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

[danielwoods]

Here is an example of a prediction made and science paper submitted by a creationist, using the creationist model. 

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/02/08/creation-model-make-predictions

 

We presented our data at a regional scientific conference in 2000 with a presentation titled: “The Neanderthal’s place in human history.”² We also presented it at a creation conference with a presentation titled: “Rate heterogeneity and site by site analysis of mtDNA suggests Neanderthals and modern humans share a recent common ancestor.”³

Edited February 9, 2014 by danielwoods

[maklelan]

The NCSE's entire and sole purpose is to confront and squash out any and all voices which question Darwinian evolution.

 

Or one might rephrase it and say its purpose is to confront and expose pseudo-science. It all depends on your perspective. Actual science has the benefit of evidence and sound methodologies, so it seems problematic for the person with neither to just dismiss a group with which they disagree simply on the grounds that they disagree, and then turn around and demand others give space for that evidence-less and methodologically corrupt pseudo-science to be heard.

[maklelan]

Here is an example of a prediction made and science paper submitted by a creationist, using the creationist model. 

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/02/08/creation-model-make-predictions

 

Well, first, that author subscribes to an unimaginably stupid misreading of the Hebrew Bible. Next, this is why this author is not a scientist:

 

As a scientist, I needed to have evidence that I could use to contradict the reported conclusive results. I could not just say, “Since the result doesn’t match the Bible, it is wrong.” No, as a scientist, I was compelled to find out why the conclusion was wrong based on scientific data within the framework of the Bible’s claims. 

 

In other words, he has conclusion X which is based on no evidence and is contradicted by the available evidence, so he must go out in search of evidence that will support his conclusion X. That's not science, that's dogmatism. Full stop.

 

And finally, this is not a prediction, this is a bit of dogma that got lucky while secular science was chasing a dead end. In reality, Nearnderthals completely violate the author's entire young Earth creationist timeline. This is just monstrously stupid pseudo-science. An actual prediction would be that some specific sedimentary layer would contain creature X and not creature Y, which could then be tested. Just saying the Bible says Neanderthals must be related to humans, and it turns out Nearnderthals are related to humans is not a prediction, particularly because the secular world had promoted that conclusion in various forms previously. 

[maklelan]

The entire reason the NCSE was founded was to confront all forms of creationism and Intelligent Design and ensure that these ideas do not advance in the public eye or school systems at all levels, public and private. This is not how science is supposed to work and thus why I do not view them as being a true religious free scientific organization.

 

Uh, no, science is absolutely supposed to work to promote education over and against ignorant dogmatism. Young Earth creationism cripples scientific literacy. Our children need to understand science, not pseudo-scientific clap-trap. It is a cancer on the modern intellectual and scientific world. 

[knowone]

i never have a problem with evolutionists.  one who understands that all science is beneath God, simply needs to turn the table on the scientific establishment to prove that creationists have less to explain than evolutionists.  for example, the rule of thumb in science is 'if you can repeat the results, it becomes scientific fact'.  lets take a look at a few modern scientific fields:

aeronautics, astronomy - cannot explain the UFO phenomenon.  cannot repeat the phenomenon.  there is clear, unfallible data from independent nations, FAA & NASA, yet no one can answer the question.

archeology - cannot explain the mayan or aztec timeline.  you can see this confusion in all the time periods that have been coined: archaic, maya classic, teochticlan, post-classic, classic, etc etc.  right now, in mesoamerica studies they have stopped coining names for periods.  30% of mayan glyphs have been decoded but our understanding is going backwards.

ballistics, aeronautics, physics - yaw.  it can be repeated, but no one can explain why it happens.  ask a military pilot or a ballistics expert.

biology, evolutionism - new species are being found even to this day.  i.e. olinguito in ecuador, dolphin in brazil, walking shark in indonesia.  its as if these species simply appeared out of thin air!  leapfrogging evolution entirely.

geology - continental drift.  it happens, its measured....but no one knows why.

thermodynamics - mpemba effect.  the ability to freeze water that is boiling?  huh!?  another mystery.

laser physics, light science, wave science - is light a wave or a particle?  no one knows for sure!  i.e. wave particle duality.

i could go on & on with the problems the scientific establishment has in their own house.  i feel the lds church has more answers about the universe than established science has to put it quite frankly.

 

lets take me for example.  im simply a hobbyist in the scientific arena.  yet i have been able to repeat a postive confirmation in regards to God, the Savior, the fall, the atonement, repentance & the restoration through joseph smith ten of thousands of times in my 39 years on this planet.

 

i guess what im saying is that the lds church has less to worry about than people who worship darwin as their idol.  darwinism & science in general has a glass jaw & that happens to be its own methodology.  flip the script & use it against them & the cracks in the foundation is exposed.

following through with the obvious conclusion.  since ive never met mr. darwin or met a true darwinist in real life...its almost as if...darwin himself had never existed.  *poof*

[Calm]

"simply needs to turn the table on the scientific establishment to prove that creationists have less to explain than evolutionists"

I don't understand, are you saying that the creationists have demonstrated viable answers to those questions above?

Scientists, last I checked, don't claim to have all the answers. So what is the difficulty here?

[bcuzbcuz]

Ah, I didn't see arms so I couldn't tell for sure.  Thank you…it has been bugging me for awhile.

I thank you for asking. I've tried to enlarge your avatar but cannot. What is its significance?

[Calm]

It is a copy of a Midway Garden Sprite by Frank Lloyd Wright.  I have a chess set of them and once I get rich and famous I plan to fill my backyard with a dozen or so of the full size ones.  

 

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

 

Edited February 9, 2014 by calmoriah

[bcuzbcuz]

It is a copy of a Midway Garden Sprite by Frank Lloyd Wright.  I have a chess set of them and once I get rich and famous I plan to fill my backyard with a dozen or so of the full size ones.  

 

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

 

Frank Lloyd Wright was my architectural hero, I was devastated when there was talk of tearing down the Falling Water home. But they have restructured it, good for many years to come. Didn't know he did garden gnomes...lol

[Calm]

Garden gnomes...too funny, I never made that connection before...and yet that is exactly what they are, just done his way.

[thesometimesaint]

We cannot merely chalk up all existence to the "natural" in the sense of "godless" existence. Computers and robots and all other inventions are a product of mans intelligence. The question then becomes who or what is the ultimate author for this intelligence. Well, studies in scientific experiments have pretty much proven that intelligence is not the mere product of an unintelligent sequence of events in nature. For instance- lightning can strike a body of water a billion times and never do we see a reaction caused by it that leads to an intelligent process or intelligent information. You can also watch avalanches on a mountain and never will it produce anything of intelligence. In fact- nothing in nature that is not first caused with intelligent purpose is seen to produce anything intelligent. Intelligence is not a law of nature nor is nature the cause of intelligence. We are highly intelligent because of the spirit placed inside of us by God. When coupled with the body and mind, the intelligence becomes driven off of passions and desires and what we call a conscious. Without the explanation of the "spirit" aspect of intelligence, science is driving down endless roads in trying to explain our purpose here and how and why we are intelligent.

In studying the basic laws of the elements in nature we see that these elements act and react in known predictable patterns of which are said to be non intelligent processes. It is only when we as intelligent agents insert purpose or design elements into the actions that we begin to see the products of intelligence or the sign of intelligence in nature. This is paramount to basic principle in all of the sciences. We know there are laws in the universe and that all of these laws abide in a perfect cause and effect reaction that continues on and on endlessly. These laws though do not write for intelligence. They do not encode anywhere we have looked, special design parameters that allow for intelligence to arise on its own. Without a purpose intelligent cause acting within natural law there can never be any chance that intelligence will ever come about on its own. This tells us something rather unique about our existence and when carefully examined should lead us to conclude that there absolutely is an intelligently driven cause for why life is here on this planet. This is where science needs to graduate to. We need to get all of science on board with this reality- to find that "intelligent cause of reality" and see how and why it exists and our relation to it. We will not find this answer however just looking in nature void of any God or other intelligent cause. This is why science will continue to fail- because it has yet to accept the reality that our intelligence is not a part of the laws of what we tend to call "nature".

 

That is exactly what science is. We can not posit any God or Godlike force onto science.

 

I've never denied computers and robots are objects of man's creation.

 

There is no "ultimate" intelligence in science. We either know something or we don't. If we don't know we ask questions of nature to establish what is the nature of nature.

 

That statement is exactly the opposite of what science is. While we probably never will have specimens of every plant an animal that has ever lived on this planet. The evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly large. Every recognized scientific organization on the planet agrees with evolution.SEE

 

Incorrect; Here is the artificial production of RNA http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-in-a-bottle/

 

TTBOMK no scientist has ever claimed that avalanches produce intelligence.

 

I have no idea as to what you mean when you say intelligence. So called Intelligent Design is predicated on the idea that some things are Irreducibly Complex to work. Yet every single example put forth by the Creationists of IC has been debunked.

 

There is no physical evidence for any type of spirit. As far as science is concerned life is a complex electrochemical set of interactions. 

 

That is a religious belief. You are entitled to hold it, but it has no bearing on science.

See

[Rob Osborn]

That is exactly what science is. We can not posit any God or Godlike force onto science.

 

I've never denied computers and robots are objects of man's creation.

 

There is no "ultimate" intelligence in science. We either know something or we don't. If we don't know we ask questions of nature to establish what is the nature of nature.

 

That statement is exactly the opposite of what science is. While we probably never will have specimens of every plant an animal that has ever lived on this planet. The evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly large. Every recognized scientific organization on the planet agrees with evolution.SEE

 

Incorrect; Here is the artificial production of RNA http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-in-a-bottle/

 

TTBOMK no scientist has ever claimed that avalanches produce intelligence.

 

I have no idea as to what you mean when you say intelligence. So called Intelligent Design is predicated on the idea that some things are Irreducibly Complex to work. Yet every single example put forth by the Creationists of IC has been debunked.

 

There is no physical evidence for any type of spirit. As far as science is concerned life is a complex electrochemical set of interactions. 

 

That is a religious belief. You are entitled to hold it, but it has no bearing on science.

See

Its ironic they use these words in their RNA experiment- " Our goal is to make life in the lab, but to get there we need to increase the complexity of the system so that it can start inventing new function, rather than just optimizing the function we've designed into it."

Talk about intelligent design....he heh

If you want your godless science then go ahead, no one is stopping you. Do realize however it will always have its limitations. My science which includes god is limitless.

[Robert F. Smith]

i never have a problem with evolutionists.  one who understands that all science is beneath God, simply needs to turn the table on the scientific establishment to prove that creationists have less to explain than evolutionists.  for example, the rule of thumb in science is 'if you can repeat the results, it becomes scientific fact'.  lets take a look at a few modern scientific fields:

aeronautics, astronomy - cannot explain the UFO phenomenon.  cannot repeat the phenomenon.  there is clear, unfallible data from independent nations, FAA & NASA, yet no one can answer the question.

archeology - cannot explain the mayan or aztec timeline.  you can see this confusion in all the time periods that have been coined: archaic, maya classic, teochticlan, post-classic, classic, etc etc.  right now, in mesoamerica studies they have stopped coining names for periods.  30% of mayan glyphs have been decoded but our understanding is going backwards.

ballistics, aeronautics, physics - yaw.  it can be repeated, but no one can explain why it happens.  ask a military pilot or a ballistics expert.

biology, evolutionism - new species are being found even to this day.  i.e. olinguito in ecuador, dolphin in brazil, walking shark in indonesia.  its as if these species simply appeared out of thin air!  leapfrogging evolution entirely.

geology - continental drift.  it happens, its measured....but no one knows why.

thermodynamics - mpemba effect.  the ability to freeze water that is boiling?  huh!?  another mystery.

laser physics, light science, wave science - is light a wave or a particle?  no one knows for sure!  i.e. wave particle duality.

i could go on & on with the problems the scientific establishment has in their own house.  i feel the lds church has more answers about the universe than established science has to put it quite frankly.

 

lets take me for example.  im simply a hobbyist in the scientific arena.  yet i have been able to repeat a postive confirmation in regards to God, the Savior, the fall, the atonement, repentance & the restoration through joseph smith ten of thousands of times in my 39 years on this planet.

 

i guess what im saying is that the lds church has less to worry about than people who worship darwin as their idol.  darwinism & science in general has a glass jaw & that happens to be its own methodology.  flip the script & use it against them & the cracks in the foundation is exposed.

following through with the obvious conclusion.  since ive never met mr. darwin or met a true darwinist in real life...its almost as if...darwin himself had never existed.  *poof*

Nearly all of this survey is hogwash.  I suggest that you actually study some of these areas before making such false evaluations.  Then cite your sources.  Someone has clearly led you far astray.

[thesometimesaint]

Its ironic they use these words in their RNA experiment- " Our goal is to make life in the lab, but to get there we need to increase the complexity of the system so that it can start inventing new function, rather than just optimizing the function we've designed into it."

Talk about intelligent design....he heh

If you want your godless science then go ahead, no one is stopping you. Do realize however it will always have its limitations. My science which includes god is limitless.

If I burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen. I get water. Ipso Facto water is intelligent.

 

Science is not Atheistic or Theistic. It is Agnostic.

[Rob Osborn]

If I burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen. I get water. Ipso Facto water is intelligent.

 

Science is not Atheistic or Theistic. It is Agnostic.

Perhaps your science in your mind is. In true science it must include all realities of which include God.

[strappinglad]

I find it valuable to note that many if not most of the great pioneers in science not only placed God in the scene but regarded their studies as a way to approach God through understanding His works. They and their science were not agnostic at all. Now ,however, it is considered academic anathema to mention God, creation, and science in the same breath. How times change. Interesting how these science pioneers did not find God to be a hinderance to their studies but a motivator .

[thesometimesaint]

Perhaps your science in your mind is. In true science it must include all realities of which include God.

 

Seeing that I am a scientist, and that the dictionary, and other scientists agree. I would say that science by definition can not include any God, or Godlike force.

Edited February 10, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

I find it valuable to note that many if not most of the great pioneers in science not only placed God in the scene but regarded their studies as a way to approach God through understanding His works. They and their science were not agnostic at all. Now ,however, it is considered academic anathema to mention God, creation, and science in the same breath. How times change. Interesting how these science pioneers did not find God to be a hinderance to their studies but a motivator .

 

Science is Agnostic. Scientists OTOH are free to believe or not believe as they choose.

SEE http://bigthink.com/videos/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-science-and-faith

Edited February 10, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

Science is Agnostic. Scientists OTOH are free to believe or not believe as they choose.

SEE http://bigthink.com/videos/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-science-and-faith

I would like to modify your statement to say- "Science can be Agnostic". It doesn't demand that it be Agnostic. I see limitations to science that is void of God. In the LDS religion we believe in the Creator of the which without there could never be any life on this planet. This places us and other religions in a special and unique position because we do not merely believe that life can just pop into existence on its own. And because science includes the discussion on how life emerged it therefore must include the Creator because to deny this is to deny our doctrine concerning the creation. LDS scientists should at least acknowledge that when it comes to the question of life and how and why we are here, an inclusion of God should be expected. Does this negate the drive of science or take away from its very principle? Absolutely not. How we place rockets into space or drill for oil has no real bearing on how life came into existence. But, if we must discuss the origins of life and how we became intelligent or why we are intelligent then the inclusion of God is a must because outside of this the answer will always allude science.

[thesometimesaint]

I would like to modify your statement to say- "Science can be Agnostic". It doesn't demand that it be Agnostic. I see limitations to science that is void of God. In the LDS religion we believe in the Creator of the which without there could never be any life on this planet. This places us and other religions in a special and unique position because we do not merely believe that life can just pop into existence on its own. And because science includes the discussion on how life emerged it therefore must include the Creator because to deny this is to deny our doctrine concerning the creation. LDS scientists should at least acknowledge that when it comes to the question of life and how and why we are here, an inclusion of God should be expected. Does this negate the drive of science or take away from its very principle? Absolutely not. How we place rockets into space or drill for oil has no real bearing on how life came into existence. But, if we must discuss the origins of life and how we became intelligent or why we are intelligent then the inclusion of God is a must because outside of this the answer will always allude science.

Science is Agnostic. If anyone claims that science is Theistic or Atheistic they are no longer talking science but a philosophical position.

 

Science long ago recognized those limits. We can only use matter and energy as inputs into science.

 

Again that is not what science says. We can not posit any God of Godlike force into science.

 

There are plenty of LDS scientists that accept the evidence for Abiogenesis, and still don't have any problem with God. Moreover I deeply resent your statement that I am not a fully believing LDS.

 

Some 40% of all US scientists believe in a personal God. That is an empirically true statement. So you are either willfully ignorant of what science is or being deliberately disingenuous in describing it.

[Rob Osborn]

Science is Agnostic. If anyone claims that science is Theistic or Atheistic they are no longer talking science but a philosophical position.

 

Science long ago recognized those limits. We can only use matter and energy as inputs into science.

 

Again that is not what science says. We can not posit any God of Godlike force into science.

 

There are plenty of LDS scientists that accept the evidence for Abiogenesis, and still don't have any problem with God. Moreover I deeply resent your statement that I am not a fully believing LDS.

 

Some 40% of all US scientists believe in a personal God. That is an empirically true statement. So you are either willfully ignorant of what science is or being deliberately disingenuous in describing it.

Perhaps "your" science may have recognized a neutral position for God in your science. My science recognizes a God. That doesn't mean it isn't science anymore. You are missing the bigger picture here. If science ultimately comes to the conclusion (as I know it will) that the creation was not a random act in nature then it must freely open the door to reality that complex intelligence in nature is indeed the product of design by intelligence preceding it. If that intelligence just happens to be God then science has no other alternative but to fully embrace God in science. This is because science encompasses all truth, no matter where it lies. God is not supernatural, he is an actual physical being who incorporates to perfection all of the laws of perfect science within our universe. He is as much a part of it as is every small atom is also part of the universe.

 

LDS doctrine teaches no other doctrine besides the fact that life is here solely because there was an intelligent Creator who brought it to pass. Anything less than this falls outside of church doctrine. As LDS we can choose to believe or not believe this but be it known that excluding the Creator for how life came into existence is contrary to LDS teachings.

[thesometimesaint]

Perhaps "your" science may have recognized a neutral position for God in your science. My science recognizes a God. That doesn't mean it isn't science anymore. You are missing the bigger picture here. If science ultimately comes to the conclusion (as I know it will) that the creation was not a random act in nature then it must freely open the door to reality that complex intelligence in nature is indeed the product of design by intelligence preceding it. If that intelligence just happens to be God then science has no other alternative but to fully embrace God in science. This is because science encompasses all truth, no matter where it lies. God is not supernatural, he is an actual physical being who incorporates to perfection all of the laws of perfect science within our universe. He is as much a part of it as is every small atom is also part of the universe.

 

LDS doctrine teaches no other doctrine besides the fact that life is here solely because there was an intelligent Creator who brought it to pass. Anything less than this falls outside of church doctrine. As LDS we can choose to believe or not believe this but be it known that excluding the Creator for how life came into existence is contrary to LDS teachings.

 

 I don't know how many ways to say this but it is NOT science. I've shown you the science behind evolution; I've given what actual scientists say about evolution; I have given you lists of scientific organizations that fully accept evolution. Yet you still refuse to accept the science.

 

Evolution is not random. It is tiny variations in the genome of a species that accumulate over time, and that eventually produce a creature that is no longer able to reproduce with the parent population. I've give you examples in the lab, and in the field. You simply refuse to accept that evidence.

 

God by definition is supernatural. I've shown it to you in the dictionary. You simply refuse to accept the dictionary on the definitions of words.

 

That is as a ridiculous idea as God fills the whole of the universe, and yet dwells within your heart. We don't let the Protestants get away with it, why should I let you get away with an even more ridiculous idea.

 

Science doesn't embrace all truth. IE; Science won't tell you how to treat your neighbor. Which flavor of ice cream is best. Or that God cursed black people.

 

I'm fine with God. I'm fine with God using science in making and peopling our earth. I'll make this real simple for you. God is omnipotent. Say I want to study the effects of fertilizer on two fields of corn. ANY reason I give using God is because God did it, and not the fertilizer. You claimed Intelligent Design. I've shown you that ID is based on the flawed premise of Irreducible Complexity. EVERY example that has been given so far for IC has been proven FALSE. IC advocates have gone from whole species of animals, to watches on beeches, to mouse traps, to the human eye, to bacteria flagella, and you are now proposing the atom as an example. Talk about moving goal posts. In short; God has to mean more to you than the sum total of your ignorance.

[thesometimesaint]

Danielwoods:

 

"Many historians of science have documented that the first to oppose Galileo was the scientific establishment, not the church. The prevailing ‘scientific’ wisdom of his day was the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic theory—an unwieldy geocentric system, with the earth at the centre of the universe and other heavenly bodies in highly complex orbits around the earth. And it had its origins in a paganphilosophical system. There existed a powerful body of

men whose hostility to Galileo never abated: the Aristotelians at the universities. Galileo challenged all that, when he promoted Copernicus’s earlier idea that the Earth moved around the sun, i.e. the heliocentric or geokinetic theory."

 

 

Galileo didn't get into trouble with the scientists of his time. He got into trouble for calling the Pope a simpleton.

http://www.vaticanobservatory.org/index.php/es/about-us/cat-history

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0043.htm

[Rob Osborn]

I don't know how many ways to say this but it is NOT science. I've shown you the science behind evolution; I've given what actual scientists say about evolution; I have given you lists of scientific organizations that fully accept evolution. Yet you still refuse to accept the science.

 

Evolution is not random. It is tiny variations in the genome of a species that accumulate over time, and that eventually produce a creature that is no longer able to reproduce with the parent population. I've give you examples in the lab, and in the field. You simply refuse to accept that evidence.

 

God by definition is supernatural. I've shown it to you in the dictionary. You simply refuse to accept the dictionary on the definitions of words.

 

That is as a ridiculous idea as God fills the whole of the universe, and yet dwells within your heart. We don't let the Protestants get away with it, why should I let you get away with an even more ridiculous idea.

 

Science doesn't embrace all truth. IE; Science won't tell you how to treat your neighbor. Which flavor of ice cream is best. Or that God cursed black people.

 

I'm fine with God. I'm fine with God using science in making and peopling our earth. I'll make this real simple for you. God is omnipotent. Say I want to study the effects of fertilizer on two fields of corn. ANY reason I give using God is because God did it, and not the fertilizer. You claimed Intelligent Design. I've shown you that ID is based on the flawed premise of Irreducible Complexity. EVERY example that has been given so far for IC has been proven FALSE. IC advocates have gone from whole species of animals, to watches on beeches, to mouse traps, to the human eye, to bacteria flagella, and you are now proposing the atom as an example. Talk about moving goal posts. In short; God has to mean more to you than the sum total of your ignorance.

Evolution is random or should I say- undriven with no purpose for end result. For evolution not to be random it would have to planned. Random doesnt mean its outside of law, it just means there isnt purpose or design in its mutation and selection. Evolutionists are under the false premise that the cycle of mutations in genetic information lead to more complex design elements making species more adept for their environment. This is not true. Countless experiments have shown that mutation and copy errors do not lead to new and more complex information. Evolutionists drawoff of fantasy and magic to explain how things such as dinosaurs evolving into birds and land animals into whales. On the basic genetic microbiologic level there is no map that works. Its easy to make drawings and computer aided cartoons of their theories but anyone can write fantasy novels and make science fiction movies. Thats all evolution is at this point- science fiction.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

 

Galileo didn't get into trouble with the scientists of his time. He got into trouble for calling the Pope a simpleton.

http://www.vaticanobservatory.org/index.php/es/about-us/cat-history

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0043.htm

He seems he was hated by both the higher ups in the church and the scientists of his day.

Not sure what Galileo has to do with anything in this thread.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram