Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murgatroid
Mind control masquerading as education makes "deciding for themselves" meaningless.


Honestly if this is the case it's not science you're discussing but humans.

Humans make errors, humans screw up, humans do evil things ... It's what happens. Then what you're discussing isnt' an issue with science persay but institutions trying to hijack science for whatever reason. I'd suggest creating another thread on it if that's the case.




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I feel the need to inform you that the hang up you seem to have is about Abiogenesis, a science so underdeveloped that spellcheck doesn't even consider it a word. That is not evolution.

Well yes, one could insert a God into that hole. But that goes a long way to explain nothing. Its a step backward in scientific inquiry if we start explaining things as a "unexplainable".

You understand why "critical thought" about religion has nothing to do with religion itself, you are a smart man.

In a scientific discussion religion is on the low ground. You can not contest the mechanism in which God created the world. You can not write up a paper on the mechanism in which Jesus walked on water. It just is, no need to explain the intricacies, that is religion.

Its a far cry from science.
edit on 28-8-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Noinden
Examples would help your argument here. Bill Nye is a tool why? For having an opinion?


Nothing wrong with tools.

Tools are good.

The real question is WHOSE tool is he?

WHOSE hands are holding the tool?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Raelsatu
 
& Briguytm90

Well I have to get a rise out of you somehow. Darwin would puke his guts out if he knew just how bad modern science has perverted his simple "theory" which was all it was.




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Raelsatu
 

I have said many times that there is not a conflict with a persons belief in GOD and the FACT of EVOLUTION. If people want to get ticky tack and compare specific wording of the Bible or any other Religious Book of doctrines and stories such as GOD creating everything in 6 days or Adam and Eve...then yes...there is a conflict...but it does not conflict the concept of the existence of a GOD using Evolution as a way to create Humanity.

The Intelligent Design Book and now Books were anything but Intelligent and were beyond non-scientific. If you get a chance...read a bit of the Book I listed as it is a good laugh! Split Infinity



That's exactly what I said from the beginning.... but you replied like I was backing Biblical Creationism, when I said the exact opposite.
Ffs.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by centrifugal
 




So even science at it's basic level relies on faith


At its basis science relies on observation. There are no scientific papers on unicorns, because unicorns are not being observed.





Theories are derived to help explain observations, theories are not fact. They are assumptions that become widely accepted axioms. These becomes theories and formulas as the basis for future theories... All reasoning must have a point of origin and it starts with assumptions. The existence of logic is an assumption made through intuition.

This is why Godel said that some problems cannot be solved with logic, and only with intuition. You will never know in advance which problems cannot be solved with logic. This theory can also not be proven true, because if it could then it would be false. I believe he also coined the term "Fuzzy Logic" that is widely used in modern day discussions around artificial intelligence. A machine needs to have intuition to be intelligent.

Anyway the point of the circular arguments is just to say you can't prove/disprove beliefs based on intuition or faith using logic.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
reply to post by Raelsatu
 
& Briguytm90

Well I have to get a rise out of you somehow. Darwin would puke his guts out if he knew just how bad modern science has perverted his simple "theory" which was all it was.



I think Darwin would have loved to see how his "theory" has been built upon and validated and how it is the basis for modern day biology.

I think he would hate the term "Darwinism" though.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Raelsatu
 

Obviously there was a misunderstanding...if it was on my end...sorry. Split Infinity



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Originally posted by Noinden
Examples would help your argument here. Bill Nye is a tool why? For having an opinion?


Nothing wrong with tools.

Tools are good.

The real question is WHOSE tool is he?

WHOSE hands are holding the tool?


Answering questions with questions is rude Igor. Also you seem to have a fixation with tools in hands.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by centrifugal
 





Anyway the point of the circular arguments is just to say you can't prove/disprove beliefs based on intuition or faith using logic.


Thats not true, at least partly.

Let me clarify:

Lets take a belief, the judeo-christian God for example.

Okay, lets assume God exist. His existence can be proven because he, indeed, exist.

Now, in reality, we have no proof of this God's existence. Is that enough to discount his existence? Probably not. Is that enough to believe he does exist? Probably not.

Matters of faith, versus matters of observation, are completely different in the way they conduct themselves.

Now, lets take the science of building computers for an example:

The "theory" of how to build a computer makes logical and practical sense. Is it it a perfect theory? Well since better computers keep being developed i would say "no". Does the current theory work in a logical manner? Well since i am effectively using a computer at this very moment i would say "yes".

In conclusion:

The theory of how to build computers has ways in which it can be improved upon. As does every understanding of the sciences.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Noinden

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Originally posted by Noinden
Examples would help your argument here. Bill Nye is a tool why? For having an opinion?


Nothing wrong with tools.

Tools are good.

The real question is WHOSE tool is he?

WHOSE hands are holding the tool?


Answering questions with questions is rude Igor. Also you seem to have a fixation with tools in hands.


Its called deflection.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Noinden
Answering questions with questions is rude Igor.

So are name calling and childish personal attacks...




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Originally posted by Noinden
Answering questions with questions is rude Igor.

So are name calling and childish personal attacks...



Not name calling, commenting your avatar.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

Originally posted by Noinden

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Originally posted by Noinden
Examples would help your argument here. Bill Nye is a tool why? For having an opinion?


Nothing wrong with tools.

Tools are good.

The real question is WHOSE tool is he?

WHOSE hands are holding the tool?


I know, I wanted to see the reponse, and lo it was predictable.

Answering questions with questions is rude Igor. Also you seem to have a fixation with tools in hands.


Its called deflection.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


I am not sure I fully understand your argument or how it differs from mine, it sounds like you are agreeing with me though at least on the point that logic cannot disprove god.

Intuitively I would say intelligent design makes perfect sense, I am a computer programmer so I can have an appreciation for good design. My belief in intelligent design has no direct conflict with the theory of evolution.

Also, however for totally unrelated reasons I do not currently support the theory of evolution which may change at some point. There are major gaps in the evolution of humans alone, and unexplanable evolutions in species such as birds and how they grew wings. I admit it could just be missing peices to the theory that could come together in the future, but for now the jury is out in my opinion. I would not agree that there is absolute proof of evolution, but rather it does have supporting evidence. It is a generally accepted theory, although I can't say if that makes it a scientific fact otherwise it would be a theorem.

The simplest solution to origins is that we were placed here as it makes the fewest assumptions. I am sure you have heard of Occam's razor. William Ockham himself believed in God.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by centrifugal

The simplest solution to origins is that we were placed here as it makes the fewest assumptions. I am sure you have heard of Occam's razor. William Ockham himself believed in God.




However Occam's Razor does not always produce the correct answer. Life is far more complicated than the usual applications of the Razor. Indeed we (humans) don't understand life well enough to apply said test.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Noinden

Originally posted by centrifugal

The simplest solution to origins is that we were placed here as it makes the fewest assumptions. I am sure you have heard of Occam's razor. William Ockham himself believed in God.




However Occam's Razor does not always produce the correct answer. Life is far more complicated than the usual applications of the Razor. Indeed we (humans) don't understand life well enough to apply said test.


I can agree with that, however that is why the simplest solution is "usually" the correct one. So I think there is still a stronger case for the existence of God rather than the non existance. Still no conclusive evidence either way though.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by centrifugal
 




I am not sure I fully understand your argument or how it differs from mine, it sounds like you are agreeing with me though at least on the point that logic cannot disprove god.


I fully agree with you on that point. My point of contest with your posts lied with the claim that God can not be proven.



Intuitively I would say intelligent design makes perfect sense, I am a computer programmer so I can have an appreciation for good design. My belief in intelligent design has no direct conflict with the theory of evolution.


Humans a hundred and fifty years ago believed differently.

Do we reconcile our beliefs with modern science so that they can keep making sense in context with known facts? Do we keep looking for holes to insert the unexplainable in an attempt to keep our gods alive?



Also, however for totally unrelated reasons I do not currently support the theory of evolution which may change at some point. There are major gaps in the evolution of humans alone, and unexplanable evolutions in species such as birds and how they grew wings. I admit it could just be missing peices to the theory that could come together in the future, but for now the jury is out in my opinion. I would not agree that there is absolute proof of evolution, but rather it does have supporting evidence. It is a generally accepted theory, although I can't say if that makes it a scientific fact otherwise it would be a theorem.


There are a lot of hypothesis about why birds grew wings. I will send you a u2u later about a documentary i saw about this, if i can find it. I think you would find it interesting.

I accept your argument that there are pieces missing in the theory. I am, however, hesitant to fill those holes with the supernatural or discount the concept altogether.



The simplest solution to origins is that we were placed here as it makes the fewest assumptions. I am sure you have heard of Occam's razor. William Ockham himself believed in God.


I am not sure what you mean. Making "the fewest assumptions" to come to the conclusion that an omnipotent deity "did it" explains nothing. And is counterproductive to the core concept of science.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   
It was the great atheist who suggested we are here because of aliens
Dawkins stated as much
I mean is that the atheists best mind at work....aliens. The guy atheists idolise believes probably aliens put us here.

Good luck with that



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   
double post, sorry
edit on 28-8-2012 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join