calfoxwc Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 There is no anatagonism toward science. There is just different opinions on certain results of certain scientists by regular folks, AND OTHER SCIENTISTS. The attempt to scientifically explain all matters, doesn't exclude human beings' failings. The political, self serving concurrence of a theory, because the grants won't keep you open if you don't concur. There are scientists who believe mmgw has not been proven at all. Now that "virtually all" is gone, what's left is theory. And to belligerently claim that we have to pay exhorbitant taxes, and take huge, expensive measures as a society, and be licensed, taxed, and regulated for nearly anything we do (cows farting reference)... over a freakin theory, is what is IGNORANT. I read where Steven Hawking now says there are no black holes. Thought most scientists believed they exist. Fancy that. True science fact - no scientists disagree. Plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 if it doesn't say where the shit that blew up came from then it is just as ignorant as the man in the sky or The Flying Spaghetti Monster made it. WSS Lol no. No its not. If you don't agree then idk where else to go from here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Hawking did not say there "are no black holes". He is suggesting another way they may work, the specifics about them (about the event horizon). Like everything else, this will be researched and peer reviewed by other scientists. From there we will see what happens. No one is stating that scientific theories are constant. But, they aren't thrown out. They are added to or tweaked and become part of a larger theory. Again, a scientific theory isn't just "some idea". It is researched, tested, experimented on, peer reviewed, etc. So climate scientists that agree with man made climate change are just politically charged. They are doing it just to keep the grant money coming... ... but those going against the vast majority of qualified scientists, they're the truth. They are good people just trying to fight Big Science... Yeah OK cal. For the one millionth time, no one is saying you can't find scientists that are on your side. The vast majority though aren't. And no, you can't completely disregard these scientists results for being impure while trumpeting around the a study funded by people with their own motivations... Please, let's not turn this into ANOTHER "mmgw" thread. Jesus. I still want to hear from diehard, or anyone, defending the ID/creationism side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 By the way yes, I believe that many many scientists are being paid through government grants from organizations that want them to expose the dangers of man made global warming so they can adjust their tax structures accordingly. I also believe that the gas and oil companies hire scientists hoping to find data that disproves the other ones. I think both sets of scientists could be completely conscientious yet still quite aware where the funding is coming from and what goal is expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 So you are not going to believe either side? You are going to equate govt scuentists to those hired by oil companies and cancel them out? Where would you consider impartial studies to come from then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 So you are not going to believe either side? You are going to equate govt scuentists to those hired by oil companies and cancel them out? Where would you consider impartial studies to come from then? That's a fair question. These guys are all real scientists and I will give them all the benefit of the doubt. Yes the people who are paying them are paying them to find results they like but I don't assume they are paying them to lie. There are probably more than one ways to look at the situations. That being said my mistrust comes in when there's a fiduciary responsibility on my part. I'll give you an example... I plan to buy a new car so I go to see the Ford dealer and the Chevrolet dealer. Both of their sales people insist that their product is the best Joyce for me and they give me example after example. All these examples are probably true but they are tailored to sell me one product or the other. As chris said let's leave global warming to its own thread so in the case of the Big Bang Theory, seriously, I don't care. I haven't seen any evidence that I you or anyone else truly understands. If tomorrow The News Channel said that we used to believe the earth was 4.7 billion years old and just found out it is closer to 8. Great. So what? If, on the other hand somebody says it's twice as old as we thought so we need all fat guys with red hair to pay an extra 50 bucks a week in taxes then I'm suspicious. Otherwise if they just want to jerk themselves off wondering about things that human beings can't really fathom fine... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Well that isn't the mindset of a scientist. Just saying "we'll never understand that" and calling it a day is lame. We will never learn anything like that. We wouldn't be where we are today thinking like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Hawking did not say there "are no black holes". He is suggesting another way they may work, the specifics about them (about the event horizon). Like everything else, this will be researched and peer reviewed by other scientists. From there we will see what happens. woody ******************************** Okay, I'll rephrase, he theorizes that as defined by so many other scientists, said definition is incorrect. So, as defined, he says they don't exist as defined. The point is, he disagrees with a lot of other scientists. Doesn't that mean that both definitions are more theoretical? Like both sides of the mmgw debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 The difference in not as large as is or is not happening. If anything it is a tweak, like I've talked about before. And still, this will have to be researched and studied by other scientists and they can see how well it fits. Just like how many, many climatologists have been investigating, experimenting and peer reviewing the proposed climate change theory. Through this a large majority have come to an agreement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 That is a 30+ minute long video. Clearly you didn't watch it. We can put forth a scientific theory that best fits what we see now, makes sense mathematically, has evidence of its occurrence, etc etc. What are you looking for, us to manually create a big bang? It is observation of results of the hypothesis proposed. It is peer reviewed work. It is following mathematical laws in place. Not to mention the experiments by astrophysicists and the like. How on earth is this equally ridiculous? Are you at the point now where you aren't going to attempt to defend any of them? Just stick your nose in the air, say they are all ridiculous and leave it at that? I take it I will never get and evidence for the other side then... shocker No. I've seen it plenty of times before. I was waiting for someone to post it, actually. I love NDT. I still think he gets waaay to many internet hand jobs because he "pwns noobs." I'm not debating what has happened since the big bang (or whatever WE are calling it). Don't be ridiculous. And that's exactly my point, it's Monday Morning Quarterbacking. We still don't know "what?" "how?" or "why?" Continuing with the football analogy, it's very easy to presume you know why the seahawks won the Super Bowl after you watched the game. Nobody was making that prediction beforehand (go look at Vegas if you have any doubts). And though he does it very well, and is extremely intelligent and well- studied, that's all our boy Neil is doing in the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 So you will never accept any "origin" theory, no matter how well it fits, how well the math works, how accepted it is among scientists, unless we are actually there during the creation of a universe and taking measurements. Until then you will say every belief is equally ignorant, which in itself is ignorant, and you just won't care. Got it. Earlier in this thread you were crapping (poorly) on the big bang theory. Are you now saying it is correct all the way up until right before the bang? Neil DeGrasse Tyson "pwns noobs"? Alright. In an attempt to explain why he is popular on the internet did you just grab a random internet phrase that makes no sense here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Big bang is not an origin theory. You are mistaken. it's a development theory. There is a significant difference between the two. I'm talking about initial conditions of the ____ before the big bang began developing our universe. Again, the big bang an explanation (theory) of observed events. I'm referring to the unobserved. Sorry if my "random internet phrase" seems stale and tired. It's appropriate given the vastness of his publications prior to his internet fame. It's aggravating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I had origin in quotations. Technically you are right, it isnt exactly an origin story kind of explanation, I did not word it very well. My B. More like from this very instant point and on, from the point where are universe started, where time as we know it started. But not necessarily the beginning of everything that ever was or will be. The Big Bang Theory is the best explanation we have. More than likely, as we learn more, it will become part of a larger theory. Through our whole back and forth, I will be honest, I am unsure exactly where you stand or what we were debating. At the beginning you seemed to find a lot of fault in the theory as a whole and equated it to a bearded man in the sky. As this thread has continued though you seem to be more and more accepting of the theory. Idk anymore. Also, I think NDTs fame came because there is an interest out there in what he has to teach us plus the fact he is an interesting and charismatic figure in the field. Being in engineering I know STEM figures like that are not super common. To get to the level he is at you must be incredibly bright, and it seems like some of the brightest minds can be a little off. So to be at his level and a charismatic figure, that is rare and I bet it can take you far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 this should be of interest - Bill Nye debates Ken Ham http://debatelive.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 this should be of interest - Bill Nye debates Ken Ham http://debatelive.org/ Anybody watch this? It was on after I went to bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 No, but I want to watch it. Bill Nye to me though is still Bill Nye the Science Guy. The guy that tought me about matter, basic physics, etc. It is weird to think of him as some distinguished scientist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Ham tried to push the Earth is 6000 years old horse shit. There was a lot of "because Bible" explanations as well. Ham used the fact that Nye didn't personally know Noah as a defense of the flood story. Ham believes that Noah was a great ship maker thus it is possible that two of every animal was on a boat he created. It was a joke so I turned it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 I am watching it now while I do some homework. It seems like the creationist guy is debating a lot of points no one on the other side is making and has yet to do anything to try to prove his side... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 His 30 minute opening is ridiculous. He has done literally NOTHING to try to prove creation. He has just tried to nit pick the definition of science, he is calling "naturalism" a religion, he is just repeating the creationists can be scientists too. but again, nothing to provide evidence of his point good end though "all children are special and made in the image of god" aawwwwwwweeeeeeee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 I read a summary of it, and it did seem like all of Ham's evidence was the bible. He tried to make the point that we can only observe the present, not the past, so we can't know what happened. This is clearly bollocks. We see something falling, we can see where it came from, it didn't just appear. You see an apple tree surrounded by apples, you can draw the logical conclusion that the apples fell from the tree, not that the magical apple maker put them there. And that's not even close to being as conclusive as the evidence supporting the big bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Wow, Bill Nye's 30 minute segment actually PROVIDED EVIDENCE. What a great concept. Math, science, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 I don't see how anyone can think Ken Ham won this. He is now reduced to just using the bible as evidence and saying "well you weren't there!" It is like he is just pandering to the creation museum evidence. Bill Nye is responding now with what I have been saying. Some people are just competent to say "god did it" and be done. Bill said he wants to know more. He looks at the stars and wants to know how they got there. Not just use religion and forget about it. God, the Ken Ham dude is falling apart in the 1 minute Q+A sessions. "Well Bill, there is a book out there that does explain where matter comes from. It says so in the first sentence." (talking about the Bible). No you idiot, that proves nothing. You did not make some great point. A fictional story book is no proof. The worst part is the crowds reaction, actually. They just gleeful laugh when he makes his "points" like it is some great rebuttal and Bill is just some stupid atheist. It is sad One question was actually "What evidence besides the word of god is there for creationism" and he provided the same kind of answer a politician would. He still has given no evidence... I will watch the last 45 minutes later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Okay, we get it Woody. You and others are atheists. You won't change my mind, and I won't change yours. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Okay, we get it Woody. You and others are atheists. You won't change my mind, and I won't change yours. End of story. Well that's gonna be taken as a sign of defeat, rightly or wrongly. But I agree, we have opposite and mutually exclusive stances and neither will budge. Fine. You're free to believe what you want, but when people start trying to claim the bible as scientific evidence, that's where the "do what you want" things runs out for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 agreed - it all depends on what "truth" you believe. I could only listen to a little over 2 hours of this before I came to the obvious conclusion that you or me arent gonna change our minds. points scored on each side in my opinion.... the biggest one for me is the misrepresentation that evolutionary science presumes as fact when it is also a matter of faith in many cases. And when IT hits a roadblock with questions like the second before the big bang, or how does consciousness form from molecules? is answered with the statement - " that is a mystery" huh I guess so... kinda like faith in God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 I will respond to DieHard and FairHooker tomorrow (exhausted now), but look at this 22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution I asked 22 self-identifying creationists at the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate to write a message/question/note to the other side. Here’s what they wrote. http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio the highlight: this article http://www.ibtimes.com/22-responses-buzzfeeds-22-messages-creationists-evolution-origin-life-1553534 also provides a good response to all of these questions. Some of the beliefs stated in these questions ties in to the reason why I agree with Chris where "do what you want" runs out. If someone wants to bang their head against a wall, go ahead, it only affects them. But when they want to get all the kids to bang their heads against a wall too, or make that some special part of a once non-head banging curriculum, then I have a problem. Negatively affecting the scientific minds and the state of our society's scientific advancement as a whole affects me. Teaching creationism alongside actual science does that. It cheapens actual science, it lessens it. It could weaken our scientific prowess going forward. Like the question pictured above. That should not even be a real thing. No one should look at a sunset and go "only explanation is god." You would laugh at the idea of a sun god and a moon god, or some other ancient idea. But saying your god causes the sunset, some how that is ok? We as a society should not even have to take a second to think about this. Teaching creationism (not science) alongside actual science breeds this kind of behavior, this kind of thinking. So yes, DieHard, you won't change my mind (well, you have not even provided any evidence to even try to) and sadly I won't change yours no matter how much evidence I provide. So to each his own there. But when we start putting these fairy tales on even footing as real science, we weaken our society. We as a country continue to fall behind in the world. (also, never said I was an atheist. If there is a god I doubt it is anything like the Christian idea of a god. Also, more than likely there isn't and I don't think there is any reason why there needs to be one) Oh, I guess I did reply to DieHard. Hooker tomorrow then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Through our whole back and forth, I will be honest, I am unsure exactly where you stand or what we were debating. At the beginning you seemed to find a lot of fault in the theory as a whole and equated it to a bearded man in the sky. As this thread has continued though you seem to be more and more accepting of the theory. Idk anymore. I think I've been pretty steadfast on where I'm at. There is evidence that supports an event that happened 11-ish billion years ago. There is no evidence supporting the cause of the event, nor what existed before the event, nor why the event happened. I don't see much wrong with attributing the unexplainable to a divine being instead of writing it off as unexplainable (or "we're getting there eventually"). Having opened up and studied intensely at least a dozen of the most complex machines in the history of our 11-ish billion year development (humans) I can't rely on a "minimum of 10trillion series of accidents" as an explanation for how that machine is assembled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Woody, why have you chosen to debate these people on this subject? Bored much? Your relying on faith......faith that you can logically explain the most credible of possibilities to people who decided long ago the bible is 'fact'. They're really not, no matter the evidence, willing to accept it. Just like your probably not willing to accept thunder is really 'angels bowling in heaven'. I work in oil and gas......aka geology. Ive seen rocks from all over the world, hell I've seen core samples from the bedrock of the Atlantic that formed before it was under the Atlantic. The 'how the earth was formed?' and 'How long ago?' questions have CLEARLY been answered. However, shale was recently discovered to produce. If you worked for Shell or Exxon in the 80's and told them you wanted to frac a well in the eagleford shale formation you got fired and ridiculed throughout industry. My point is, when people make the argument that because you are still making new discoveries and theories that your whole understanding of a particular science is wrong and unfounded, then its time to leave the room if you know what I mean. You seem too invested in a debate that is so unnecessary. God has his uses....he helps you spot a dumbass real quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 I like the point that Bill Nye can't prove Noah wasn't a great ship builder because he wasn't there. But... even though he was not there when some dudes wrote the Bible, Ken Ham totally knows it is the word of god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.