Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 5 of 22 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 214

Thread: Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

  1. -41
    tylerdolphin's Avatar
    More Smug than Birthday Dog

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2005
    Posts:
    12,565
    vCash:
    6998
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 91
    You are assuming that God is needed for for precondition for intelligibility when it is in fact entirely theoretically possible that we simply have larger, more advanced brains than most animals and are therefore able to think more deeply, abstractly and critically. Youre the one that cant PROVE that God is required. Its an unprovable position. If its your opinion that an intelligent being bestowed intelligibility on us, thats fine. You cant turn an opinion into a fact just because it fits your preconstructed world view though.




    Quote Quote  

  2. -42
    irish fin fan's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,161
    vCash:
    1251
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post


    Nope I donít, I still think the question was completely redundant. Would be like asking, ďis that a parallelogram square or no?Ē



    I am a Christian yes.



    No thatís not supported by scripture, there is no ďacceptingĒ involved, people either believe or they donít. Christ doesnít need permission to do any of the saving.



    Did I give you a clear answer?



    I already did. The Bible has to be the word of God in order for knowledge to be possible. So if the Bible is the infallible word of God then we can use it to prove all sorts of things, one of which is when and how the earth was created. If you follow the genealogies in the Bible it puts the creation of Adam back around 6,000-6,400 years ago. Thatís proof. Science doesnít deal with proof by the way, so I am not really sure why youíd ask for proof and then expect some appeal to science.


    Thatís not accurate at all though, my proofís assumptions are demonstrable. Mainly, that I can account for the preconditions of knowledge using my worldview and you cannot. That supports the premises of my arguments right there. You can try and refute the argument by accounting for the preconditions using atheism, but you have yet to even come close to doing that. This sort of indirect proof has been around and used to prove the existence of numerous entities for years, itís not like I just made it up on the spot.



    I wont bother responding to the bible been the infallible word of god since i would wasting my time.

    Ok, so you are saying that man has existed for essentially all of the time that the earth has been created. How do you explain dinasours?
    Last edited by irish fin fan; 09-05-2012 at 08:24 PM.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -43
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    4,673
    vCash:
    34644
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by irish fin fan View Post
    I wont bother responding to the bible been the infallible word of god since i would wasting my time.

    Ok, so you are saying that man has existed for essentially all of the time that the earth has been created. How do you explain dinasours?
    I can explain that.

    When Adam and Eve and all their children lost their excitement fiddling with each other they started humping lizards and geckos. Bang! Dinosaurs were created.

    Or you can watch Eve follow God's instruction here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDJvgH_DK1E
    Quote Quote  

  4. -44
    Bingit's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2011
    Posts:
    200
    vCash:
    67390
    Thanks / No Thanks
    What Bill doesn't seem to get is that evolution is a theory just like creationism. Neither can be proven and both require faith to believe in. If he wants science to advance why is he afraid of exploring the theory of creationism? He says you will simply come up with the wrong answer, but what does he base that on? The theory of evolution being a fact.

    The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. Nor is it "scientific" in any true sense of the word. Science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. The origin of life can be neither observed nor reproduced in any laboratory. By definition, then, true science can give us no knowledge whatsoever about where we came from or how we got here. Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. And dogmatic belief in any naturalistic theory is no more "scientific" than any other kind of religious faith.



    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post


    about radiometric dating:
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    • Radioactive dating is a scientifically tested and valid technique, although some non-scientists enjoy doubting results obtained with dating techniques. These techniques make use of the tendency for certain isotopes of an element to decay over time in a predictable way; looking at the decay retrospectively, it is possible to calculate when the original isotopes were incorporated into the material.



    Isotopes, Half-life and Decay



    • Any atom of an element is guaranteed to have the same number of protons as any other atom of that element, but not necessarily the same number of neutrons. Neutrons, the neutral subatomic particle, occasionally are ejected from the atom by a number of processes such as beta decay or emission of positrons or alpha particles. These variations are called isotopes and denoted with a number after the element name, such as carbon-12 or carbon-13. While it is impossible to predict when an individual atom will shed a neutron by decaying, the decay of a group of atoms in an element is very predictable. Scientists use the term "half-life" to refer to the time period it takes for half of the atoms in the material to decay down to the next lowest isotope. These half-lives vary from material to material and from element to element but are known values.




    Using Known Half-life to Calculate Unknown Age



    • When scientists use radiometric dating, they use a mass spectrometer to analyze the isotopes present in the material, both of the old material and of the new, decayed isotope. Using the known half-life of materials (for example, the half-life of carbon-14 is 6,000 years), scientists can compare how much of each type of isotope (the original isotope, known as the parent, and the decayed isotope, known as the daughter isotope) is present in the material. Using this information, highly accurate dating can be established for even very old objects.



    Now, if you believe scientific dating methods (which I'm sure you won't regardless of what I post), would have the first anatomically correct humans arising out of Africa 200,000 years ago, and reached behavioral modernity about 50,000 years ago. I mean, we've known about the civilizations of Mesopotamia in 3500 BCE (5500 years ago), the Egyptian civilization on the Nile in 3300 BCE, Harappan civilization in the Indus Valley in 3300 BCE, etc and so forth. So lets think about this logically, since your such a fan. Are you really suggesting that the formation of Earth from it's early molten-magma stage, through the developing of an ocean, an atmosphere, single-celled organisms, mutli-celled organism, plants, fish, insects, land venturing creatures, the reign of dinosaurs, the rise of warm-blooded rodents and mammals, the ice age, apes, neanderthals, cromagnums, & eventually humans, all happened in a span of 500 years before giving rise to the civilizations in
    Egypt? It's absurd, let it go, I'm not sure why you're even so attached to this idea. Plenty of less delusional Christians are willing to concede that 6,000 years is a ludicrous proposition. Since, however, you are such a man of education though, why not run this theory by your local college Astronomy professor and see if you don't get looked at as though you're a couple fries short of a happy-meal.



    Why can't both be right? Obviously, if one claims the Earth is billions of years old and another claims that the Earth is only thousands of years, one must be right and one is wrong, or they are both wrong, but both can not be right. But from a result standpoint, science might tell us one thing and be correct in the findning, but it may not be the truth. It takes a little faith to believe in the science of radiometric dating since we don't know if the same method works the same way on rocks that are "Millions"of years old. But for argument sake, let us pretend that it is a 100% scientific proven fact that we have rocks that are millions of years old. Suppose a scientist could travel back in time and arrive in the garden of Eden moments after God created the first human being (Adam). If he examined Adam, he would see an adult with adult features. If he could talk with Adam, he would find a man with adult knowledge and fully formed language skills. Undoubtedly he would interpreted those things as conclusive proof that Adam was not created just moments ago, but in this case, he would simply be wrong. Creationism theory deals with God creating something out of nothing. When dealing with things created ex nihilo, evidences of maturity or signs of age do not constitute proof of antiquity.

    And what if that same time-travelling scientist did a botanical study of a newly-created oak tree? He would observe the size of the tree, note the tree's fruit and probably conclude that the tree itself was many years old. What if he cut down one of the trees to examine its growth rings? Would he find growth rings inside, indicating that the tree had been there for many seasons? Why not? Those rings of xylem and phloem are not only signs of the tree's age, but they also compose the tree's vascular system. They are essential to the strength of a large tree as well. Our imaginary scientist would conclude on the basis of tree rings that the tree was 90 years old but again, he would be wrong.

    So, I don't doubt that radiometric dating comes to the conclusion that rocks are millions of years old, but are they really?
    Quote Quote  

  5. -45
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,262
    vCash:
    1284
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    You are assuming that God is needed for for precondition for intelligibility when it is in fact entirely theoretically possible that we simply have larger, more advanced brains than most animals and are therefore able to think more deeply, abstractly and critically.


    Yes, that’s entirely possible and I would argue completely true. However, our larger brains and cognitive ability does nothing to justify our use of induction because of the uniformity we assume in nature, or the existence of laws of logic and so on. Those are all necessary preconditions of knowledge and yet they make zero sense in a purely natural world. So you either have to explain how those sorts of things can be true in a natural universe or concede that we do not live in a purely natural universe.


    Youre the one that cant PROVE that God is required. Its an unprovable position.


    Of course it’s provable; you can do it through negation. Only the Christian worldview holds to a view of reality that can explain the existence of what I mentioned above and all other worldviews are either inconsistent or incomplete which does prove the Christian worldview has to be true since two contradictory worldviews cannot be true at the same time.


    If its your opinion that an intelligent being bestowed intelligibility on us,


    That’s not what I am arguing at all, even though that is also completely true. I am arguing that the only explanation for the preconditions that we assume are true before we gain knowledge is the God of scripture. If atheism were true, there would be no explanation for uniformity in nature, morality, the reliability of our senses and memory and laws of logic; and yet atheists have to assume these things are true in order to learn anything at all. So their view of reality is completely at odds with their axioms about reality and therefore their worldview cannot be true. You cannot claim you do not believe in something but then subtly assume that very thing exists, that’s completely contradictory, and yet all other worldviews besides Christianity do this very thing.

    I wont bother responding to the bible been the infallible word of god since i would wasting my time.


    Why?

    Ok, so you are saying that man has existed for essentially all of the time that the earth has been created. How do you explain dinasours?


    Yes, and what about them?

    I can explain that.

    When Adam and Eve and all their children lost their excitement fiddling with each other they started humping lizards and geckos. Bang! Dinosaurs were created.


    Sounds almost as silly as many current Darwinian explanations for phenomena we are given today.
    Total Depravity
    Unconditional Election
    Limited Atonement
    Irresistible Grace
    Perseverance of the Saints
    Quote Quote  

  6. -46
    irish fin fan's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,161
    vCash:
    1251
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post

    Yes, thatís entirely possible and I would argue completely true. However, our larger brains and cognitive ability does nothing to justify our use of induction because of the uniformity we assume in nature, or the existence of laws of logic and so on. Those are all necessary preconditions of knowledge and yet they make zero sense in a purely natural world. So you either have to explain how those sorts of things can be true in a natural universe or concede that we do not live in a purely natural universe.




    Of course itís provable; you can do it through negation. Only the Christian worldview holds to a view of reality that can explain the existence of what I mentioned above and all other worldviews are either inconsistent or incomplete which does prove the Christian worldview has to be true since two contradictory worldviews cannot be true at the same time.




    Thatís not what I am arguing at all, even though that is also completely true. I am arguing that the only explanation for the preconditions that we assume are true before we gain knowledge is the God of scripture. If atheism were true, there would be no explanation for uniformity in nature, morality, the reliability of our senses and memory and laws of logic; and yet atheists have to assume these things are true in order to learn anything at all. So their view of reality is completely at odds with their axioms about reality and therefore their worldview cannot be true. You cannot claim you do not believe in something but then subtly assume that very thing exists, thatís completely contradictory, and yet all other worldviews besides Christianity do this very thing.



    Why?



    Yes, and what about them?



    Sounds almost as silly as many current Darwinian explanations for phenomena we are given today.
    Do you believe that dinasours existed?
    Quote Quote  

  7. -47
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,262
    vCash:
    1284
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by irish fin fan View Post
    Do you believe that dinasours existed?
    Yes, do you?
    Quote Quote  

  8. -48
    irish fin fan's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,161
    vCash:
    1251
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
    Yes, do you?
    Yes, I believe they existed. Now I would have to assume that you believe that dinasours existed in the same timeframe that man has been on earth. Is that correct?
    Quote Quote  

  9. -49
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,262
    vCash:
    1284
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by irish fin fan View Post
    Yes, I believe they existed. Now I would have to assume that you believe that dinasours existed in the same timeframe that man has been on earth. Is that correct?
    Of course, you'd have to even believe that if you followed the evidence. Even given your timescale you'd be forced to concede that there were Dinosaurs living within the last 15,000 years, and since you believe man has been around for 200,000 years that puts Dinosaurs and man living at the same time period.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -50
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,868
    vCash:
    5448
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
    Of course, you'd have to even believe that if you followed the evidence. Even given your timescale you'd be forced to concede that there were Dinosaurs living within the last 15,000 years, and since you believe man has been around for 200,000 years that puts Dinosaurs and man living at the same time period.


    Dinosaurs lived within the last 15,000 years? How do you figure? Unless you're talking about the theory that dinosaurs evolved into modern day birds, but that can't be it since that would mean you were acknowledging evolution. So, what's the basis for your claim that dinosaurs were around in the last 15,000 years...?

    If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
    maybe you would never have to hurt again...

    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Bill to allow women use of deadly force to save unborn children
    By PhinPhan1227 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-04-2009, 11:54 PM
  2. Calif Bill Would Ban Spanking Young Children
    By Celtkin in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-21-2007, 04:15 AM
  3. Creationism (sorry)
    By ABrownLamp in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 185
    Last Post: 05-11-2006, 05:03 PM
  4. creationism in our schools
    By Alien in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 12-22-2005, 07:27 PM
  5. Victory for Creationism
    By Wildbill3 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 228
    Last Post: 11-12-2004, 06:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •