Bill Nye is a godless liberal

#251
#251
PKT_VOL said:
This is key. Micro-evolution kills any doubts I could ever have.
Click to expand...

It isn't just that though. The ToE would suggest that mammal fossils cannot be found in precambrian rocks. We haven't found any, and if we did, it would force many scientists to seriously reconsider the fundamentals of the theory as a whole.

For the thread....and just for arguments sake, what piece of evidence would prove ID or creationsims is either completely wrong, or has serious issues with credibility?
 
#252
#252
rjd970 said:
It isn't just that though. The ToE would suggest that mammal fossils cannot be found in precambrian rocks. We haven't found any, and if we did, it would force many scientists to seriously reconsider the fundamentals of the theory as a whole.
Click to expand...

Right. I am well versed in the philosophy of science. For a theory to be truly scientific, it has to be both predictive and falsifiable. Shout out to Popper.

To me the logic behind micro-evolution debunking creationism is air tight.

1) Micro-evolution is a fact. No sane person disputes this.
2) The natural laws of the universe apply and are consistent to everything. Pretty standard stuff.

Conclusion: If evolution happens on the micro scale, evolution must happen on the macro scale. It's that simple. All other evidence is icing on the cake to me.

rjd970 said:
For the thread....and just for arguments sake, what piece of evidence would prove ID or creationsims is either completely wrong, or has serious issues with credibility?
Click to expand...

I dunno. It is obviously not falsifiable because it is a metaphysical claim. That is the beauty of it to those who believe in it.

I would say to prove the existence of God to be absurd. Which is pretty much not falsifiable. Although I believe the Judo-Christian God has been proven to be absurd.

I would also say the continuation of the Miller–Urey experiment of 1952. Creating full Abiogenesis in a laboratory. At that point, their arguement is based solely on a book written thousands of years ago versus actual recreation of Abiogenesis.
 
#253
#253
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...

First, never would I say "the bible says this". The bible is a book written by men, IMHO as a justification for power, control the uneducated and explain the unexplainable.

Let's just say there is not enough evidence to convince me every life form on earth evolved by luck from a puddle of ooze.
 
#254
#254
hog88 said:
Let's just say there is not enough evidence to convince me every life form on earth evolved by luck from a puddle of ooze.
Click to expand...

Yeah, far more evidence to support the notion that everything was created by a white bearded wizard. We just choose to believe in evolution because it makes us more comfortable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#255
#255
hog88 said:
First, never would I say "the bible says this". The bible is a book written by men, IMHO as a justification for power, control the uneducated and explain the unexplainable.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Did not expect that out of you.

hog88 said:
Let's just say there is not enough evidence to convince me every life form on earth evolved by luck from a puddle of ooze.
Click to expand...

I think creationism by the Judo-Christian God is absurd. More absurd than your "every life form on earth evolved by luck from a puddle of ooze."

Ancient alien theory, on the other hand, could possibly have traction. More plausible anyways.
 
#256
#256
PKT_VOL said:
Totally agree. Did not expect that out of you.


I think creationism by the Judo-Christian God is absurd. More absurd than your "every life form on earth evolved by luck from a puddle of ooze."

Ancient alien theory, on the other hand, could possibly have traction. More plausible anyways.
Click to expand...

1- Why, it's what I've been saying all along.

2- I'm good with that, fall under the supreme being catagory.
 
#257
#257
Thrasher865 said:
Yeah, far more evidence to support the notion that everything was created by a white bearded wizard. We just choose to believe in evolution because it makes us more comfortable.
Click to expand...

Where have I said anything along those lines? This is where total evolution belief and total 6 day creation beliefs both become blinded. Both will not consider any other alternative.
 
#258
#258
I consider every alternative. But I favor those with the most evidence. It gets under my skin when creationists cite "lack of evidence" as their reason for not believing in evolution or even abiogenesis.

Even if you want to go PKT's ancient alien theory route. Sure, it's a hell of a lot more likely than a Biblical God, but that doesn't mean there's really even a tiny bit of evidence to support it.

Do I recognize these theories as possible alternatives? Sure. Do I support them, or believe them? Absolutely not. I will stick to whichever scientific theory has the most evidence based merit.
 
#259
#259
emainvol said:
There is no proof that gravity exists either. It's a theory. Asking for proof is simply resigning yourself to ignorance.
Click to expand...

Funny. Then why is it called the "Law of Gravity"?

A two year old can prove the existence of gravity.
 
#260
#260
SWIL said:
Funny. Then why is it called the "Law of Gravity"?

A two year old can prove the existence of gravity.
Click to expand...

I think he meant we don't know what gravity is. There is no proven theory of gravity.

A "law" does not tell you anything about a specific behavior, but simply assigns a relationship to define the nature of its behavior.

Simply put, if there is an equation to describe it, it's usually a law. If it's an explanation of the cause of something, it's a theory. Neither one reveals more than the other, they reveal different things.

Theories do not become laws. Theories explain laws.
 
#261
#261
Christianity was created by men (yes, MEN) 2000 years ago. At that time and for centuries forward, religion was considered the pinnacle of human understanding. This level of understanding slowly began to change as we evolve as a species and quick picked up pace upon the dawn of the Renaissance period.

Science, today, is now the pinnacle of human understanding. Creationism is a futile attempt to explain our increasingly complex world using a 2000 year old ethos.
 
#262
#262
SWIL said:
Funny. Then why is it called the "Law of Gravity"?

A two year old can prove the existence of gravity.
Click to expand...

The law of gravity, and gravitational theory are two different things.

The law of gravity states that universal gravity can be calculated and predicted according to a set of mathematical expressions, and those expressions are universal.

Gravitational theory provides theories on why gravity happens. Newton provided the first theories, Einsten expanded on it, and ultimately, it is still largely a mystery.
 
#263
#263
New monkey evolved in the rain forest of central Africa.
It has bright blue buttocks, a long nose, blonde mane and a bring red patch on back.

The buttocks glows in dark.

It is the lesula monkey.

its shy.
 
#264
#264
Thrasher865 said:
I consider every alternative. But I favor those with the most evidence. It gets under my skin when creationists cite "lack of evidence" as their reason for not believing in evolution or even abiogenesis.

Even if you want to go PKT's ancient alien theory route. Sure, it's a hell of a lot more likely than a Biblical God, but that doesn't mean there's really even a tiny bit of evidence to support it.

Do I recognize these theories as possible alternatives? Sure. Do I support them, or believe them? Absolutely not. I will stick to whichever scientific theory has the most evidence based merit.
Click to expand...

There is no explicit evidence either way; ancient alien theory or Abiogenesis on Earth.

I will say that I believe one of two things when it comes to ancient alien theory. Either ancient alien theory is true in some capacity or we don't know sh*t about our ancestors. The things we are discovering about our ancestors' accomplishments simply does not match what we "know" about them technology wise, available tools, and collective intelligence.
 
#266
#266
Gramps, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or if you actually think that monkey just now evolved, and that's how we found it...
 
#269
#269
hog88 said:
The whole debate has (IMHO) been perverted by both sides so much so that it's impossible to have an intellegent debate.

No one can convince me that we "evolved" from the apes, if so when and why did it stop? Not to mention there is ZERO eveidence for this.

What I believe is God put us, or versions of us (and animals) on Earth and from the original species we have evolved.
Click to expand...

Scientists Say They Have Genetic Evidence for Evolution - ABC News

Missing link between man and apes found - Telegraph

Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution

Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds

Actionbioscience | Mitochondrial DNA Clarifies Human Evolution

Richard Dawkins: Universal DNA Code Is 'Knockdown' Evidence of Evolution | UVA Today

Junk DNA - Junk DNA & Evolution

First Genetic Evidence Uncovered Of How Major Changes In Body Shapes Occurred During Early Animal Evolution

I could on and on, but the evidence speaks for itself.
 
#270
#270
 
#271
#271
SWIL said:
Christianity was created by men (yes, MEN) 2000 years ago. At that time and for centuries forward, religion was considered the pinnacle of human understanding. This level of understanding slowly began to change as we evolve as a species and quick picked up pace upon the dawn of the Renaissance period.

Science, today, is now the pinnacle of human understanding. Creationism is a futile attempt to explain our increasingly complex world using a 2000 year old ethos.
Click to expand...

Doesn't this beg the question about what the next (and the next and the next, etc.) pinnacle of human understanding will be and why it's almost silly to say God doesn't exist/didn't exist because his/its existence doesn't fit the constraints of science (the current pinnacle of human understanding)?
 
#273
#273
volinbham said:
Doesn't this beg the question about what the next (and the next and the next, etc.) pinnacle of human understanding will be and why it's almost silly to say God doesn't exist/didn't exist because his/its existence doesn't fit the constraints of science (the current pinnacle of human understanding)?
Click to expand...

No, not really. I see where you're going. But when the evidence guides you further and further from something, there's no reason to believe there's going to be an informational renaissance that leads you back to the original hypothesis.

Is there a possibility? Of course, however remote. Is that a logical reason to go ahead and accept it as the truth? Nothing could be further from reality.
 
#274
#274
Reality is I was once a Science guy. About 13 years ago things changed and I now understand things I once scoffed and laughed at.
I can't explain the way my mind now puts things together so I will not try.
I also don't plan on arguing with the atheist as I was once one.
I will say you don't have to dump science to understand God.
Respect should be shown to both sides as both have intelligent people representatives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#275
#275
volinbham said:
Doesn't this beg the question about what the next (and the next and the next, etc.) pinnacle of human understanding will be and why it's almost silly to say God doesn't exist/didn't exist because his/its existence doesn't fit the constraints of science (the current pinnacle of human understanding)?
Click to expand...

"God is in the details."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top