• 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

Some pretty interesting comments on that video.

An interesting discussion that's related to the understanding of biological evolution is the idea of ethical evolution as humans evolved into conscious beings. Probably for another thread.
 
RChildress107 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I do not believe in the supernatural because there is no evidence. Likewise, I do not believe in a flying spaghetti monster or Cthulu.

I believe in the theory of gravity, the three laws of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, special and general relativity and multitude of other things because there is tangible evidence that they are correct.

Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is defined as "belief in something without proof." I cannot see how religious faith is in any way equal to your scientific "faith."
 
ipitytheblue said:
re: nothing, something, uncertainty, and Townie.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/07/how-the-universe-appeared-from-nothing.html

watch it. you may not understand (I'm not claiming to) but rest assured that it's not beyond our ability to create a working model.
Click to expand...

Couldn't watch the video on my phone but the description seems to avoid the question. There seems to be a big difference between two particles spontaneously arising and then immediately annihilating each other within a preexisting system with positive energy and a system arising out of nothing.
 
TWDeac said:
I do not believe in the supernatural because there is no evidence. Likewise, I do not believe in a flying spaghetti monster or Cthulu.

I believe in the theory of gravity, the three laws of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, special and general relativity and multitude of other things because there is tangible evidence that they are correct.

Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is defined as "belief in something without proof." I cannot see how religious faith is in any way equal to your scientific "faith."
Click to expand...

Your tangible evidence is only relevant if you except the premise that the future will resemble the past. That premise can't be proven with tangible evidence without begging the question. By your own definition you must have faith in that premise for any tangible evidence to be anything more than a description of the past. That's not to say you should give up all of the tangible evidence science has collected throughout the years. It also doesn't mean you should except any premise on faith alone. It just means you shouldn't be automatically dismissive of beliefs based on faith when the system you swear by ( a great system btw) requires faith in order to be predictive and not just descriptive.
 
RChildress107 said:
Couldn't watch the video on my phone but the description seems to avoid the question. There seems to be a big difference between two particles spontaneously arising and then immediately annihilating each other within a preexisting system with positive energy and a system arising out of nothing.
Click to expand...

It will make sense if you watch the video. Heisenburg's Uncertainty principle states that a system can never have zero energy. This allows for quantum mechanics to work in a universe devoid of anything which in turn allows these particles to continue to pop into and out of existence. If one of these particles pops into existence in a very low energy state, it would last a long time and could balloon into what we see today if aided by inflation. Our universe has a total energy of almost zero because gravity almost counteracts expansion.
 
TWDeac said:
It will make sense if you watch the video. Heisenburg's Uncertainty principle states that a system can never have zero energy. This allows for quantum mechanics to work in a universe devoid of anything which in turn allows these particles to continue to pop into and out of existence. If one of these particles pops into existence in a very low energy state, it would last a long time and could balloon into what we see today if aided by inflation. Our universe has a total energy of almost zero because gravity almost counteracts expansion.
Click to expand...

So that energy from which the particles arose and the system in which they arose have always been in existence? That's not nothing
 
RChildress107 said:
Your tangible evidence is only relevant if you except the premise that the future will resemble the past. That premise can't be proven with tangible evidence without begging the question. By your own definition you must have faith in that premise for any tangible evidence to be anything more than a description of the past. That's not to say you should give up all of the tangible evidence science has collected throughout the years. It also doesn't mean you should except any premise on faith alone. It just means you shouldn't be automatically dismissive of beliefs based on faith when the system you swear by ( a great system btw) requires faith in order to be predictive and not just descriptive.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no evidence of any supernatural beings, ever. Zero. Zilch. Nada. The universe has been around for 14 billion years. Primates capable of religious thought(I use that term loosely) have been around for 100,000 years. I have an extremely hard time placing the two types of faith on an even playing field.
 
RChildress107 said:
So that energy from which the particles arose and the system in which they arose have always been in existence? That's not nothing
Click to expand...

I was more saying that the video will make more sense to you when you can watch it. I don't think the description does it justice.
 
TWDeac said:
There is absolutely no evidence of any supernatural beings, ever. Zero. Zilch. Nada. The universe has been around for 14 billion years. Primates capable of religious thought(I use that term loosely) have been around for 100,000 years. I have an extremely hard time placing the two types of faith on an even playing field.
Click to expand...

it's actually one type of faith. Faith in something without empirical evidence. If you are right that there has never been evidence for the existence of a supernatural being (you're not unless you presuppose such evidence could not exist) hen the two examples of faith are the same.
 
So mass more or less equals positive energy as gravity equals negative energy, yeah? Because gravity exists and increases with mass (the depressions in space-time, as I've seen it described), the energy evens out to (near, apparently) zero. Particles pop into existence because "nothing" is unstable and remain due to their low energy, which is canceled by gravity. Inflation allows for it all to grow very large etc.

Particles with mass group into gas fields and such, eventually becoming dense enough to create stars which forge new elements and allow for the formation of complex life. Do I have that at all correct?
 
ipitytheblue said:
So mass more or less equals positive energy as gravity equals negative energy, yeah? Because gravity exists and increases with mass (the depressions in space-time, as I've seen it described), the energy evens out to (near, apparently) zero. Particles pop into existence because "nothing" is unstable and remain due to their low energy, which is canceled by gravity. Inflation allows for it all to grow very large etc.

Particles with mass group into gas fields and such, eventually becoming dense enough to create stars which forge new elements and allow for the formation of complex life. Do I have that at all correct?
Click to expand...

Basically, yes. Inflation occurred something like 10^-39 seconds after the big bang and lasted until ~10^~35 IIRC. It's why our universe didn't collapse back in on itself. It also really helps to explain the shape and size of our current universe.
 
Also, the argument that it takes faith to validate our own existence goes outside the bounds of the system a bit and really avoids the question, to me. I don't see how taking shots at our perception of reality at all validates belief in a pretty extraordinary claim, that of the existence of a supreme being.
 
ipitytheblue said:
Also, the argument that it takes faith to validate our own existence goes outside the bounds of the system a bit and really avoids the question, to me. I don't see how taking shots at our perception of reality at all validates belief in a pretty extraordinary claim, that of the existence of a supreme being.
Click to expand...

Equating those two as requiring the same levels of faith seems pretty preposterous to me.
 
RChildress107 said:
it's actually one type of faith. Faith in something without empirical evidence. If you are right that there has never been evidence for the existence of a supernatural being (you're not unless you presuppose such evidence could not exist) hen the two examples of faith are the same.
Click to expand...

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I do not see it in any way as one type of faith. They are two distinct constructs.

Scientific faith in experimentation, observation and tangible evidence pointing towards a probable future =/= Religious faith(belief without proof) in a supernatural being of which no evidence exists.
 
Milhouse said:
philosophy is such horseshit
Click to expand...

Thinking begins only when we have come to know that reason, glorified for centuries, is the stiff-necked adversary of thought.
Martin Heidegger

If you have a good theory, forget about the reality.
Slavoj Žižek

I had therefore to remove knowledge, in order to make room for belief.
Immanuel Kant

All men by nature desire knowledge.
Aristotle
 
TWDeac said:
We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I do not see it in any way as one type of faith. They are two distinct constructs.

Scientific faith in experimentation, observation and tangible evidence pointing towards a probable future =/= Religious faith(belief without proof) in a supernatural being of which no evidence exists.
Click to expand...

Faith by definition is not scientific. You may think you have better reasons for your faith in empiricism than others have for faith in a supernatural being. Those reasons however cannot be scientific evidence.

Even if you claim there is no observable evidence of a supernatural being you must accept that there could be valid reasons for having faith in a supernatural being. That is unless you rule out any reasons other than empirical evidence in which case you rule out any reason for having faith in empiricism.
 
ipitytheblue said:
Also, the argument that it takes faith to validate our own existence goes outside the bounds of the system a bit and really avoids the question, to me. I don't see how taking shots at our perception of reality at all validates belief in a pretty extraordinary claim, that of the existence of a supreme being.
Click to expand...

Not sure who is making that argument or taking shots at our perception of reality. And of course that alone would not validate a belief in any theory. But again not sure who or what that post is directed at
 
Still posting 12 pages later. Working your little hearts out to prove Jesus was a fraud.

The next 12 pages should be stellar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top