It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.

page: 17
21
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
No, mistakes aren't subjective in science because subjective evidence isn't permitted according to scientific method...read the link I posted.

As for mistakes of religions: global flood (never happened), talking snakes (lol), people surviving in whales (physically impossible), humans just popping up in their current form (demonstrably wrong), ....

Like I said, there's hundreds of examples.

And of course science and religion isn't mutually exclusive...it's just that there's ZERO objective evidence for creationism while science backs up its claims since they use scientific method.


Objective reasoning is only possible without bias, so if you dismiss religion you are in contradiction to the scientific method. If you trust logic, then you have used intuition to acknowledge it's existence. It is your perception of the world, and regardless of how you solve a problem it is always subjective.




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by centrifugal

Originally posted by MrXYZ
No, mistakes aren't subjective in science because subjective evidence isn't permitted according to scientific method...read the link I posted.

As for mistakes of religions: global flood (never happened), talking snakes (lol), people surviving in whales (physically impossible), humans just popping up in their current form (demonstrably wrong), ....

Like I said, there's hundreds of examples.

And of course science and religion isn't mutually exclusive...it's just that there's ZERO objective evidence for creationism while science backs up its claims since they use scientific method.


Objective reasoning is only possible without bias, so if you dismiss religion you are in contradiction to the scientific method. If you trust logic, then you have used intuition to acknowledge it's existence. It is your perception of the world, and regardless of how you solve a problem it is always subjective.



Of course you can dismiss parts of a religion when they're DEMONSTRABLY wrong. Stating that a global flood never happened because there is NO EVIDENCE isn't "being biased"...it's COMMON SENSE. The same goes for pointing out that people surviving inside whales is physically impossible, or that snakes can't talk, or that the literal interpretation of Genesis is demonstrably false. All this has NOTHING to do with being biased



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
"The monkey doth protest too much, methinks."

A little too shrill for my taste, this "debate"..


What a waste of time and energy this was.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
You do realise that you first say "I never said that" just to then repeat EXACTLY what I'm accusing you of, right?


In your limited understanding of my perspective, I can see how you would make these conclusions. I could clarify, but this is much more fun for me and you havent actually asked (making the assumption that you actually know the point of what I am saying). And it seems you feel your interpretation is already unbiased and objective as you attempt to educate me on my own perspective, eschewing the source of the data as inferior to your interpretation and understanding of it.

Do explain what my perspective is to me.
I openly admit I am flawed and limited. I am not omniscient, so I like to ask for clarification.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
"The monkey doth protest too much, methinks."

A little too shrill for my taste, this "debate"..


What a waste of time and energy this was.


Of course I stand up against argumentative fallacies and complete nonsense arguments that ignore facts (like the fact that the earth isn't a circle).



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Serdgiam

Originally posted by MrXYZ
You do realise that you first say "I never said that" just to then repeat EXACTLY what I'm accusing you of, right?


In your limited understanding of my perspective, I can see how you would make these conclusions. I could clarify, but this is much more fun for me and you havent actually asked (making the assumption that you actually know the point of what I am saying). And it seems you feel your interpretation is already unbiased and objective as you attempt to educate me on my own perspective, eschewing the source of the data as inferior to your interpretation and understanding of it.

Do explain what my perspective is to me.
I openly admit I am flawed and limited. I am not omniscient, so I like to ask for clarification.


Well, you clearly (as in: I quoted you) stated that unless you do your own experiments you can't know...which of course is NONSENSE



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I'm going to have to say creationism is not appropriate for children in the classroom, when they are home it's not any of our business to decide what is appropriate for other children.
edit on 28-8-2012 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Well, you clearly (as in: I quoted you) stated that unless you do your own experiments you can't know...which of course is NONSENSE


Please do show me where I stated "unless you do your own experiments you can't know." I apologize for being dense. I struggle to find where I said that clearly and exactly and didnt say something that you interpreted through bias to mean something else. The "cant know" is the relevant part to me. I just cant find where I said that beyond your interpretation (do you even see what Im doing here?).



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Serdgiam

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Well, you clearly (as in: I quoted you) stated that unless you do your own experiments you can't know...which of course is NONSENSE


Please do show me where I stated "unless you do your own experiments you can't know." I apologize for being dense. I struggle to find where I said that clearly and exactly and didnt say something that you interpreted through bias to mean something else. The "cant know" is the relevant part to me. I just cant find where I said that beyond your interpretation (do you even see what Im doing here?).


Here's what you stated:




I am saying that if you dont do that, you are trusting others to do your exploration and explanation for you and have no ground to stand on when criticizing someone else for having "blind faith."


You are essentially questioning the objectivity of scientific method...which is silly. Believing in a scientific theory that's fully backed up by objective evidence isn't the same as believing in fairytale creationism that has ZERO objective evidence behind it.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


Catholics believe in "theistic evolution", that evolution is a mechanism guided by God.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


i want to start a thread on how exactly the Scientific Method has been corrupted by philosophy but im all out of steam today. Its very revealing to say the least about how we are using the Method incorrectly to deduce facts instead of induce. Its like religion in that you have a feeling you need to prove, instead of proving thru repetitve testing-- a feeling.

some day, soon.
edit on 28-8-2012 by rainbowbear because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Serdgiam
I am saying that if you dont do that, you are trusting others to do your exploration and explanation for you and have no ground to stand on when criticizing someone else for having "blind faith."


You are essentially questioning the objectivity of scientific method...which is silly. Believing in a scientific theory that's fully backed up by objective evidence isn't the same as believing in fairytale creationism that has ZERO objective evidence behind it.


Interesting interpretation again. Ill just clarify and see if you are able to change your interpretation based on new evidence. I still dont think you see what Im doing here.

If I am questioning the objectivity of the scientific method, why would I be such a staunch supporter of it (shown in this thread). The scientific method, and the data it gathers, is not innately flawed. However, our interpretation of such things most certainly CAN be, as shown through your posts.

So, instead of gathering more data which might negate your interpretation, you continue to operate on bias. Even going so far as to laugh at me, "accuse" me of things which I didnt say, and summarily dismiss my opinion based on an incomplete picture. Despite being a supposed proponent of the scientific method, you are not practicing it.

What I mean is that if you are not doing the experiments yourself, you MUST have trust and faith in those who are if you agree with their conclusions. Absolutely nothing about knowing or not knowing, mind you. Just that it requires trust that those who are doing the experiments know what they are doing. Back to the car analogy, if one hasnt personally done the experiments and research into it, they take on trust and faith that others have and that it will be safe to drive and run in the first place. However, to expand a little, it also doesnt mean that because a workable model has been created (as in the engine), that we know all there is to know about such things. Nor that the interpretations of the data are flawless and without refinement. Only that we have utilized patterns and phenomena in a way that we can take advantage of them in our own inventions. A simple demonstration of this is with magnetism. Even historically when we thought it was essentially "magic," that didnt preclude those who made incorrect interpretations from being able to use the data in things like compasses and building structures and monuments.

Hope that clears up what I was saying. If not, feel free to ask questions!



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


There's more scientists with the name Steve (not Stephen, or Stephan, or any other form!) than scientists who disbelieve in evolution


And of course there's scientists that believe in creationism, but that doesn't mean they're right UNLESS they provide proof...which those guys you linked haven't. They merely state and OPINION that isn't based on facts.


I love how you looked at my links but not commented on my opinions on the supernatural really being based in science.

Most of science isn't based on facts. The "facts" change every time new data comes along. This means there were never really facts at all - just more - opinions based on what is known at the time.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I think it's disgraceful and pathetic when the need to be right usurps free and open-minded inquiry and investigation, and mutual exploration, with childlike antics and shrill protestations that don't even address the information being presented.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


Firstly, I resent being called stupid. I never said that creationists were stupid, only that they are weak minded, narrow minded and easily led (why else would the church call their people a flock..lol).

You are basing your argument on a single image of a creature that looks like a Pleasiosaur and a description of a mythical beast from the dreamtime as evidence that the Australian continent was teeming with millions of dinosaurs a few hundred yers ago...

LOL

When there are litterally millions of rock and cave paintings scattered around the country, from every tribe and dating back to the first days of human inhabitation here in AU. Most if not all of those images depict Mega-fauna in images of their hunts, what they saw when they looked out across the landscape, the beasts they had to deal with on a daily basis.

Diprotodon optatum was the size of a rhinoceros, was the largest marsupial ever to exist and is depicted hundreds of times around Australia in cave paintings.

Palorchestes azael was as big as a cow, it had long claws and a long trunk. Many have suggested that this was the inspiration for the Bunyip.

Procoptodon goliah, a giant red Kangaroo is shown in nearly all cave images dating back from that time and in great numbers.

Huge wombats the size of a cow, Marsupial wildcats that hunted the aboriginals and other mega-fauna, the Terror birds and a host of others....

All shown in paintings, some describing the great herds of the planes and as I said in multiple depictions throughout the ages.

And you give me one recorded image that looks like a dinosaur to "prove me wrong"... Hahahahahahaha

Cretionists rely on blind faith and the bible as proof alone and expect everyone to accept it as fact. Science at least tries to present its case with physical evidence and they do a much better and more convincing job than creationists.

If Dinosaurs walked with man, there would be a lot more "physical", evidence than just the odd single cave painting. Dinosaur bones/fossils would be found with/near human ones. There have been numerous instances where early human remains have been found with mega-fauna, but to my knowledge, no dinosaur remains have been found with either human or mega-fauna remains.

Creationism just lacks any real creativness in bringing their argument forward, always grasping at straws when put on the spot or resort to calling people names when their beliefs are questioned instead of trying to come up with something solid to make people at least look at them seriously.

Creationism has no part in the education system in the 21st century.
edit on 8/28/2012 by Ironclad because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Of course I stand up against argumentative fallacies and complete nonsense arguments that ignore facts (like the fact that the earth isn't a circle).

You don't have the first clue as to the nature of the information that was being presented, so fast are you to pronounce judgement, in fact you even thought the circle running through the moon was being depicted as it's orbit around the earth, which no, isn't a perfect circle, but you missed the point, which was to show just one of many highly unusual coincidences that I was prepared to show which suggest in no uncertain terms a type of design which ought not exist according to standard astrophysical models for planetary formation. People smarter than you or I or more well researched struggle with it greatly, so how am I so easily laughed off, because the earth isn't a perfect circle, when I'm showing you something quite extraordinary, that the moon and earth can be used to perform a very sophisticated geometrical transformation called squaring the circle. Even the moon's positioning and movement, which shows the same face to the earth at all times is a real astrophysical quandry, but there are many many more facets to this mystery involving the relationship both in proportion and distances between the Earth, Moon and Sun, which at the very LEAST reveals a high precision UNIQUE configuration all but certain not to be repeated in any other solar system, even among 10-100 trillion trillion earth-like worlds, which is a reasonable estimate for the known universe.







edit on 28-8-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
check this out! if you dont have time to read a lot, just read the first 2 paragraphs in this outline--

the philosophical corruption of physics

just one taste of this--should be interesting enough to show where things went wrong in Science as the authority of truth.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by ibiubu


Most well known scientists (Newton, Bragg, others) believed in God and creation. What harm is there in educating children in this possibility? None, in my book.


Because if god is the answer, then it's the final answer. No reason to look any further. It stops all research.

We don't need to know about atoms and DNA because creationism gives us the final answer.

How did life get its start? God.
How was the universe created? God.
Where did morality come from? God.
How does the earth orbit the sun? God.
Who will free us from tyranny, save us from plagues, from injustice? God, God, God.

Problem: This answer solves nothing, serves no one, and protects no one. It shuts down human curiosity. Plus, it's simply the wrong answer.



No it doesn't stop it. It hasn't stopped. that is proof enough isn't it? What is God?


The question of "What is god?" cannot be taught anywhere because no one can even come close to having a clue. And if people think they know who or what god is, they're fooling themselves.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I can see this discussion has generated alot of interest so I would like to give the Islamic viewpoint.

In Islam we do not see science and religion as two opposing forces, rather we see that the two compliment each other. It is no suprise that so many scientists, being amongst the leaders in their field have come to Islam after reading some of the scientific facts contained within. Rather than go on I just want to give a FEW snippets - bear in mind that the Quran is over 1400 years old...

BIG BANG THEORY?:
Quran (21:30) Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?

HOW THE SEAS MEET BUT DO NOT MIX:
Quran (55:19-20) He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress.
(Sceice today tell us that when two seas meet they do not mix but stay seperated due to the different selinity (salt content).

CLOUD FORMATION AND RAIN:
Quran (24:43) Have you not seen how God makes the clouds move gently, then joins them together, then makes them into a stack, and then you see the rain come out of it....
(If you study cloud formation and the process of precipitation you will see that this is exactly how it works, meteroligists have only discovered this recently with the advent of sattelites, aeroplanes, weather balloons etc)

THE MOUNTAINS HAVE ROOTS-
Quran (78:6-7) Have We not made the earth as a bed, and the mountains as pegs?
(Modern Science tell us that the mountains have deep roots, almost like a mirror of what is above land, so they are like pegs in the earth)

I could go on there are loads more examples but I guess the point is that in Islam we believe that the Quran is the literal word of God, the one who created us, so who knows better what is true and what isn't that the one who created us all? Not everything we see around us is explained to us in detail, so yes for the advancement of technology and to understand how the world works science is vital and we accept this, but we see the revelation as going hand in hand with what we learn to help us understand the world around us.

I believe that we are heading to a dark near future, one where people are far from God and good moral values. Do we not already see the decline of people in our own communities? How many people do you know that you can trust with something important to you? I'm saddened to say but I think this attack on creationism is part of the general decline of humanity that we have seen lately...



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

No one has to prove who or what God is, to prove that God exists an as intelligent designer with original intent and as a first/last cause in the creation. All that would be needed would be a marker of some kind which would defy any other possible explanation except that it was the work of a cosmic designer, whether it be in the formation of DNA or of planetary bodies. It's the pressuposition which immediately denies the possibility of the existence of God, which may be or become the source of much human ignorance and blindness, especially if and when proven wrong - can you imagine the embarassment "science has proven the existence of God, but we don't know who or what God is!"



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join