|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper



Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,378
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 17 days, 21 hours
|
Re: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye plans debate on Creation Museum [Re: Ellis Dee]
#19363699 - 01/03/14 02:38 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
How many times are people going to ask me this?
There are unlimited possibilities. Again, I posted one on page 3.
Kabbalists, if I understand their beliefs correctly, believe that all existence is created by the use permutation of language. This idea interests me, even if I think it is not especially likely.
A relatively new idea (in its more formally developed sense, at least) is the Biocentric Universe
|
RiderOnTheStorm
Reject thug culture



Registered: 11/26/12
Posts: 1,855
Loc: Hug a hippie today
|
Re: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye plans debate on Creation Museum [Re: morrowasted]
#19363700 - 01/03/14 02:38 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
morrowasted said: I don't rest assured of that. I am an educator in higher learning and I know what processes go into the development of lesson plans. Talk of introducing aliens into evolutionary biology would get you laughed out of the profession. It's not like each teacher gets to make up what they want to teach. It's a collective decision making process. Serious evolutionary biologists and physical anthropologists are aware of what gaps and conflicts exist in the cumulative evidence gathered by professionals in their fields of study, and they could present them in class, which could (and I believe would) potentially inspire more students to take an interest in their studies.
Well you should, especially if you're an educator. I was partially schooled in Texas, where every coach-turned-science-teacher is quick to inform you that he doesn't believe the evolution that he's teaching. Every time this gets mentioned the classrooms erupt into discussion about creationism and ancient aliens. This is what happens when teachers are allowed, much less encouraged, to instruct their students about "alternatives" to evolution.
If we are talking about graduate degree courses than I would point out that no self respecting prof or university overlooks the gaps in evolutionary theory or their applicable fields. Hell I learned about the Urey-Miller exp in seventh grade while we were being taught the differences between amino acid complexity and RNA/DNA complexity and formation.
The point is that there is no alternative answer to evolutionary gaps that satisfies even the most basic tenets of scientific theory, no quantum solution that demonstrates the existence of god, no genetic factors that point to ancient aliens. None of the existing gaps contradict the theory of evolution any more than missing elements contradict our understanding of chemistry.
Until we know more we should teach what we do know, and that is that mankind evolved from single celled organisms, which most likely evolved from organic compounds that were originated abiogenically from lightning striking the primordial soup in just the right ways. Keep the quantum conversations in quantum classes and the religious conversations in religious studies classrooms and churches.
--------------------
|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper



Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,378
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 17 days, 21 hours
|
Re: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye plans debate on Creation Museum [Re: RiderOnTheStorm]
#19363732 - 01/03/14 02:47 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Well you should, especially if you're an educator. I was partially schooled in Texas, where every coach-turned-science-teacher is quick to inform you that he doesn't believe the evolution that he's teaching. Every time this gets mentioned the classrooms erupt into discussion about creationism and ancient aliens. This is what happens when teachers are allowed, much less encouraged, to instruct their students about "alternatives" to evolution.
If we are talking about graduate degree courses than I would point out that no self respecting prof or university overlooks the gaps in evolutionary theory or their applicable fields. Hell I learned about the Urey-Miller exp in seventh grade while we were being taught the differences between amino acid complexity and RNA/DNA complexity and formation.
The point is that there is no alternative answer to evolutionary gaps that satisfies even the most basic tenets of scientific theory, no quantum solution that demonstrates the existence of god, no genetic factors that point to ancient aliens. None of the existing gaps contradict the theory of evolution any more than missing elements contradict our understanding of chemistry.
Until we know more we should teach what we do know, and that is that mankind evolved from single celled organisms, which most likely evolved from organic compounds that were originated abiogenically from lightning striking the primordial soup in just the right ways. Keep the quantum conversations in quantum classes and the religious conversations in religious studies classrooms and churches.
I didn't say anything about incorporating my theory into a classroom setting. I was not talking about graduate level courses, I was talking about public school. In undergraduate physical anthropology we were in fact informed of the gaps in the theories, but up until that point we were not. Students who do not seek higher education deserve to understand these things. I did all of my schooling in and am an undergraduate level educator in Texas and never experienced what you described ("teacher is quick to inform you that he doesn't believe the evolution that he's teaching"). I lived in Houston, however, which is arguably the most liberal large city in Texas. In light of your negative experiences with biased educators, I can sympathize to a much greater extent with your perspective.
|
Confucian
...


Registered: 03/31/09
Posts: 1,741
Loc: USA
|
Re: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye plans debate on Creation Museum [Re: morrowasted]
#19363953 - 01/03/14 03:33 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
morrowasted said: I lived in Houston, however, which is arguably the most liberal large city in Texas.
I've always heard Austin is the most liberal city in Texas.
|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper



Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,378
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 17 days, 21 hours
|
Re: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye plans debate on Creation Museum [Re: Confucian]
#19363965 - 01/03/14 03:35 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Confucian said:
Quote:
morrowasted said: I lived in Houston, however, which is arguably the most liberal large city in Texas.
I've always heard Austin is the most liberal city in Texas.
It is, but I wouldn't call Austin a large city.
Houston's mayor, however, is a lesbian activist. I think it's a pretty progressive city.
|
Crystal G



Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 9 months, 5 hours
|
Re: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye plans debate on Creation Museum [Re: morrowasted]
#19366275 - 01/03/14 11:05 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
morrowasted said:
Quote:
Crystal G said:
Quote:
morrowasted said:
 you've gotta be fucking kidding me. What is your degree in, again? Business? Get the fuck out of here. Your statement is so blatantly outrageous that I am not even going to waste one smidgeon of my time actually debating it with you. I'm just going to make fun of you in this post for being ignorant as fuck. Normally you seem pretty intelligent but holy shit, what a load. I'm going to sleep. PEACE
Butthurt much? What are you, PMSing? I don't even know what it is you are angry about. You seem like a guy with an inferiority complex, for blowing such a small comment out of proportion and taking it to heart. "Boohoo I'm smarty pants, you stupid, boohoo!" WAAAHAHHAAHA
Uh no, you are are just making WAY too drastic of an assumption. Newsflash: I happen to be an EXTREMELY well-read individual who is definitely familiar with MANY of the atheist arguments that come out the theory of evolution, though I'm not sure which ones you're referring to when you say "the arguments". Normally I am very soft-spoken, but do you have any idea how arrogant it is to assume that if someone believes in God, it means they aren't familiar with the arguments for evolution? Do you have any idea how many Christian biologists there are? My sponsor in AA actually happens to be an evolutionary Biology professor (that is why I chose him, because I was having a hard time with the fact that the steps essentially call for divine intervention, yet that is his profession and he is able to work the program) and is definitely NOT an atheist. I'm not trying to be a smartypants, you're the one you thinks you're a smartypants and makes outrageous assumptions because of it.
What kind of books did you read that led you to believe these kinds of things anyway? Dawkins?
Dude, YOU are making way too drastic of an assumption, by reading WAY TOO MUCH into my statement. I don't know anything about you. I don't know whether you are religious, or a creationist or an evolutionist. My sentence was just a simple statement that wasn't meant to be taken at face value.
And yes, I am aware that many scientists are religious. As a matter of fact, most scientists that I've met believe in god, even the super smart ones that graduated from MIT and Harvard. Even Einstein and Newton believed in SOME form of god. But believing in evolution has nothing to do with whether you believe in a god or not. You can still believe in both and the two are not contradictory.
There are a few things that I read, most of it was over 10 years ago, but probably the simplest one that can be found online is by talkorigins.
Five major misconceptions about evolution 29 Evidences for Macroevolution Talk Origins FAQ Creationist Claims and Scientific Error
Creationism definitely has no merit being taught in public schools. The classroom is not a political forum where all people get a voice, no matter how irrational or kooky and off the bend each party may be. Creationism definititely deserves to have a place to be shared in a RELIGIOUS STUDIES class, but definitely NOT in a science class, which relies on evidence that can be observed and tested.
I've sat through some of the creationist panels. And as I mentioned before, they use VERY CONVINCING methods to try to convince people that evolution is a farce. They cite people with PhD's in "evolutionary science" (which is really nothing more than getting a degree from a creationist fundamentalist school, but they don't tell you that), and they refute evolutionism by creating strawmans about it and by claiming that evolutionism makes claims that it doesn't, to try to discredit it. Basically, their understanding of evolutionism is completely incorrect and un-factual.
But they are so convincing and so damn good at being persuasive, that I can definitely see how somebody who doesn't have very extensive knowledge of science could easily be persuaded by the creationist claims.
Edited by Crystal G (01/03/14 11:15 PM)
|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper



Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,378
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 17 days, 21 hours
|
Re: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye plans debate on Creation Museum [Re: Crystal G]
#19366327 - 01/03/14 11:16 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Uh, what do you mean I read too much into what you said? You said
Quote:
People who believe in God won't change their mind, but people who are on the fence about the subject, or people who are open-minded and don't believe one way or the other will definitely be persuaded by evolution.
That is a ridiculous statement that is hard to misinterpret and has nothing to do with what should be taught in classrooms. Not meant to be taken at face value? Then how is it supposed to be taken? Why don't you just say what you mean instead of saying something other than what you mean...? Sounds to me like you're just backpedaling.
|
Crystal G



Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 9 months, 5 hours
|
Re: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye plans debate on Creation Museum [Re: morrowasted]
#19366371 - 01/03/14 11:29 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
morrowasted said: Uh, what do you mean I read too much into what you said? You said
Quote:
People who believe in God won't change their mind, but people who are on the fence about the subject, or people who are open-minded and don't believe one way or the other will definitely be persuaded by evolution.
That is a ridiculous statement that is hard to misinterpret and has nothing to do with what should be taught in classrooms. Not meant to be taken at face value? Then how is it supposed to be taken? Why don't you just say what you mean instead of saying something other than what you mean...? Sounds to me like you're just backpedaling.
Again, it's because you don't understand why I said that.
The reason I said that, is because I often watch Intelligence Squared debates, which can be found on this channel: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCenxjWEkb0Sv67vejOgZ3Tg
On every single debate, they poll the audience about their beliefs, whether they are pro or con about whatever the topic of debate is about. Audience answer that they are either pro, or con, or have no opinion or are undecided. After the debate ends, they poll the audience again, and some people who were previously pro changed their answers to con, and visa versa. And many people who were previously undecided or on the fence changed their answers to either con or pro after hearing the debate.
So, my statement had nothing to do with my opinion of creationists or evolutionists or whatever. It had to do with my experience of watching those debates, and seeing what happens in those debates. Because that is what happens in those debates, based on what I've seen. People who are on the fence are persuaded by whoever makes the best argument.
|
Crystal G



Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 9 months, 5 hours
|
Re: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye plans debate on Creation Museum [Re: Crystal G]
#19366458 - 01/04/14 12:03 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
...You see? Now don't you feel stupid for blowing up for no reason? All of this could have been resolved early on by simply asking what I meant by my statement.
|
Crystal G



Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 9 months, 5 hours
|
Re: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye plans debate on Creation Museum [Re: DieCommie]
#19366708 - 01/04/14 02:34 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
abltsandwich said: "micro" and "macro" evolution are creationist jargon? Dude it's latin prefixes attached to the front of words. It happens ALL THE TIME in science, especially biology.
Yea, so what? That doesn't preclude them from being creationist jargon. And being used in a biology text or science text doesn't preclude that either. Its not exclusive to creationists, but it is creationist jargon. 90+% of the time you hear them brought up its by a creationist trying to deny speciation in evolution. There is a distinction between the two, but not a meaningful one like the creationists insist there is.
It's true, creationists attempt to differentiate between "micro" and "macro" evolution, by saying that "micro" evolution can certainly exist, but "macro" evolution, AKA one species evolving into another entirely different species, cannot and does not occur.
Except of course, that macro evolution, is essentially a fuck ton of micro evolution all at once put together.
|
Crystal G



Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 9 months, 5 hours
|
Re: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye plans debate on Creation Museum [Re: morrowasted]
#19366718 - 01/04/14 02:42 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
morrowasted said:
Quote:
Well you should, especially if you're an educator. I was partially schooled in Texas, where every coach-turned-science-teacher is quick to inform you that he doesn't believe the evolution that he's teaching. Every time this gets mentioned the classrooms erupt into discussion about creationism and ancient aliens. This is what happens when teachers are allowed, much less encouraged, to instruct their students about "alternatives" to evolution.
If we are talking about graduate degree courses than I would point out that no self respecting prof or university overlooks the gaps in evolutionary theory or their applicable fields. Hell I learned about the Urey-Miller exp in seventh grade while we were being taught the differences between amino acid complexity and RNA/DNA complexity and formation.
The point is that there is no alternative answer to evolutionary gaps that satisfies even the most basic tenets of scientific theory, no quantum solution that demonstrates the existence of god, no genetic factors that point to ancient aliens. None of the existing gaps contradict the theory of evolution any more than missing elements contradict our understanding of chemistry.
Until we know more we should teach what we do know, and that is that mankind evolved from single celled organisms, which most likely evolved from organic compounds that were originated abiogenically from lightning striking the primordial soup in just the right ways. Keep the quantum conversations in quantum classes and the religious conversations in religious studies classrooms and churches.
I didn't say anything about incorporating my theory into a classroom setting. I was not talking about graduate level courses, I was talking about public school. In undergraduate physical anthropology we were in fact informed of the gaps in the theories, but up until that point we were not. Students who do not seek higher education deserve to understand these things. I did all of my schooling in and am an undergraduate level educator in Texas and never experienced what you described ("teacher is quick to inform you that he doesn't believe the evolution that he's teaching"). I lived in Houston, however, which is arguably the most liberal large city in Texas. In light of your negative experiences with biased educators, I can sympathize to a much greater extent with your perspective.
So you're an educator in Texas. With all due respect, while I respect your profession as an educator, I must say that the school board of Texas is entirely screwed up in what they are teaching the kids, not just in science, but in history and politics as well.
For example, the school board of Texas actually banned the words "socialism" and "nationalism" from history books. They have also twisted history books to emphasize religion, without any mention of separation of church and state: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124861233 http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/culture/texas-school-board-approves-controversial-textbook-changes/954/
So essentially, kids who graduate from high school in Texas are dumber and less informed than junior high kids in any other state.
|
LiquidGlass
Glass Blower


Registered: 07/08/12
Posts: 5,288
Loc: Pee En Double You
|
Re: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye plans debate on Creation Museum [Re: Crystal G]
#19366737 - 01/04/14 02:52 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
-------------------- Some art I've made Glass Art Gallery
  I was raised a christian and was a stone-faced acid head - Ken Kesey
|
Legend
RIP Sasha



Registered: 03/29/10
Posts: 28,336
Loc: TX
|
Re: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye plans debate on Creation Museum [Re: Ellis Dee] 1
#19366742 - 01/04/14 03:00 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ellis Dee said: Skill level of humans? We're blithering apes intent on denying the fact that we're animals at all. All that clothes wearing and hair shaving and social laws and religion and what we call science with all those hydrogen bombs and striped minty toothpaste and all the other rediculous stuff humans do, ya know. Its absurd really, that we think we're special at all.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
--------------------
No sympathy for the devil, keep that in mind. [url=]Buy the ticket, take the ride. [/url]Are you lost?
|
Bodhi of Ankou
*alternate opinion blocks path*


Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 24,778
Loc: Soviet Canukistan
|
Re: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye plans debate on Creation Museum [Re: morrowasted]
#19367004 - 01/04/14 06:22 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
morrowasted said: It's pretty sad to me that people read my posts and say things like:
Quote:
I got the impression that you do in fact believe in god, but that is what I got out of you posts in this thread.

Quote:
I am curious to know what are other supernatural beliefs in the causes for mans existence that do not have to do with religion and are not completely outdated?
Quote:
My position is simple.I believe that there are many truths of which I am unaware.
If I am unaware of the supernatural causes, then I cannot tell you what they are. I simply take the position that they could exist. However, if you really want to press me, I could argue that free will is itself a supernatural cause and could be responsible for man's existence. Here is my response to Step Two of the 12 steps, in which I was asked to envision for myself a Higher Power which could restore me to sanity:
Quote:
I am an agnostic in the strict sense of the word. Gnosis means "mystical or spiritual knowledge" and the prefix A- means "without". I take this even further, I assume the position of epistemic skepticism, which means I believe that I have no knowledge of the outside world whatsoever; instead, I continually form beliefs in response to environment stimuli which have varying levels of efficacy. The level of efficacy generally determines whether a given belief is discarded or retained for future employment.
I currently believe that there are many powers greater than myself to which I am subjected on a constant basis. Scientists have attempted to describe many of these powers in terms of laws and principles, primarily in the areas of physics and chemistry, but have as yet failed to do so with predictive precision, as evidenced by the probabilistic nature of calculations performed at the quantum level. If we assume a linear system of causal connection (A -> B -> C -> D rather than A -> B; A -> C; A -> D or something else), this appears to imply that there is(/are) some element(s) missing from their metaphysical descriptions which is(/are) nevertheless inextricably bound to it(/them). Let us call one of these elements "free will". Let us suppose a dichotomy between the quantifiable (i.e. physical/material) world and free will, and assume a causal feedback connection between the two such that free will is primary and the quantifiable is secondary.
Though the language is perhaps burdensome, it seems to me that what falls out of this system is actually a type of Creationism. It appears to me that Creation is an ongoing, as-yet incomplete and never-to-be completed process which results from the interaction between free will and that which is quantifiable. I suspect that perceptual experiences place "boundary-limits" on free will relative to that which is quantifiable, resulting in what we might call a "co-Creative" process, in which the recipients of perceptual experiences may collaborate in order to increase the relative complexity of the quantifiable portion of the system. This means that originally there was perception, then there was the quantifiable, then there was a casual feedback connection between the two, which has been increasing in complexity ever since. It seems to me that this process most closely though not precisely depicted Chapter 42 of the Tao Te Ching,
Tao produces one One produces two Two produce three Three produce myriad things Myriad things, backed by yin and embracing yang Achieve harmony by integrating their energy
Gordon Globus perhaps comes closest to scientifically documenting the interaction between mind and matter according to the views I have just outlined in his paper "Quantum Consciousness is Cybernetic".
That was beautifully put. Abiogenesis, the mystery of how this all came to be, sciences (substantial) gaps in its understanding, the inability to adequately explain consciousness. All of these add up to there being many, many probably answers to all those questions, although science may have lead us to a partial understanding of matter and brought about many advancements for society, it's still not a definitive answer for anything, not even evolution.
|
Quawonk
Nobody Special


Registered: 03/20/13
Posts: 242
Loc: Planet Bob
|
Re: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye plans debate on Creation Museum [Re: Bodhi of Ankou]
#19367059 - 01/04/14 06:54 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
There is no benefit for Nye or science in general in doing this. It will simply legitimize Hamhead's ridiculous beliefs. "If scientists are talking about it, there must be something to it." This is not a debate that will be won by evidence and logic, but by dogma and bullshit. Hamhead has home field advantage as well. Nye cannot win on those terms and is wasting his time.
http://www.godofevolution.com/why-bill-nyes-debate-with-young-earth-creationist-ken-ham-is-probably-a-mistake/
|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper



Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,378
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 17 days, 21 hours
|
Re: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye plans debate on Creation Museum [Re: Quawonk]
#19367246 - 01/04/14 08:35 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Thank you, Bodhi, I am glad that someone appreciated it.
|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper



Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,378
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 17 days, 21 hours
|
Re: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye plans debate on Creation Museum [Re: Quawonk]
#19367250 - 01/04/14 08:36 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Quawonk said: There is no benefit for Nye or science in general in doing this. It will simply legitimize Hamhead's ridiculous beliefs. "If scientists are talking about it, there must be something to it." This is not a debate that will be won by evidence and logic, but by dogma and bullshit. Hamhead has home field advantage as well. Nye cannot win on those terms and is wasting his time.
http://www.godofevolution.com/why-bill-nyes-debate-with-young-earth-creationist-ken-ham-is-probably-a-mistake/
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye plans debate on Creation Museum [Re: Magicman69]
#19367783 - 01/04/14 11:54 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Magicman69 said: Matter can not be created from nothing. If the big bang theory is correct (and I have serious doubts) what created the matter that started the bang? Something created this matter. God. Maybe not the god in the bible, but IMO, there was some sort of design to the universe in the beginning.
something interesting about the big bang theory that people dont know is that the concept was the brainchild of a catholic priest, why not read up on this theory and learn that it doesnt actually show that anything was created from nothing, that all that matter did come from somewhere
bill nye arguing this creationist makes bill just as big of a fool
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
Re: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye plans debate on Creation Museum [Re: Prisoner#1]
#19367801 - 01/04/14 11:58 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Like I said, bill nye is a douche
|
The Doobie Dude


Registered: 04/28/13
Posts: 13,498
|
Re: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye plans debate on Creation Museum [Re: morrowasted]
#19367853 - 01/04/14 12:07 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
morrowasted said: dumb. whenever a "scientist" wastes time addressing the existence or nonexistence of god [s]he instantly loses so much respect in my eyes. just do science. people who believe in god arent going to watch that shit and change their mind
But it is fun watching someone who believes in God get there anus brutally pounded
--------------------
"There are a million reasons to drink and one just popped into my head. If a man can't drink when he's living how the Hell can he drink when he's dead?" - Irish Limerick I PLURed once because it was PLUR or die. - D.M.T.
|
|