ScienceInTheBible.Net - From Cal
-
Well that isn't the mindset of a scientist. Just saying "we'll never understand that" and calling it a day is lame. We will never learn anything like that. We wouldn't be where we are today thinking like that
-
Hawking did not say there "are no black holes". He is suggesting another way they may work, the specifics about them (about the event horizon). Like everything else, this will be researched and peer reviewed by other scientists. From there we will see what happens. woody
********************************
Okay, I'll rephrase, he theorizes that as defined by so many other scientists, said definition is incorrect.
So, as defined, he says they don't exist as defined. The point is, he disagrees with a lot of other scientists.
Doesn't that mean that both definitions are more theoretical? Like both sides of the mmgw debate?
-
The difference in not as large as is or is not happening.
If anything it is a tweak, like I've talked about before.
And still, this will have to be researched and studied by other scientists and they can see how well it fits. Just like how many, many climatologists have been investigating, experimenting and peer reviewing the proposed climate change theory. Through this a large majority have come to an agreement
-
That is a 30+ minute long video. Clearly you didn't watch it.
We can put forth a scientific theory that best fits what we see now, makes sense mathematically, has evidence of its occurrence, etc etc. What are you looking for, us to manually create a big bang?
It is observation of results of the hypothesis proposed. It is peer reviewed work. It is following mathematical laws in place. Not to mention the experiments by astrophysicists and the like.
How on earth is this equally ridiculous? Are you at the point now where you aren't going to attempt to defend any of them? Just stick your nose in the air, say they are all ridiculous and leave it at that? I take it I will never get and evidence for the other side then... shocker
That is a 30+ minute long video. Clearly you didn't watch it.
We can put forth a scientific theory that best fits what we see now, makes sense mathematically, has evidence of its occurrence, etc etc. What are you looking for, us to manually create a big bang?
It is observation of results of the hypothesis proposed. It is peer reviewed work. It is following mathematical laws in place. Not to mention the experiments by astrophysicists and the like.
How on earth is this equally ridiculous? Are you at the point now where you aren't going to attempt to defend any of them? Just stick your nose in the air, say they are all ridiculous and leave it at that? I take it I will never get and evidence for the other side then... shocker
No. I've seen it plenty of times before. I was waiting for someone to post it, actually. I love NDT. I still think he gets waaay to many internet hand jobs because he "pwns noobs."
I'm not debating what has happened since the big bang (or whatever WE are calling it). Don't be ridiculous. And that's exactly my point, it's Monday Morning Quarterbacking. We still don't know "what?" "how?" or "why?"
Continuing with the football analogy, it's very easy to presume you know why the seahawks won the Super Bowl after you watched the game. Nobody was making that prediction beforehand (go look at Vegas if you have any doubts). And though he does it very well, and is extremely intelligent and well- studied, that's all our boy Neil is doing in the video.
-
So you will never accept any "origin" theory, no matter how well it fits, how well the math works, how accepted it is among scientists, unless we are actually there during the creation of a universe and taking measurements. Until then you will say every belief is equally ignorant, which in itself is ignorant, and you just won't care. Got it.
Earlier in this thread you were crapping (poorly) on the big bang theory. Are you now saying it is correct all the way up until right before the bang?
Neil DeGrasse Tyson "pwns noobs"? Alright. In an attempt to explain why he is popular on the internet did you just grab a random internet phrase that makes no sense here?
-
Big bang is not an origin theory. You are mistaken. it's a development theory. There is a significant difference between the two.
I'm talking about initial conditions of the ____ before the big bang began developing our universe. Again, the big bang an explanation (theory) of observed events. I'm referring to the unobserved.
Sorry if my "random internet phrase" seems stale and tired. It's appropriate given the vastness of his publications prior to his internet fame. It's aggravating.
-
I had origin in quotations. Technically you are right, it isnt exactly an origin story kind of explanation, I did not word it very well. My B. More like from this very instant point and on, from the point where are universe started, where time as we know it started. But not necessarily the beginning of everything that ever was or will be.
The Big Bang Theory is the best explanation we have. More than likely, as we learn more, it will become part of a larger theory.
Through our whole back and forth, I will be honest, I am unsure exactly where you stand or what we were debating. At the beginning you seemed to find a lot of fault in the theory as a whole and equated it to a bearded man in the sky. As this thread has continued though you seem to be more and more accepting of the theory. Idk anymore.
Also, I think NDTs fame came because there is an interest out there in what he has to teach us plus the fact he is an interesting and charismatic figure in the field. Being in engineering I know STEM figures like that are not super common. To get to the level he is at you must be incredibly bright, and it seems like some of the brightest minds can be a little off. So to be at his level and a charismatic figure, that is rare and I bet it can take you far.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
this should be of interest - Bill Nye debates Ken Ham
-
this should be of interest - Bill Nye debates Ken Ham
this should be of interest - Bill Nye debates Ken Ham
Anybody watch this? It was on after I went to bed.
-
No, but I want to watch it. Bill Nye to me though is still Bill Nye the Science Guy. The guy that tought me about matter, basic physics, etc. It is weird to think of him as some distinguished scientist.
-
Ham tried to push the Earth is 6000 years old horse shit. There was a lot of "because Bible" explanations as well. Ham used the fact that Nye didn't personally know Noah as a defense of the flood story. Ham believes that Noah was a great ship maker thus it is possible that two of every animal was on a boat he created. It was a joke so I turned it off.
-
I am watching it now while I do some homework.
It seems like the creationist guy is debating a lot of points no one on the other side is making and has yet to do anything to try to prove his side...
-
His 30 minute opening is ridiculous. He has done literally NOTHING to try to prove creation. He has just tried to nit pick the definition of science, he is calling "naturalism" a religion, he is just repeating the creationists can be scientists too.
but again, nothing to provide evidence of his point
good end though "all children are special and made in the image of god" aawwwwwwweeeeeeee
-
I read a summary of it, and it did seem like all of Ham's evidence was the bible. He tried to make the point that we can only observe the present, not the past, so we can't know what happened. This is clearly bollocks. We see something falling, we can see where it came from, it didn't just appear. You see an apple tree surrounded by apples, you can draw the logical conclusion that the apples fell from the tree, not that the magical apple maker put them there. And that's not even close to being as conclusive as the evidence supporting the big bang.
-
Wow, Bill Nye's 30 minute segment actually PROVIDED EVIDENCE. What a great concept. Math, science, etc.
-
I don't see how anyone can think Ken Ham won this. He is now reduced to just using the bible as evidence and saying "well you weren't there!" It is like he is just pandering to the creation museum evidence.
Bill Nye is responding now with what I have been saying. Some people are just competent to say "god did it" and be done. Bill said he wants to know more. He looks at the stars and wants to know how they got there. Not just use religion and forget about it.
God, the Ken Ham dude is falling apart in the 1 minute Q+A sessions.
"Well Bill, there is a book out there that does explain where matter comes from. It says so in the first sentence." (talking about the Bible). No you idiot, that proves nothing. You did not make some great point. A fictional story book is no proof. The worst part is the crowds reaction, actually. They just gleeful laugh when he makes his "points" like it is some great rebuttal and Bill is just some stupid atheist. It is sad
One question was actually "What evidence besides the word of god is there for creationism" and he provided the same kind of answer a politician would. He still has given no evidence...
I will watch the last 45 minutes later
-
Okay, we get it Woody. You and others are atheists. You won't change my mind, and I won't change yours. End of story.
-
Okay, we get it Woody. You and others are atheists. You won't change my mind, and I won't change yours. End of story.
Okay, we get it Woody. You and others are atheists. You won't change my mind, and I won't change yours. End of story.
Well that's gonna be taken as a sign of defeat, rightly or wrongly. But I agree, we have opposite and mutually exclusive stances and neither will budge. Fine. You're free to believe what you want, but when people start trying to claim the bible as scientific evidence, that's where the "do what you want" things runs out for me.
-
Amen.
-
agreed - it all depends on what "truth" you believe.
I could only listen to a little over 2 hours of this before I came to the obvious conclusion that you or me arent gonna change our minds.
points scored on each side in my opinion....
the biggest one for me is the misrepresentation that evolutionary science presumes as fact when it is also a matter of faith in many cases.
And when IT hits a roadblock with questions like the second before the big bang, or how does consciousness form from molecules?
is answered with the statement - " that is a mystery" huh I guess so... kinda like faith in God?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login