Bill Nye is a godless liberal

#226
#226
GAVol said:
Of course it does. One is rooted in observation; the other in faith. The fallacy lies in believing that all the answers can be found in either.
Click to expand...

Disagreed that religion offers anything alongs the lines of useful knowledge on how everything in the universe works. It simply fills in the gaps left by science, and is pushed out as science fills the gaps, or at the very least bends its view so as not to seem completely opposite of what the evidence suggests.

Agreed that it offers spiritual worldview and comfort, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
 
#227
#227
rjd970 said:
Agreed. However, science belongs in a science class.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly and suggest this is the symptom of the educational disease. The system is so concerned with indoctrination that they have forgotten how to teach kids HOW to learn.

I don't have any real problem with Nye's opinion. He is a scientist. He should feel that way.
 
#230
#230
GAVol said:
Of course it does. One is rooted in observation; the other in faith. The fallacy lies in believing that all the answers can be found in either.
Click to expand...

Most people would agree with this. I do.

I think the larger fallacy is trying to answer scientific questions with religion/faith or trying to answer questions of faith with science.
 
#231
#231
GAVol said:
Of course it does. One is rooted in observation; the other in faith. The fallacy lies in believing that all the answers can be found in either.
Click to expand...

The fallacy lies in believing that any answers can be found in the latter. Faith has no answers. It is a feel good drag. Nothing wrong with that, just call it like it is.
 
#236
#236
orangeslice13 said:
I suspect you feel sorry for me..... uh them.
Click to expand...

Lol slice. Normally it is the other way around. You are suppose to feel sorry for me! I am the one going down with the flames!

Oddly enough, I tend to date conservative girls (socially conservative). They always have an issue with me not being their religion (to the point of deal-breaker). I don't have a problem with them practicing theirs. We both conduct ourselves in a conservative manner but that does matter. I have always found that odd.
 
#237
#237
PKT_VOL said:
Lol slice. Normally it is the other way around. You are suppose to feel sorry for me! I am the one going down with the flames!

Oddly enough, I tend to date conservative girls (socially conservative). They always have an issue with me not being their religion (to the point of deal-breaker). I don't have a problem with them practicing theirs. We both conduct ourselves in a conservative manner but that does matter. I have always found that odd.
Click to expand...

You and I seem to be able to have a belief system and still respect others whose beliefs system differs from our own.

I find this to be very rare.
 
#239
#239
Even though this thread is essentially a rehash of at least 5 or 6 from earlier in the year, it is the one I check every day for updates. Actual thoughtful discussion in the Politics forum instead of partisan hackery is a nice change of pace.
 
#240
#240
hog88 said:
1) When was the last monkey to human to walk out of the jungle.

2) Where is that missing link they have been searching for?
Click to expand...

In recent decades, paleontologists have produced numerous discoveries of fossils which are neither apes nor modern humans. You ask a simple question, but there is no one missing link. Most of the species did not survive or evolve, and there is no clear picture with simple and easy answers. Start with the question of what defines the human specie...cranial capacity? Upright walking? Bone configurations in the skull, thumb, spinal column, hips, feet? The best answer to your first question might be found in homo erectus fossils discovered in Ethiopia, very close to modern human skeletal structures, with smaller brain cavities.
 
#241
#241
hog88 said:
1) When was the last monkey to human to walk out of the jungle.

2) Where is that missing link they have been searching for?
Click to expand...

When people just throw the "missing link" term out there with absolutely no understanding of what they're talking about, it just screams ignorance. Stupid pop culture.

Also, as to #1..... what?

Are you asking when the last time a monkey evolved into a human? If so, you've been playing too many video games.
 
#242
#242
Vol Main said:
In recent decades, paleontologists have produced numerous discoveries of fossils which are neither apes nor modern humans. You ask a simple question, but there is no one missing link. Most of the species did not survive or evolve, and there is no clear picture with simple and easy answers. Start with the question of what defines the human specie...cranial capacity? Upright walking? Bone configurations in the skull, thumb, spinal column, hips, feet? The best answer to your first question might be found in homo erectus fossils discovered in Ethiopia, very close to modern human skeletal structures, with smaller brain cavities.
Click to expand...

That's what I am talking about, the "jump" from one species to another, ape to human, fish to bird, has never been proven. There are similarities yes, but my contention is there have been millions of life forms on earth that have died out. Kinda, the survival of the fittest and all were put here by god, supreme being what have you.

There is evolution within a specific species for adaptation and I am sure we have evolved tremendously from the first humans.
 
#243
#243
Thrasher865 said:
When people just throw the "missing link" term out there with absolutely no understanding of what they're talking about, it just screams ignorance. Stupid pop culture.

Also, as to #1..... what?

Are you asking when the last time a monkey evolved into a human? If so, you've been playing too many video games.
Click to expand...

Video games??? No. Pop culture, No.

Why is it considered ignorance to question a THEORY? And yes it is still a theory. Look I am not a new earth guy by any means but complete dismissal of the creation, intelligent design is just as ignorant as complete dismissal of the possibility.
 
#244
#244
we have evolved since the industrial revolution. We're bigger, we live longer. I don't know if we're any smarter, especially if you take technology away from us.
 
#245
#245
Add that to the differing physical (muscular, structural) aspects of various human ethnic groups and it's even more obvious.
 
#246
#246
hog88 said:
Video games??? No. Pop culture, No.

Why is it considered ignorance to question a THEORY? And yes it is still a theory. Look I am not a new earth guy by any means but complete dismissal of the creation, intelligent design is just as ignorant as complete dismissal of the possibility.
Click to expand...

If following the scientific approach, it isn't ingorant at all. ID and Creation theories fail before they begin.

No one is saying creationism or ID is wrong, per se. Just like nobody is sayin astrology is wrong, per se. They just aren't science.
 
#247
#247
rjd970 said:
If following the scientific approach, it isn't ingorant at all. ID and Creation theories fail before they begin.

No one is saying creationism or ID is wrong, per se. Just like nobody is sayin astrology is wrong, per se. They just aren't science.
Click to expand...

How?
 
#248
#248
hog88 said:
Video games??? No. Pop culture, No.

Why is it considered ignorance to question a THEORY? And yes it is still a theory. Look I am not a new earth guy by any means but complete dismissal of the creation, intelligent design is just as ignorant as complete dismissal of the possibility.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify the definition of theory as it relates to science:

The National Academy of Sciences

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
Click to expand...

Carry on guys.
 
#249
#249
hog88 said:
How?
Click to expand...

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
Click to expand...

I suspect you disagree with what consitutes "evidence".

Simply saying "Other theories can't address this aspect" or "It had to be this way" or "the bible says this" do not count. the evidence needs to stand on its own merit.

Scientific theories should apply to predictability as well. For instance, if ToE is correct, then we would expect to see certain evidence and patterns of behaviors in other scientific fields (genetics, microbiology, etc) that were unkown at the the time ToE was put forth. We see that. It is what it is.

ID and Creationism, no matter how much people state it over and over again, simply isn't science.
 
#250
#250
rjd970 said:
I suspect you disagree with what consitutes "evidence".

Simply saying "Other theories can't address this aspect" or "It had to be this way" or "the bible says this" do not count. the evidence needs to stand on its own merit.

Scientific theories should apply to predictability as well. For instance, if ToE is correct, then we would expect to see certain evidence and patterns of behaviors in other scientific fields (genetics, microbiology, etc) that were unkown at the the time ToE was put forth. We see that. It is what it is.

ID and Creationism, no matter how much people state it over and over again, simply isn't science.
Click to expand...

This is key. Micro-evolution kills any doubts I could ever have.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top