Ken Ham believes in Dragons...

Dalyn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
Dalyn said:
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 -

[video=youtube;RwdY7Eqyguo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwdY7Eqyguo[/video]
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Dalyn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
13 minute mark - next assumption/presupposition - we are in a closed system.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Dalyn said:
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.
Click to expand...

And their presuppositions underneath the science.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
BedellBrave said:
And their presuppositions underneath the science.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Scientist: a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems.
 
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 said:
There are always presuppositions.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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???
 
Oklahomahawk said:
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???
Click to expand...

Whether an actual scientist believes in a god or not has no bearing on my opinion of their work.
 
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:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top