Bill Nye / Ken Ham debate Creationism

paullud · Feb 16, 2014

asjssl said:
The agenda of Mr.Nye is that if we as a society Dont teach science to our children.. let them believe only creationism ..we are doomed ..we won't advance as a society..

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

No, actually Nye's intention is to put an end to religion.

Funny how we advanced just fine even though religion is still here.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

paullud · Feb 16, 2014

cheri1122 said:
In science, a 'theory' is accepted only until something proves it is wrong. The theory of evolution has been around a long time, and every bit of archeological evidence discovered for decades has supported it. Not one iota of fact has proven it wrong. Nada. Zippo. ZERO. Every reputable scientist in every recognized discipline agrees that it is the most [and only] reasonable explanation for how life began - but if evidence says otherwise, there will be no attempt to ignore it. The truth is what they seek, and if evolution turns out not to be truth, [unlikely, at this point], they will keep looking. It's what they do, it's who they are - they can't help it.

In religion and myth, people have handed down stories about how life began for thousands of years, from the time when people believed the sun revolved around the flat earth, and natural disasters [and even thunder & lightning] were 'evidence' of God's feelings. They wanted answers, not truth. They accepted the answers, because they had no way to prove them untrue, and because they like the tradition and the ritual of them. 'Knowing' made them feel powerful in a scary world. The stories are better than the facts that disprove them. [Like, for example, the rings that prove a tree's age, and carbon dating of fossils.]

I know which one makes sense to me.

So basically you're saying that the scientists are exactly as the ancient people, they believe something just because they have nothing to prove them wrong. They also completely refuse to look and study anything that they don't believe in because it doesn't fit so they will just ignore it. Great point Cheri, the scientists of today are just as ridiculous and ignorant as people from thousands of years ago.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

cheri1122 · Feb 16, 2014

paullud said:
So your point is that I am right and there is no scientific fact that proves how we got here? So the part of your brain that determines what is logical or not has decided that we just POOF appeared out of thin air and became living human beings created magically from things that were not alive, great theory and reasoning there.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

No one suggests that living human beings "just POOF appeared out of thin air" - you ought to brush up on your science knowledge. Starting with how much of a human being is composed of chemicals, and how electric impulses create reactions among & between them.

cheri1122 · Feb 16, 2014

paullud said:
So basically you're saying that the scientists are exactly as the ancient people, they believe something just because they have nothing to prove them wrong. They also completely refuse to look and study anything that they don't believe in because it doesn't fit so they will just ignore it. Great point Cheri, the scientists of today are just as ridiculous and ignorant as people from thousands of years ago.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

Scientists believe it because they have found so much evidence that supports it, and nothing that doesn't.

Lawrence · Feb 16, 2014

aristotle said:
Define "life as we know it." A large segment of the American public will not even acknowledge that a human baby in the womb represents life.

"Human". "Baby". "Life". I agree!

xiggi · Feb 16, 2014

cheri1122 said:
In science, a 'theory' is accepted only until something proves it is wrong. The theory of evolution has been around a long time, and every bit of archeological evidence discovered for decades has supported it. Not one iota of fact has proven it wrong. Nada. Zippo. ZERO. Every reputable scientist in every recognized discipline agrees that it is the most [and only] reasonable explanation for how life began - but if evidence says otherwise, there will be no attempt to ignore it. The truth is what they seek, and if evolution turns out not to be truth, [unlikely, at this point], they will keep looking. It's what they do, it's who they are - they can't help it.

In religion and myth, people have handed down stories about how life began for thousands of years, from the time when people believed the sun revolved around the flat earth, and natural disasters [and even thunder & lightning] were 'evidence' of God's feelings. They wanted answers, not truth. They accepted the answers, because they had no way to prove them untrue, and because they like the tradition and the ritual of them. 'Knowing' made them feel powerful in a scary world. The stories are better than the facts that disprove them. [Like, for example, the rings that prove a tree's age, and carbon dating of fossils.]

I know which one makes sense to me.

They both make sense to me in the respect what one person chooses to believe is perfectly fine. I think the biggest question is not what theory is correct but why we choose to judge another's belief so much.

sent from my Fisher Price - ABC123

xiggi · Feb 16, 2014

asjssl said:
The agenda of Mr.Nye is that if we as a society Dont teach science to our children.. let them believe only creationism ..we are doomed ..we won't advance as a society..

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

I'm not even sure where this line of thinking comes from? To my knowledge every public school and a large number of private schools in america teaches science. On the other side of the coin it seems the more religion disappears from society the more doomed we also seem to be. I learned science and religion in my younger years neither impacted my life in a negative way. I also do not rally against either today.

sent from my Fisher Price - ABC123

Turtle · Feb 16, 2014

xiggi said:
Plenty of science that is theory is taught in schools so you believe teaching one theory is OK apposed to another. I have no problem with both being taught personally.

Actually, all of science, one hundred percent of it, is theory.

In science (and everywhere else the word is correctly used), Theory (as well as Principle and Law) represents established, evidence-based explanations accounting for currently known facts or phenomena, or for historically verified experience. Theories make predictions, predictions that must be true if the theory is correct, but also predictions that can be falsified, which in turn proves the theory in incorrect, and thus either dismisses the theory, or the theory must be changed to match the evidence. The predictions these evidence-based accounts have been well tested by experiment and observation. Examples include the theory of relativity, the law of gravity, the germ theory of disease, the principle of conservation of energy.

The big bang theory, for instance, predicts certain things, one of which is the temperature of the background radiation left over from such a cosmic explosion. This prediction was made long before science could even figure out how to make such a measurement. Many years later they figured out how to measure the temperature, and it was exactly as predicted. Does that prove the Big Bang Theory? No, it doesn't. But just as importantly, it doesn't disprove it, so the theory stands until something does. Every scientific theory is exactly like that, a theory, waiting to be proved or disproved, by observation and experiment.

Creationism isn't science, it's belief. Intelligent Design isn't a theory, it's a belief (albeit one that has been proven to be just flat out made up, specifically as a means to get creationism into the biology curriculum in schools). Neither one makes predictions that can be falsified, which is the bedrock of all scientific theory. Instead, you are expected to take it at face value as true, and if you don't take it at face value, then they have other non-falsifiable ideas they'll put forth as evidence to it. So what it comes down to is, both the terms "theory" and "evidence" are being used incorrectly, co-opted for the purposes of advancing an agenda. Creation Science is an oxymoron, because it's sole piece of evidence is a book that doesn't allow falsification. Creationism isn't a theory, no matter how many times you call it one.

There are two primary differences between a between a scientist and a creationist. One is, a scientist has the courage to say, "I don't know." The other is, a scientist will accept evidence when it differs with his personal beliefs. If you can't do either of those things, learning stops.

Turtle · Feb 16, 2014

Lawrence said:
"Human". "Baby". "Life". I agree!

Life? Yes.
Human life? Yes.
A baby? Not until it's born.

cheri1122 · Feb 17, 2014

xiggi said:
I'm not even sure where this line of thinking comes from? To my knowledge every public school and a large number of private schools in america teaches science. On the other side of the coin it seems the more religion disappears from society the more doomed we also seem to be. I learned science and religion in my younger years neither impacted my life in a negative way. I also do not rally against either today.

Since "doomed" is an opinion, [people thought society was "doomed" at nearly every point in history, due to the behavior of the next generation], it's hard to say whether that's true or not. But even if it were true, beyond any doubt, we still can't attribute it to the disappearance of religion from society. I could make a case for the disappearance of value for 'stakeholders' [employees, customers, community] in the business world as a strong factor in our decline, myself, replaced by value for solely the 'shareholder', which translates to plain old greed.
As for religion not having a negative impact on your life, that could be because you are a male, and religion favors males. Women, not so much. Religion doesn't permit women to have any power in the Church, nor even in her own life: women are meant to obey men and have babies [lots of them] and raise them in the Church.
It hasn't had a negative impact on me personally, but think about it: how much potential is religion choking off by keeping women subservient? And how is it justified?
And I'm not even talking about the women who have babies until they're just worn out, either. With all the efforts to 'modernize' the church, women are still treated as inferior, and if that doesn't exactly doom a society, it sure doesn't help it achieve it's potential, either.

sent from my Fisher Price - ABC123

tenntrucker · Feb 17, 2014

Is there nothing we won't argue about on EO?

sent from my Galaxy S3

asjssl · Feb 17, 2014

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

paullud · Feb 17, 2014

cheri1122 said:
No one suggests that living human beings "just POOF appeared out of thin air" - you ought to brush up on your science knowledge. Starting with how much of a human being is composed of chemicals, and how electric impulses create reactions among & between them.

You might want to brush up on your's and while you're at it stop taking things so literally. The Big Bang Theory explains so very little with actual facts and has no explanation at all on how there was anything to cause the Big Bang. I fully understand the idea of evolution but again it has nothing remotely possible to explain how things that were not alive suddenly formed life. You clearly only know bits and pieces of how they claim life began because otherwise you would have to believe in magic or intelligent design to explain it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

paullud · Feb 17, 2014

cheri1122 said:
Scientists believe it because they have found so much evidence that supports it, and nothing that doesn't.

I have a rock that protects me from lions, tigers, and bears so I guess until I am attacked by a lion, tiger, or bear you and the scientists will have to believe that as well.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

paullud · Feb 17, 2014

xiggi said:
They both make sense to me in the respect what one person chooses to believe is perfectly fine. I think the biggest question is not what theory is correct but why we choose to judge another's belief so much.

sent from my Fisher Price - ABC123

Who's to say it wasn't a mix of both things? Science is caught up in proving that there is no higher power and the religious are caught up in trying to prove the Bible to be 100% right. The science community should be open to any possibility until proven otherwise and not just what they choose. Christians should realize that the Bible has been translated into different languages so there is the possibility of error as humans did it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

Turtle · Feb 17, 2014

paullud said:
I have a rock that protects me from lions, tigers, and bears so I guess until I am attacked by a lion, tiger, or bear you and the scientists will have to believe that as well.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

Nope. Scientists won't believe or disbelieve. Your theory makes predictions that can be tested. They will test your theory with observation and experiment, and the results will either support or falsify your theory. To believe or disbelieve without having any evidence to support your position is nothing more than wishes and fantasy.

sirgregory46 · Feb 17, 2014

paullud said:
I have a rock that protects me from lions, tigers, and bears so I guess until I am attacked by a lion, tiger, or bear you and the scientists will have to believe that as well.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

Bring your rock. We will put you in a pit with lions tigers or bears and test your theory. Seems like a simple experiment. Then I will publish the results. My bets on the critters.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using EO Forums mobile app

paullud · Feb 17, 2014

sirgregory46 said:
Bring your rock. We will put you in a pit with lions tigers or bears and test your theory. Seems like a simple experiment. Then I will publish the results. My bets on the critters.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using EO Forums mobile app

I am testing it now, I never see any lions, tigers, or bears anywhere I go.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app