How Many Christians Will Lose Their Faith After Bill Nye Trounces Ken Ham?

[Rob Osborn]

Geological studies. They are not guessing; they are inferring from data.

 

You are the one who has no idea. If you really want to take on evolutionary theory it is imperative that you actually understand it. You do not.

Oh, I see. So if I dont agree with them I dont understand

[The Nehor]

Oh, I see. So if I dont agree with them I dont understand

Nope, your crazy caricatures of what they believe mean you don't understand.

[thesometimesaint]

Your facile use of one false premise after another won't gloss over your failure to deal with logic and real science.  I recommend courses in each before you traipse off into never-never land again.

 

No legitimate scientist or philosopher would ever say that "living organisms are sculpted by the physical laws of evolution.  It is just that simple."  No more absurd statement could be made, and no such claim has ever been demonstrated.  All science is based on replication of experiments and obtaining the same results.  Evolution has never been subjected to that full demand.  Nor can one find a set of physical laws to account for the theory.  That does not mean it is not a correct theory.  Only that puny humans have yet to prove it true.  It is taught in school by most biologists simply because it seems to be true -- only an inference from observations of various kinds.

 

I have taken those courses and you don't know what the heck you are talking about.

SEE http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.UukvVbTgy_c

 

Evolution is well accepted science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_design

Scientific Theory

SEE http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

[Rob Osborn]

Nope, your crazy caricatures of what they believe mean you don't understand.

Oh I understand alright but talking with a bag of hammers is dumb- they dont listen.

[Rob Osborn]

I have taken those courses and you don't know what the heck you are talking about.

SEE http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.UukvVbTgy_c

 

Evolution is well accepted science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_design

Scientific Theory

SEE http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Science at one time accepted the earth as flat too. Times change and we find the truth and move on. So too with evolution, we will one day see our folly and move on.

[thesometimesaint]

But your argument is that because you cannot allow any intelligent design mechanism then life had to have come into existence by purely natural laws found in nature of the which have never manifested ability to produce anything intelligent.

 

So called "Intelligent Design" is not science. It is based on the fallacious idea of Irreducible Complexity. EVERY example put forth by the creationists/IDer as an example of Irreducible Complexity has been debunked.

SEE

 

Creationism/ID has a constantly moving goal post of what is Irreducible Complex.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

 

Now the Creationist/IDers claim that Abiogenesis is an example of Irreducible Complexity.  Michael Behe won't support you. The sciences can't support you.

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html

 

Your God of the Gaps is get rather small.

[The Nehor]

Oh I understand alright but talking with a bag of hammers is dumb- they dont listen.

 

I agree completely.

 

 

Science at one time accepted the earth as flat too. Times change and we find the truth and move on. So too with evolution, we will one day see our folly and move on.

 

Oh no.....not this again. WHY WON'T THIS STUPIDITY DIE????????

 

 

NO, they didn't. Science truly began as a serious study with the Greeks and they did NOT believe the earth was flat. Virtually every scholar (Christian and non-Christian) in the Middle Ages acknowledged that the earth was a sphere and even had a rough idea of its circumference. The reason everyone thought Columbus was nuts was not because he said the world was round (they knew that already) but that they knew that with the size of the earth his crew would die of hunger and thirst before they got to India. They were right. Luckily there was another landmass in the way.

 

The Flat Earth myth was created by Protestants trying to humiliate Catholics. It was later coopted by religious people in the 19th century to try to humiliate scientists with the idea that they can be so wrong about fundamentals. You are their dupe, still parroting their lies. And make no mistake: They are lies.

[thesometimesaint]

Science at one time accepted the earth as flat too. Times change and we find the truth and move on. So too with evolution, we will one day see our folly and move on.

 

Science never did. Science as we know it is a product of the Enlightenment.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/

 

The ancient Greeks proved the earth was a sphere, and got very close to its actual size. That some in the Christian world forgot that fact is just a matter of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

Edited January 29, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[danielwoods]

So called "Intelligent Design" is not science.

 

Don't tell that to the scientists that used the same principles of design detection that ID uses to determine that Stonehenge wasn't of a natural origin, or the SETI project uses to search for evidence of intelligence. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I agree completely.

 

 

 

 

 

The earth is indeed flat... from a certain perspective.

[Rob Osborn]

Lets just get some pitbulls and settle this once and for all.

[thesometimesaint]

Don't tell that to the scientists that used the same principles of design detection that ID uses to determine that Stonehenge wasn't of a natural origin, or the SETI project uses to search for evidence of intelligence. 

 

Creationism/ID is not a science. Mythical Gods or Godlike forces didn't build Stonehenge. It was regular men. Who while lacking in scientific knowledge still built impressive objects.

 

SETI doesn't rely on or use Creationism/ID. It is strictly a function of the proposition that if intelligent life, other than that found on earth exists(Assuming we are intelligent(BIG ASSUMPTION)), it potentially would figure out a way to transit electromagnetic impulses(radio waves) that hopefully we can pick up and understand. In the Cosmos with hundreds of billions of stars in hundreds of billions of galaxies it is certain mathematically possible. But so far we have virtually zero, with the lone exception of a single anomalous very short sequence, confirmation. 

 

Personally I think that because of diffusion past a few light years, the chances of finding and deciphering that signal has little chance of success. But I still support the effort because of the consequences of either outcome. IE; Either we are truly alone in the universe, thus very special indeed, or that we are common in the universe therefore we have something to talk to each other about.

[danielwoods]

Creationism/ID is not a science. Mythical Gods or Godlike forces didn't build Stonehenge. It was regular men. Who while lacking in scientific knowledge still built impressive objects.

 

SETI doesn't rely on or use Creationism/ID. It is strictly a function of the proposition that if intelligent life, other than that found on earth exists(Assuming we are intelligent(BIG ASSUMPTION)), it potentially would figure out a way to transit electromagnetic impulses(radio waves) that hopefully we can pick up and understand. In the Cosmos with hundreds of billions of stars in hundreds of billions of galaxies it is certain mathematically possible. But so far we have virtually zero, with the lone exception of a single anomalous very short sequence, confirmation. 

 

Personally I think that because of diffusion past a few light years, the chances of finding and deciphering that signal has little chance of success. But I still support the effort because of the consequences of either outcome. IE; Either we are truly alone in the universe, thus very special indeed, or that we are common in the universe therefore we have something to talk to each other about.

 

If your characterization of ID were accurate you'd have a point.

 

Fact is that ID uses the very same "design detection" that these scientists use.  

[thesometimesaint]

. Where are all those radio-telescopes the Creationists built?

[danielwoods]

. Where are all those radio-telescopes the Creationists built?

 

I suspect you don't accept anti-mormon characterizations of what you believe? 

 

Why do you accept anti-ID characterizations of ID? 

[Freedom]

Lets just get some pitbulls and settle this once and for all.

It was settled a long time ago, you just refuse to accept it. 

[Rob Osborn]

Rather than just going back and forth in endless dialogue and getting nowhere perhaps we could find some common ground and build upon that to better understand each other.

[Rob Osborn]

I think its safe to say that as long as we are all Christians the belief in a Creator is a fundamental truth. Would any disagree?

I also think it is safe to say that a belief in the Creator includes an actual belief that life could not exist without the Creators involvement. Again, would any disagree?

Setting all things aside (evolution, creationism, intelligent design) is it possible that science could find evidence at some point How the Creator fits in with all things created?

Whether life evolved from nothing, was transplanted here, or was an aliens science experiment, etc, is there a place in science to include this truth even if it ends up supporting certain religions personal doctrines?

If Christ were to show up tomorrow and show everyone through scientific methods how he performs miracles would science be supportive of him?

[Freedom]

I think its safe to say that as long as we are all Christians the belief in a Creator is a fundamental truth. Would any disagree?

I also think it is safe to say that a belief in the Creator includes an actual belief that life could not exist without the Creators involvement. Again, would any disagree?

Setting all things aside (evolution, creationism, intelligent design) is it possible that science could find evidence at some point How the Creator fits in with all things created?

Whether life evolved from nothing, was transplanted here, or was an aliens science experiment, etc, is there a place in science to include this truth even if it ends up supporting certain religions personal doctrines?

If Christ were to show up tomorrow and show everyone through scientific methods how he performs miracles would science be supportive of him?

Yes

Yes

Science is finding it out right now. I don't understand why you feel a need to reject the evidence that God himself has provided.

Science is the investigation of the evidence. The evidence is that God works through simple and natural means. There are no lds doctrines that reject science. Quite the opposite actually. 

Science is the investigation of evidence, it is not a religious or secret groups of conspirators. When God comes down, he will come to teach the doctrines of salvation, and tell the scientific community to keep up the good work. 

[Rob Osborn]

Yes

Yes

Science is finding it out right now. I don't understand why you feel a need to reject the evidence that God himself has provided.

Science is the investigation of the evidence. The evidence is that God works through simple and natural means. There are no lds doctrines that reject science. Quite the opposite actually. 

Science is the investigation of evidence, it is not a religious or secret groups of conspirators. When God comes down, he will come to teach the doctrines of salvation, and tell the scientific community to keep up the good work.

Depends on how you define God working through natural means. This where often times these debates break down and fall apart rapidly. By "natural means" do you mean this in the context of all laws in the universe are void of evidence of direct evidence of Gods handiwork? How then does the "must" for the Creator fit into these natural laws?

[Robert F. Smith]

Depends on how you define God working through natural means. This where often times these debates break down and fall apart rapidly. By "natural means" do you mean this in the context of all laws in the universe are void of evidence of direct evidence of Gods handiwork? How then does the "must" for the Creator fit into these natural laws?

As pointed out by Sir Isaac Newton, even if we are very wise and knowledgeable about science, we are really like children playing on the seashore, with the vast ocean of reality out there before us yet undiscovered.  There are just too many things we don't know, that the best we can do is reason from analogy with all the discoveries and technical abilities which man has so far developed, and ask ourselves whether we can extrapolate from all that far into the future:  What might be possible to know or do for sentient beings far ahead of us?

 

For atheist scientists like Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe it seemed quite likely that life and the very order of our solar system was designed by sentient beings, and simply too statistically unlikely that it came into all came into being without such sentient tweaking and management.  Why?  Because there is simply too much that is "just right" (cf. Goldilocks concept) to have been accidental.

 

I recall as a kid discussing Bode's Law with some of my astronomically oriented friends.  I was amazed at the ratio involved, and have since found that there are hundreds more such oddly orderly things about reality, including the golden section, fractals, quantum mechanics, etc.  I think that we often underestimate the extraordinary complexity of reality, and imagine that knowing only a very few facts about science gives us power to control reality.  In view of the amazing discoveries and techniques developed in just the past century, we need to be far more humble and less dogmatic.

[thesometimesaint]

Your facile use of one false premise after another won't gloss over your failure to deal with logic and real science.  I recommend courses in each before you traipse off into never-never land again.

 

No legitimate scientist or philosopher would ever say that "living organisms are sculpted by the physical laws of evolution.  It is just that simple."  No more absurd statement could be made, and no such claim has ever been demonstrated.  All science is based on replication of experiments and obtaining the same results.  Evolution has never been subjected to that full demand.  Nor can one find a set of physical laws to account for the theory.  That does not mean it is not a correct theory.  Only that puny humans have yet to prove it true.  It is taught in school by most biologists simply because it seems to be true -- only an inference from observations of various kinds.

 

That statement is simply not true. The banana and the house dog are both examples of the laws of evolution working. There are literally millions more.

[Rob Osborn]

As pointed out by Sir Isaac Newton, even if we are very wise and knowledgeable about science, we are really like children playing on the seashore, with the vast ocean of reality out there before us yet undiscovered.  There are just too many things we don't know, that the best we can do is reason from analogy with all the discoveries and technical abilities which man has so far developed, and ask ourselves whether we can extrapolate from all that far into the future:  What might be possible to know or do for sentient beings far ahead of us?

 

For atheist scientists like Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe it seemed quite likely that life and the very order of our solar system was designed by sentient beings, and simply too statistically unlikely that it came into all came into being without such sentient tweaking and management.  Why?  Because there is simply too much that is "just right" (cf. Goldilocks concept) to have been accidental.

 

I recall as a kid discussing Bode's Law with some of my astronomically oriented friends.  I was amazed at the ratio involved, and have since found that there are hundreds more such oddly orderly things about reality, including the golden section, fractals, quantum mechanics, etc.  I think that we often underestimate the extraordinary complexity of reality, and imagine that knowing only a very few facts about science gives us power to control reality.  In view of the amazing discoveries and techniques developed in just the past century, we need to be far more humble and less dogmatic.

I truly am in awe at just how complex everything is. There is no way that purely natural means void of an intelligent Creator brought about eveything we see. It is true that all things denote there is a God. Its really too bad that much of science has chosen to be atheistic in trying to explain existance.

[thesometimesaint]

As pointed out by Sir Isaac Newton, even if we are very wise and knowledgeable about science, we are really like children playing on the seashore, with the vast ocean of reality out there before us yet undiscovered.  There are just too many things we don't know, that the best we can do is reason from analogy with all the discoveries and technical abilities which man has so far developed, and ask ourselves whether we can extrapolate from all that far into the future:  What might be possible to know or do for sentient beings far ahead of us?

 

For atheist scientists like Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe it seemed quite likely that life and the very order of our solar system was designed by sentient beings, and simply too statistically unlikely that it came into all came into being without such sentient tweaking and management.  Why?  Because there is simply too much that is "just right" (cf. Goldilocks concept) to have been accidental.

 

I recall as a kid discussing Bode's Law with some of my astronomically oriented friends.  I was amazed at the ratio involved, and have since found that there are hundreds more such oddly orderly things about reality, including the golden section, fractals, quantum mechanics, etc.  I think that we often underestimate the extraordinary complexity of reality, and imagine that knowing only a very few facts about science gives us power to control reality.  In view of the amazing discoveries and techniques developed in just the past century, we need to be far more humble and less dogmatic.

 

I've long maintain that what we know is as a thimble in the vast oceans of our ignorance.

 

Sure we do extrapolate to future events. Everything from planting crops for later use to determining the trajectory for the Mars explorer Odyssey. People are very good at extrapolations.

 

Until advanced sentient beings come and tell us what they know we're kinda stuck with what we can figure out for ourselves.

 

Evolution is the opposite of chance.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

 

Scientists don't sit back in their chairs as masters of the universe. As a scientist if I'm not discovery new stuff I'll soon be replaced by those that do.

[thesometimesaint]

I truly am in awe at just how complex everything is. There is no way that purely natural means void of an intelligent Creator brought about eveything we see. It is true that all things denote there is a God. Its really too bad that much of science has chosen to be atheistic in trying to explain existance.

 

I too am in absolute awe of how complex everything is. My science however can not posit any God or godlike force. IE; Omnipotence. You claim not to be a scientist. That's fine. I have absolutely no problem with someone not being a scientist. However you don't get to define what science is. Science is not Atheistic. Science is not Theistic. Science is Agnostic on questions of God. Scientists are free to believe or not believe as is their choice.

 

If you'd bothered to actually read and review my links. You'd understand why that is.