem is not enough do. And they confuse philosophy and their own faith with science.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 12:01 PM
Really?? Because I have heard over the years many Darwinists and Big Bangers go to great length to maybe not prove the extreme origins per se, but the definitely the parts that contain a lack of a creator at some point. In other words I don't care if I'm 100% right on where it all began, as long as I can disprove the God is a part of it element. You know this is true, the lack of a Supreme Being is at the root of everything they do, it's like any bias, it may not come to light today or tomorrow, but it's always there and will come out if the situation comes up.

The reason why you're OK with me saying that "God did it" is that you're a decent guy, and though we've often disagreed on these things, and probably always will, you've always treated me with respect, even when we disagree and I hope I've done the same with you. The main difference here is, these people not only don't like each other they basically (in my opinion) don't respect each other. I think most of these guys on both sides would really rather make the other guy look bad, than to actually discover something real by their own hard work.

You haven't heard scientists do that. Perhaps you've heard a "Darwinist" or a "Big Banger" do it, but I would bet my wisdom teeth that they weren't scientists because those theories have no bearing whatsoever on the existence of God or whether he had anything to do with creation. Just read the theories and you will see what I am saying.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:05 PM
Mohler puts it fairly well:

"...Both men were asked if any evidence could ever force them to change their basic understanding. Ham said no, pointing to the authority of Scripture. Nye said that evidence for creation would change his mind. But Nye made clear that he was unconditionally committed to a naturalistic worldview, which would make such evidence impossible. Neither man is actually willing to allow for any dispositive evidence to change his mind. Both operate in basically closed intellectual systems. The main problem is that Ken Ham knows this to be the case, but Bill Nye apparently does not. Ham was consistently bold in citing his confidence in God, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and in the full authority and divine inspiration of the Bible. He never pulled a punch or hid behind an argument. Nye seems to believe that he is genuinely open to any and all new information, but it is clear that his ultimate intellectual authority is the prevailing scientific consensus. More than once he asserted a virtually unblemished confidence in the ability of modern science to correct itself. He steadfastly refused to admit that any intellectual presuppositions color his own judgment.

But the single most defining moments in the debate came as Bill Nye repeatedly cited the “reasonable man” argument in his presentation and responses. He cited Adolphe Quetelet’s famed l’homme moyen—“a reasonable man”—as the measure of his intellectual authority. Writing in 1835, Quetelet, a French intellectual, made his “reasonable man” famous. The “reasonable man” is a man of intellect and education and knowledge who can judge evidence and arguments and function as an intellectual authority on his own two feet. The “reasonable man” is a truly modern man. Very quickly, jurists seized on the “reasonable man” to define the law and lawyers used him to make arguments before juries. A “reasonable man” would interpret the evidence and make a reasoned judgment, free from intellectual pressure.

Bill Nye repeatedly cited the reasonable man in making his arguments. He is a firm believer in autonomous human reason and the ability of the human intellect to solve the great problems of existence without any need of divine revelation. He spoke of modern science revealing “what we all can know” as it operates on the basis of natural laws. As Nye sees it, Ken Ham has a worldview, but Nye does not. He referred to “Ken Ham’s worldview,” but claimed that science merely provides knowledge. He sees himself as the quintessential “reasonable man,” and he repeatedly dismissed Christian arguments as “not reasonable.”…"

Oklahomahawk
02-08-2014, 12:08 PM
If you want to attack theories by saying scientists have agendas, you need to show that the scientist who come up with the theory had an agenda that makes the theory flawed. You will quickly discover that no legitimate accepted theory can survive having flaws due to an agenda--because of peer-review. That is what I meant by "being exposed."

Well to prove it you'd have to get them to admit, since noone can prove literally that God does or does not exist (it's a matter of faith, right) then the actual proof would be very difficult to acquire on either side. The thing you're then left to do is argue or debate, trying to get the other guy to slip up and take a path with no defensible position, like Clarence Darrow did with William Jennings Bryan during the Scopes Monkey Trial of the 1920's. Darrow was great at leading Bryan into the extreme fundamentalist arguments and he would simply take the hanging curve ball Bryan gave him and hit it out of the park. Darrow won pretty much every argument with Bryan during that trial but in the end Bryan won the war because the jury was from TN and wasn't going to go along with anything other than man's take on the Bible theory, no matter how well Darrow presented the other side.

In short, the jury was biased, period. Sound like anything you've seen on both sides of this argument? Remember it's also bias if you agree with it. How many of us rule even a bad argument as having won a debate simply because that argument goes along with what we already thought/believed? Surely you are smart enough to recognize your own preconceived beliefs and biases...

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:10 PM
Hawk, I'll read the rest of your earlier post after finishing Dalyn's linked video. But I will say this. I know of no true Bible expert that says that the Bible explains everything. I know of fools who might say that.

Oklahomahawk
02-08-2014, 12:11 PM
You haven't heard scientists do that. Perhaps you've heard a "Darwinist" or a "Big Banger" do it, but I would bet my wisdom teeth that they weren't scientists because those theories have no bearing whatsoever on the existence of God or whether he had anything to do with creation. Just read the theories and you will see what I am saying.


Your wisdom teeth? Do I have to extract them if I win? Jeez, what's next, your appendix? Anyway, now you're just nit picking and essentially trying to change the subject or at least the focus of the discussion. You have good arguments about science and evolution and I agree with you more often than you know, but now you're just using semantics.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 12:14 PM
Your wisdom teeth? Do I have to extract them if I win? Jeez, what's next, your appendix? Anyway, now you're just nit picking and essentially trying to change the subject or at least the focus of the discussion. You have good arguments about science and evolution and I agree with you more often than you know, but now you're just using semantics.

I don't have an appendix. Sorry.

I am not nitpicking at all. This is about scientists, not people who are not scientists. You can't discredit scientists by saying some people who listen to them turn around and throw out bad science. Those people aren't scientists.

Oklahomahawk
02-08-2014, 12:19 PM
Hawk, I'll read the rest of your earlier post after finishing Dalyn's linked video. But I will say this. I know of no true Bible expert that says that the Bible explains everything. I know of fools who might say that.

I guess that depends on what you call a "Bible expert" vs. that other word. I know what you mean here, but the guys you see on TV or read about making extreme statements based on literal translations of certain words, where a more symbolic approach would be better (like ....on the 3rd DAY...). This decision to stand on principle (in their minds) just makes us all look foolish IMO and there's no telling how people reject Christ because of it. I can see a statement like "they think the world was created in 6 actual physical 24 hour days, how can they possible know what I'm going through or have a savior who can change my life??) I know that you know better, but I feel like these people are digging us a hole that makes telling people about the real Jesus more than a little difficult.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 12:19 PM
Hawk, I'll read the rest of your earlier post after finishing Dalyn's linked video. But I will say this. I know of no true Bible expert that says that the Bible explains everything. I know of fools who might say that.


Sean Carroll is a lot of fun. He is a smart guy with some interesting ideas. He also does a good job of breaking science down where non-scientists can understand it.

Here is a good one about the Higgs boson -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwdY7Eqyguo

Oklahomahawk
02-08-2014, 12:23 PM
I don't have an appendix. Sorry.

I am not nitpicking at all. This is about scientists, not people who are not scientists. You can't discredit scientists by saying some people who listen to them turn around and throw out bad science. Those people aren't scientists.


So I missed out on the appendix, crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As for the other, you're still doing the same thing, you want to classify who is and who isn't a reputable scientist, from whom I'm getting my viewpoint of their theories of the universe, which may be fair in and of itself, but what do non-Christians do? They look at any goob who says he/she represents God and the Bible and here's what it says..... Maybe we should register these folks we know (on both sides) who actually is and is not credible. Isn't it a natural part of any game, any debate, any scientific experiment, etc to find the lowest common denominator (be that a person or a theory) of the other side and take advantage of it/them?

You're saying not reputable scientist would do this or that or make this claim or that claim, but aren't there "nuts" on all sides of this argument?

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 12:28 PM
lol - No. I don't. I want to separate people who ARE scientists from people who are NOT scientists. The reputable part will take care of itself.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:32 PM
Sean Carroll is a lot of fun. He is a smart guy with some interesting ideas. He also does a good job of breaking science down where non-scientists can understand it.

Here is a good one about the Higgs boson -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwdY7Eqyguo


I'm 10 minutes in and he is good. Though, putting a fundy hat on for a minute, he spouted off bad "science" when he talked about the sun rising. The sun doesn't rise! Every good scientist knows that. What a troglodyte! ;-)

Second, he's in the section talking about the expansion of the universe and how you can do a back of the envelope, back calculation of therefore when everything was "on top of one another" (i.e., the point of the Big Bang). Understood. Just notice though that such back of the envelope calculations are based on an assumption (one at least) - that the rate of expansion is predictable. I'd say that's a fine assumption but it nevertheless is an assumption.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:35 PM
At the 11 minute mark - he now is saying "we aren't going back" (i.e. the expanding universe won't fall back in upon itself). Maybe but he is just making an assertion. Not an argument for why he thinks that. Guess he can't say everything.

Oklahomahawk
02-08-2014, 12:37 PM
lol - No. I don't. I want to separate people who ARE scientists from people who are NOT scientists. The reputable part will take care of itself.

OK fair enough, but what are the criteria are you using? If a person who's really knowledgeable about science (which I'm not) believes in 99% of what you believes, or what the guy in your video believes (sorry it's going to be a while before I have 60 minutes to spare, but without having even seen him, if you think he's a good knowledgeable scientist then he probably is), what if that person who you think is a great scientist believes that even though the rest of "things" developed on their own, even over billions of years, but he still believed a "God" was behind the original beginnings or "creation" of it if you will, would YOU still consider him a great and reputable scientist?

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:39 PM
13 minute mark - next assumption/presupposition - we are in a closed system.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 12:41 PM
13 minute mark - next assumption/presupposition - we are in a closed system.

There is science behind all of these things you are mentioning. He can't explain everything in less than an hour. So, for the necessity of the particular subject of this lecture, he is making an assumption regarding the audience.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:41 PM
14 minute mark (and I won't do this for every minute, I promise), but at the 14 minute mark, I think David Hume would like to play.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:42 PM
There is science behind all of these things you are mentioning. He can't explain everything in less than an hour. So, for the necessity of the particular subject of this lecture, he is making an assumption regarding the audience.

And their presuppositions underneath the science.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 12:43 PM
OK fair enough, but what are the criteria are you using? If a person who's really knowledgeable about science (which I'm not) believes in 99% of what you believes, or what the guy in your video believes (sorry it's going to be a while before I have 60 minutes to spare, but without having even seen him, if you think he's a good knowledgeable scientist then he probably is), what if that person who you think is a great scientist believes that even though the rest of "things" developed on their own, even over billions of years, but he still believed a "God" was behind the original beginnings or "creation" of it if you will, would YOU still consider him a great and reputable scientist?


My criteria for being called a scientist is that you should actually, you know, BE a scientist. :icon_biggrin: I am not sure why this point is so hard to get across.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 12:44 PM
And their presuppositions underneath the science.

No. Their knowledge of the other theories dealing with the points he only has the time to gently touch on. He also does lectures regarding most of those, for the record.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 12:45 PM
Scientist: a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:49 PM
No. Their knowledge of the other theories dealing with the points he only has the time to gently touch on. He also does lectures regarding most of those, for the record.

There are always presuppositions.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:51 PM
Okay, now he's confusing. At the 20 minute mark he says "that's a fact" (talking about low entropy at the Big Bang) and then immediately he says that's an assumption (referring to the very same thing - the past hypothesis). Which is it? Fact or assumption?

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 12:54 PM
"Our universe started in an exquisite, finely-tuned…" Finely-tuned? Finely-tuned???

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 12:57 PM
There are always presuppositions.

Sure. Just not in the way you are trying to make out. Assumptions and presuppositions can take place during the formulation of an idea. Before those ideas can become actual scientific theory, those hypothetical assumptions and presuppositions must go through a rigorous scientific process to test their accuracy. Many discoveries are often completely separate from the original idea. And even scientific theory is constantly undergoing study. There are scientists out there still working on gravity. This idea that once a theory is accepted it is abandoned and assumed to be true forever is inaccurate.

Oklahomahawk
02-08-2014, 12:58 PM
My criteria for being called a scientist is that you should actually, you know, BE a scientist. :icon_biggrin: I am not sure why this point is so hard to get across.

It's hard to get across because you're dodging the central issue. If you agreed with a particular scientist on pretty much every other issue but that scientist then told you that he believed that a God (doesn't even have to be any God in particular) actually started the creation/evolution process, would that cause you to support him/her more, or less, or it wouldn't matter???

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 12:58 PM
"Our universe started in an exquisite, finely-tuned…" Finely-tuned? Finely-tuned???

Perhaps you should watch the whole thing first. Just an idea. :icon_biggrin:

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 12:59 PM
It's hard to get across because you're dodging the central issue. If you agreed with a particular scientist on pretty much every other issue but that scientist then told you that he believed that a God (doesn't even have to be any God in particular) actually started the creation/evolution process, would that cause you to support him/her more, or less, or it wouldn't matter???

Whether an actual scientist believes in a god or not has no bearing on my opinion of their work.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 01:05 PM
For the record, I was not dodging the central issue. I had not clue that question was the central issue or I would've answered it ages ago (and HAVE answered it several times before). :icon_biggrin:

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 01:05 PM
Can there be energy in nothing? In emptiness? (27 minute mark)

Oklahomahawk
02-08-2014, 01:07 PM
Whether an actual scientist believes in a god or not has no bearing on my opinion of their work.

See that wasn't so hard, was it? So, would a scientist who believed in a God/god be able to go with a (for lack of a better word) accidental or non-preordained start to the universe and still have your support, depending of course on what sort of theory that he/she came up with was?

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 01:09 PM
Can there be energy in nothing? In emptiness? (27 minute mark)

He literally deals with that question for the minute or three before the 27-minute mark.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 01:12 PM
See that wasn't so hard, was it? So, would a scientist who believed in a God/god be able to go with a (for lack of a better word) accidental or non-preordained start to the universe and still have your support, depending of course on what sort of theory that he/she came up with was?


Dude. It is so weird how you think I dodged that question. I feel like we were discussing two different things.

Sure. I feel like my answer already made that clear. I do not care whether they believe in a god or not. It has no bearing on scientific theory.

goldfly
02-08-2014, 01:17 PM
They both have fundamentalist close-minded stances.

my mind is having a hard time grasping how you can believe these words

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 01:19 PM
For the record, Sean Carroll puts exactly what I am saying about biases and assumptions starting at the 36-minute mark (or around that time).

goldfly
02-08-2014, 01:24 PM
Mohler puts it fairly well:

"...Both men were asked if any evidence could ever force them to change their basic understanding. Ham said no, pointing to the authority of Scripture. Nye said that evidence for creation would change his mind. But Nye made clear that he was unconditionally committed to a naturalistic worldview, which would make such evidence impossible. Neither man is actually willing to allow for any dispositive evidence to change his mind. Both operate in basically closed intellectual systems. The main problem is that Ken Ham knows this to be the case, but Bill Nye apparently does not. Ham was consistently bold in citing his confidence in God, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and in the full authority and divine inspiration of the Bible. He never pulled a punch or hid behind an argument. Nye seems to believe that he is genuinely open to any and all new information, but it is clear that his ultimate intellectual authority is the prevailing scientific consensus. More than once he asserted a virtually unblemished confidence in the ability of modern science to correct itself. He steadfastly refused to admit that any intellectual presuppositions color his own judgment.

But the single most defining moments in the debate came as Bill Nye repeatedly cited the “reasonable man” argument in his presentation and responses. He cited Adolphe Quetelet’s famed l’homme moyen—“a reasonable man”—as the measure of his intellectual authority. Writing in 1835, Quetelet, a French intellectual, made his “reasonable man” famous. The “reasonable man” is a man of intellect and education and knowledge who can judge evidence and arguments and function as an intellectual authority on his own two feet. The “reasonable man” is a truly modern man. Very quickly, jurists seized on the “reasonable man” to define the law and lawyers used him to make arguments before juries. A “reasonable man” would interpret the evidence and make a reasoned judgment, free from intellectual pressure.

Bill Nye repeatedly cited the reasonable man in making his arguments. He is a firm believer in autonomous human reason and the ability of the human intellect to solve the great problems of existence without any need of divine revelation. He spoke of modern science revealing “what we all can know” as it operates on the basis of natural laws. As Nye sees it, Ken Ham has a worldview, but Nye does not. He referred to “Ken Ham’s worldview,” but claimed that science merely provides knowledge. He sees himself as the quintessential “reasonable man,” and he repeatedly dismissed Christian arguments as “not reasonable.”…"

i really am having a hard time understanding why you want to try to paint Nye as similar to Ham

when Nye said he would change his stance on the subject

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 01:27 PM
i really am having a hard time understanding why you want to try to paint Nye as similar to Ham

when Nye said he would change his stance on the subject

Exactly. This is what happens when you have a person whose thought process is the result of, "I don't know," as opposed to one whose thought process is the result of, "I know." One can change their mind. The other cannot.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 01:34 PM
He literally deals with that question for the minute or three before the 27-minute mark.


Not satisfactorily.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 01:38 PM
Not satisfactorily.

:happy0157: Well, he deals with it again later (40+). Maybe that will satisfy you (I doubt it). You are welcome to count how many times he says, "I don't know." Very interesting.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 01:40 PM
i really am having a hard time understanding why you want to try to paint Nye as similar to Ham

when Nye said he would change his stance on the subject


I've already told you one main reason. A fundamentalist tends to read Ancient near eastern genres of literature woodenly. Both Nye and Ham read Genesis the same wooden way. One accepting it as teaching YEC and believing the teaching so conceived and the other reads it as teaching YEC and rejecting the teaching so conceived.

But as to his "my stance would change" with evidence, it's rhetoric. He so conceives of reality and "evidence" so as to make changing his view impossible. Mohler explains it well.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 01:41 PM
If none of that satisfies you, you could always read about the theory he mentioned, which explains it fully.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 01:43 PM
:happy0157: Well, he deals with it again later (40+). Maybe that will satisfy you (I doubt it). You are welcome to count how many times he says, "I don't know." Very interesting.

I'm about to jump back in and we will see. But for the record - because I want to understand him/you correctly, is he saying that within a set space where there is a vacuum - no matter of any kind in that geographic space - that there nevertheless is energy - "dark energy"? Is that what he is saying?

Or does he mean that there is something there, but we just don't know what it is?

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 01:48 PM
I'm about to jump back in and we will see. But for the record - because I want to understand him/you correctly, is he saying that within a set space where there is a vacuum - no matter of any kind in that geographic space - that there nevertheless is energy - "dark energy"? Is that what he is saying?


He is saying that even in a vacuum there are fluctuations. When he moves into the "opinion" portion of the lecture, he delves a little more into it. Things work very "strangely" at the quantum level.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 01:49 PM
He is saying that even in a vacuum there are fluctuations. When he moves into the "opinion" portion of the lecture, he delves a little more into it. Things work very "strangely" at the quantum level.


Fluctuations of what?

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 01:52 PM
Fluctuations of what?

Particles.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 01:52 PM
Fluctuations of what?


34 minutes. Oh my. Done getting all religious on me. Hume wants to kick his arse.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 01:53 PM
Particles.

Then there is something rather than nothing.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 02:01 PM
"Miracle" - dude can't get away from the language of faith.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 02:01 PM
Then there is something rather than nothing.

Yes. In theory an ordinary quantum field can never maintain an absolute zero value.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 02:05 PM
"Miracle" - dude can't get away from the language of faith.

One of the definitions of miracle: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

I personally find the word distasteful, due to my own biases, but I certainly don't hold it against him for using it.

The Chosen One
02-08-2014, 02:11 PM
I usually use the word miracle to describe statistically improbable events.

Such as the Braves blowing that wild card lead in '11. :Alone:

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 02:13 PM
I usually use the word miracle to describe statistically improbable events.

Such as the Braves blowing that wild card lead in '11. :Alone:

Exactly. Nothing wrong with that. I even do it.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 02:21 PM
SMH - "perfectly empty space"

goldfly
02-08-2014, 02:23 PM
religion doesn't own the word miracle


breaking down your view on nye makes me believe he should have listened to Hawking and others when it comes to this "debate"

and
Both Nye and Ham read Genesis the same wooden way. One accepting it as teaching YEC and believing the teaching so conceived and the other reads it as teaching YEC and rejecting the teaching so conceived.

of course he rejected it. it was the argument of the person he was debating and it doesn't hold up to any test to prove it to be correct

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 02:27 PM
Okay, Dalyn, that was a pretty good sermon. But I think in the end all he is positing is eternal matter. An infinite regress.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 02:29 PM
religion doesn't own the word miracle


breaking down your view on nye makes me believe he should have listened to Hawking and others when it comes to this "debate"

and

of course he rejected it. it was the argument of the person he was debating and it doesn't hold up to any test to prove it to be correct


Yeah, I know, those who think they are irreligious borrow words all the time. They have a hard time not doing so.

Do you agree that Nye reads Genesis like a fundy? Or what?

Hawking is close-minded too.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 02:31 PM
Okay, Dalyn, that was a pretty good sermon. But I think in the end all he is positing is eternal matter.

Glad you "enjoyed" the lecture. I suggest watching many more.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 02:33 PM
Glad you "enjoyed" the lecture. I suggest watching many more.


Part lecture. Part sermon. But do you agree? All he is really positing is an infinite regress.

Oh, and I really did enjoy it.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 02:36 PM
Did you notice Dalyn, that when he was talking about the possibility that there was a chicken before an egg, that he just had to dismiss, out of hand, an intelligent cause?

That is what I am talking about. These scientists are willing to conjecture and to go beyond, "I don't know." And their presupposition is that there mustn't be a creative intelligence. Instead they substitute eternal matter. Yet, note - that's a step of faith for them.

And also note, that they can't stop using the language of design, creation, faith, etc.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 02:43 PM
Did you notice Dalyn, that when he was talking about the possibility that there was a chicken before an egg, that he just had to dismiss, out of hand, an intelligent cause?

That is what I am talking about. These scientists are willing to conjecture and to go beyond, "I don't know." And their presupposition is that there mustn't be a creative intelligence. Instead they substitute eternal matter. Yet, note - that's a step of faith for them.

Did you notice before he had that discussion that he mentioned this was the part of the talk where his biases would have bearing? That is EXACTLY what I meant when I said -

"Sure. Just not in the way you are trying to make out. Assumptions and presuppositions can take place during the formulation of an idea. Before those ideas can become actual scientific theory, those hypothetical assumptions and presuppositions must go through a rigorous scientific process to test their accuracy. Many discoveries are often completely separate from the original idea. And even scientific theory is constantly undergoing study. There are scientists out there still working on gravity. This idea that once a theory is accepted it is abandoned and assumed to be true forever is inaccurate."

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 02:48 PM
And also note, that they can't stop using the language of design, creation, faith, etc.

What does that have to do with anything (other than you trying to be insulting)? What is the point in trying to have a discussion with someone who only wants to insult you? No one here is disputing how ingrained religious ideas and thinking are in society. We are mired in it. It is disgusting. Some of us, however, try to escape it rather than wallow in it like a bunch of pigs in mud.

goldfly
02-08-2014, 02:57 PM
What does that have to do with anything (other than you trying to be insulting)? What is the point in trying to have a discussion with someone who only wants to insult you? No one here is disputing how ingrained religious ideas and thinking are in society. We are mired in it. It is disgusting. Some of us, however, try to escape it rather than wallow in it like a bunch of pigs in mud.

Dr Tyson talked about this when i saw him in Florida

He also got pissed at atheists that got angry cause he used the term "Godspeed" when he used the term

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 02:57 PM
Did you notice before he had that discussion that he mentioned this was the part of the talk where his biases would have bearing? That is EXACTLY what I meant when I said -

"Sure. Just not in the way you are trying to make out. Assumptions and presuppositions can take place during the formulation of an idea. Before those ideas can become actual scientific theory, those hypothetical assumptions and presuppositions must go through a rigorous scientific process to test their accuracy. Many discoveries are often completely separate from the original idea. And even scientific theory is constantly undergoing study. There are scientists out there still working on gravity. This idea that once a theory is accepted it is abandoned and assumed to be true forever is inaccurate."


He starts with the presupposition that the system is closed (i.e., no intelligent design, answers must be found for the origin of matter within a naturalistic system).

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 02:58 PM
What does that have to do with anything (other than you trying to be insulting)? What is the point in trying to have a discussion with someone who only wants to insult you? No one here is disputing how ingrained religious ideas and thinking are in society. We are mired in it. It is disgusting. Some of us, however, try to escape it rather than wallow in it like a bunch of pigs in mud.

I am not trying to be insulting in this. No, I am saying what you call disgusting is instead revealing. I'd even say encouraging. Maybe even beautiful.


P.S. Dalyn, I hope you know that I try to respectfully engage with you.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 03:00 PM
Also, do you agree? All he is really positing is an infinite regress.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 03:23 PM
I agree with Jack Collins' answer to the following:

4) Why do you feel so troubled about the upcoming Nye/Ham debate?

I do not think this “debate” will really do much to help people think more clearly. I think it is more theater than anything else — and that’s fine, so long as everyone knows what it is and approaches it accordingly.

I like critical thinking, and I learned a lot of it from my one-time mentor, Al Drake (who taught probability at MIT). He used to insist that if we want to decide between options, we have to make sure the items in our list are “mutually exclusive” (that is, they don’t overlap at all) and “collectively exhaustive” (you’ve actually got all the possible options). And I don’t see that Ken Ham and Bill Nye offer me the only two options; nor do I think that all forms of “evolution” necessarily contradict human uniqueness.

This “debate” cannot help but be seen as “science versus the Bible,” and I don’t think that does justice to either.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 05:47 PM
I agree with Jack Collins' answer to the following:

4) Why do you feel so troubled about the upcoming Nye/Ham debate?

I do not think this “debate” will really do much to help people think more clearly. I think it is more theater than anything else — and that’s fine, so long as everyone knows what it is and approaches it accordingly.

I like critical thinking, and I learned a lot of it from my one-time mentor, Al Drake (who taught probability at MIT). He used to insist that if we want to decide between options, we have to make sure the items in our list are “mutually exclusive” (that is, they don’t overlap at all) and “collectively exhaustive” (you’ve actually got all the possible options). And I don’t see that Ken Ham and Bill Nye offer me the only two options; nor do I think that all forms of “evolution” necessarily contradict human uniqueness.

This “debate” cannot help but be seen as “science versus the Bible,” and I don’t think that does justice to either.

(Went to dinner)

I agree with the overall opinion here. If someone had to debate Ham about this subject, I personally wish it would've been an evolutionary biologist.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 06:18 PM
He starts with the presupposition that the system is closed (i.e., no intelligent design, answers must be found for the origin of matter within a naturalistic system).

Here is an article about that (instead of me paraphrasing).

"But here's the best part - we don't know yet exactly what happened at the moment the universe began. We're still working on the physics of it. Maybe you'll be the one to finally figure it out!" (http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20120221015143)

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 06:30 PM
Dr Tyson talked about this when i saw him in Florida

He also got pissed at atheists that got angry cause he used the term "Godspeed" when he used the term

I saw that. Silly atheists.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 07:23 PM
Here is an article about that (instead of me paraphrasing).

"But here's the best part - we don't know yet exactly what happened at the moment the universe began. We're still working on the physics of it. Maybe you'll be the one to finally figure it out!" (http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20120221015143)

Thanks. The video guy offered his answer - one resting upon the presupposition I've stated. And that's fine - everyone has got them. Some are more highly esteemed than others.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 07:30 PM
Thanks. The video guy offered his answer - one resting upon the presupposition I've stated. And that's fine - everyone has got them. Some are more highly esteemed than others.

If you mean presupposition as in hypothesis, I have no argument with you. It is just irritating when people try to discredit things by calling them a theory or a hypothesis without understanding the thought, research, study, and experimentation behind such terms (in the scientific community).

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 07:35 PM
And, yes, Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist (my personal favorite of the science professions).

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 08:21 PM
If you mean presupposition as in hypothesis, I have no argument with you. It is just irritating when people try to discredit things by calling them a theory or a hypothesis without understanding the thought, research, study, and experimentation behind such terms (in the scientific community).


A hypothesis is a bit more developed than what I'm thinking. By presupposition I mean that we have basic beliefs that takes precedence over others and which serve as a criterion for others. It is an idea that others rest upon in the way we construct our thinking. It doesn't have to be fully developed nor deeply reflected upon. Carroll has the presupposition that there isn't an intelligent creator, that what is must be explained by that which is inside his closed system. And therefore he argues for eternal matter with the inherent power of being (my description, not his). There are degrees of these and an ultimate presupposition therefore would be a belief over which no other takes precedence.

One person put it this way:

"A 'presupposition' is an elementary assumption in one's reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed. As used here, a "presupposition" refers not to just any assumption in an argument, but to a personal commitment which is at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Presuppositions form a wide-ranging, foundational perspective (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one's thinking, being treated as your least negotiable belief and being granted the highest immunity to revision."

Examples of Carroll's hypotheses are inflation & dark energy (demanding dark matter - and btw, notice how this operates as a sort of god of the gaps).

Example of his presuppositions - no intelligent creator

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 10:47 PM
A hypothesis is a bit more developed than what I'm thinking. By presupposition I mean that we have basic beliefs that takes precedence over others and which serve as a criterion for others. It is an idea that others rest upon in the way we construct our thinking. It doesn't have to be fully developed nor deeply reflected upon. Carroll has the presupposition that there isn't an intelligent creator, that what is must be explained by that which is inside his closed system. And therefore he argues for eternal matter with the inherent power of being (my description, not his). There are degrees of these and an ultimate presupposition therefore would be a belief over which no other takes precedence.

One person put it this way:

"A 'presupposition' is an elementary assumption in one's reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed. As used here, a "presupposition" refers not to just any assumption in an argument, but to a personal commitment which is at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Presuppositions form a wide-ranging, foundational perspective (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one's thinking, being treated as your least negotiable belief and being granted the highest immunity to revision."

Examples of Carroll's hypotheses are inflation & dark energy (demanding dark matter - and btw, notice how this operates as a sort of god of the gaps).

Example of his presuppositions - no intelligent creator

Then you are incorrect in this case. Dark energy, for example, is CERTAINLY not a presupposition. Neither is inflation.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 10:49 PM
Honestly, there is so much science behind both that to call either a presupposition is just wrong.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 10:53 PM
Then you are incorrect in this case. Dark energy, for example, is CERTAINLY not a presupposition. Neither is inflation.

?? I said they are examples of hypotheses, not presuppositions.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 10:54 PM
?? I said they are examples of hypotheses, not presuppositions.

I just had a really terrible poker break. My bad. :icon_biggrin:

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 10:59 PM
The article I posted earlier deals with the "closed system" of physics. I would say it is also more of a hypothesis.

As for ID, it just isn't science. There is no way for it to be observed or measured or anything that is required for science. It isn't as much a presupposition as that it is an opinion completely separate from the theories and hypothesis out there. In other words, it has nothing to do with the arrow of time or the big bang or evolution or anything like that. It just doesn't matter either way. The only reason it is part of the conversation at all is because of religion.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 11:05 PM
Then neither is belief in the eternality of matter with the inherent power of being science. And even the idea that it is an "arrow of time" entails something beyond physics.

Again that's my point…

And sure it matters.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 11:08 PM
Neither is belief in the eternality matter with the inherent power of being science. And even the idea that it is an "arrow of time" entails something beyond physics.

Again that's my point...

When we are dealing with science, it matters. It isn't like scientists are saying that ID isn't science so it shouldn't be taught in church. Just science class, because it isn't science. I honestly don't even think YOU think it is science. Do you?

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 11:09 PM
Read up on quantum physics. It will blow your mind.

Dalyn
02-08-2014, 11:15 PM
Okay. This was enjoyable, but I've got to run. I might be back later.

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 11:18 PM
When we are dealing with science, it matters. It isn't like scientists are saying that ID isn't science so it shouldn't be taught in church. Just science class, because it isn't science. I honestly don't even think YOU think it is science. Do you?


But some will go on and promulgate their own non-scientific beliefs, ruling out other beliefs that go beyond science, claiming those who believe those transcendent beliefs are close-minded, but they are not. Which in my thinking shows a lack of epistemological self-awareness.

The Chosen One
02-08-2014, 11:32 PM
Bedell do you believe in radioactive dragons?

BedellBrave
02-08-2014, 11:36 PM
You don't?

Gary82
02-08-2014, 11:37 PM
Bedell do you believe in radioactive dragons?

imagine dragons are radioactive.





ok i'll leave.

The Chosen One
02-08-2014, 11:38 PM
imagine dragons are radioactive.


ok i'll leave.

Damn I f'd that up.

Gary aren't you kind of old for that stuff?:Bunchie1:

Gary82
02-08-2014, 11:40 PM
Damn I f'd that up.

Gary aren't you kind of old for that stuff?:Bunchie1:

I'm 31. Maybe?

Dalyn
02-09-2014, 01:44 AM
But some will go on and promulgate their own non-scientific beliefs, ruling out other beliefs that go beyond science, claiming those who believe those transcendent beliefs are close-minded, but they are not. Which in my thinking shows a lack of epistemological self-awareness.

And, whether true or not, has nothing to do with science and shouldn't be taught in a science classroom either. Do you think ID is science?

weso1
02-09-2014, 08:40 AM
Damn I f'd that up.

Gary aren't you kind of old for that stuff?:Bunchie1:

They were on MLB The Show so even I know about them.

BedellBrave
02-09-2014, 01:44 PM
And, whether true or not, has nothing to do with science and shouldn't be taught in a science classroom either. Do you think ID is science?


I think both are in the realm of philosophy and depending on how one defines "science" both can be. If you mean what we generally call "hard science," no. But the problem is "hard science" only takes you so far. It doesn't, can't, shouldn't address metaphysics. Yet, it can never truly be totally disconnected from such concerns. And so that's why it inevitably creeps in (as it does in Carroll's presentation). I wouldn't get too bent out of shape by it. Just recognize it for what it is. I think the hard-core, secular, materialist science folk shouldn't be too worried about having their philosophical beliefs and their presuppositions pointed out. I know they don't want to be seen as religious in any sense, but really, it's okay. You won't get cooties or something.

Dalyn
02-09-2014, 05:01 PM
I think both are in the realm of philosophy and depending on how one defines "science" both can be. If you mean what we generally call "hard science," no. But the problem is "hard science" only takes you so far. It doesn't, can't, shouldn't address metaphysics. Yet, it can never truly be totally disconnected from such concerns. And so that's why it inevitably creeps in (as it does in Carroll's presentation). I wouldn't get too bent out of shape by it. Just recognize it for what it is. I think the hard-core, secular, materialist science folk shouldn't be too worried about having their philosophical beliefs and their presuppositions pointed out. I know they don't want to be seen as religious in any sense, but really, it's okay. You won't get cooties or something.

Evolution is not metaphysics (we "know" it happens, how is the only part that is a theory). There are classes for things that are. I am fine with ID being in those classes.

And we both know science isn't a religion, but you are welcome to keep up with that bit. :icon_biggrin: All you have to do is pause for a minute and think about how many different people are scientists: Muslim; Christian; Catholic; Jewish; Buddhist; Hindu. And on and on... No scientific theory rooted in flawed ideas based on individual biases survive that much diversity. That is one of the reasons the scientific process exists in the first place. To keep such from happening.

BedellBrave
02-09-2014, 08:43 PM
Evolution is not metaphysics (we "know" it happens, how is the only part that is a theory). There are classes for things that are. I am fine with ID being in those classes.

And we both know science isn't a religion, but you are welcome to keep up with that bit. :icon_biggrin: All you have to do is pause for a minute and think about how many different people are scientists: Muslim; Christian; Catholic; Jewish; Buddhist; Hindu. And on and on... No scientific theory rooted in flawed ideas based on individual biases survive that much diversity. That is one of the reasons the scientific process exists in the first place. To keep such from happening.


Didn't say it was. But don't kid yourself into thinking that just because a person dons a white lab jacket that he/she automatically has no presuppositions or is a-religious. I think we are more likely to discover fire-breathing dragons before we are able to find such a mythological creature.

Again, don't fight it.

Dalyn
02-09-2014, 09:23 PM
Didn't say it was. But don't kid yourself into thinking that just because a person dons a white lab jacket that he/she automatically has no presuppositions or is a-religious. I think we are more likely to discover fire-breathing dragons before we are able to find such a mythological creature.

Again, don't fight it.

That isn't what I am saying at all. I am just saying their work wouldn't survive with any flaws (due to those) once it is exposed to the scrutiny of all the different people who work in the same field. That's one of the reasons why the scientific process exists. It is also why it would be a mistake to suddenly start calling something like ID science.