- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
- Messages
- 44,814
- Reaction score
- 20,221
- Location
- A very blue state
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
And bigot is about the nicest word I'd use to describe Bill Nye.Idiot is about the nicest word I'd use to describe Ken Ham.
And bigot is about the nicest word I'd use to describe Bill Nye.
My first question would be, how far do people expect to get in a philosophical discussion that begins with insults? Not far, I hope.
I'm not one of those people who believes in a strictly literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, but what is so unbelievable about the prospect of a creative intelligence?
We have evolved and are still evolving, are we not?
Isn't it possible that life exists (or has existed) on other planets? There are trillions of them after all, many of them just like ours.
Isn't it reasonable to assume that the life on other planets has also evolved or is still evolving, just like us?
Isn't it reasonable to assume that life on other planets could have evolved into something that is beyond our understanding?
If you could create life, would you? We already can create and manipulate life, and we are little more than primates dragging our knuckles through the mud.
Isn't it fair to assume that another being with the ability to create life would use that ability?
I know, there are multiple conclusionary leaps involved here, but which part is absolutely unbelievable? Which part is arguably impossible?
I don't agree with Ham's vision of the universe, nor do I agree with Nye's, but it's hard to find common ground when you are arguing from the two extreme ends of the debate.
And bigot is about the nicest word I'd use to describe Bill Nye.
You have, unwittingly I believe, struck the on the exact reason why Bill Nye should debate creation. You ask what part of your scenarios are unbelievable...therein lies the problem. Debating observable scienctific fact with belief. You cannot refute a belief system. A belief system can only be changed by the person holding the belief. You cannot refute observable science with belief because observable science requires factual evidence. Beliefs are just that because they have no observable facts to back them up ergo they are beliefs and not knowledge.
What makes you say he's a bigot?
Unless you (or Bill) were here when the Earth was created, the circumstances of it's creation are neither fact nor observable.
We can make a series of logical conclusions based on the available evidence, but that isn't quite the same as "fact".
They are arguing two different belief systems. True, one belief system has more evidence than the other, but they are belief systems nonetheless.
His intolerant comments regarding creationists (and their children).
School of Fail: Bill Nye's Warning To Parents - Cheezburger
I define bigotry as intolerance towards the beliefs of others, which Bill has demonstrated numerous times.
Unless you (or Bill) were here when the Earth was created, the circumstances of it's creation are neither fact nor observable.
We can make a series of logical conclusions based on the available evidence, but that isn't quite the same as "fact".
They are arguing two different belief systems. True, one belief system has more evidence than the other, but they are belief systems nonetheless.
His intolerant comments regarding creationists (and their children).
School of Fail: Bill Nye's Warning To Parents - Cheezburger
I define bigotry as intolerance towards the beliefs of others, which Bill has demonstrated numerous times.
Dangerous Minds | Get your popcorn ready: Bill Nye the science guy to debate idiot Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
I hope the mods let it fly that I slightly changed the title so as not to start with an insult.
At any rate, this should be interesting....
My first question would be, how far do people expect to get in a philosophical discussion that begins with insults? Not far, I hope.
I'm not one of those people who believes in a strictly literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, but what is so unbelievable about the prospect of a creative intelligence?
We have evolved and are still evolving, are we not?
Isn't it possible that life exists (or has existed) on other planets? There are trillions of them after all, many of them just like ours.
Isn't it reasonable to assume that the life on other planets has also evolved or is still evolving, just like us?
Isn't it reasonable to assume that life on other planets could have evolved into something that is beyond our understanding?
If you could create life, would you? We already can create and manipulate life, and we are little more than primates dragging our knuckles through the mud.
Isn't it fair to assume that another being with the ability to create life would use that ability?
I know, there are multiple conclusionary leaps involved here, but which part is absolutely unbelievable? Which part is arguably impossible?
I don't agree with Ham's vision of the universe, nor do I agree with Nye's, but it's hard to find common ground when you are arguing from the two extreme ends of the debate.
Are you debating evolution or the creation of the Earth? Evolution is an observable fact, the creation of the planet is not.Evolution is an observable fact based not only on fossil evidence but now on DNA evidence also. There is observable scientific fact that supports evolution. It is not a belief system. To equate the two is fundementally misunderstand both evolution and belief systems in general. You want to hold the belief that there is some sort of intelligence behind evolution that is fine but that is a belief. It is not supported by any observable facts. Evolution is an observable fact. The two are not equivelent. To make them so is to draw false equivelency.
And bigot is about the nicest word I'd use to describe Bill Nye.
My first question would be, how far do people expect to get in a philosophical discussion that begins with insults? Not far, I hope.
I'm not one of those people who believes in a strictly literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, but what is so unbelievable about the prospect of a creative intelligence?
Dangerous Minds | Get your popcorn ready: Bill Nye the science guy to debate idiot Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
I hope the mods let it fly that I slightly changed the title so as not to start with an insult.
At any rate, this should be interesting....
My belief system is a mix of faith and fact. I have been a man of faith my entire life. I have studied or followed just about every religion on Earth, but my "major" has been Christianity. I have never met anyone who thought the Earth was only 6,000 years old. Maybe I travel in different circles than some.That "belief system" is called "science", and it is evidence based reasoning open for anyone to challenge. Your belief system is based on a single ancient book. You can not even begin to compare the two. The facts are simple: Either the earth actually is billions of years old, or it isn't and your god just placed an undeniable amount of evidence suggesting it is older.
What possible reason could he have to make everything except his holy book support an old earth?
You have, unwittingly I believe, struck the on the exact reason why Bill Nye should debate creation. You ask what part of your scenarios are unbelievable...therein lies the problem. Debating observable scienctific fact with belief. You cannot refute a belief system. A belief system can only be changed by the person holding the belief. You cannot refute observable science with belief because observable science requires factual evidence. Beliefs are just that because they have no observable facts to back them up ergo they are beliefs and not knowledge.
Are you debating evolution or the creation of the Earth? Evolution is an observable fact, the creation of the planet is not.
If I had the ability to create life, I would make that life adaptable to it's environment while I was at it. Evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of a creative intelligence.
Unless you (or Bill) were here when the Earth was created, the circumstances of it's creation are neither fact nor observable.
I have a big problem with this statement.
You can believe something based on known facts.
If you believe something without facts then you have faith.
You have ascribed to belief the definition of faith.
No I am not. Belief is just that belief. It requires no proof. Observable fact is just that fact. It requires proof. You can have knowledge of something based on facts. You can exrapolate a belief from those fact that do not have observable proof but then it is just a belief and no longer a kown fact. Belief systems require no facts they are taking on faith or trust.
Define "observable".Wow. Is that how you approach science?
Are belief and faith the same thing?
If so could you provide a definition for each?
Define "observable".
Then tell me whether or not the creation of our planet is observable.
And then put a check on your sneer, if you please. It doesn't help your argument.
Define "observable".
Then tell me whether or not the creation of our planet is observable.
And then put a check on your sneer, if you please. It doesn't help your argument.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?