- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bill Nye Smears Ken Ham
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:37 am to thetempleowl
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:37 am to thetempleowl
This debate really didn't do the topic justice:
(a) Nye was more professional.
(b) Ham was whiny and beligerent at times.
(c) Both appear to be knowledgeable individuals.
(d) Neither are good debaters and viewers should seek out better debaters from each respective side of the debate.
So, in the end, I don't think much converting happened in either direction. Or at least I hope none did.
(a) Nye was more professional.
(b) Ham was whiny and beligerent at times.
(c) Both appear to be knowledgeable individuals.
(d) Neither are good debaters and viewers should seek out better debaters from each respective side of the debate.
So, in the end, I don't think much converting happened in either direction. Or at least I hope none did.
0
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:38 am to RCDfan1950
I didn't mean to confuse. My point was as a Buddhist I cannot say where we came from or how we got here nor does it matter to me.
My focus is on the now because the past no longer exists. I admit I used to be part of the argumentative evolution vs creationism debate strongly on the evolution side. But as I have studied and practiced my beliefs more it has become less of a burden and I do not worry about it.
My point was Religion does necessarily equal the belief in a creator or origins of life. It was never my intention to argue the point of how we got here. Sorry if it came off that way and I appologize.
My focus is on the now because the past no longer exists. I admit I used to be part of the argumentative evolution vs creationism debate strongly on the evolution side. But as I have studied and practiced my beliefs more it has become less of a burden and I do not worry about it.
My point was Religion does necessarily equal the belief in a creator or origins of life. It was never my intention to argue the point of how we got here. Sorry if it came off that way and I appologize.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:41 am to mindbreaker
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:45 am to RedStickBR
Very nicely done, well reasoned posting Redstick
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:53 am to TheDoc
It's funny looking through your link people would cite a Scientific Law to disprove a Scientific Theory
quote:
Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 12:06 pm to mindbreaker
Wisdom bears witness that 'once we're on the path...we're there', huh buddy. And the old Biblical adage that "In much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge, increaseth pain"...rings true.
As the best Physicist that have ever existed in our time have envisioned, at a particular conceptual point all description/qualification/quantification collapses in on itself, and becomes a profound paradox.
I hope there is much love and awe in your journey. Daily so. Your wisdom and humility lend to such good fortune. Hope to meet on the 'road' some day.
As the best Physicist that have ever existed in our time have envisioned, at a particular conceptual point all description/qualification/quantification collapses in on itself, and becomes a profound paradox.
I hope there is much love and awe in your journey. Daily so. Your wisdom and humility lend to such good fortune. Hope to meet on the 'road' some day.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 12:06 pm to TheDoc
quote:
When someone says that evolution is "just a theory" I can't take anything regarding the subject seriously.
I think technically Evolution is a theory.. in that it is not empirically observable. However, the general consensus in the scientific community is that there has been great deal of evidence to support the theory.
Wouldn't you agree with this?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 12:08 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
what is causality?
is it simply A causes B
yes
quote:
or is there something more to it.
what other options are there?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 12:27 pm to klrstix
quote:
in that it is not empirically observable.
Guess you've never heard of bacteria?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 1:02 pm to klrstix
quote:
Wouldn't you agree with this?
No this is where the problem is there two forms of theory. A simple Theory
Theory
And a Scientific Theory
Scientific Theory
Evolution falls into the latter category, but when people use it as an argument against they are usually referencing the former. Scientific Theories are thought of as more concrete in science than Laws
Posted on 2/11/14 at 1:12 pm to mindbreaker
The American school system has ultimately failed us
Posted on 2/11/14 at 1:30 pm to thetempleowl
quote:
I have a bunch of problems with this. Science can not measure some of the things you mention now. But you don't know what science will be able to do in the future.
you slightly missed my point I'll explain it soon.
quote:
If 200 years ago you would tell someone that without cutting anything open, you could image body like we do with MR or CT, well they would tell you that you were crazy. There was no way we could do those things.
That is the great thing about science. When they don't know something, they want to figure it out. Sometimes figuring it out leads to many more questions. But that is what science does.
What it doesn't do is say that well we don't know right now, so god did it. And then leave it at that. Saying god did it is not a good reason. It is not a worthwhile explanation. It does not add to the knowledge base. It does not allow us to predict things. It is a dead end.
i agree with this but still you slightly missed my point
quote:
And then you start explaining gods magnificence as being tied into these things. God raises and lowers the tide. God sent lightning down to give us fire. God created the grand canyon to amaze us.
I in no way argue this and I think the God of the gaps argument is very flawed
quote:
And then when we explain these things with science, some of the religious people feel like gods magnificence is being diminished. OMG, you are saying god didn't do that? Well then you just took some of gods magnificence away. And the really crackpot religious, who tie gods magnificence into these things, don't want to relinquish these types of things.
again not a God of the gaps supporter so if someone said that God did this when talking about scientific things I would say you looking at in it in the wrong way. Yes God is ultimately responsible for all things in creation as primary causality but he isn't the direct cause of the things inside of creation, or secondary causality. God holds up secondary causality as the primary cause but secondary causality still has complete freedom.
quote:
Science is not attacking god. It is explaining our surroundings. If you tie gods magnificence into these types of mysteries, well, when these mysteries are solved, you can see what happens.
I agree
quote:
Either you believe in god or you don't. Saying he does certain things and then finding out it was simply the gravitational pull of the moon should not diminish what you think of god. By the same token, whether you understand that we evolved from a previous ancestor rather than be poofed into existence 6k years ago should not negatively impact your view of god.
Unless you tie him into explaining previously unknown things. Then you view whatever does that explaining as the enemy to god when science is anything but that.
again I agree but you still missed my point
What I'm asking about is what is the definition of science?
What I posit is that Science is the study of observable phenomena. I would also say that in some way all things in science is a study of material things, or what Aristotle would call mater. Which could be different then how scientist themselves use the term mater. I mean things that have material or anything that makes up an object. Even light has mater.
Now if you have a problem with my definition please let me know and explain the problems with this.
if we can at-least slightly agree on what science is I think I can prove to you what I'm trying to get at.
I'm not saying you have an issue with this but I have found many people get confused with terms and don't understand causality in the way Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas used it. Because I mostly agree with what they say and reject the idea of reductionist view points, which many modern thinkers are, I would hope those discussing this with me would at-least have an idea of what thomistic causality is when I talk about it.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 1:36 pm to TheDoc
Posted on 2/11/14 at 1:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
yes
we disagree on this point
quote:
what other options are there?
1) primary and secondary causality
2) causality as Aristotle explains it
Matierla cause (or what something is made up of)
Formal cause (what is the cause of a things shape)
Efficient cause (what is the primary reason a thing goes from a state of rest to a state of motion, or what is the primary cause of something changing. Aristotle's (and Aquinas') use of the word motion is commonly misunderstood by modern thinkers.
final cause (what is the things purpose or final end)
1 is essential for me in a discussion about origins and why something must exist. The principle of sufficient reason comes into play here. Everything even the primary cause has a reason for it's existence either in itself or something else. Now I can consider the possibility that the universe has it's sufficient reason in itself but I don't think it is the case.
2) this also applies to origins and why things exist but I need a-little refresher on this material before I could have a deep discussion on it.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 1:43 pm to catholictigerfan
a note to all
while I do enjoy the little pictures and such. These are no more than gotcha moments. IF I can show that a Christian has a faulty thought process I can disprove God. I hope none of you think this way but gotcha moments do nothing to disprove God's existence.
I'll give you this challenge
in order to disprove God's existence you have to do one of two things.
prove that the principle of sufficient reason is false and the universe (or cosmos) needs to reason for its existence.
or prove that the universe (or cosmos) can have the reason inside itself removing the possibility of God.
Both of these are philosophical questions and can't be answered through science alone.
those who are trying to prove God's existence have to answer those two questions the opposite way
1) the principle of sufficient reason is necessary for all things
2) it is impossible for the universe to have the reason inside of itself, there is a need for a transcendent being or object which allows it to exist.
This the burden of proof is on those who claim God exists is wrong. The basic human experience gives us a fundamental question. Where did I come from, those who claim that God is where we came from argue that he is necessary for our existence, or at-least a being that transcends the created reality must exist for us to exist. If you can prove we can exist without a God than i would love to hear that argument. But to say that I have no burden of proof is a cop out.
while I do enjoy the little pictures and such. These are no more than gotcha moments. IF I can show that a Christian has a faulty thought process I can disprove God. I hope none of you think this way but gotcha moments do nothing to disprove God's existence.
I'll give you this challenge
in order to disprove God's existence you have to do one of two things.
prove that the principle of sufficient reason is false and the universe (or cosmos) needs to reason for its existence.
or prove that the universe (or cosmos) can have the reason inside itself removing the possibility of God.
Both of these are philosophical questions and can't be answered through science alone.
those who are trying to prove God's existence have to answer those two questions the opposite way
1) the principle of sufficient reason is necessary for all things
2) it is impossible for the universe to have the reason inside of itself, there is a need for a transcendent being or object which allows it to exist.
This the burden of proof is on those who claim God exists is wrong. The basic human experience gives us a fundamental question. Where did I come from, those who claim that God is where we came from argue that he is necessary for our existence, or at-least a being that transcends the created reality must exist for us to exist. If you can prove we can exist without a God than i would love to hear that argument. But to say that I have no burden of proof is a cop out.
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 2/11/14 at 1:44 pm to catholictigerfan
one last note then I must go
I would love to get in a back and forth discussion today but I'm to busy I will have to comment off and on every few hours.
I would love to get in a back and forth discussion today but I'm to busy I will have to comment off and on every few hours.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 1:50 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
while I do enjoy the little pictures and such. These are no more than gotcha moments.
They were just meant to be fun and lighthearted.
Look, I don't know if God exists. His existence at this point can neither be proved or disproved.
That being said, this discussion was not talking about the existence of god. It was simply talking about the debate. A debate that while Nye won factually I think he actually lost.
And even after that being said, the point many of us on this board just want out there is that god did it is not something that should be taught in science class. Sorry.
There is no reason that god put us here should be taught as a viable alternative to evolution. Teaching the debate is not correct.
The science taught is that which is best known and believed at this time. And God has no point in science. Not because science disproves gods existence and not because science proves his existence.
It is because science isn't about god.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 1:51 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:Can you shed some light on Catholic dogma re: Mary the perpetual virgin. It came up earlier in the thread. I'd never heard of it.
catholictigerfan
quote:
catholics believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin and protestants do not. The bible is clear that Mary had other children and Jesus had siblings. In this case, the bible sides with protestants.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 2:10 pm to TheDoc
quote:
TheDoc
Guess you've never heard of bacteria?
Is not this used to illustrate the difference between Macro and Micro evolution?
More pointedly this is an example of Micro Evolution, not Macro Evolution of which primarily applies to this discussion. Is that not correct?
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 2/11/14 at 2:13 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
No more so than the one making the claim of atheistic origin.
Atheism is a lack of belief based on insufficient evidence. It is a response to a claim of God's existence.
If someone says "I don't believe in unicorns" are they required to provide proof that unicorns don't exist? No, they only need rely on the LACK of evidence anyone claiming they do exist can provide.
Page 8 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News