• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bill Nye "The Science Guy" Hates Creationism

Ok, so I've dipped out for a while on this thread, but this argument comes up time and time again, and honestly, it's not that much of a barrier for science to cross. People who allow this to be their stumbling block should think of time in a less linear fashion, especially when you're talking on a universal scale like this. It's useful for us to think about time as a linear dimension in Cartesian space, but it's almost certainly not an inherent property of the universe. If you have to think about time like that, forwards and backwards, and in a straight line, then the best thing I can tell you is that there was no beginning, there was no nothingness and then somethingness. Our own big bang may be attributable to a date 15 billion years ago, but to try to keep going back to "what came before that" is reductionist. Because we haven't filled in the gaps yet about the precursors or prerequisites to the big bang (materially speaking), this is a facile argument for creationists, but it shouldn't be the backbone for any arguments.

Also, I have no idea what you mean by "all empirical science rests on the premise that the future will resemble the past." Entropy and enthalpy, man. Shit changes and the universe is always different for it.

Great post, Townie. Love the bolded part.
 
You just managed to explain nothing except making some statement backed by nothing, and further confused the issue for me and I imagine many others.
 
Ok, so I've dipped out for a while on this thread, but this argument comes up time and time again, and honestly, it's not that much of a barrier for science to cross. People who allow this to be their stumbling block should think of time in a less linear fashion, especially when you're talking on a universal scale like this. It's useful for us to think about time as a linear dimension in Cartesian space, but it's almost certainly not an inherent property of the universe. If you have to think about time like that, forwards and backwards, and in a straight line, then the best thing I can tell you is that there was no beginning, there was no nothingness and then somethingness. Our own big bang may be attributable to a date 15 billion years ago, but to try to keep going back to "what came before that" is reductionist. Because we haven't filled in the gaps yet about the precursors or prerequisites to the big bang (materially speaking), this is a facile argument for creationists, but it shouldn't be the backbone for any arguments.

Also, I have no idea what you mean by "all empirical science rests on the premise that the future will resemble the past." Entropy and enthalpy, man. Shit changes and the universe is always different for it.

I agree that there is no reason to think that time is any more an inherent property of the universe than any other dimension. However you are basically just saying that the something has always been there. Which as I stated above, is beyond explanation.

As for the second part I was simply referring to the problem of induction. Another way to phrase it is that claiming we can only know things through observation presupposes that observation is a valid way to come to know things. Observation is a valid way to come to know things but that is not known through observation.

My point is that even the most skeptical of scientists must put their faith in something.
 
So basically we are back to square one. There is something mankind does not understand and therefore it has a supernatural explanation. Maybe. You could be right. You could also be wrong. Given there is no evidence you are right I would prefer it not to be taught in schools.
 
I'm very scientific minded, not at all religious, but thought this was a poignant post. I really can't wrap my mind around how something could come from nothing, or how something always existed without a "creation" event. Now my head hurts.

Then I fear no explanation will ever clear the subject up for you. There are literally only two options....at some point something grew out of nothing OR the universe has and will always exist in some form. I agree it is difficult to wrap one's head around either option, especially if you have a scientific mind, but in the end it is one or the other.
 
So basically we are back to square one. There is something mankind does not understand and therefore it has a supernatural explanation. Maybe. You could be right. You could also be wrong. Given there is no evidence you are right I would prefer it not to be taught in schools.

No. I never claimed there needed to be a supernatural explanation for everything mankind does not understand. My broader point is that at some point faith is required for every piece of knowledge, empirical or otherwise. Since that is the case it seems silly to dismiss someones beliefs simply because they rely on faith.
 
There are days I feel smart.... and then I eff everything up by reading threads like this, realizing how little I know.
 
No. I never claimed there needed to be a supernatural explanation for everything mankind does not understand. My broader point is that at some point faith is required for every piece of knowledge, empirical or otherwise. Since that is the case it seems silly to dismiss someones beliefs simply because they rely on faith.

Faith in science and it's eventual outcomes through observation and experimentation are vastly different than faith in a supernatural being.

Here, let me drop this hammer onto the ground a billion times in a row. How many times will it fly up?
 
Faith in science and it's eventual outcomes through observation and experimentation are vastly different than faith in a supernatural being.

Here, let me drop this hammer onto the ground a billion times in a row. How many times will it fly up?

They are not vastly different. Each is the belief in something that cannot be empirically proven. Watching a hammer fall a billion times tells you nothing except that a hammer fell a billion times. If you want to make claims about what will happen the next time you drop a hammer you must put faith in a premise which cannot be empirically proven.
 
You just managed to explain nothing except making some statement backed by nothing, and further confused the issue for me and I imagine many others.

Well I will admit to you, I'm every bit as confused as you are. Kant and Aquinas basically showed us that we can't establish whether or not time is finite or infinite. Hawking said that time started with the Big Bang, but only because physics can't be expected to measure time before then, and if physics can't measure it, it can't be known. Einstein said time is relative to space. The Hindu Vedas proclaim that time is cyclical, that the universe destroys itself every 4.5 billion years or whatever. All I really meant to say is that this whole conception of "what came before" is kind of a red herring in this discussion, because either there was no time (though not necessarily no matter) before the big bang, or there was always time (and always matter). It's only unknowable in that we haven't yet crossed the next threshold.

Higgs-Boson would be a nice fit in the standard model. I'd love to see some of the next-gen theoretical physics that comes out of it. What I won't do is try to explain the nuances of non-linear time. That's on you if you're interested; I'd suggest browsing some of TW's excellent threads on the universe, or reading either Hawking or Adler (perhaps his biggest critic).
 
They are not vastly different. Each is the belief in something that cannot be empirically proven. Watching a hammer fall a billion times tells you nothing except that a hammer fell a billion times. If you want to make claims about what will happen the next time you drop a hammer you must put faith in a premise which cannot be empirically proven.

Are you serious?
 
Glad to see we've finally gotten to the discussion of non-linear time and space models. I love you guys. :tear:
 
They are not vastly different. Each is the belief in something that cannot be empirically proven. Watching a hammer fall a billion times tells you nothing except that a hammer fell a billion times. If you want to make claims about what will happen the next time you drop a hammer you must put faith in a premise which cannot be empirically proven.

In order for me to be typing this right now, gravity has to have remained constant throughout the 14 billion year life span of the universe. You are telling me that because I can't be sure that gravity will act in the same fashion as it has over a googolplex googolplex googolplex of gravitational interactions, that it could change tomorrow?
 
Well I will admit to you, I'm every bit as confused as you are. Kant and Aquinas basically showed us that we can't establish whether or not time is finite or infinite. Hawking said that time started with the Big Bang, but only because physics can't be expected to measure time before then, and if physics can't measure it, it can't be known. Einstein said time is relative to space. The Hindu Vedas proclaim that time is cyclical, that the universe destroys itself every 4.5 billion years or whatever. All I really meant to say is that this whole conception of "what came before" is kind of a red herring in this discussion, because either there was no time (though not necessarily no matter) before the big bang, or there was always time (and always matter). It's only unknowable in that we haven't yet crossed the next threshold.

Higgs-Boson would be a nice fit in the standard model. I'd love to see some of the next-gen theoretical physics that comes out of it. What I won't do is try to explain the nuances of non-linear time. That's on you if you're interested; I'd suggest browsing some of TW's excellent threads on the universe, or reading either Hawking or Adler (perhaps his biggest critic).

Einstein's theory of relativity tells us that space is intertwined with time. They are inextricably linked. As we can see the whole universe, all of space as we know it, shouldn't we be experiencing the past, present and future simultaneously? I love thinking about this one.

The answer is really that different moments of time are in different areas of space and we experience time in a linear fashion as TD said above. Fascinating stuff.
 
In order for me to be typing this right now, gravity has to have remained constant throughout the 14 billion year life span of the universe. You are telling me that because I can't be sure that gravity will act in the same fashion as it has over a googolplex googolplex googolplex of gravitational interactions, that it could change tomorrow?

No quite the opposite. I think we can be sure that gravity will remain constant tomorrow and everyday after that. That assuredness, however, does not and cannot come solely from premises which can be proven empirically.
 
Here is a logical proof for knowing that gravity will be -9.8 m/s^2 tomorrow.

1. In the past gravity has always been -9.8 m/s^2
2. The future will resemble the past

Therefore

3. In the future gravity will be -9.8 m/s^2

Premise 2 cannot be proven empirically without the above argument becoming circular
 
IMO this goes to the point where if it is okay to interpret some things in the Bible as not literal then is it okay to interpret other things in it the same way? Many believe the Bible is in fact the infallible word of an all-knowing God and thus unimpeachable. When you change to a position of the Bible is a guide then it goes to my point, that some took badly, that you are now within the realm of spirituality and have successfully left behind rigid dogmas (which is a good thing imo).

I know this is an older post and the discussion is past this point. But I do have to make a clarification about the words literal, inerrant, and authoritative.

To say the Bible is 100% literal is to say that it never uses metaphor, anthropomorphism, etc. No one believes this (not even the most ardent YEC, KJV only fundamentalist) because everyone knows that when the Bible speaks of the hand of God, they aren't talking about a literal giant hand floating in space. What most people mean when they say literal is that the text can be taken at face value at first glace. The problem with this is what face value interpretation means for a 21st century post enlightenment Westerner isn't the same as a second temple Jew or postexilic Israelite. All readers come with a bias and read through a cultural lens.

As far as inerrant and authoritative - most mean it is inerrant in matters of faith and life - meaning that it is true in it's intended meaning conveyed about God's nature and God's interaction with humanity. As this relates to the Genesis creation narrative - the Bible is not a science book - it was meant to communicate the who of creation, not the how. At our church, our statement about the Bible is "The Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. As such it is true and authoritative in matters of life and faith."

As far as the question, "who decides what parts are literal and which parts aren't?" Context and study play a key role. Most of it is pretty common sense. The problems arise when people become so invested in their current, personal understanding of Scripture where there are multiple possible interpretations (i.e. creation v. something pretty concrete like the teaching that Jesus was rose from the dead) that they turn secondary issues of faith into primary issues.
 
Einstein's theory of relativity tells us that space is intertwined with time. They are inextricably linked. As we can see the whole universe, all of space as we know it, shouldn't we be experiencing the past, present and future simultaneously? I love thinking about this one.

The answer is really that different moments of time are in different areas of space and we experience time in a linear fashion as TD said above. Fascinating stuff.

I seriously love the theory of relativity. I understand it one second and get confused the next, but still very interesting . I still don't fully understand the whole "people age faster on earth than someone who travels at light speed" thing.
 
Back
Top