MLD Woody Posted February 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 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. Why is it unexplainable? Because we just happen to not know the answer now? You know how much would have just seemed unexplainable to humans 500, 200 even 50 years ago? If for all of humankind, everyone always said "Well, we will never know. So I guess god did it. We will leave it at that", well then we would still be drawing on cave walls. We need people to challenge the "unexplainable". We need to people to look for these explanations. Writing this stuff off to a divine being is just lazy. It is lazy and does no good for our advancement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 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? In what ways is evolutionary science a matter of faith? Also, not being able to answer something at this time is not a point to creationism or a divine being. Again, it is the arguments from ignorance thing I mentioned before. One the scientific side, the theory of evolution and the big bang theory side, it welcomes and explanation for the gaps. If you can come up with a sound reason that agrees with science and math for what happened before the big bang, than that is great. You can expand on the theory. It is not "faith" similar to believing in god or creationism. It states what we do and what we dont know but are trying to find out. If someone is taking the creationism absolute belief in the bible side, they know the result they want. They know what they want and the cherry pick the science to try to defend their stance. When asked for evidence, it is the bible says so, and that is gods word. Or something. They aren't seeking new info. The evolutionist scientific side, it seeks these answers. It bases its stance on the information and evidence provided. If new, contradicting evidence comes about, the theory and beliefs are adjusted or added on to accordingly. The two sides are fundamentally different and I think it is obvious which side we want to be the base of society going forward. It is obvious which side is more akin to developing science and technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 7, 2014 Author 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. Bro, I am in my last semester in mechanical engineering. I have my job lined up and I just want to start working and making money. I am pretty much burnt out, done with school. I use this as a way to pass time in lectures, or to procrastinate from doing HW. I did also find that debate really interesting. I watched the whole thing while knocking out some heat transfer homework. I open debate on the topic. I open the floor to anyone that can provide evidence for the other side. I want to hear it. I want to see how it stacks up against the side I am taking now. I open that debate on any topic I have a stance on. This whole thread though, of course, has not done much to persuade me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Why is it unexplainable? Because we just happen to not know the answer now?. Uh, yes? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 I have often wondered about how much the use of parables/allegories was used in telling the truth in the Bible. How can we be certain that there wasnt language in the original Hebrew and Greek, to explain what all the Bible explains? I have attributed the use of aesthetic parables to explain literal truths. Did I say that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Uh, yes? WSS That doesn't mean it is forever unexplainable. Saying god did it and moving on will never get us an explanation. That's the point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 That doesn't mean it is forever unexplainable. Saying god did it and moving on will never get us an explanation. That's the point... I never said it was forever unexplainable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Also, no thoughts on how the human body is put together? You're an engineer right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 I never said it was forever unexplainable. "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"). " Attributing it to a divine being is basically saying we'll never have a real answer, so let's give up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Also, no thoughts on how the human body is put together? You're an engineer right? What is your question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted February 9, 2014 Report Share Posted February 9, 2014 What is your question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2014 So... Random people on the street, gotcha. We are equating blind faith in a god and a fairy tale book to "faith" in scientists, data and research. So just because we haven't seen one thing become another thing, evolution is no better than blind faith in creationism. Even though there is no evidence for creationism and mountains of it for evolution. I would say evolution of bacteria is a good example. Evolution isn't really "a belief". Unless you "believe" in things like gravity. Also, if someone really still wants to believe in a god, evolution doesn't conflict with that. I am not sure why the whole "famous aethist bit" matters. Evolution doesn't mean there is no God.. ... why do I care who believes in god or not if this is a "debate" on religion Lol ... Hitler killing Jews to evolution. Wtf Love the "let's just take the video of everyone that said dog". That'll make these atheists look terrible. Got em! The "debate" of evolution vs creationism is not the same as god vs no god. "Evolution vs god" doesn't make sense. They can attack whatever they perceive as holes in evolution all they want. But I have STILL yet to read it hear ANY evidence FOR creationism. Not on here, not from Ken Ham, not from that video. Seriously, someone just try to fucking prove their side of the argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 9, 2014 Report Share Posted February 9, 2014 Everyone of those rubes would be scientologists if L. Ron Hubbard was born in Jerusalem a few thousand years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2014 Man, I love all of these that have appeared since the "debate" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 For someone who considers himself the smartest guy in the world this cartoon isn't really very clever. I mean it's plain what is trying to say but gee whiz, woody,..... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 It is clearly saying that Ken Ham is a dipshit and shouldn't have been talking shop with someone who takes science seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Woody has the maturity of a 12 year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Log, I'm not a creationist. I understand the point. It's just not very clever, kind of along the lines of "yur a moron". But that's about the level I expect from..... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Its not really Steve. Its not just you're a moron. Its pointing out Ham's "debate style". It is easy enough to call this guy a moron. This jut illustrates his reason and its giant giant faults. Also never said I was the smartest guy in the room. Also it doesn't have to be clever to point out the giant holes in his reasoning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Woody has the maturity of a 12 year old. If only I could be more like you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Every time I've ever exploded 1 big thing, the result perfect spheres - each sphere unique in it's composition and make-up, sharing nothing in common with each other, other than their proximity. Also, after the explosion, total amnesia as to what caused the explosion, and no evidence of what the spheres composed prior to the explosion. I'm late to the party, but I just really have to point out the ignorance of this post. If you understand the big bang theory, you understand that there is no explanation for what may have caused this event. There is as much credence to a divine creator as there is to the tooth fairy or little green men being behind it. Creationists claim that it must have been a divine being that set these events into motion. If so, what led to the formation of this deity? The creationist claims to know the identity of the prime mover, while one who understands the big bang theory claims to be ignorant. For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#Usage_in_referring_to_a_type_of_argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 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"). It's philosophically unsound because you're jumping to a conclusion without evidence. From the link above: God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 If only I could be more like you... My dad could kick your dads ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 It's philosophically unsound because you're jumping to a conclusion without evidence. From the link above: Kinda like making the equivocal statement that it's not true ... The SEDI defense? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Kinda like making the equivocal statement that it's not true ... The SEDI defense? WSS But that's not what I'm asserting. I'm asserting that there is no convincing evidence to suggest a complex creator. His argument is along the lines of - because our world is complex, it required the input of a creator that was also complex. I'm not saying his theory is untrue, I'm saying that it doesn't have much to stand on, and that goes for every other theory that posits the cause of the big bang. There is no reason to trust his theory over any other first mover theory out there, and that's why I've met it with doubt. Also, what's the SEDI defense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Every time I've ever exploded 1 big thing, the result perfect spheres - each sphere unique in it's composition and make-up, sharing nothing in common with each other, other than their proximity. Also, could you clarify what you mean by this? Also, no thoughts on how the human body is put together? You're an engineer right? I think a biologist might be better equipped to answer that question. I could give it a go, if you'd like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Log, I'm not a creationist. I understand the point. It's just not very clever, kind of along the lines of "yur a moron". But that's about the level I expect from..... WSS I didn't imply that you were a creationist. I just really don't like Ham and think that the whole debate was a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 SEDI is a tactic used by criminal defense attorneys. Pick somebody or a few people who might have had a motive or might just be mystery person that might have committed the crime. Call be someone else did it defense. Its just that we, I assume haha, are the only creatures, at least we know of, that can think in terms of spirituality. We cannot, however, understand infinity but we try. That's why I don't discount the idea that there might possibly be beings superior to us that actually can. I've never seen any. Still I can explain why I'm mixing the guitar a little louder to my cat and she doesn't understand at all. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.