Bill Nye is a godless liberal

#177
#177
volinbham said:
I really don't have any favorites - I just had to go through the coursework in several research methods courses in graduate school.

I definitely believe in the power of scientific method and empiricism but think it's a bit of the arrogance of man to believe that it is sufficient to understand all the workings of the universe. As a side thought, I've often wondered if the increasing emphasis on it along with instance on "observable" data and replication has detuned some of man's other abilities (if we possess them) to connect with and understand the universe (a topic for another time and thread)
Click to expand...

From an non rational level?

It seems the scientific method is about the best/only reliable way to obtain information of the external world/universe from a rational level.
 
#178
#178
NEOCON said:
Bain compared to community organizer. Come on man. You may not like his views but obama couldnt hold a conversation witj romney.
Click to expand...

So, I get it, you look up to Romney for sending jobs overseas to improve gross profit. Greedy, greedy. Obama is intelligent, doesn't matter if you agree with him or not. You're stuck on one viewpoint and that's money. In my honest opinion, that's a terrible outlook on life. You're talking crap about someone you've never met. Never held a personal conversation with. I don't totally agree with Obama. I agree even less with Romney. I vote mainly on social issues, so I'll be voting for Johnson.
 
#180
#180
PKT_VOL said:
From an non rational level?

It seems the scientific method is about the best/only reliable way to obtain information of the external world/universe from a rational level.
Click to expand...

sure it is - don't disagree. My point is that rationality as demonstrated by the scientific method is a creation of man - it is a way of thinking of one species in a vast universe. What's the real probability that it is the one method of understanding that is best suited to understand the universe and all its complications, potential species current, past and future? I just don't buy that a relatively recent approach to thinking (by earth and man standards) is the arbiter of what is. Maybe I'm wrong but I haven't committed myself to holding all possibilities to the necessity of fitting the scientific method.

I abide by the scientific method and "rational" thought. However, I've seen zero proof to suggest that I should abandon belief in possible outcomes, entities, events and phenomena that fall outside the rule of that way of thinking.
 
#181
#181
VOLatile said:
So, I get it, you look up to Romney for sending jobs overseas to improve gross profit. Greedy, greedy. Obama is intelligent, doesn't matter if you agree with him or not. You're stuck on one viewpoint and that's money. In my honest opinion, that's a terrible outlook on life. You're talking crap about someone you've never met. Never held a personal conversation with. I don't totally agree with Obama. I agree even less with Romney. I vote mainly on social issues, so I'll be voting for Johnson.
Click to expand...

just how many jobs did Romney send overseas?

compare that with the number of jobs that remained in the US as a result of Bain Capital.
 
#182
#182
MG1968 said:
just how many jobs did Romney send overseas?

compare that with the number of jobs that remained in the US as a result of Bain Capital.
Click to expand...
Stop it. Wasn't one of the "I have no idea what Romney did or what Bain might be, but blind support for our retard in chief works for me" talking points.
 
#183
#183
MG1968 said:
just how many jobs did Romney send overseas?

compare that with the number of jobs that remained in the US as a result of Bain Capital.
Click to expand...

Do you know these numbers? I really do want to know.
 
#184
#184
VOLatile said:
So, I get it, you look up to Romney for sending jobs overseas to improve gross profit. Greedy, greedy. Obama is intelligent, doesn't matter if you agree with him or not. You're stuck on one viewpoint and that's money. In my honest opinion, that's a terrible outlook on life. You're talking crap about someone you've never met. Never held a personal conversation with. I don't totally agree with Obama. I agree even less with Romney. I vote mainly on social issues, so I'll be voting for Johnson.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that without profits, there are no jobs. Corporations (big and small) are there to produce a profit and dividends for their shareholders not just to supply the populace with jobs!

I bet you don't mind those evil corporations making a profit when you see your 401Ks value increase mr. shareholder.
 
#185
#185
hog88 said:
Do you understand that without profits, there are no jobs. Corporations (big and small) are there to produce a profit and dividends for their shareholders not just to supply the populace with jobs!

I bet you don't mind those evil corporations making a profit when you see your 401Ks value increase mr. shareholder.
Click to expand...

I don't think you fully understand what you're saying. Obviously corporations have to turn a profit for owners (including shareholders).
 
#187
#187
shareholders are owners

He was saying profit for owners shouldn't be the only concern. Whether or not I agree with him, bringing responsibility to shareholders into the argument is redundant.
 
#188
#188
Thrasher865 said:
shareholders are owners

He was saying profit for owners shouldn't be the only concern. Whether or not I agree with him, bringing responsibility to shareholders into the argument is redundant.
Click to expand...

Wow thanks for the info.. (sarcasim)

Could be why I made the reference to his 401K.
 
#190
#190
I've mentioned this before on a previous thread, but I recently read a book called Science and Religion. I highly recommend it to anyone with question about how these two can coexist.
 
#191
#191
MG1968 said:
I'm not the one making the claim that the only thing Romney/Bain did was outsource. At some point, the people making it should have to back it up, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Your earlier statement sounded as if you had seen some stats somewhere.
 
#192
#192
volinbham said:
sure it is - don't disagree. My point is that rationality as demonstrated by the scientific method is a creation of man - it is a way of thinking of one species in a vast universe. What's the real probability that it is the one method of understanding that is best suited to understand the universe and all its complications, potential species current, past and future? I just don't buy that a relatively recent approach to thinking (by earth and man standards) is the arbiter of what is. Maybe I'm wrong but I haven't committed myself to holding all possibilities to the necessity of fitting the scientific method.

I abide by the scientific method and "rational" thought. However, I've seen zero proof to suggest that I should abandon belief in possible outcomes, entities, events and phenomena that fall outside the rule of that way of thinking.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I don't disagree. A notion I don't believe I have ever heard anybody else articulate.
 
#193
#193
I read everything you guys contribute from a scientific standpoint. I learn a lot from the conversations you have amongst yourselves on cutting edge scientific theories like string theory etc. I love science. Always have. Graduated top 10 in my highschool class but never made it through college (kids, wife etc)
I am a firm believer in the God of the Bible. I gave my life to Christ as an adult and its the best decision I ever made. I ask this question not to provoke you, but looking for an honest answer. If you truly believe in science, and follow the scientific method, how can you conclude that evolution is the origin of life? I can see people believing that life was created and then evolved...that is very likely from a purely logical standpoint. Any mathematician could tell you that even a simple life form evolving from primordial soup is all but impossible. Someone stated that over a long period of time the probability of everything becomes 1. I think that's a lie...but according to data that modern science swears by the universe is only like 15 billion years old. To say that the biodiversity of our earth would occur in this limited period of time is illogical. Its like believing that a large group of monkeys jumping around on a huge field of typewriters for an extended period of time would eventually write one of Shakespeares plays...or that a wind of limitless velocity blowing across the sahara desert for a billion years would eventually erect the empire state building. That is simply not science. The scientific method is rigid and logical and requires absolutely no faith. None. Evolution as the origin of life on our planet requires huge amounts of faith. So much that most scientists when asked about the subject bristle at the word "faith". To say that these things occurring has a probability of 1 is just stupid. The truth is that it is mathematically and logically impossible for a group of amino acids or anything else to jump from inanimate to living. I don't push my faith on anyone...ever...don't go with my church members knocking on doors trying to save peoples souls. I deeply resent mainstream science pushing their religion...which is exactly what it is...on impressionable kids who don't know enough to tell them that what they are saying is not just unlikely but impossible. If an idea abandons logic, the scientific method, and any reasonable probability then it is not science. Its religion.
 
#194
#194
marcusluvsvols said:
I read everything you guys contribute from a scientific standpoint. I learn a lot from the conversations you have amongst yourselves on cutting edge scientific theories like string theory etc. I love science. Always have. Graduated top 10 in my highschool class but never made it through college (kids, wife etc)
I am a firm believer in the God of the Bible. I gave my life to Christ as an adult and its the best decision I ever made. I ask this question not to provoke you, but looking for an honest answer. If you truly believe in science, and follow the scientific method, how can you conclude that evolution is the origin of life?
Click to expand...

For what I'm sure is the umpteenth time in this thread, Evolutionary Theory does not begin to to address the origin of life. It only theorizes what happens after life began. Nobody really knows how life began exactly, including the religious. But in a science class, the best scientific theory will be put forth, regardless of questions and doubts that science welcomes as part of the process.

marcusluvsvols said:
I can see people believing that life was created and then evolved...that is very likely from a purely logical standpoint. Any mathematician could tell you that even a simple life form evolving from primordial soup is all but impossible. Someone stated that over a long period of time the probability of everything becomes 1. I think that's a lie...but according to data that modern science swears by the universe is only like 15 billion years old. To say that the biodiversity of our earth would occur in this limited period of time is illogical. Its like believing that a large group of monkeys jumping around on a huge field of typewriters for an extended period of time would eventually write one of Shakespeares plays...or that a wind of limitless velocity blowing across the sahara desert for a billion years would eventually erect the empire state building. That is simply not science.
Click to expand...

This shows a remarkable lack of knowledge about how the theory works. Everything just didn't happen at once. In evolution, and even in biogenesis, it didn't just happen all at once. Things evolved, meaning it got progressively more complex over time. Hence the name of the theory.

In fact, your shakespeare example is a really good example, and, was actually put to the test. Take the opening soliloquy of Hamlet "To be or not to be". In order for the monkey's to type those 13 sequenced letters by chance, it would take 26 to the power 13 trials for success, or, 16 times as great as the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the lifetime of our solar system, hence, impossible.

...but, apply evolutionary theory to it in a correct way. As each letter is completely randomly selected, good letters are preserved or "naturally selected", and each bad letter eradicated, the process moves exponentially faster. A computer program was actually written to simulate this selection based on environmenal pressures. It only took an average of 335 trials to complete the proper letter sequence, and took the computer 90 seconds to complete. The entire play was done in 4.5 days.

See how that works, when correctly understood?


marcusluvsvols said:
The scientific method is rigid and logical and requires absolutely no faith. None. Evolution as the origin of life on our planet requires huge amounts of faith. So much that most scientists when asked about the subject bristle at the word "faith". To say that these things occurring has a probability of 1 is just stupid. The truth is that it is mathematically and logically impossible for a group of amino acids or anything else to jump from inanimate to living. I don't push my faith on anyone...ever...don't go with my church members knocking on doors trying to save peoples souls. I deeply resent mainstream science pushing their religion...which is exactly what it is...on impressionable kids who don't know enough to tell them that what they are saying is not just unlikely but impossible. If an idea abandons logic, the scientific method, and any reasonable probability then it is not science. Its religion.
Click to expand...

Simply pointing out where science says "I don't know" and interjecting God as the answer is the lowest form of logical fallacy. If not A, then B. Oh really? Why? What about options C, D, and E we haven't considered yet?

I'm not going to sit here and think your mind will be swayed in the least. But a healthy understanding of what you are really arguing would help.

Most of this was taken out of Michael Shermer's writings, and while he can be preachy at times, offers a fairly good explanation to everything you are saying.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#195
#195
I have no doubts as to your intelligence or education. Your response to my questions were well composed and thought out. I don't agree with them but in most regards cannot discredit what you say because I cannot prove what I believe, nor disprove what you believe. I found your tone to be a little condescending... but I am not offended. Most folks who choose to believe the ideas you suggest assume they have the intellectual "higher ground". To each his own.
You are wise enough to understand that truly swaying my beliefs is impossible and didn't attempt to. I appreciate our debate as I seek just as you do for a better understanding of what's around me..that is the true heart of science. If even the literal truths of the bible were completely disproved and there was concrete evidence that man came from primates I would still serve my God. He has answered so many prayers for me and done so much in my life that I know He is real. If there were an "evolution computer program" that always made the correct choice trillions of times in a row, I know the programmer who wrote it. I hope one day everyone here will develop a relationship with Him and see the very real changes in their lives. Thanks for your responses I look forward to our continued sharing of knowledge and opinions. We need a thread or forum for science on VN.
 
Last edited:
#196
#196
Everyone does realize that under sharia law, we would all be hunted down and executed for even having this discussion?
 
#197
#197
TNGlen said:
Everyone does realize that under sharia law, we would all be hunted down and executed for even having this discussion?
Click to expand...

Do you realize that this is probably the last country that would adopt such laws?

When did Americans begin scaring so easy?
 
#198
#198
TNGlen said:
Everyone does realize that under sharia law, we would all be hunted down and executed for even having this discussion?
Click to expand...

Though I don't follow all this overreaction crap, I have a feeling that this is a gross exaggeration.
 
#199
#199
Furthermore, is that even relevant to the discussion? I don't want to go back and look and see when sharia law came up.
 
#200
#200
marcusluvsvols said:
I read everything you guys contribute from a scientific standpoint. I learn a lot from the conversations you have amongst yourselves on cutting edge scientific theories like string theory etc. I love science. Always have. Graduated top 10 in my highschool class but never made it through college (kids, wife etc)
I am a firm believer in the God of the Bible. I gave my life to Christ as an adult and its the best decision I ever made. I ask this question not to provoke you, but looking for an honest answer. If you truly believe in science, and follow the scientific method, how can you conclude that evolution is the origin of life? I can see people believing that life was created and then evolved...that is very likely from a purely logical standpoint.
Click to expand...

Evolution and Abiogenesis are completely different. I don't know that anybody in their right mind would say differently.

Who said that Abiogenesis had to arise here on Earth? Maybe it arose somewhere else. There is reason to believe that life either exists currently on Mars or has at some point. We are now convinced that life is not a special gift bestowed upon Earth. Thus, it did not have to originate here. As much as the ancient astronaut theory is out there sometimes, it not out of the realm of possibilities. Another life form could have "given" us life. Life might have hitched a ride through the universe to Earth from a place where Abiogenesis is more efficient than here on Earth.

marcusluvsvols said:
Any mathematician could tell you that even a simple life form evolving from primordial soup is all but impossible.
Click to expand...

The experiment of Miller–Urey in 1952 proved that is it not impossible. In fact, it proved that it is indeed possible. We have not been able to recreate Abiogenesis outright in a laboratory yet, but that does not mean it is impossible. There are plenty of things in antiquity which was once believed impossible. The only things that are truly impossible are those events which contradict the natural laws of the universe. Abiogenesis is not one of those events.

marcusluvsvols said:
Someone stated that over a long period of time the probability of everything becomes 1. I think that's a lie...but according to data that modern science swears by the universe is only like 15 billion years old. To say that the biodiversity of our earth would occur in this limited period of time is illogical. Its like believing that a large group of monkeys jumping around on a huge field of typewriters for an extended period of time would eventually write one of Shakespeares plays...or that a wind of limitless velocity blowing across the sahara desert for a billion years would eventually erect the empire state building. That is simply not science.
Click to expand...

I think rjd970 did an excellent job of responding to this portion of your post. I'll defer to his post.

marcusluvsvols said:
The scientific method is rigid and logical and requires absolutely no faith. None. Evolution as the origin of life on our planet requires huge amounts of faith. So much that most scientists when asked about the subject bristle at the word "faith". To say that these things occurring has a probability of 1 is just stupid. The truth is that it is mathematically and logically impossible for a group of amino acids or anything else to jump from inanimate to living.
Click to expand...

1) Again, there is a big difference between Evolution and Abiogenesis. Let's not confuse the two.

2) There is no faith required. Scientists just say that it is merely possible for Abiogenesis to happen. They cite the experiment which proves that point. Evolution is certainly fact.

3) Logically impossible? Really? Let me know what logic you are using. I guess you could take me to school on logic.

4) rjd970 addressed the mathematical probability. Keep in mind, Abiogenesis did not necessarily happen on Earth. Thus you do not really know what kind of odds we are dealing with here.

5) We do know with 100% certainty that creation as outlined by the Bible did not happen. You cannot say the same about scientific Abiogenesis.

marcusluvsvols said:
I don't push my faith on anyone...ever...don't go with my church members knocking on doors trying to save peoples souls. I deeply resent mainstream science pushing their religion...which is exactly what it is...on impressionable kids who don't know enough to tell them that what they are saying is not just unlikely but impossible. If an idea abandons logic, the scientific method, and any reasonable probability then it is not science. Its religion.
Click to expand...

A religion, eh? Do you have a clue what the word "religion" entails? Traditional religion is metaphysics. You cannot dispute metaphysics because it is not testable. It is not even observable or even experience related. One can make whatever metaphysical claim he wants and does not have to worry about the ramifications because it is not verifiable. Thus, it is no wonder there is a plethora of diverse metaphysical claims out there.

Why would you want to teach "impressionable" children that metaphysical claims are true? Only those which can be scientifically tested ought to be allowed in our schools.

Given that between the two of us, there is only one guy that has taken an upper level evolution class and majored in BCMC, I can assure you that scientific schooling is centered around only those claims which are verifiable. You are taught from a very early age that a "theory" is not fact but rather a testable, falsifiable hypothesis which has withstood the rigorous testing which hoped to falsify said theory. Such is the foundation for the philosophy of science.

I would much rather teach testable and falsifiable hypotheses than unverifiable metaphysical claims to impressionable children.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top