It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


"Science Guy’ Bill Nye vs. Creationist Ken Ham: Who Will Win the Big Debate?

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 06:29 PM
reply to post by Prezbo369

A . Yes i do understand it do you?

Seems ( and i will assume this since you want define your arguments) that science will now stoop to the same reasoning as those they dislike ( aka those who believe in an omnipotent god)

B . The number of dice as chosen as representation of each of our universes constant.
Which could be as high as 22 or so

But i wanted to give you a fighting chance and make it a little easier on you

I could have given you a specific number you would've to roll for each dice as a true representation of said constants

Now what is your position again? As you still haven't given one


Science and religion are one

It is through interpretation that one makes his assertions

And and that science and religion will eventually merge if everyone is intellectually honest

But you can go on believing what you want

Whatever the is


And you don't get to roll the dice every second for billions of years because in the first second of the big bang all constants have to be accounted for

And you only get one chance because this is the only universe we have evidence of
edit on pm220142806America/ChicagoMon, 10 Feb 2014 18:34:05 -0600_2u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 07:20 PM

Science and religion are one

That is, if not troll - most ignorant statement ever.

There are 2 nice pictures that cover pretty much all science and religion is one thing in bases...

Interesting, isn't it? Like the one, except nothing alike...

posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 08:06 PM
reply to post by SuperFrog

Again don't confuse

Individual religions ( Christianity / Muslim / mormans etc )

With religion

There are more religions than those that believe in that omnipotent god

That is your ignorance

Not mine

I won't argue this point again

If you can't grasp this it is you and not me who has a problem trolling

You wish to lump everything into one easily discredited group

I understand not all religions are the same or believe in that biblical sort of god

Do you really not get this?

Creator does not equal god

Religion does not equal biblical ( or Koran or book of Mormon)
edit on pm220142808America/ChicagoMon, 10 Feb 2014 20:17:54 -0600_2000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 06:29 AM
reply to post by SuperFrog

And more interesting is

The co-opting science does when a religion is proven to be correct

I have already given two examples

But lets see if you actually read

Can you name those examples?

And there are more

But each time a religion is found to be correct

It is soon taken by natualist science (read atheist)

And used against said religion

That i find very interesting

And for double points can you find the mistake i made?

I haven't pointed it out because i wanted to see how many people actually read and do their own research

So far no one has

That is because you all seem to be brainwashed in your own dogmatic beliefs

Willing to accept anything that fits into your atheistic or omnipotent god world view

Facts be damned
edit on am220142806America/ChicagoTue, 11 Feb 2014 06:32:41 -0600_2u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 01:58 PM
As far as I can see, you haven't said anything worth mentioning, nor you have posted any evidence in what you believe.

When I say religion, I don't distinguish between them, any believe in 'creator' (or call it any other name) based on pure belief rather then evidence is religion. Some old ones are now called mythology, word that should IMHO cover even current more popular religions.

To me it seems that we are either not aware or we are keep forgetting dangers of religion for scientific world.

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson covered that in his 'The Erosion of Progress by Religions speech'. It's only a 10 minute video, worth watching because it remind us what is at stake.

Just as said before, religion and science are not best friends... where people like Ken Ham will take us... it looks opposite from progress...
edit on 11-2-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 02:02 PM
reply to post by SuperFrog

When you get to the beginning

Its all a belief

Sorry to break it to you

posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 02:50 PM

reply to post by SuperFrog

When you get to the beginning

Its all a belief

Sorry to break it to you

Sorry to break it to you, but gravity is also 'just a theory'. Science is science. It's the best way of explaining the way that this world around us works.

posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 03:26 PM
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

So the best way to explain our universe is to


That there are more?

Then quote the same bs that not long ago was said to be nonsense by those same said people?
(Aka absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Is not science

Its belief

eta the easiest way to explain our universe is creation as show by my dice example

there are 10-20 or so constants that without which we would not be here

you can invoke infinite universes to explain it away

but you can not provide evidence for the universes

science with evidence is belief

there is evidence for gravity

although some people have head so far in the clouds i am beginning to wonder

edit on pm220142803America/ChicagoTue, 11 Feb 2014 15:47:10 -0600_2u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 09:13 PM


reply to post by SuperFrog

When you get to the beginning

Its all a belief

Sorry to break it to you

Sorry to break it to you, but gravity is also 'just a theory'. Science is science. It's the best way of explaining the way that this world around us works.

gravity isn't a theory...
The theory of gravity (AKA general relativity) is a theory - gravity isn't a theory.

posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 09:45 PM
reply to post by MarsIsRed

Otherwise known as

Newton's theory of gravitation

Main article: Newton's law of universal gravitation

Sir Isaac Newton, an English physicist who lived from 1642 to 1727
In 1687, English mathematician Sir Isaac Newton published Principia, which hypothesizes the inverse-square law of universal gravitation. In his own words, “I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must [be] reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve: and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her Orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth; and found them answer pretty nearly.”[3]
Newton's theory enjoyed its greatest success when it was used to predict the existence of Neptune based on motions of Uranus that could not be accounted for by the actions of the other planets. Calculations by both John Couch Adams and Urbain Le Verrier predicted the general position of the planet, and Le Verrier's calculations are what led Johann Gottfried Galle to the discovery of Neptune.
A discrepancy in Mercury's orbit pointed out flaws in Newton's theory. By the end of the 19th century, it was known that its orbit showed slight perturbations that could not be accounted for entirely under Newton's theory, but all searches for another perturbing body (such as a planet orbiting the Sun even closer than Mercury) had been fruitless. The issue was resolved in 1915 by Albert Einstein's new theory of general relativity, which accounted for the small discrepancy in Mercury's orbit.
Although Newton's theory has been superseded, most modern non-relativistic gravitational calculations are still made using Newton's theory because it is a much simpler theory to work with than general relativity, and gives sufficiently accurate results for most applications involving sufficiently small masses, speeds and energies.

posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 09:56 PM

reply to post by MarsIsRed

Otherwise known as Newton's theory of gravitation

Meh, that is hardly as impressive as this;

Moons of Mars

Early speculation

Perhaps inspired by Johannes Kepler (and quoting Kepler's third law of planetary motion), Jonathan Swift's satire Gulliver's Travels (1726) refers to two moons in Part 3, Chapter 3 (the "Voyage to Laputa"), in which Laputa's astronomers are described as having discovered two satellites of Mars orbiting at distances of 3 and 5 Martian diameters, and periods of 10 and 21.5 hours, respectively. The actual orbital distances and periods of Phobos, and Deimos are 1.4 and 3.5 Martian diameters, and 7.6 and 30.3 hours, respectively.[5][6] In the 20th century, V. G. Perminov, a spacecraft designer of early Soviet Mars and Venus spacecraft, speculated Swift found and deciphered records that Martians left on Earth.[7] However, the view of most astronomers is that Swift was simply employing a common argument of the time, that as the inner planets Venus and Mercury had no satellites, Earth had one and Jupiter had four (known at the time), that Mars by analogy must have two. Furthermore, as they had not yet been discovered, it was reasoned that they must be small and close to Mars. This would lead Swift to making a roughly accurate estimate of their orbital distances and rotation periods. In addition Swift could have been helped in his calculations by his friend, the mathematician John Arbuthnot [8]
Curiosity's view of the Mars moons: Phobos passing in front of Deimos - in real-time (video-gif, 1 August 2013).

Voltaire's 1750 short story "Micromégas", about an alien visitor to Earth, also refers to two moons of Mars. Voltaire was presumably influenced by Swift.[9][10] In recognition of these 'predictions', two craters on Deimos are named Swift and Voltaire.[citation needed]

Gulliver's Travels


posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 02:15 AM
It was a bad debate scientific wise as Ham had no arguement, but it was brilliant asa means of public engagement and getting people interested in science.

Ham did have a strong point that creationists can invent things and make new discoveries - but other than that he spoke nonsesnse, dodged nearly all the questions and arguments put to him. In his defence, at least he was honest that he believes the bible is the literal word of god so whenever he approaches a situation he asserts that as a truth and cherry picks all data to match (or in terms of radioactive decay and astrophysics makes lies so transparent even people with no scientific knowledge can see he's talking rubbish).

It was my first time watching Nye and I thought he provided very clear explanations to a vast array of complicated scientific topics in a very short amount of time and addressed all questions. Regardless of whether people agree with him or not it was undeniably impressive. He was also able to do this in a non patronising or arrogant way, unlike Dawkin's who is far more likely to turn creationists even more conservative with his abrasive attitude.

In short - Nye won the night and hopefully the evidence and manner he presented will cause creationists to reconsider their viewpoint.

posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 06:18 AM
reply to post by bastion

Will cause biblical young earth creationists

To reconsider

Science still he these possibilities

Mega/multi verse


Other creator



And we will never know

If link fail Google Leonard susskind fine tuned for life mind

edit on am220142806America/ChicagoWed, 12 Feb 2014 06:22:16 -0600_2u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 02:03 PM
reply to post by Another_Nut

Come again? That made no sense to me.

As for the whole multiverse thing, the models we currently have predict that is the case and the evidence we have so far backs that up but it is all in its infancy and far too early to tell.

The main problem here seems to be creationists completely misunderstanding how science works and what models mean.

Step 1 - You take a guess
Step 2 - You devise an experiment that shows that this guess is viable or not
Step 3 - If the evidence from the experiment backs up the guess it is viable, if it does not back it up it is wrong and the guess is rejected.

Science can never prove something to be 100% true as we never know what tomorrow's technology or experiments will be - Science simply allows us to prove what is wrong and to make the most sense of the world based on all current evidence.

It's not a process of saying 'this definitely happened' it's a process of 'this is the best explanation we have, backed up by loads of evidence for what happened'.

posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 02:37 PM
reply to post by bastion

Susskind will explain

Watch the video linked above

He literally wrote the book

posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 07:51 AM

reply to post by bastion

Susskind will explain

Watch the video linked above

He literally wrote the book

Please follow this link to my post on different topic. Note first video is regarding topic itself, but after that there are links to 8 videos that cover 'how fine tuned' galaxy destroyed life on earth at least 5 times that we know, and if you follow next couple posts, you will find info on book about next extinction event that is taking place right now. (yes, we are doing it)

This reminds me of George Carlin on religion...

Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of # you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.

posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 01:21 PM
reply to post by Another_Nut

I tried but it was pure 'cart before the horse' stuff - of course the Universe is going to seem fine tuned to life when the life that arose from the conditions of the Universe are the ones doing the analysis. If different tunings were used chances are any resulting life would think the Universe had been fine tuned for them.

Regardless a proof of fine tuning is in no way evidence of a creator or intelligence it's just a proof of fine tuning which makes the Universe all that more interesting to investigate and ponder at.

Why do you seem to feel the need to have concrete answers to such intriguing questions? Can't you just enjoy being completely lost and not knowing what may or may not have caused life on Earth? It sure beats TV.

posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:34 PM
reply to post by SuperFrog

Sometimes ignorance is funny

A few problems with your point of view

1. It is not fine tuned galaxy

Its fine tuned universe. This shows your ignorance . It is the laws of the universe ( cosmological constant , strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force , etc) that show fine tuning

Please have some understanding before posting

2 . Life on this planet has never been destroyed . Do you really believe it has been wiped out 5 times? That is the most ignorant and absurd statement in the history of ats. Unless you think abiogenesis happened 5 different times on this planet you are simple wrong.

Stop getting your facts from a comedian. Try a book.

I await your next religion bashing response.

Even though I dont advocate any religion you seem to think this a religious thing

Its not. It is science. Susskind is not religious. He wrote the book on the megaverse. He believes in the megaverse.

But he cant rule out god. Or a creator . Or blind chance. Or that we may never know

See how science works?
edit on pm220142807America/ChicagoSun, 16 Feb 2014 19:36:28 -0600_2u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 08:05 PM
reply to post by bastion

Yea I know how all those scientists are all

'Cart Before the horse" types

If you dont understand susskind well

It is because you cant grasp the facts.

I am fine with not knowing

It seems to be your types that cant have the chance of a creator. And must know everything

Or is it all possibilities are ok unless it involves a creator?

Again not necessary to invoke an all powerful biblical god .just a creator.

What say you?

posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 09:16 AM
reply to post by Another_Nut

There's no evidence nor any good reason to think a 'creator' exists, this (our) form of life has adapted to live in this universe in the same way that a puddle adapts to fit in a pothole.

No magic man person/agent required...

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in