Ken Ham believes in Dragons...

BedellBrave said:
"Miracle" - dude can't get away from the language of faith.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I usually use the word miracle to describe statistically improbable events.

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

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
 
Okay, Dalyn, that was a pretty good sermon. But I think in the end all he is positing is eternal matter. An infinite regress.
 
goldfly said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
BedellBrave said:
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
BedellBrave said:
And also note, that they can't stop using the language of design, creation, faith, etc.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dalyn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Dalyn said:
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."
Click to expand...

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).
 
Dalyn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
BedellBrave said:
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.
Click to expand...

(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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top