# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

## QuickZ06



----------


## jmdrake

And PBS wonders why folks want to cut their funding?  (Yeah I know Bill Nye is no longer on PBS).

----------


## Natural Citizen

8/30/2012 - In 5 minutes --- First Hour: Bill Nye, "the Science Guy," talks about why he believes creationism is not good for kids. Be there or be square.

http://www.newsradioklbj.com/Other/Stream.html

Ought to be a hoot.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

I'm a Christian, but I don't believe the creation story is to be taken literally.  I'm fine with the universe being billions of years old.  I'm also fine with believing that God created the universe.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Why is that vid titled "The Big Think"?  There's nothing big or profound about the thoughts there.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Why is that vid titled "The Big Think"?  There's nothing big or profound about the thoughts there.



Well, he's getting ready to discuss it a little more in depth on the radio. Commercial break now after Lauren Weinstein discussing the Supreme Court case about data storage. Actually, he's on now.

----------


## Natural Citizen

He's right about the importance of having scientifically literate youth.

----------


## QuickZ06

> He's right about the importance of having scientifically literate youth.


Has Science become a Religion?

----------


## QuickZ06

> Why is that vid titled "The Big Think"?  There's nothing big or profound about the thoughts there.


Its funny seeing people fight over "theories" calming they are facts.

----------


## Elfshadow

> Its funny seeing people fight over "theories" calming they are facts.


Not to nit pick you but a scientific theory and a theory are two different things.

----------


## QuickZ06

> Not to nit pick you but a scientific theory and a theory are two different things.


I undertand and I am all for learning as I am not a scientists or biology teacher but I like and have to question everything. 

I am currently reading a lot of information on this subject and my mind is just running. 

But I don't believe that evolution is a scientific theory.

----------


## QuickZ06

For the record I am not religious at all. But do not rule out a higher power possibly created us.

I know that has irony in it but I just don't rule out anything but will probably never believe in anything as well. 

I just live my life in the now and hope to spread liberty and freedom so we can have the right to discuses such things freely.

----------


## Elfshadow

> I undertand and I am all for learning as I am not a scientists or biology teacher but I like and have to question everything. 
> 
> I am currently reading a lot of information on this subject and my mind is just running. 
> 
> But I don't believe that evolution is a scientific theory.


So your saying that there is no evidence of small changes over large periods of time in species?

----------


## Indy Vidual

Obama's church _Is Not Appropriate For Children_.

<back on topic>
Teaching Creationism obviously starts with the parents...

----------


## tttppp

> Has Science become a Religion?


Yes. That's the problem. People are brainwashed to believe what the establishment wants them to believe.

----------


## QuickZ06

> So your saying that there is no evidence of small changes over large periods of time in species?


Good question, and I can see how micro-evolution could be explained but I do think science has been hijacked for special interests by certain power hungry groups so there is that to take in consideration. 

Isan't science merely a observational opinion and nothing more? 

If you "know" anything please tell and explain, as I am wanting to know what is on anyones mind pertaining to this subject.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

> So your saying that there is no evidence of small changes over large periods of time in species?


I'm more concerned about the big changes.  I have no doubt at all that nature picks winning traits.  I don't, however, subscribe to the theory that we one day crawled out of the goop of life.

----------


## amy31416

> I undertand and I am all for learning as I am not a scientists or biology teacher but I like and have to question everything. 
> 
> I am currently reading a lot of information on this subject and my mind is just running. 
> 
> But I don't believe that evolution is a scientific theory.


Evolution is a scientific theory whether you like it or not.

----------


## Elfshadow

> I'm more concerned about the big changes.  I have no doubt at all that nature picks winning traits.  I don't, however, subscribe to the theory that we one day crawled out of the goop of life.


Theory of evolution does not address where life originated.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> I undertand and I am all for learning as I am not a scientists or biology teacher but I like and have to question everything. 
> 
> I am currently reading a lot of information on this subject and my mind is just running. 
> 
> But I *don't believe that evolution is a scientific theory*.


You don't believe evolution is a scientific theory?  What kind of a theory would it be then?

----------


## jkr

YET ANOTHER QUACK DEFINING THE UNIVERSE FOR ME FROM THE COMFORT OF HIS OWN MIND

$#@!
YOU

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> I'm a Christian, but I don't believe the creation story is to be taken literally.  I'm fine with the universe being billions of years old.  I'm also fine with believing that God created the universe.


You sir have earned my fullest respect.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

> Theory of evolution does not address where life originated.


Yet it does say that all life on earth has a common ancestor.

----------


## The Goat

One thing, Nye, IMO is talking about all forms of evolution not just species evolution. He mentions stars being in different stages of development. He's just talking in extremes because the subject is really a fringe subject when you think about it. If some one believes that the earth was created a few thousand years ago, I discredit you for even wanting to debate them. lol, Nye is discrediting him self just by doing this.

----------


## jmdrake

> He's right about the importance of having scientifically literate youth.


Right.  Bill Nye's opinion = "scientific literacy".

----------


## Revolution9

Science is ONLY an elaborate system of measurement and does not have ultimate answers..only measurements.

Rev9

----------


## erowe1

The root question behind the debate about creationism is, "Have miracles ever happened?".

That's a religious question. If you answer it "yes," you're revealing a religious conviction. If you answer it "no," you're also revealing a religious conviction.

Nye wants kids only to be taught his religion.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

He apparently is defending the video.

http://www.examiner.com/article/bill...ationist-video




> Turning to current events to illustrate his point, Nye focused on Hurricane Issac, stating that “this morning, talking about Hurricane Isaac, and we're watching satellite maps made with spacecraft orbiting the earth, and this all comes from science. If you have this idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old, you are denying, if you will, everything that you can touch and see. You're not paying attention to what's happening in the universe around you. As I say, this is bad for kids."
> 
> Basically, Nye is saying that people can believe in whatever they want to in terms of religion, but that religion should not be confused with science.
> 
> As for what is supposed to be taught in schools, Ohio has implemented academic content standards for all core school subjects, including science. The goal of these standards is to ensure that teachers are teaching the same content in every school at any given grade level. By looking at the Ohio science standards, one sees no reference to creationism/intelligent design, only evolution, to which there are over a dozen in just the high school grades alone. Besides scientific facts, the Ohio standards also emphasize the scientific method, which makes no room for including one's preconceived notions in scientific research.

----------


## tod evans

Arguing what should or should not be taught to children in public schools is a fools game.

Children are smart and inquisitive and should be presented with as much evidence, history and theories as their minds can absorb....

When tempered with a modicum of common sense and a push to form their own opinions most kids do okay...

It's only when mandates dictate certain agendas be promoted that the kids are adversely effected.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Its funny seeing people fight over "theories" calming they are facts.


I feel like some of the people in this thread didn't pay attention in school. 




> Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how divine or metaphysical matters are thought to work.





> A scientific theory is "a *well-substantiated explanation* of some aspect of the natural world, *based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment*." Scientists create scientific theories f*rom hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy*.


Evolution isn't a scientific theory?

----------


## jmdrake

> Arguing what should or should not be taught to children in public schools is a fools game.
> 
> Children are smart and inquisitive and should be presented with as much evidence, history and theories as their minds can absorb....
> 
> When tempered with a modicum of common sense and a push to form their own opinions most kids do okay...
> 
> It's only when mandates dictate certain agendas be promoted that the kids are adversely effected.


+rep /thread

----------


## erowe1

> Basically, Nye is saying that people can believe in whatever they want to in terms of religion, but that religion should not be confused with science.


Which, ironically, is exactly what he's doing.

----------


## fisharmor

So true story from last night.
I'm making dinner, and Pandora is serving up a 1997 recording of Iron Man, and in the beginning of it Ozzy is straight sailor talk.
So I turn to my 5-yo daughter and say "Man, he's really using a lot of inappropriate words."
"What did he say?"
"Well, he's saying '$#@!' a lot."
"What does '$#@!' mean?"
"It's just about the worst word you can say.  At least, when you say it, people think to themselves 'Man, that's a bad word.'  So you should avoid saying it."

And two minutes later when they finally started playing, she's knocking her knuckles on the table to duh... dut... duh-dut duh with the beat.
I've never witnessed her keeping a beat before that, despite seriously working with her on it - and if I followed the Bill Nye method of protecting children, I still wouldn't have.

----------


## angelatc

> Has Science become a Religion?


Depends.  Check out the anti-circ threads to see how flexible they are about it.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> So true story from last night.
> I'm making dinner, and Pandora is serving up a 1997 recording of Iron Man, and in the beginning of it Ozzy is straight sailor talk.
> So I turn to my 5-yo daughter and say "Man, he's really using a lot of inappropriate words."
> "What did he say?"
> "Well, he's saying '$#@!' a lot."
> "What does '$#@!' mean?"
> "It's just about the worst word you can say.  At least, when you say it, people think to themselves 'Man, that's a bad word.'  So you should avoid saying it."
> 
> And two minutes later when they finally started playing, she's knocking her knuckles on the table to duh... dut... duh-dut duh with the beat.
> I've never witnessed her keeping a beat before that, despite seriously working with her on it - and if I followed the Bill Nye method of protecting children, I still wouldn't have.


Did we watch different videos?

----------


## ShaneEnochs

> Did we watch different videos?


Wondering the same thing myself.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Good question, and I can see how micro-evolution could be explained but I do think science has been hijacked for special interests by certain power hungry groups so there is that to take in consideration. 
> *
> Isan't science merely a observational opinion and nothing more?* 
> 
> If you "know" anything please tell and explain, as I am wanting to know what is on anyones mind pertaining to this subject.


No.  Scientists are often very creative.  Until I got a home study course on physics, I thought that science was very straight-forward and just followed the Scientific Method.  But in reality, scientists will create ideas out of nothing and then go back to use method to test it.  Einstein thought up Relativity in his head and was guided at first entirely by aesthetics.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Depends.  Check out the anti-circ threads to see how flexible they are about it.


Indeed.  Willing to make $#@! up out of thin air and totally disregard ethics, those pro-circ'ers are.

----------


## jmdrake

> Did we watch different videos?


I believe the point being made is that knowledge in general should be put in an "inappropriate for children" category.  Anyway, Bill Nye is an idiot and not appropriate for free thinkers.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

> I believe the point being made is that knowledge in general should be put in an "inappropriate for children" category.  Anyway, Bill Nye is an idiot and not appropriate for free thinkers.


Bill Nye is extremely intelligent.  He's just a statist.  Being a statist doesn't making you an idiot, it makes you of a different opinion.

----------


## erowe1

> Bill Nye is extremely intelligent.  He's just a statist.  Being a statist doesn't making you an idiot, it makes you of a different opinion.


I agree. But it's not an excusable different opinion. The flaw behind statism isn't an intellectual one, it's a moral one.

----------


## angelatc

> Indeed.  Willing to make $#@! up out of thin air and totally disregard ethics, those pro-circ'ers are.


Ethics aren't science, are they?  They're a consideration.  If we assume that the science is correct (which I know you don't), then it becomes an ethical dilemma:  is it better for parents to prevent possible a greater possible harm (both to the child and society) by imposing a certain lesser harm to the child?

If so, and again, assuming that vaccines are effective (which I know you don't believe either) is it ethically wrong to make a child cry by giving him an injection (a small amount of damage) even if you know that it's for the greater good of protecting the child from the increased possibility that he will not only get sick, but spreada the disease, later if he does not get the shots?

That's where ethics weigh in.  They have policy implications, not scientific.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

> I agree. But it's not an excusable different opinion. The flaw behind statism isn't an intellectual one, it's a moral one.


Well, we know we can't force morality on people.

----------


## erowe1

> Well, we know we can't force morality on people.


When people do something immoral against us, we have the right to use force to protect ourselves and others from them.

----------


## jmdrake

> Bill Nye is extremely intelligent.  He's just a statist.  Being a statist doesn't making you an idiot, it makes you of a different opinion.


Not all statists believe that children should be "shepherded" away from information that disagrees with the "mainstream" view.  That's what separates the "good" statists from idiots like Bill Nye.

Edit: And just because Bill Nye can regurgitate information in an entertaining way doesn't make "extremely intelligent".  If he was extremely intelligent he would have figured out by now that global warming is BS and he wouldn't parrot the "Most scientists agree with me so I must be right" meme.

----------


## tttppp

> No.  Scientists are often very creative.  Until I got a home study course on physics, I thought that science was very straight-forward and just followed the Scientific Method.  But in reality, scientists will create ideas out of nothing and then go back to use method to test it.  Einstein thought up Relativity in his head and was guided at first entirely by aesthetics.


Einstein was an exception though. There are not many scientists working on big things. Typically scientists work on things that will only make a small difference to us.

----------


## erowe1

> No.  Scientists are often very creative.  Until I got a home study course on physics, I thought that science was very straight-forward and just followed the Scientific Method.  But in reality, scientists will create ideas out of nothing and then go back to use method to test it.  Einstein thought up Relativity in his head and was guided at first entirely by aesthetics.


Actually, before Einstein did that there were experiments proving that the speed of light never changes relative to the observer, no matter what the motion of the observer is. That empirical fact was the foundation on which Einstein did his thought experiments.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

> When people do something immoral against us, we have the right to use force to protect ourselves and others from them.


What has Bill Nye done to you other than having a difference of opinion?

----------


## erowe1

> What has Bill Nye done to you other than having a difference of opinion?


It's not that he has done something to me, it's that he advocates doing something to me. That's what statism is.

Whether he's the tyrant himself is beside the point. When a tyrant behaves immorally according to Nye's prescription, we have a right to use force to protect ourselves.

----------


## tttppp

> What has Bill Nye done to you other than having a difference of opinion?


The only problem I have with him is it seems he's advocating for the government to decide what to teach kids. The government should stay out of education and privatize it. Parents and kids should be able to choose what the kids will learn.

----------


## QuickZ06

> Evolution is a scientific theory whether you like it or not.


Ok then.




> You don't believe evolution is a scientific theory?  What kind of a theory would it be then?


I think it is just a theory, going back to what I re said about science being hijacked for special interests and the dumbing down of society. 




> A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, *based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.*


I dont believe there is any "facts" about it at all, just theories.

----------


## QuickZ06

If I am wrong on my knowledge of scientific theory I am all for being educated and all for you sharing your ideas on the subject matter. And please lets keep this civil.

----------


## jmdrake

> What has Bill Nye done to you other than having a difference of opinion?


He's advocating that others not be allowed to share their opinions.  Pay attention to the language.  It's illegal to give children information that the government deems is "not appropriate" for them.  One thing the Chik-fil-a fiasco showed is that there are government actors ready to use the force of the law to silence dissenting opinions.  Today creationism is kept out of public schools.  But years from now will a program with view that Mr. Nye finds "unscientific" have to carry a "Warning!  The following program includes material that may not be appropriate for children" intro?  I thought science was about getting kids to think for themselves as opposed to being clones of state approved thought?

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> If I am wrong on my knowledge of scientific theory I am all for being educated and all for you sharing your ideas on the subject matter. And please lets keep this civil.


Ok, I shall start:

According to you, a "scientific theory" *is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.*

Lab yeast make evolutionary leap to multicellularity.
_Tragopogon miscellus_ evolution.
Scientists force evolution of caterpillars.
_E. coli_ make major evolutionary shift in lab, before scientists eyes.

----------


## fisharmor

> Did we watch different videos?


Bill Nye says "don't do it".  Don't deny evolution in front of your kids, because then they won't be able to become engineers (like that makes any $#@!ing sense).
The rest of society also says "don't let your kids use f-bombs".
If I had heard all the f-bombs and turned off the song last night to protect her, my daughter would not have demonstrated, finally, some modicum of musical ability.
If I don't deny evolution in front of her, then she's never going to have an opportunity to question both it AND creationism.

Perhaps I was being a little esoteric but the idea is the same for me.  You either hide your delicate hot-house flower under a rock, or you give your kid all the information, state your own opinion, and let the kid be an individual with an individual opinion.

This idea isn't going to die out, Bill, because people like you are attempting to ram a competing idea down everyone's throat.
I clearly remember being at the dinner table and listening to my dad tell my older brother there was no way in hell that he was going to an Ozzy Osbourne concert (shortly after the bat incident) because that was sick.
Well now he has another of his kids playing that guy's music for his 5-year-old grandaughter.

If you try to stamp out creationism, it's going to flourish.  You're giving it attention.  Most creationists actually don't go picking fights over evolution being crap.  That means they're going to win.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Ethics aren't science, are they?  They're a consideration.  If we assume that the science is correct (which I know you don't), then it becomes an ethical dilemma:  is it better for parents to prevent possible a greater possible harm (both to the child and society) by imposing a certain lesser harm to the child?
> 
> If so, and again, assuming that vaccines are effective (which I know you don't believe either) is it ethically wrong to make a child cry by giving him an injection (a small amount of damage) even if you know that it's for the greater good of protecting the child from the increased possibility that he will not only get sick, but spreada the disease, later if he does not get the shots?
> 
> That's where ethics weigh in.  They have policy implications, not scientific.


Ethics are and always have been intertwined with science.  The known history of science tells us this.  Especially in medical science (see Hippocrates and the Hipporatic Oath).  History of science was a rather boring class, but I picked up a few things.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Actually, before Einstein did that there were experiments proving that the speed of light never changes relative to the observer, no matter what the motion of the observer is. That empirical fact was the foundation on which Einstein did his thought experiments.


This is true, thanks for correcting me.  I believe my point is still correct, though-some science does follow the scientific method very strictly, but some does not.  At least, this is my understanding from the physics lectures I've observed thus far.

----------


## Dr.3D

Why can't evolution be thought of as being the tool God used to bring about what we now have as life on Earth?  Creation could very well have happened in six twenty-four hour days.

Those who want to know how this could be, should watch this one hour video.






Skeptics beware, the author of this video, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, has degrees in the following.
B.Sc. Chemical engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.)
M.Sc. Earth and planetary sciences, M.I.T.
PhD Earth Sciences and Physics, M.I.T. 

So you can't say he doesn't know anything about science.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> 8/30/2012 - In 5 minutes --- First Hour: Bill Nye, "the Science Guy," talks about why he believes creationism is not good for kids. Be there or be square.
> 
> http://www.newsradioklbj.com/Other/Stream.html
> 
> Ought to be a hoot.


Recap of the discussion -- First hour guest, Bill Nye, "the Science Guy," argued that teaching creationism to children in school is not appropriate (a video in which he expounded on this has been seen over 2 million times). Creationism is not science, and "the idea that there is no such thing as evolution, that an unknowable deity created everything that you see around you in just 100 centuries," is simply wrong on a scientific basis, he stated.


He also expressed the importance of considering the position of your elected and future elected representatives on science. Can't say that I disagree with him on that.

----------


## QuickZ06

> Ok, I shall start:
> 
> According to you, a "scientific theory" *is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.*
> 
> Lab yeast make evolutionary leap to multicellularity.


You are a scientist correct? 

Im not really that up to speed on all of those but I can give the first one a try. So this was done in a lab of course, has this ever been examined in the real world? I am thinking the scientist might have acted as an intelligent designer?

Also in that third link the title really make me go wtf...Scientists *force evolution* in the lab.

Also do you believe in evolution?

----------


## Dr.3D

I guess most people are too busy arguing to watch a one hour video?

----------


## tttppp

> Why can't evolution be thought of as being the tool God used to bring about what we now have as life on Earth?  Creation could very well have happened in six twenty-four hour days.
> 
> Those who want to know how this could be, should watch this one hour video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If religious people would stop asserting that God was the creator of everything, I would say that is possible. But even then there is not nearly enough evidence to convince me.

----------


## tttppp

> I guess most people are too busy arguing to watch a one hour video?


Why don't you just summarize it for us?

----------


## Dr.3D

> If religious people would stop asserting that God was the creator of everything, I would say that is possible. But even then there is not nearly enough evidence to convince me.


Why not let them assert God is the creator?   That video explains very well how it is possible, everything in the book of Genesis could very well be true.  There is nothing is science that can prove God isn't the creator.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Why don't you just summarize it for us?


It's too hard to summarize.... you have to watch the entire video from start to finish to really understand it.

----------


## QuickZ06

> He also expressed the importance of considering the position of your elected and future elected representatives on science. Can't say that I disagree with him on that.


I listened to the whole thing (thanks for posting the link) and that was one of the parts he discusses I had the biggest issue with. I don't see how you would ever really judge your vote on a candidate because of his science knowledge and or skills. Like I said it has become a religion and like religion I would rather you just keep it to yourself. Without a economy those scientist would not be able to get those nice tax payer government funded paychecks for the research they do. I think we have a heck of a lot of more important issues than just dealing with theories.

----------


## Seraphim

Fact: The Universe (our metaphysical existence) was created by SOME force (what it is, I do not know).

Fact: Genetic lineages adapt and through small genetic permutations IMPROVE their capability of surviving and procreating.

Fact: Creationism and evolution are both very, very real. The existence of one in no way deters any argument for the other.

----------


## Travlyr

> I guess most people are too busy arguing to watch a one hour video?


I'm not to busy to watch a one hour video but ignorance is bliss.  BTW, does it prove the origin of life is from evolution?

----------


## QuickZ06

/////

----------


## Dr.3D

> I'm not to busy to watch a one hour video but ignorance is bliss.  BTW, does it prove the origin of life is from evolution?


No... science doesn't know the origin of life.  The video is all about science.

----------


## tttppp

> Why not let them assert God is the creator?   That video explains very well how it is possible, everything in the book of Genesis could very well be true.  There is nothing is science that can prove God isn't the creator.


It can prove God isn't the creator of everything in existence. It can't prove that some God didn't create us. Even then, there is still not much evidence that we were created by someone.

----------


## Travlyr

> Why not let them assert God is the creator?   That video explains very well how it is possible, everything in the book of Genesis could very well be true.  There is nothing is science that can prove God isn't the creator.


Oh. Never mind my last post. I'll watch the video.

----------


## tttppp

> It's too hard to summarize.... you have to watch the entire video from start to finish to really understand it.


Sorry, I really don't want to watch a one hour video unless I knew it had a chance to be worth my time. And it really doesn't take an hour to explain this topic.

----------


## Travlyr

> No... science doesn't know the origin of life.  The video is all about science.


I find this to be the most interesting concept. Nobody knows the origin of life. It is okay to believe whatever is the most comforting.

----------


## erowe1

> It can prove God isn't the creator of everything in existence.


Science can prove that? How?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Sorry, I really don't want to watch a one hour video unless I knew it had a chance to be worth my time. And it really doesn't take an hour to explain this topic.


It's really worth an hour of your time.   I really, really is.  It explains how everything we have been taught in science class fits right in with the events of creation in the book of Genesis.

----------


## tttppp

> Fact: The Universe (our metaphysical existence) was created by SOME force (what it is, I do not know).
> 
> Fact: Genetic lineages adapt and through small genetic permutations IMPROVE their capability of surviving and procreating.
> 
> Fact: Creationism and evolution are both very, very real. The existence of one in no way deters any argument for the other.


Fact: the universe was never created.

----------


## PierzStyx

I don't have any problem with Bill Nye thinking this. He never taught it on the show he had, which I still think is awesome for children. And that is all that is important to me.

----------


## erowe1

> He never taught it on the show he had


Are you sure? I don't know. I remember the show, and I remember liking it. But I know that this is enough of a bee in his bonnet that it wouldn't surprise me if it got worked into that show.

----------


## tttppp

> Science can prove that? How?


I meant in theory it can if it can prove the universe is infinite. I have my own theory on this. If it was proofed by a scientist, that can prove there was no creator of the universe.

----------


## Dr.3D

The next question would be, which universe?

----------


## PierzStyx

> Fact: the universe was never created.


Depends on how you define "created." If you mean creation out of nothing than modern day advanced science is trending against that. Though those theories are far from being securely established. They are theories, not Theories. Mathematical constructs of the Universe have been disproven before, don't bet all your eggs on this one being absolutely correct either.

If you mean creation in the sense that God created something from formerly chaotic parts, such as a watchmaker creating a watch from a chaotic gathering of small metal bits, then you are closer to the truth. The Hebrew of the Old Testament even backs this up as the word often translated as "created" in Genesis holds the connotation of "organized", not made something appear from nothing.

----------


## ninepointfive

religion and science aside

Bill Nye is full of himself - egotistical prick

----------


## jmdrake

> I guess most people are too busy arguing to watch a one hour video?


I listened to it in the background.  It's interesting.  Basically he went back to some early commentators who wrote about the Bible before the creationism/evolutionism debate began and made the claim that they believed the Bible looked at days 1 - 5 of creation differently than day 6 onward.  Interesting theory.  I've heard it before but without the "Old Bible commentators said this" twist.  The problem I have with that theory is that it puts sin before death, but God made it clear to Adam and Eve that death would be the *result* of their sin as opposed to the *process* of their creation.  But it is an interesting theory.  Oh, and just ignore the people who troll you by wanting to argue without taking the time to watch what you presented.  That's just the nature of the beast hear at RPF.

----------


## tttppp

> Depends on how you define "created." If you mean creation out of nothing than modern day advanced science is trending against that. Though those theories are far from being securely established. They are theories, not Theories. Mathematical constructs of the Universe have been disproven before, don't bet all your eggs on this one being absolutely correct either.
> 
> If you mean creation in the sense that God created something from formerly chaotic parts, such as a watchmaker creating a watch from a chaotic gathering of small metal bits, then you are closer to the truth. The Hebrew of the Old Testament even backs this up as the word often translated as "created" in Genesis holds the connotation of "organized", not made something appear from nothing.


Most religions don't seem to assert that God was just an organizer. Its possible that there was a God that organized things. I haven't seen one logical explantion for God as a creator of everything.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I listened to it in the background.  It's interesting.  Basically he went back to some early commentators who wrote about the Bible before the creationism/evolutionism debate began and made the claim that they believed the Bible looked at days 1 - 5 of creation differently than day 6 onward.  Interesting theory.  I've heard it before but without the "Old Bible commentators said this" twist.  The problem I have with that theory is that it puts sin before death, but God made it clear to Adam and Eve that death would be the *result* of their sin as opposed to the *process* of their creation.  But it is an interesting theory.  Oh, and just ignore the people who troll you by wanting to argue without taking the time to watch what you presented.  That's just the nature of the beast hear at RPF.


You didn't get to the part about *time expansion*.

----------


## jmdrake

> Depends on how you define "created." If you mean creation out of nothing than modern day advanced science is trending against that. Though those theories are far from being securely established. They are theories, not Theories. Mathematical constructs of the Universe have been disproven before, don't bet all your eggs on this one being absolutely correct either.
> 
> If you mean creation in the sense that God created something from formerly chaotic parts, such as a watchmaker creating a watch from a chaotic gathering of small metal bits, then you are closer to the truth. The Hebrew of the Old Testament even backs this up as the word often translated as "created" in Genesis holds the connotation of "organized", not made something appear from nothing.


You have to understand.  He believes that modern science is controlled by people who want to make sure people believe in God.  So science that confirms God is part of the grand scheme to promote God or at the very least make sure science doesn't fully refute God.   Come to think of it, you don't have to understand.

----------


## QuickZ06

Dr.3D  ill have to watch that video later tonight, but I am looking forward to hearing what is to be said.

----------


## tttppp

> The next question would be, which universe?


I generally use the term universe to mean everything.

----------


## jmdrake

> You didn't get to the part about *time expansion*.


Well admittedly I was doing something else at the time.  I'll listen to it again, but I did hear that part I think.  (The part about there being some places in the universe where a clock would seem to move imperceptibly slow?)  I'm not sure how that answers the question of whether or not death preceded sin.

----------


## Seraphim

Ahh ok, so this metaphysical existence is non existent.

You're not very good at trolling.

I didn't say that someone or some omnipotent being did it. But the very fact that this universe is clearly alive and kicking, is proof in and of itself that SOME force created the atoms necessary to spawn it all. 

Creationism need not be confined to the religious definition. There is room for discussion, you know.




> Fact: the universe was never created.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Well admittedly I was doing something else at the time.  I'll listen to it again, but I did hear that part I think.  (The part about there being some places in the universe where a clock would seem to move imperceptibly slow?)  I'm not sure how that answers the question of whether or not death preceded sin.


He explains how time isn't a constant.  When the universe was much smaller, time passed at a different speed than it does now.  He said something along the lines, "If when the Big Bang happened, someone had been sending out a pulse of light at one second intervals, and encoded in that light was the message, "I am sending this pulse once every second.", if we were able to see it today, the time between those pulses would be something like fifteen minutes."

----------


## Seraphim

It's amazing how gravity influences both time itself and the perception of time.




> He explains how time isn't a constant.  When the universe was much smaller, time passed at a different speed than it does now.  He said something along the lines, "If when the Big Bang happened, someone had been sending out a pulse of light at one second intervals, and encoded in that light was the message, "I am sending this pulse once every second.", if we were able to see it today, the time between those pulses would be something like fifteen minutes."

----------


## Dr.3D

> It's amazing how gravity influences both time itself and the perception of time.


Yes, and a smaller universe would mean there was much more gravity.  As the universe expands, our clocks tick relatively faster.

----------


## QuickZ06

> *I feel like some of the people in this thread didn't pay attention in school.* 
> 
> Evolution isn't a scientific theory?





> Evolution is a scientific theory. It is important to qualify the theory as 'scientific', because when people use the word theory in 'normal' conversation, they mean a *hunch or a guess.* Scientists have a word for that. In science, this type of *intelligent guessing* is called a hypothesis. A scientific theory, however, carries much more importance. Scientists do not lightly assign the term theory to an idea. There are many experiments and observations by many scientists over a large span of time.


In the end I still just think it is just a theory. And what the heck is the difference in a guess and intelligent guess? After reading a ton this subject I think a lot of manipulation goes into this whole 'scientific theory" of evolution. 

As for your first sentence, so all you did was just pay attention and never questioned anything in school? Are you pro public school i.e government indoctrinating us?

----------


## fisharmor

> Why can't evolution be thought of as being the tool  God used to bring about what we now have as life on Earth?  Creation  could very well have happened in six twenty-four hour days.


Well I am too busy at the moment to watch (but will later), but I have a question:

Why couldn't an _omnipotent_ creator create a universe in six days that was _already_ billions of years old?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Well I am too busy at the moment to watch (but will later), but I have a question:
> 
> Why couldn't an _omnipotent_ creator create a universe in six days that was _already_ billions of years old?


He didn't have to.   But in essence, He did.   He just made those six days take billions of years by our reckoning of time.

----------


## jmdrake

> He explains how time isn't a constant.  When the universe was much smaller, time passed at a different speed than it does now.  He said something along the lines, "If when the Big Bang happened, someone had been sending out a pulse of light at one second intervals, and encoded in that light was the message, "I am sending this pulse once every second.", if we were able to see it today, the time between those pulses would be something like fifteen minutes."


Yeah.  I get that.  In fact the age of the universe has never been a problem for me because I think that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" means that both had a beginning (God) and not that the earth and the universe is the same age.  But I'm still left with my "Which came first, death or sin?"  question.  In the video he mentioned his daughter asking him about dinosaurs.  Regardless of the age of the earth/solar system/universe, did those dinosaurs live and die before sin?  And if "creation by natural processes" included man evolving from some lower state (he didn't exactly say that in the film) then why did the "lower men" die before they had a soul that was capable of being held accountable for "sin"?

Anyway, I'll watch it again.

----------


## bw68

If God created the universe, who created God?  This view of the world is infinitely complex.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Perfect timing. Cue Mike Huckabee and Rachel Maddow. Election time.

----------


## James Madison

Why can't Christians see how creationism is designed and pushed to make them look stupid to the general public? Same goes for the 'Rapture Ready' crowd.

----------


## tttppp

> If God created the universe, who created God?  This view of the world is infinitely complex.


Great point. I'm sure you'll see in the religious threads so of the most rediculous ideas to justify God.

----------


## tttppp

> Ahh ok, so this metaphysical existence is non existent.
> 
> You're not very good at trolling.
> 
> I didn't say that someone or some omnipotent being did it. But the very fact that this universe is clearly alive and kicking, is proof in and of itself that SOME force created the atoms necessary to spawn it all. 
> 
> Creationism need not be confined to the religious definition. There is room for discussion, you know.


If the universe is infinite it was never created. Just because we exist doesn't mean the universe was created.

----------


## bw68

If God created the universe, who created God?  This view of the world is infinitely complex.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Has Science become a Religion?


The same spiritual fulfillment found in Religion can be found in science. So maybe better to ask it like that. Religions are typically absolute whereas science is more than a body of knowledge. Like Sagan was saying...science is a way of skeptically interrogating the universe. He said that if we're not able to ask a skeptical question then we are up for grabs. The problem with "Religion" is that it's profoundly absolute by default where faith is relevant. So...I don't know. There has to be a better way to ask that question than you did. Accepting that notion _does_ open the doors to a coexistence though.

Too many keystrokes required to get into that spew depending upon how your threaad goes.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Why is that vid titled "The Big Think"?  There's nothing big or profound about the thoughts there.


Nye doesn't own the video. Some person just asked him the question so he answered it. It's not his video. It's the interviewer's video. So, it's the old we ask you decide gag, really. And we all know how that works.

----------


## PierzStyx

> You have to understand.  He believes that modern science is controlled by people who want to make sure people believe in God.  So science that confirms God is part of the grand scheme to promote God or at the very least make sure science doesn't fully refute God.   Come to think of it, you don't have to understand.


That is good. Because I have no idea what he means by that. Where does he the evidence for it? Everything I've seen and experienced, and I mean _everything_ has been the exact opposite.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Its funny seeing people fight over "theories" calming they are facts.


like I said. We all know how that works. The author of the vid set the notion up fort his kind of spin. Not really funny since this brings us back to your question about the religion being science meme. We don't want that to trump the terms of controversy.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I undertand and I am all for learning as I am not a scientists or biology teacher but I like and have to question everything.


Well then you're a scientist in spirit.

----------


## PierzStyx

> If God created the universe, who created God?  This view of the world is infinitely complex.


Multiple religious theologians have addressed this issue. I believe Thomas Aquinas and his adaptation of Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover" theory would be a good place to start.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> In the end I still just think it is just a theory. And what the heck is the difference in a guess and intelligent guess? After reading a ton this subject I think a lot of manipulation goes into this whole 'scientific theory" of evolution. 
> 
> As for your first sentence, so all you did was just pay attention and never questioned anything in school?




I learned a lot in school and I learned much more outside of school. Did I question what I was taught? Damn right I did. Children are naturally curious and if you attempt to teach them something you can expect a lot of questions and if your answers don't explain things to their liking they will naturally look elsewhere. Your hatred of public schools has led you to believe that absolutely nothing can be learned in one. 




> Are you pro public school i.e government *endoctoring* us?


Perhaps if you would have paid more attention in English you would know that the word is indoctrinating.

----------


## squarepusher

The bible is God's word.

The bibles says God created the eart in 6 days.

"6 days" can be interpreted as 6 billion years (day = billion years)

Therefore the bible is accurate and God's word is truth.

----------


## Dr.3D

> The bible is God's word.
> 
> The bibles says God created the eart in 6 days.
> 
> "6 days" can be interpreted as 6 billion years (day = billion years)
> 
> Therefore the bible is accurate and God's word is truth.


Well, those 6 billion years are actually 24 hour days.   Really!

----------


## tttppp

> The bible is God's word.
> 
> The bibles says God created the eart in 6 days.
> 
> "6 days" can be interpreted as 6 billion years (day = billion years)
> 
> Therefore the bible is accurate and God's word is truth.


If you use that mentality you can make the bible mean whatever you want. Which is what religion has done over the course of time. When they realize some of their beliefs are false, they simply change them and say that's what God really meant.

----------


## QuickZ06

> I learned a lot in school and I learned much more outside of school. Did I question what I was taught? Damn right I did. Children are naturally curious and if you attempt to teach them something you can expect a lot of questions and if your answers don't explain things to their liking they will naturally look elsewhere. Your hatred of public schools has led you to believe that absolutely nothing can be learned in one. 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you would have paid more attention in English you would know that the word is indoctrinating.





> Yesterday 08:40 PM
> 
> Last edited by DerailingDaTrain; Yesterday at 09:00 PM.


O the irony. 

When you cannot attack the idea, attack the spelling. My mac/phone auto corrects sometimes and could really care less. 

Yes I do hate public schools, it is what is dumbing down society. And I can tell you have learned just so much by your past posts.

Now do you care to have an intellectual conversation about the topic or just critique my spelling.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> O the irony. 
> 
> When you cannot attack the idea, attack the spelling. My mac/phone auto corrects sometimes and could really care less. 
> 
> Yes I do hate public schools, it is what is dumbing down society. And I can tell you have learned just so much by your past posts.
> 
> Now do you care to have an intellectual conversation about the topic or just critique my spelling.


I would love to have an intellectual conversation but it would be pretty one-sided since you have admitted to having no knowledge of the topic. 




> If I am wrong on my knowledge of scientific theory I am all for being educated and all for you sharing your ideas on the subject matter.





> I undertand and I am all for learning as I am not a scientists or biology teacher but I like and have to question everything.
> 
> I am currently reading a lot of information on this subject and my mind is just running.
> 
> But I don't believe that evolution is a scientific theory.


I also highly doubt that your mac/phone would choose the word endoctoring.

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, those 6 billion years are actually 24 hour days.   Really!


I watched the end again.  The thought experiment of the laser pulses from the origin of the universe is interesting.  (Because of the expansion of the universe, light pulses sent 1 second apart would actually arrive at much later times).  I will need to read his book.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I watched the end again.  The thought experiment of the laser pulses from the origin of the universe is interesting.  (Because of the expansion of the universe, light pulses sent 1 second apart would actually arrive at much later times).  I will need to read his book.


Yes, because the change in gravity would make time change with the expansion and there being less gravity where the earth is now, versus were it was back then.
As I recall, he said something about the pulses sent at one second intervals would now be seen as coming at fifteen minute intervals.  With that amount of change in time, it's easy to see why the decay of radioactive materials we see now, it would appear that billions of years have passed, when in reality only thousands have really passed.

I have one of his books on my shelf, "The Science of God".  It is really interesting as it shows the timeline of creation and the six thousand years.  It also explains the origins of mankind.

----------


## QuickZ06

> I would love to have an intellectual conversation but it would be pretty one-sided since you have admitted to having no knowledge of the topic. 
> 
> I also highly doubt that your mac/phone would choose the word endoctoring.



You would be surprised in what my phone can mistype for me. They have websites dedicated to misspelled texts and what not for christ sake. 

I would love to hear more about your public school ennnnnnnndoctering. O wait thats why you are hear.......to stray away from the real topics like in every other thread you post in.

Why are you a member here when all you do is derail every thread? 

So again you prove you have no further more knowledge on the subject and yet again attacked my grammar. You never have substance to any of your posts and all you do is deflect when someone points out the irony in yourself such as you editing your post, for more than likely grammatical errors and or other corrections. You seriously need to just zip it from here on out if all you are going to do is try to derail this thread.

----------


## Sola_Fide

I'm sorry, been busy lately and haven't read through the thread.  The OP is just the same old tired line from the establishment science priesthood.  They keep trying to frame the debate around a debate between "fact" and "religion".  But Darwinism is not a fact, it is a religious viewpoint.  

Then he tries to equate Darwinism with other technological endeavors.  Wrong.  Anyway, Darwinism is a novel paradigm in science.  Scientific speculation itself began with a philosophical foundation of creationism.  Science is false anyway.  All of the laws of science and all of the theories of science are false and by definition cannot be true.  Truth is by definition that which cannot change.  Science always changes.  Science cannot yield truth statements and it is not designed to yield true statements.  Science is technological, not cognitive.

----------


## QuickZ06

> I'm sorry, been busy lately and haven't read through the thread.  The OP is just the same old tired line from the establishment science priesthood.  They keep trying to frame the debate around a debate between "fact" and "religion".  But Darwinism is not a fact, it is a religious viewpoint.  
> 
> Then he tries to equate Darwinism with other technological endeavors.  Wrong.  Anyway, Darwinism is a novel paradigm in science.  Scientific speculation itself began with a philosophical foundation of creationism.  Science is false anyway.  All of the laws of science and all of the theories of science are false and by definition cannot be true.  Truth is by definition that which cannot change.  Science always changes.  Science cannot yield truth statements and it is not designed to yield true statements.  Science is technological, not cognitive.


Then am I correct in my thinking that evolution is not a scientific theory but merely a theory.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then am I correct in my thinking that evolution is not a scientific theory but merely a theory.


I would say there is no difference.  What is the most important thing to understand is this:  _there are no brute facts._

That is, there are no facts that are unrelated to the worldview by which you interpret them.  Gordon Clark said it like this:

"Significance, interpretation, evaluation is not given in any fact; it is an intellectual judgment based on some non-sensory criterion."

The point is that "facts", how they are evaluated, and their significance, are interpreted by the presuppositions (non-sensory criterion) of the men using the "facts".  The modern scientific priesthood live in the fantasy world that they are neutral in their evaluation of the "facts", when in reality the "facts" they say they discover are merely reflections of their underlying worldview.

But even more fundamentally, science is not true and can never yield truth.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> ...science is not true and can never yield truth.


I don't know. There is much to be said about prediction. It's the very heart of science.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Then am I correct in my thinking that evolution is not a scientific theory but merely a theory.


Is evolution natural? Sorry if it sounds confusing or irrelevant but I couldn't think of a more fundamental way to ask it. Because you have to, you know. I just want to make sure that we don't get off into humans evolving because they built a bunch of Walmarts or whatever. You're talking about natural evolution. Right? No frankenfish type fodder?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I would say there is no difference.  What is the most important thing to understand is this:  _there are no brute facts._
> 
> That is, there are no facts that are unrelated to the worldview by which you interpret them.  Gordon Clark said it like this:
> 
> "Significance, interpretation, evaluation is not given in any fact; it is an intellectual judgment based on some non-sensory criterion."
> 
> The point is that "facts", how they are evaluated, and their significance, are interpreted by the presuppositions (non-sensory criterion) of the men using the "facts".  The modern scientific priesthood live in the fantasy world that they are neutral in their evaluation of the "facts", when in reality the "facts" they say they discover are merely reflections of their underlying worldview.
> *
> But even more fundamentally, science is not true and can never yield truth.*


More accurately, science is always fallacious (as is all inductive reasoning).  It can lead us to truth, but it doesn't _necessarily_ do so.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Here's more on the logical fallacies of Carl Sagan and science in general:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=90




> Still less does Dr. Sagan seem to realize that science is a self-correcting and ever-changing discipline precisely be cause it is never correct. If a scientist ever discovered a truth, it would not and could not change. Two plus two is four is now, has always been, and always will be true be cause it was not discovered by the scientific method. Christian theology has always taught and will always teach the doctrine of the Trinity because the Trinity was not discovered by the scientific method, but revealed by God, who is truth himself. All scientific laws are false. All the laws of physics and astronomy are false. Why just a month ago the astronomers admitted that-oops!-they had made a mistake in calculating the distances between stars, a mistake of only 25 percent. Who knows, perhaps next month they will acknowledge another mistake. Or perhaps it will be the chemists, or the physicists, or the biologists who make the announcement next month. All the physics and biology textbooks written in 1910 are now regarded as completely wrong. Fifty years from now scientists will consider our present texts completely wrong. Scientists never discover the truth because the scientific method, which Dr. Sagan esteems so highly, is a tissue of logical fallacies. Science does not and cannot give us truth.


A complete dissection and logical destruction of the behaviorism of Carl Sagan:




> Let’s assume that Dr. Sagan’s beliefs about mind and thought are true. Thoughts are, he thinks, “hundreds of electrochemical impulses” in the brain. What follows from this? First, error is impossible. One electrochemical impulse is as good as another. The chemistry in the brain of someone who thinks that behaviorism is false is as perfect as the chemistry in the brain of someone who thinks that behavior ism is true. If thoughts are electrochemical, then one thought, one chemical reaction, is as good as another. Why Sagan insists that his chemical reactions are right and mine are wrong is a complete mystery. “Wrong” has no meaning on behaviorist premises. 
> 
> It follows from the meaninglessness of error that behaviorists, in this case Dr. Sagan, cannot claim their assertions are true. Behaviorism makes truth equally meaningless. Truth is not a quality of electrochemical impulses. My rejection of behaviorism, that is, in Dr. Sagan’s terms, the electrochemical impulses in my brain, are chemically as good as his. Chemicals never err. Both his reactions and mine are solid chemistry. Both obey the inviolable laws of chemistry, which, Dr. Sagan has told us, are the same every where in the universe. Now if anyone, no matter how highly respected and decorated, proposes a theory that precludes the truth of the theory he proposes, he is involved in a hopeless contradiction and needs no further refutation. If he persists in asserting what cannot be true, he needs close and compassionate attention, rather than disputation. 
> 
> The situation is, however, somewhat worse than this initial consideration indicates. Not only does behaviorism eliminate truth, it eliminates memory and communication as well. If thoughts are electrochemical impulses, then they are specific datable events in the brain. They cannot be repeated. They occur and then they stop. Memory is impossible. A behaviorist might reply that we can have a similar thought later, that is, a similar electrochemical impulse can occur. But the behaviorist forgets (and hopes that we will forget as well) that according to behaviorism the thought of similarity is still another and still later electrochemical impulse, another dated event separated by time (and perhaps by space) from the first two chemical reactions. How can still a third electrochemical reaction connect the first two, which have already occurred and ended? How can a behaviorist tell whether two ideas are similar, if ideas are electrochemical impulses? Behaviorism makes comparison and memory impossible. 
> 
> It also makes communication impossible. Carl Sagan’s mind is a bundle of electrochemical impulses and reactions; and so is mine, according to Carl Sagan. Dr. Sagan has a thought, that is, his intracranial chemicals react in a certain way. But his brain’s electrochemical impulses cannot be my brain’s electrochemical impulses, any more than his toothache can be mine or my toothache his. Therefore, I can never know his thought. It is therefore impossible to tell what Dr. Sagan means by any of the thousands of propositions that he has written in his books and articles. And since behaviorism also destroys memory, Dr. Sagan himself has no idea what he wrote either. Perhaps his books mean nothing at all. Perhaps they are simply the debris left by a powerful and sudden electrochemical brainstorm. 
> 
> Behaviorism has been around for centuries, but the modern revival of some forms of Greek paganism has made it into one of the major superstitions of the twentieth century. Ernest Nagel, in his presidential address that I quoted above, said that it is one of the best-tested conclusions of experience. Gordon Clark has suggested that behaviorism be subjected to the same sort of test that other theories claiming to be scientific undergo. Einstein’s general theory of relativity predicted several events, such as the precession of the perihelion of Mercury and the deflection of starlight in the presence of large masses. Scientists could observe whether those events occurred as implied by Einstein’s theory. Let Dr. Sagan specify which electrochemical impulses in the brain are the thought “the Earth is 4.6 billion years old.” Let him tell us what the specific chemistry of astronomy, as distinguished from astrology, is. Let him specify how the surge of electrochemical impulses meaning “The opening chapters of the book of Genesis are mythological” differs from the spurt of electrochemical impulses meaning “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the word of God written and therefore inerrant in the autographs.” Let us see what empirical basis there is for the claim that thoughts are electrochemical impulses. I certainly hope Dr. Sagan’s brain is up to the task.


Why induction can never yield truth:




> Bertrand Russell was an English mathematician and philosopher, and he also understood some of the limitations of scientific method. By limitations I do not mean to imply that science is capable of discovering some truths but not others, that through science we can discover truths of astronomy, physics, or botany, but that we must rely on the Bible for theology. That is a fundamentally wrong view of the limitations of science, and Russell had no such delusions about science. Science is based on observation and experiment. But induction, Russell admitted a little reluctantly, “remains an unsolved problem of logic.” Put more bluntly, induction is a logical fallacy. Just because one observes a thousand white swans, one cannot conclude that all swans are white. Number 1001 may be black. Just because the Sun has come up every morning for the past one hundred years does not imply that it will come up tomorrow. Or, to give you a more theological example, non-Christian archaeologists used to claim that there was no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the Hittite nation, and therefore the Bible must be mistaken. Today there are more Hittite documents in our museums than the archaeologists have had time to translate. Induction is always fallacious, yet science is based on induction.
> 
> A second problem with science that Russell saw is the problem of experimentation. Science proceeds by testing hypotheses through experiments. From a hypothesis a scientist deduces that if X is done, Y will occur. He then proceeds to perform an experiment; Y occurs; and therefore, he concludes, the hypothesis is confirmed. This form of argument is another logical fallacy, and all laboratory experimentation commits this fallacy. Its formal name is asserting the consequent: If p, then q; q; therefore p. If Einstein’s theory of relativity is true, then light will bend in the presence of massive objects; light bends passing the Sun; therefore Einstein’s theory of relativity is true. Or to put it less scientifically, if it is raining, the streets are wet; the streets are wet; therefore, it is raining. Russell wrote:
> 
> All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: “If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true.” This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing.” If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the arguments upon which all scientific laws are based.


The limits of science:




> Let me begin answering these questions by listing very briefly some of the reasons that science is not a way of discovering truth. I have already mentioned two, the logical fallacies of induction and asserting the consequent. Let me mention two more, both of them dealing with physics. I choose physics because it is, quite clearly, the best and most advanced of the various natural sciences; and therefore what applies to physics holds a fortiori for biology, for example. Perhaps one can get through a biology course with little more than a good memory; but a physics course, precisely because it is more advanced, requires the ability to think rigorously.
> 
> Some may be inclined to argue that even if all the laws of physics are false, they are still highly probable. In response to that, I quote the words of Karl Popper, the British philosopher of science: “All theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero.” Why does Popper say such an outrageous thing? The argument is simple: A scientist, after he has performed a number of experiments and made a number of measurements, plots a graph. How many lines can pass through the points on a graph? An infinite number, of course. The nice smooth slopes we put in our science textbooks, even our Christian science textbooks, are but one line out of an infinite number that might have been drawn. The scientist has chosen the line he draws, he has not discovered it. But if it is possible that there is an infinite number of slopes, it follows that the probability of the slope that is chosen and the equation it represents being the right one is one out of infinity, or zero. Therefore, “all theories, even the best, have the same probability, namely zero.” Q. E. D. Popper repeated that statement many times in his books, and I wish some Christian theologians and scientists would read them.
> But there is a fourth reason for believing that the scientific method is a tissue of logical fallacies. It is quite easy to grasp, as are the first three reasons. Science, especially physics, does not deal with the world we live in. It deals with an imaginary world where there are absolute vacuums, frictionless surfaces, bodies whose masses are concentrated at a geometrical point, and tensionless strings. The law of the pendulum, for example, applies in such an imaginary world; it describes no actual pendulum. The law of freely falling bodies applies in such an imaginary world; it describes no actually falling bodies. Science does not describe the behavior of the things we see, but of the things scientists imagine, including electrons, protons, and quarks.


http://preterism.ning.com/profiles/b...ource=activity

----------


## tttppp

> Here's more on the logical fallacies of Carl Sagan and science in general:
> http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=90
> 
> 
> 
> A complete dissection and logical destruction of the behaviorism of Carl Sagan:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree that pretty much all the accepted laws of the universe are either false or not absolute. But that does not validate religion either. What that does mean is we need a new approach for science. We need to find laws that are absolute and will not change as time goes by. Too often science makes the mistake on studying things that only make a minimal difference and will eventually change when they make new discoveries.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I agree that pretty much all the accepted laws of the universe are either false or not absolute. But that does not validate religion either.


I struggle with the fact that religion or those who are Religious I should say are so absolute in their assessment of God that they think that there are no more questions left to ask and no effort to go looking any further for "God" is to be desired. Chuckle at it is probably the correct term. Not so much struggle with it. Scientists like Sagan don't or did not really have a problem with anyone looking for God or asking questions. Their issue remains that thiose who are so absolute refuse to consider science simply because it does forever ask. That's universal.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't know. There is much to be said about prediction. It's the very heart of science.


This is the inductive fallacy.



> Put more bluntly, induction is a logical fallacy. Just because one observes a thousand white swans, one cannot conclude that all swans are white. Number 1001 may be black. Just because the Sun has come up every morning for the past one hundred years does not imply that it will come up tomorrow.


Scientific experimentation itself is logically fallacious:



> Science proceeds by testing hypotheses through experiments. From a hypothesis a scientist deduces that if X is done, Y will occur. He then proceeds to perform an experiment; Y occurs; and therefore, he concludes, the hypothesis is confirmed. This form of argument is another logical fallacy, and all laboratory experimentation commits this fallacy. Its formal name is asserting the consequent: If p, then q; q; therefore p. If Einstein’s theory of relativity is true, then light will bend in the presence of massive objects; light bends passing the Sun; therefore Einstein’s theory of relativity is true. Or to put it less scientifically, if it is raining, the streets are wet; the streets are wet; therefore, it is raining.



All theories have the same probability...zero:



> Some may be inclined to argue that even if all the laws of physics are false, they are still highly probable. In response to that, I quote the words of Karl Popper, the British philosopher of science: “All theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero.” Why does Popper say such an outrageous thing? The argument is simple: A scientist, after he has performed a number of experiments and made a number of measurements, plots a graph. How many lines can pass through the points on a graph? An infinite number, of course. The nice smooth slopes we put in our science textbooks, even our Christian science textbooks, are but one line out of an infinite number that might have been drawn. The scientist has chosen the line he draws, he has not discovered it. But if it is possible that there is an infinite number of slopes, it follows that the probability of the slope that is chosen and the equation it represents being the right one is one out of infinity, or zero. Therefore, “all theories, even the best, have the same probability, namely zero.” Q. E. D. Popper repeated that statement many times in his books, and I wish some Christian theologians and scientists would read them.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Here's more on the logical fallacies of Carl Sagan and science in general:
> http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=90
> 
> 
> 
> A complete dissection and logical destruction of the behaviorism of Carl Sagan:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are these quotes from those two links. Was just wondering before I go clicking on them. May as well read it. Who wrote those, btw?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> This is the inductive fallacy.
> 
> 
> Scientific experimentation itself is logically fallacious:


Is funny, I was just watching this discussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnRlIi_1xzc

Your response actually reminded me of some aspects of the discussion.


Beyond the small talk it is a good one if you can deal with the interviewer who can't seem to contain himself for a second and listen.

And it's from 1991. Going back to prediction and whatnot.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are these quotes from those two links. Was just wondering before I go clicking on them. May as well read it. Who wrote those, btw?


John Robbins, who was Ron Paul's chief of staff in the 80's.  He was a free market economist, theologian, historian, and philosopher.  He was a student of Gordon Clark who was one of the most important Christian philosophers in recent times.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> John Robbins, who was Ron Paul's chief of staff in the 80's.  He was a free market economist, theologian, historian, and philosopher.  He was a student of Gordon Clark who was one of the most important Christian philosophers in recent times.


Oh, Ok. I haven't read it yet but will. Pooch needs a walk....

I do find civil discussion like this stimulating if it doesn't turn into romper room. You know?

----------


## tttppp

> I struggle with the fact that religion or those who are Religious I should say are so absolute in their assessment of God that they think that there are no more questions left to ask and no effort to go looking any further for "God" is to be desired. Chuckle at it is probably the correct term. Not so much struggle with it. Scientists like Sagan don't oe did not really have a problem with anyone looking for God or asking questions. Their issue remains that thiose who are so absolute refuse to consider science simply because it does forever ask. That's universal.


The fact that religious people are usually absolute is not the problem, its that they are wrong and their beliefs are not based on logic but on blind faith. Also, when proven wrong, religion changes their beliefs then say that's what God really meant.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Anyway, I would make the case that Darwinism is not safe for children. The Columbine murderers were ardent Darwinists:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofp...us-legacy.html



> When one of the assailants, Eric Harris, was autopsied, the medical examiner found that under his black trench coat the boy had on a white t-shirt emblazoned with a peculiar slogan. The slogan was “Natural Selection.” It was later reported but little commented upon that, on his website, Harris had written, among other paeans to the Darwinian mechanism, “Natural SELECTION!!!!!! God damn it’s the best thing that ever happened to the earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms…but it’s all natural!!! YES!”

----------


## Dr.3D

> Anyway, I would make the case that Darwinism is not safe for children. The Columbine murderers were ardent Darwinists:
> 
> http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofp...us-legacy.html


Makes me wonder if those who love to wage war, believe it's natural selection in action.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Makes me wonder if those who love to wage war, believe it's natural selection in action.


Yes, that...and also the tyrants of history must make man something less than man to justify their tyranny in the court of public opinion.  If man is an evolving social animal, the philosophical justification for tyranny and murder is not a large leap.  And there are many avenues a person could take.  For example, in Hitler's case, Jews and Blacks were lesser evolved animals.  When you tell children that they are less than human, it affects them in ways that you couldn't imagine.  But the atheistic statist massacres of the 20th century give you a glimpse into what its effects really are.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Anyway, I would make the case that Darwinism is not safe for children. The Columbine murderers were ardent Darwinists:
> 
> http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofp...us-legacy.html


Yes but depending upon who is throwing around the term Darwinism, it's impossible to categorically define them by their actions. Can one realistically assume those youth had any clue of the historic differences in views pertaining to Darwinism. To include it's very meaning?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes but depending upon who is throwing around the term Darwinism, it's impossible to categorically define them by their actions. Can one realistically assume those youth had any clue of the historic differences in views pertaining to Darwinism. To include it's very meaning?


I'm not sure.  But my case would be more convincing than the OP's case that Darwinism has something to do with the future of technological advancements.  Talk about a horrible argument.  "We have to teach kids Darwinism because they won't understand architecture without it.". Wow.  This guy should stick to test tubes and stay away from philosophy or logic.

----------


## Revolution9

> Then am I correct in my thinking that evolution is not a scientific theory but merely a theory.


The modern version of it Darwin would disagree with heartily. That was not what he was saying. He was speaking to local adaptations. Eugenicists hammered the modern version into place as it supports their cullings.

Rev9

----------


## Natural Citizen

> This guy should stick to test tubes and stay away from philosophy or logic.


Can't say that I disagree with that. Perhaps not for the same reasons as you may but is a good meme in general. But it cannot be disregarded that change is taking place in a manner that divides two generations and at the same time in which they transist with one another relevant to dare I say an _evolving_ infrastructure?

I mean, cripes. Kids are dabbling with the idea of transhumanism these days through a vast variety of platforms.
The International Space Station's humanoid robot helper, Robonaut 2, reaches out to touch a gloved astronaut hand in a photo that pays tribute to Michelangelo's Sistine ceiling painting.

http://i.space.com/images/i/16274/or...ine-chapel.jpg

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Can't say that I disagree with that. Perhaps not for the same reasons as you may but is a good meme in general. But it cannot be disregarded that change is taking place in a manner that divides two generations and at the same time in which they transist with one another relevant to dare I say an _evolving_ infrastructure?
> 
> I mean, cripes. Kids are dabbling with the idea of transhumanism these days through a vast variety of platforms.


Kids find this stuff a little more fun to grasp-- A musical celebration of the wonders of biology including evolution, natural selection, DNA, and more.  Featuring David Attenborough, Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye. 

Look for these to have millions of hits in the coming months. Because they will. And it will be the youth who make it so. The same youth who fall alseep in Church or don't go at all are interested in this. Kids are on a different frequency than those who are products of a previous generation. Therein lies your battle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxDOp...6&feature=plcp


Meant to edit instead of talk to myself. Sorry.

----------


## bunklocoempire

_"Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don't believe in evolution"  

William "Bill" Nye_ 

WIKI:




> Nye announced his engagement during an appearance on The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson and was married briefly to his fiancée of five months, author Blair Tindall, on February 3, 2006. The ceremony was performed by Rick Warren at The Entertainment Gathering at the Skirball Cultural Center in Los Angeles. Yo-Yo Ma provided the music.[47] Nye left the relationship seven weeks later when the marriage license was declared invalid. He filed a restraining order against Tindall after she entered their property to pour weed killer in his garden.[48][49] A few months later he acquired a six year injunction against her which required Tindall to stay 100 yards away from him. She violated the order in 2009 and Nye took her back to court to enforce it. The court ordered her to cover $57,000 in Nye's legal expenses. Nye took Tindall back to court when she failed to pay.[50]


Huh.  Now *that* seems pretty complicated you prideful, smug, self-proclaimed dumb ass monkey.

Got any more words of wisdom that you think I should pass on to my children who you refer to as taxpayers?

Another lame little authoritarian monkey god telling people what to share with their children.   Mind your own business.

Is that romper room?  

EDIT: (I'm addressing *Nye* -to be clear)

----------


## Natural Citizen

Yeah, I don't know about Bill sometimes.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Has Science become a Religion?


Was just reading this paper and since you were the last person I remember asking something similar.... http://www.amitgoswami.org/science-r...ated/#more-172

He'll also be on the radio tomorrow night. Per the preview -- Theoretical physicist Amit Goswami is a pioneer of the new paradigm of science called "science within consciousness." He'll discuss his hypothesis that quantum physics holds the key to all the unsolved mysteries of biology --the nature and origin of life, fossil gaps of evolution, and why biological beings have feeling and consciousness.

Oght to be a hoot. 

I don't know about the guy coming on before him though during the first hour. He'll suggest changes we could make to the school system. Amit Goswami will have the bulk of discussion at around three hours. So, two completely different discussions.

----------


## robert9712000

Your right about the analogy of the battle that wages in the child's mind and which will continue till the day they die.Where your completely misguided is which way of thinking is the best way to be.From what you wright .You appear to look at everything in a logical way,but too grasp what it is to be a true believer in God you need to broaden your mind to the possibility of it being reality,else you'll always only allow what you want to be the reality you've already accepted and you'll never take a unbiased look at the question.So you judge a believer for being a absolutist ,when you do the same with your denial of God.

 My belief in God has nothing to do with creation,because i don't care on the details of how exactly life began,because that knowledge doesn't benefit me at all.To be truly logical i pursue to understand the things that may benefit me.This is where understanding of the purpose of life begins.The purpose that benefits the most is curing what ails all of mankind and that's  human nature.

 The freedom as a child too question life without the corrupted views of the world that society pressures the individual too adopt.  The ability too see a situation from the outside and not be so self absorbed that you can't envision the point of view as others see it. The ability too see a thought of a desire in your mind that you know is not your own but entices and seduces your mind to follow its lust,then not being held captive by the feeling of hopelessness, of you being powerless against it.  The ability to show genuine love towards others even when they've wronged you ,not allowing rage or bitterness to enslave your mind and consume your daily thoughts.

 These are the things of knowledge which are worth pursuing that benefit the most.Understanding and conquering human nature can only come through faith in God's word.




> Kids find this stuff a little more fun to grasp-- A musical celebration of the wonders of biology including evolution, natural selection, DNA, and more.  Featuring David Attenborough, Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye. 
> 
> Look for these to have millions of hits in the coming months. Because they will. And it will be the youth who make it so. The same youth who fall alseep in Church or don't go at all are interested in this. Kids are on a different frequency than those who are products of a previous generation. Therein lies your battle.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxDOp...6&feature=plcp
> 
> 
> Meant to edit instead of talk to myself. Sorry.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Your right about the analogy of the battle that wages in the child's mind and which will continue till the day they die.


Nnnno. I didn't say any such thing.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> My belief in God has nothing to do with creation,because i don't care on the details of how exactly life began,because that knowledge doesn't benefit me at all.To be truly logical i pursue to understand the things that may benefit me.This is where understanding of the purpose of life begins.The purpose that benefits the most is curing what ails all of mankind and that's  human nature.
> 
>  The freedom as a child too question life without the corrupted views of the world that society pressures the individual too adopt.  The ability too see a situation from the outside and not be so self absorbed that you can't envision the point of view as others see it. The ability too see a thought of a desire in your mind that you know is not your own but entices and seduces your mind to follow its lust,then not being held captive by the feeling shame of your powerlessness against it.  The ability to show genuine love towards others even when they've wronged you ,not allowing rage or bitterness to enslave your mind and consume your daily thoughts.
> 
>  These are the things of knowledge which are worth pursuing that benefit the most.Understanding and conquering human nature can only come through faith in God's word.


If you have found God then great. I've always agreed that folks should return to things that are meaningful to them. 

Others just continue to look is all.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> I'm not sure.  But my case would be more convincing than the OP's case that Darwinism has something to do with the future of technological advancements.  Talk about a horrible argument.  "We have to teach kids Darwinism because they won't understand architecture without it.". Wow.  This guy should stick to test tubes and stay away from philosophy or logic.


If you think about it, engineering and biology are similar. 
If you dont have a general understanding in the involved systems and the structure than how can you plan and build something? 
Could you be a molecular bio engineer if you couldn't get by the fact that your job is watching bacteria evolve into a more useful version?

I think that is what he was getting at.


What I think is that we don't have enough information at this time to make a statement on the beginning of the universe, if it had one. 

Far as the beginning of the earth and the solar system, we know how and when that happened. Science tells us. 
We understand physics, we understand a type 2 supernova or better was needed to create the elements we see here now.
We understand that our sun is at least a second generation star because of this. 

Genesis did not happen as written in any bible..

----------


## Natural Citizen

Quantum Mechanics getting poked in the eye. Sort of...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48863290.../#.UEHZK6PNltM

----------


## austin944

> _there are no brute facts._


I think you just stated one.

----------

