Bill Nye To Debate Creationist At Creation Museum February 4th (1 Viewer)

[jdoggydogg]

The problem I have with science is the beginning. How can something be made of nothing. How did the universe originate? You can't make something from nothing, can you? How did matter originate?

a) quantum physics has some interesting hypotheses. Is it so hard to say we don't know yet?b) see a)

c) see b)

d) see c)I'd suggest A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.

The world was flat, then we discovered it wasn't

The universe was static and eternal, now we know it isn't

We couldn't explain bio-diversity, now we can.

Science doesn't abhor mysteries, it embraces them.

This is the difference between scientific thinking and religious thinking:

Science: We really don't know the answer to this mystery....YET. So we're going to keep looking until we do find an answer.

Religion: We really don't know the answer to this mystery so it must be the work of God!

Ruling out one possible explanation without concrete evidence to support it isn't exactly scientific, but this is what many people who supposedly use "scientific thought" do today.

Wat

How can you prove that God doesn't exist and didn't have a hand in creating the universe and life?

How can you prove the noise I just heard wasn't a ghost? The burden of proof is on religion.

 

[Mene]

I myself have no problem with people believing in a god, or a supreme being. It's not my belief, but I admittedly agree that it has not been disproved completely. My problem lies in the bible. That is a dangerous book in my opinion, used by people for ages to justify terrible atrocities, misguide, mislead, and enslave people. The idea that you shouldn't question things, shouldn't seek to understand things completely, and should just take the stories of an incredibly old story book as rule, is deeply disturbing. There are some terribly violent, bigoted, inhumane passages in there, and due to the high variance in which people take the bible as literal... we are left to deal with people who's idea's of how we should live are barely advanced from the stone age. There are some fantastic teachings in there, so I understand that it's not all bad, but I'm really tired of the people who won't even agree with proven facts because they don't jive with their book.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I myself have no problem with people believing in a god, or a supreme being. It's not my belief, but I admittedly agree that it has not been disproved completely. My problem lies in the bible. That is a dangerous book in my opinion, used by people for ages to justify terrible atrocities, misguide, mislead, and enslave people. The idea that you shouldn't question things, shouldn't seek to understand things completely, and should just take the stories of an incredibly old story book as rule, is deeply disturbing. There are some terribly violent, bigoted, inhumane passages in there, and due to the high variance in which people take the bible as literal... we are left to deal with people who's idea's of how we should live are barely advanced from the stone age. There are some fantastic teachings in there, so I understand that it's not all bad, but I'm really tired of the people who won't even agree with proven facts because they don't jive with their book.

You can't disprove Bigfoot or unicorns either.

How hard is it for people to understand what "burden of proof" means? You can't prove the absence of something.

 

[tonydead]

There is a ton of #### taught in public schools that isn't true.

You should change your username to "strawman"

you should look up what that means.

What's your address? I could send you a ton of books to read that could help you with your problem. Don't worry you wont have to return the favor, I've already read that one.

 

[joffer]

And it's not science's job to disprove the existence of God, fairies, unicorns or ghosts.

It is if we want to make the assertion he doesn't exist based on scientific evidence.

Who's made that assertion?

And it's not science's job to disprove the existence of God, fairies, unicorns or ghosts.

It is if we want to make the assertion he doesn't exist based on scientific evidence.

nobody's making this assertion.

And it's not science's job to disprove the existence of God, fairies, unicorns or ghosts.

It is if we want to make the assertion he doesn't exist based on scientific evidence.

Nobody is doing that.

Bump

 

[Sabertooth]

There is a ton of #### taught in public schools that isn't true.

You should change your username to "strawman"

you should look up what that means.

What's your address? I could send you a ton of books to read that could help you with your problem. Don't worry you wont have to return the favor, I've already read that one.

Explain in your own words what a straw man is. I'll hang up and listen. Eta: I don't think you know what a ton means either.

 

[Mene]

I myself have no problem with people believing in a god, or a supreme being. It's not my belief, but I admittedly agree that it has not been disproved completely. My problem lies in the bible. That is a dangerous book in my opinion, used by people for ages to justify terrible atrocities, misguide, mislead, and enslave people. The idea that you shouldn't question things, shouldn't seek to understand things completely, and should just take the stories of an incredibly old story book as rule, is deeply disturbing. There are some terribly violent, bigoted, inhumane passages in there, and due to the high variance in which people take the bible as literal... we are left to deal with people who's idea's of how we should live are barely advanced from the stone age. There are some fantastic teachings in there, so I understand that it's not all bad, but I'm really tired of the people who won't even agree with proven facts because they don't jive with their book.

You can't disprove Bigfoot or unicorns either.

How hard is it for people to understand what "burden of proof" means? You can't prove the absence of something.

Easy, I understand that, and have clearly come down on the side of not believing due to that understanding. However, because you cannot prove the absence of something, I won't attempt to argue with people who wish to believe that a supreme being is possible. I don't think that their belief in and of itself is a concern of mine. How they go about carrying out their worship is where it becomes a concern of mine, and everyone else.

 

[tonydead]

There is a ton of #### taught in public schools that isn't true.

You should change your username to "strawman"

you should look up what that means.

What's your address? I could send you a ton of books to read that could help you with your problem. Don't worry you wont have to return the favor, I've already read that one.

Explain in your own words what a straw man is. I'll hang up and listen.Eta: I don't think you know what a ton means either.

The most common strawman is misrepresenting your opponents position. Like when you say, "explain to me how something can come from nothing?". Most of us here haven't made that claim.

I like the us ton of 2,000 pounds. And yes I have that many books.

Hopefully you've hung up and are just listening now.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The problem I have with science is the beginning. How can something be made of nothing. How did the universe originate? You can't make something from nothing, can you? How did matter originate?

When you say "you," who are you referring to? Are you including God?

Because if God can do it, then it can be done, which means that there's no physical law against doing it, which nullifies your point.

If even God can't do it, then I don't see why you say that your problem is with "science" instead of with "both science and religion."

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

sure it requires faith. When was the Big Bang recreated to prove it? It's a theory right?

"Recreated to prove it?" Does the amount of faith required to believe that the Seahawks beat the Broncos in the most recent Super Bowl depend on whether he game can be "recreated"? I'd say not.

I'd define faith as belief unsupported by the weight of the available evidence. Evidence does not often depend on recreation.

 

[B-Deep]

The problem I have with science is the beginning. How can something be made of nothing. How did the universe originate? You can't make something from nothing, can you? How did matter originate?

When you say "you," who are you referring to? Are you including God?

Because if God can do it, then it can be done, which means that there's no physical law against doing it, which nullifies your point.

If even God can't do it, then I don't see why you say that your problem is with "science" instead of with "both science and religion."

i want to know what was god's beginning

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You can't prove the absence of something.

I can.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

You can't prove the absence of something.

I can.

OK

 

[B-Deep]

You can't prove the absence of something.

I can.

if you look in my pants, it will clearly prove the absence or a third testicle

i guess this may require a little cupping as well, but no squeezing, this is science not a party

 

[jwp]

I myself have no problem with people believing in a god, or a supreme being. It's not my belief, but I admittedly agree that it has not been disproved completely. My problem lies in the bible. That is a dangerous book in my opinion, used by people for ages to justify terrible atrocities, misguide, mislead, and enslave people. The idea that you shouldn't question things, shouldn't seek to understand things completely, and should just take the stories of an incredibly old story book as rule, is deeply disturbing. There are some terribly violent, bigoted, inhumane passages in there, and due to the high variance in which people take the bible as literal... we are left to deal with people who's idea's of how we should live are barely advanced from the stone age. There are some fantastic teachings in there, so I understand that it's not all bad, but I'm really tired of the people who won't even agree with proven facts because they don't jive with their book.

I'm with you. It seems like the parts they like to pick and choose are anything that will allow them to persecute another group of people to justify their bigotry. Religion is the biggest con in the history of civilization. It exists due to money and the desire of most people to somehow live forever.

 

[tonydead]

Actually, I think I did recreate the big bang in my pants once.

 

[jdoggydogg]

How does it impact anyone here? Young earth believers are clearly not holding back scientific discovery in this country.

Fundamentalism is pervasive in schools and in government. Congressional science committees are populated with people that don't have a clue about science. So it affects all of us.

 

[jdoggydogg]

There is a ton of #### taught in public schools that isn't true.

You should change your username to "strawman"

Bam!

 

[timschochet]

As a few scientists have pointed out, it's not a coincidence that the majority of those who doubt global warming are religious Christians. This goes beyond a conservative philosophy which rejects any idea that might result in bigger government. Rather, the root of this denial may be a refusal to believe that God would allow the Earth to be threatened in such a way (or, conversely, that we are all doomed anyhow because that's Gods will.)

 

[Sabertooth]

There is a ton of #### taught in public schools that isn't true.

You should change your username to "strawman"

you should look up what that means.

What's your address? I could send you a ton of books to read that could help you with your problem. Don't worry you wont have to return the favor, I've already read that one.

Explain in your own words what a straw man is. I'll hang up and listen.Eta: I don't think you know what a ton means either.

The most common strawman is misrepresenting your opponents position. Like when you say, "explain to me how something can come from nothing?". Most of us here haven't made that claim.I like the us ton of 2,000 pounds. And yes I have that many books.

Hopefully you've hung up and are just listening now.

no

 

[jdoggydogg]

I myself have no problem with people believing in a god, or a supreme being. It's not my belief, but I admittedly agree that it has not been disproved completely. My problem lies in the bible. That is a dangerous book in my opinion, used by people for ages to justify terrible atrocities, misguide, mislead, and enslave people. The idea that you shouldn't question things, shouldn't seek to understand things completely, and should just take the stories of an incredibly old story book as rule, is deeply disturbing. There are some terribly violent, bigoted, inhumane passages in there, and due to the high variance in which people take the bible as literal... we are left to deal with people who's idea's of how we should live are barely advanced from the stone age. There are some fantastic teachings in there, so I understand that it's not all bad, but I'm really tired of the people who won't even agree with proven facts because they don't jive with their book.

Some of the nicest people I know are Christians. They don't ever quote scripture or say that gays are evil. They've clearly decided to live by the teachings of Christ and abandon all that old testament mythology.

 

[Dr Oadi]

As a few scientists have pointed out, it's not a coincidence that the majority of those who doubt global warming are religious Christians. This goes beyond a conservative philosophy which rejects any idea that might result in bigger government. Rather, the root of this denial may be a refusal to believe that God would allow the Earth to be threatened in such a way (or, conversely, that we are all doomed anyhow because that's Gods will.)

Climate change explains some things in Revelation.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

As a few scientists have pointed out, it's not a coincidence that the majority of those who doubt global warming are religious Christians. This goes beyond a conservative philosophy which rejects any idea that might result in bigger government. Rather, the root of this denial may be a refusal to believe that God would allow the Earth to be threatened in such a way (or, conversely, that we are all doomed anyhow because that's Gods will.)

Climate change explains some things in Revelation.

 

[tonydead]

There is a ton of #### taught in public schools that isn't true.

You should change your username to "strawman"

you should look up what that means.

What's your address? I could send you a ton of books to read that could help you with your problem. Don't worry you wont have to return the favor, I've already read that one.

Explain in your own words what a straw man is. I'll hang up and listen.Eta: I don't think you know what a ton means either.

The most common strawman is misrepresenting your opponents position. Like when you say, "explain to me how something can come from nothing?". Most of us here haven't made that claim.I like the us ton of 2,000 pounds. And yes I have that many books.

Hopefully you've hung up and are just listening now.

no

 

[Zow]

But how much of the puzzle has science really filled in? 1% 10%

There is a ton of #### taught in public schools that isn't true.

wtf are you talking about?

 

[jdoggydogg]

There is a ton of #### taught in public schools that isn't true.

wtf are you talking about?

For example, the Paul Revere myth was taught in schools for years depsite that that story is exagerrated an altered from the real facts.

But two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[DrJ]

The funny thing is that this topic may draw the most non-female related passion of any topic this board sees. However, if you looked at the actual number of people on this board who seem to actually believe in a young earth, that number is very small. Why can't we just let people believe what they want to believe? How does it impact anyone here? Young earth believers are clearly not holding back scientific discovery in this country.

Those of us who believe in evolution should be able to allow people to believe on faith whatever they choose.

Correspondingly, those who believe in creationism should just allow that if they believe that God sets things up lead us to believe that the world was old or that life evolved or whatever, science is simply the pursuit of whatever truth God wants people to uncover and leave it at that. Live and let live. No need to force the teaching of faith in science classes, where the topic is the pursuit of either truth or God's illusion of truth, if you prefer to see it that way. Either way it has the same utility to students. Case closed.

I believe Futurama addressed this pretty well in the Clockwork Origin episode. As always, perspective is best found in animated programming.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if it (and stories like it from other religions) are included as a possible explanation for the origin of life. Maybe I'm not up on what they're currently teaching, but the current scientific theory back when I cared much about any of this was basically "infinity + random chance means it just has to happen eventually. Here's a few ideas on how the first amino acids might have formed and stuff." Bringing up a cause which billions of people on the planet happen to believe doesn't seem like a real problem, it seems like it's doing the topic a disservice if you don't at least mention it.

 

[Scoresman]

Maybe I'm not up on what they're currently teaching...

You're not.

 

[jdoggydogg]

God and religion were invented to understand our place in the universe. The idea of heaven makes perfect sense. After all, the thought of non-existance seems terrifying. We are a speck of dust in an ocean of space, and most of us won't be remembered after we die. We seek answers assuming our lives have a larger metaphysical purpose. There isn't one. Unless I cure cancer, my life will have never been once the last person who knew me dies.

Our only purpose on this earth is to be kind to each other. Some people do not accept that answer.

 

[DrJ]

Maybe I'm not up on what they're currently teaching...

You're not.

So the science on the origins of life has actually advanced past a bunch of wild theories?

 

[DrJ]

The problem I have with science is the beginning. How can something be made of nothing. How did the universe originate? You can't make something from nothing, can you? How did matter originate?

a) quantum physics has some interesting hypotheses. Is it so hard to say we don't know yet?b) see a)

c) see b)

d) see c)I'd suggest A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.

The world was flat, then we discovered it wasn't

The universe was static and eternal, now we know it isn't

We couldn't explain bio-diversity, now we can.

Science doesn't abhor mysteries, it embraces them.

This is the difference between scientific thinking and religious thinking:

Science: We really don't know the answer to this mystery....YET. So we're going to keep looking until we do find an answer.

Religion: We really don't know the answer to this mystery so it must be the work of God!

Ruling out one possible explanation without concrete evidence to support it isn't exactly scientific, but this is what many people who supposedly use "scientific thought" do today.

Wat

How can you prove that God doesn't exist and didn't have a hand in creating the universe and life?

How can you prove the noise I just heard wasn't a ghost? The burden of proof is on religion.

By finding the source of the noise.

 

[tonydead]

How can you prove the noise I just heard wasn't a there aren't such things as ghosts? The burden of proof is on religion.

By finding the source of the noise.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

Our only purpose on this earth is to be kind to each other. Some people do not accept that answer.

Prove it.

 

[DrJ]

Our only purpose on this earth is to be kind to each other. Some people do not accept that answer.

Prove it.

Yeah, I'd really like the scientific evidence for this. If we're going the evolution route, our purpose is to dominate fellow man so we can plant our superior seeds and maximize the chance of survival of the species as a whole. Allowing the weak to survive, prosper, and use precious resources is actually a detriment. Even worse is when they actually pass on their genes. The only value your life provides when you are gone isn't helping the weak muck things up more. Your value is actually in the genetic imprint you've left on the population.

 

[joffer]

And it's not science's job to disprove the existence of God, fairies, unicorns or ghosts.

It is if we want to make the assertion he doesn't exist based on scientific evidence.

Who's made that assertion?

And it's not science's job to disprove the existence of God, fairies, unicorns or ghosts.

It is if we want to make the assertion he doesn't exist based on scientific evidence.

nobody's making this assertion.

And it's not science's job to disprove the existence of God, fairies, unicorns or ghosts.

It is if we want to make the assertion he doesn't exist based on scientific evidence.

Nobody is doing that.

Bump

 

[jdoggydogg]

Maybe I'm not up on what they're currently teaching...

You're not.

So the science on the origins of life has actually advanced past a bunch of wild theories?

They aren't wild at all. They're reasoned thoughts based on the evidence.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Our only purpose on this earth is to be kind to each other. Some people do not accept that answer.

Prove it.

Yeah, I'd really like the scientific evidence for this. If we're going the evolution route, our purpose is to dominate fellow man so we can plant our superior seeds and maximize the chance of survival of the species as a whole. Allowing the weak to survive, prosper, and use precious resources is actually a detriment. Even worse is when they actually pass on their genes. The only value your life provides when you are gone isn't helping the weak muck things up more. Your value is actually in the genetic imprint you've left on the population.

Funny how you guys jump on a philosophical statement and start demanding proof.

 

[DrJ]

Maybe I'm not up on what they're currently teaching...

You're not.

So the science on the origins of life has actually advanced past a bunch of wild theories?

They aren't wild at all. They're reasoned thoughts based on the evidence.

By the same standard that the belief in God is supported by evidence, I suppose.

 

[SacramentoBob]

The funny thing is that this topic may draw the most non-female related passion of any topic this board sees. However, if you looked at the actual number of people on this board who seem to actually believe in a young earth, that number is very small. Why can't we just let people believe what they want to believe? How does it impact anyone here? Young earth believers are clearly not holding back scientific discovery in this country.

They vote. Big problem.

If it's such a big problem, how has science advanced as far and rapidly as it has?

You aware of how far the US has fallen behind in science education metrics?

Don't tell me you attribute that to folks who believe in creationism.

I attribute it to many things, this being one. This isn't 5 guys in Mississippi, it's over 100 million people according to recent polling.

100M people might believe in "Creation" but I don't know that they specifically believe in what the hardcore Creationists believe or that it needs to be taught side by side in a science class, despite how they might answer a poll.

 

[DrJ]

Our only purpose on this earth is to be kind to each other. Some people do not accept that answer.

Prove it.

Yeah, I'd really like the scientific evidence for this. If we're going the evolution route, our purpose is to dominate fellow man so we can plant our superior seeds and maximize the chance of survival of the species as a whole. Allowing the weak to survive, prosper, and use precious resources is actually a detriment. Even worse is when they actually pass on their genes. The only value your life provides when you are gone isn't helping the weak muck things up more. Your value is actually in the genetic imprint you've left on the population.

Funny how you guys jump on a philosophical statement and start demanding proof.

It's unfortunate that science bothers you so much.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Our only purpose on this earth is to be kind to each other. Some people do not accept that answer.

Prove it.

Yeah, I'd really like the scientific evidence for this. If we're going the evolution route, our purpose is to dominate fellow man so we can plant our superior seeds and maximize the chance of survival of the species as a whole. Allowing the weak to survive, prosper, and use precious resources is actually a detriment. Even worse is when they actually pass on their genes. The only value your life provides when you are gone isn't helping the weak muck things up more. Your value is actually in the genetic imprint you've left on the population.

Funny how you guys jump on a philosophical statement and start demanding proof.

It's unfortunate that science bothers you so much.

Yes, "We should be kind to each other" is a bedrock scientific theory.

 

[DrJ]

Our only purpose on this earth is to be kind to each other. Some people do not accept that answer.

Prove it.

Yeah, I'd really like the scientific evidence for this. If we're going the evolution route, our purpose is to dominate fellow man so we can plant our superior seeds and maximize the chance of survival of the species as a whole. Allowing the weak to survive, prosper, and use precious resources is actually a detriment. Even worse is when they actually pass on their genes. The only value your life provides when you are gone isn't helping the weak muck things up more. Your value is actually in the genetic imprint you've left on the population.

Funny how you guys jump on a philosophical statement and start demanding proof.

It's unfortunate that science bothers you so much.

Yes, "We should be kind to each other" is a bedrock scientific theory.

No, I meant evolution.

 

[fatness]

Let's sit back for a moment and enjoy some Peenisms.

Sorry, Ive never bought into the we were all lizard, monkey people that crawled out of the ocean theory.

I see them as bitter, arrogant, know it alls that like to force their non beliefs down everyones throat.

I believe in what the bible says.

lol

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Our only purpose on this earth is to be kind to each other. Some people do not accept that answer.

Prove it.

Yeah, I'd really like the scientific evidence for this. If we're going the evolution route, our purpose is to dominate fellow man so we can plant our superior seeds and maximize the chance of survival of the species as a whole. Allowing the weak to survive, prosper, and use precious resources is actually a detriment. Even worse is when they actually pass on their genes. The only value your life provides when you are gone isn't helping the weak muck things up more. Your value is actually in the genetic imprint you've left on the population.

Funny how you guys jump on a philosophical statement and start demanding proof.

It's unfortunate that science bothers you so much.

Yes, "We should be kind to each other" is a bedrock scientific theory.

No, I meant evolution.

Bull.

 

[DrJ]

Our only purpose on this earth is to be kind to each other. Some people do not accept that answer.

Prove it.

Yeah, I'd really like the scientific evidence for this. If we're going the evolution route, our purpose is to dominate fellow man so we can plant our superior seeds and maximize the chance of survival of the species as a whole. Allowing the weak to survive, prosper, and use precious resources is actually a detriment. Even worse is when they actually pass on their genes. The only value your life provides when you are gone isn't helping the weak muck things up more. Your value is actually in the genetic imprint you've left on the population.

Funny how you guys jump on a philosophical statement and start demanding proof.

It's unfortunate that science bothers you so much.

Yes, "We should be kind to each other" is a bedrock scientific theory.

No, I meant evolution.

Bull.

So now you can't distinguish between philosophy and science?

 

[jdoggydogg]

Maybe I'm not up on what they're currently teaching...

You're not.

So the science on the origins of life has actually advanced past a bunch of wild theories?

They aren't wild at all. They're reasoned thoughts based on the evidence.

By the same standard that the belief in God is supported by evidence, I suppose.

No.

 

[Mister Martie]

Maybe I'm not up on what they're currently teaching...

You're not.

So the science on the origins of life has actually advanced past a bunch of wild theories?

They aren't wild at all. They're reasoned thoughts based on the evidence.

By the same standard that the belief in God is supported by evidence, I suppose.

 

[DrJ]

Maybe I'm not up on what they're currently teaching...

You're not.

So the science on the origins of life has actually advanced past a bunch of wild theories?

They aren't wild at all. They're reasoned thoughts based on the evidence.

By the same standard that the belief in God is supported by evidence, I suppose.

No.

Yes. Both offer explanations on how organic matter became life without anything concrete to actually substantiate them.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Maybe I'm not up on what they're currently teaching...

You're not.

So the science on the origins of life has actually advanced past a bunch of wild theories?

They aren't wild at all. They're reasoned thoughts based on the evidence.

By the same standard that the belief in God is supported by evidence, I suppose.

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

 

[DrJ]

Maybe I'm not up on what they're currently teaching...

You're not.

So the science on the origins of life has actually advanced past a bunch of wild theories?

They aren't wild at all. They're reasoned thoughts based on the evidence.

By the same standard that the belief in God is supported by evidence, I suppose.

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?