02-05-2014 07:36 PM
44 12
tools
  1. mase123987's Avatar
    I only got to watch the last 40 minutes or so. What did you guys think of it?

    PLEASE KEEP IT CIVIL! If some can't handle themselves appropriately, I will close the thread myself.
    Last edited by mase123987; 02-04-2014 at 08:49 PM.
    snowmutt likes this.
    02-04-2014 08:37 PM
  2. Jas00555's Avatar
    Every internet video that even hints at religion turns into a creationism/atheist debate, so mase123987, could you please tell me which debate you're talking about?
    brandoshido likes this.
    02-04-2014 08:41 PM
  3. mase123987's Avatar
    Rather famous one: Search Bill Nye on Bing.
    02-04-2014 08:42 PM
  4. mase123987's Avatar
    Every internet video that even hints at religion turns into a creationism/atheist debate, so mase123987, could you please tell me which debate you're talking about?
    I would argue it is less about creationism/atheist debate as literal bible interpretation vs scientific discovery debate.
    02-04-2014 08:43 PM
  5. mjrtoo's Avatar
    It's all about faith. Faith in your belief or faith in your science. I actually don't believe that those two are mutually exclusive.

    I think the discussion has to be had about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution before you delve deeper into the possibilities.of the different kinds of Intelligent Designs.

    People take for granted something like Mount Rushmore as obviously intelligently designed, and might actually mock you if you suggested it was a natural formation. But yet it seems the thought of the human race being intelligently designed gets you mocked, even though we are the most complex organism that we know of, millions of times more complex than Mount Rushmore.

    Or, think of this, take a plastic airplane model, toss an unopened tube of model glue in the box, no matter the natural forces applied to the box, how long so you suppose it would take for it to come out fully assembled?

    I think it's terribly naive of us to not even consider intelligent design, because to me, it seems the more logical explanation than just popping into existence and evolving into the most complex machines we all are.
    snowmutt and RoscoNeko like this.
    02-04-2014 09:02 PM
  6. Jas00555's Avatar
    I would argue it is less about creationism/atheist debate as literal bible interpretation vs scientific discovery debate.
    lol I didn't watch it so I didn't know what it was about. Cut me some slack! :p
    02-04-2014 09:05 PM
  7. mase123987's Avatar
    It's all about faith. Faith in your belief or faith in your science. I actually don't believe that those two are mutually exclusive.

    I think the discussion has to be had about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution before you delve deeper into the possibilities.of the different kinds of Intelligent Designs.

    People take for granted something like Mount Rushmore as obviously intelligently designed, and might actually mock you if you suggested it was a natural formation. But yet it seems the thought of the human race being intelligently designed gets you mocked, even though we are the most complex organism that we know of, millions of times more complex than Mount Rushmore.

    Or, think of this, take a plastic airplane model, toss an unopened tube of model glue in the box, no matter the natural forces applied to the box, how long so you suppose it would take for it to come out fully assembled?

    I think it's terribly naive of us to not even consider intelligent design, because to me, it seems the more logical explanation than just popping into existence and evolving into the most complex machines we all are.
    To your model plane example: This is only relevant if one "toss of the box" applies to everything. I am pretty sure that there are billions of empty planets for the exact reason that everything has to go JUST right for life to form.

    I think it would not be smart to consider intelligent design without the slightest shred of evidence.

    What Bill was getting at tonight is that Science doesn't have an end game. It isn't there to prove a point. It is there is answer questions. To get why things are the way they are. Ken was there to say the Bible is exactly correct on facts, and if evidence suggests otherwise, the evidence isn't correct.
    a5cent likes this.
    02-04-2014 09:11 PM
  8. mase123987's Avatar
    lol I didn't watch it so I didn't know what it was about. Cut me some slack! :p
    There will be no slack cutting when talking about Bill Nye the Science Guy! lol
    02-04-2014 09:12 PM
  9. mjrtoo's Avatar
    To your model plane example: This is only relevant if one "toss of the box" applies to everything. I am pretty sure that there are billions of empty planets for the exact reason that everything has to go JUST right for life to form.

    I think it would not be smart to consider intelligent design without the slightest shred of evidence.

    What Bill was getting at tonight is that Science doesn't have an end game. It isn't there to prove a point. It is there is answer questions. To get why things are the way they are. Ken was there to say the Bible is exactly correct on facts, and if evidence suggests otherwise, the evidence isn't correct.
    The evidence is within everyone of us and in the mathematics of the universe.

    That's like a religious person being rescued from a disaster and refusing it because they're waiting for God.

    We deny the simple examples all around us.

    As soon as we figure out 'just right' and can prove that, there is no fact, only belief/faith.
    02-04-2014 09:20 PM
  10. Jas00555's Avatar
    There will be no slack cutting when talking about Bill Nye the Science Guy! lol
    Fine! Fine! Fine! Give me time to watch it, then I'll be back lol
    02-04-2014 09:22 PM
  11. mase123987's Avatar
    Fine! Fine! Fine! Give me time to watch it, then I'll be back lol
    If you haven't seen the educational shows he did in the 90's, check those out as well! They are great.
    02-04-2014 09:23 PM
  12. mase123987's Avatar
    The evidence is within everyone of us and in the mathematics of the universe.

    That's like a religious person being rescued from a disaster and refusing it because they're waiting for God.

    We deny the simple examples all around us.

    As soon as we figure out 'just right' and can prove that, there is no fact, only belief/faith.
    Because something is complicated, that does not mean it had to be designed. It simply means it is complicated.
    02-04-2014 09:24 PM
  13. mjrtoo's Avatar
    Well, that sure seems like a poor argument. ๐Ÿ˜Š.
    02-04-2014 09:25 PM
  14. Robinsonmac's Avatar
    I just want someone to explain consciousness & how we came to have it as our bodies are amazing complex electro organic machines which can be explained. How does science explain ones conscious?
    02-04-2014 09:27 PM
  15. mase123987's Avatar
    I just want someone to explain consciousness & how we came to have it as our bodies are amazing complex electro organic machines which can be explained. How does science explain ones conscious?
    Because we don't know something, that doesn't mean God/Intelligent being created it. It means we don't know yet. That is it.
    02-04-2014 09:29 PM
  16. mase123987's Avatar
    Well, that sure seems like a poor argument. ๏˜Š.
    What is?
    02-04-2014 09:31 PM
  17. mjrtoo's Avatar
    Because we don't know something, that doesn't mean God/Intelligent being created it. It means we don't know yet. That is it.
    So you're saying you have faith in science then, quite like religion. But, it also doesn't mean a God didn't design it either.

    In fact, even if we did somehow find out how it all works, still doesn't mean a God didn't make it. It is the unanswerable question.
    02-04-2014 09:32 PM
  18. mjrtoo's Avatar
    What is?
    Your argument of saying just because we don't know doesn't mean it's a God. That's a terrible argument, because then inverse also applies.

    I've said my peace though, interesting topic that is highly divided, but luckily, we can all still live happily together. ๐Ÿ˜Š
    02-04-2014 09:34 PM
  19. mase123987's Avatar
    Your argument of saying just because we don't know doesn't mean it's a God. That's a terrible argument, because then inverse also applies.
    That has been my point from the beginning. This isn't a God v Science debate. It is a Biblical literal interpretation vs theory based on scientific discovery.

    I could argue though that the idea of God hasn't been proven in any sense. It isn't any different than Zeus as a God. Therefore, it isn't logical to say it is a possibility. Real problem is that you can't disprove something that isn't provable.

    I like to think that I am smart enough to know what I don't know.
    02-04-2014 09:39 PM
  20. mjrtoo's Avatar
    Well, the literal interpretation of the Bible is pointless argument, have you seen the number of editions of the bible? ๐Ÿ˜Š

    But, saying that there is no means to and end with science is complete BS. We are all trying to figure out how and why we are here and what for, science more so than any other faith.
    02-04-2014 09:50 PM
  21. Jas00555's Avatar
    If you haven't seen the educational shows he did in the 90's, check those out as well! They are great.
    lol I'm 19.... I've seen every. single. one. Bill! Bill! Bill Nye the Science Guy
    02-04-2014 09:53 PM
  22. mase123987's Avatar
    Well, the literal interpretation of the Bible is pointless argument, have you seen the number of editions of the bible? ๏˜Š

    But, saying that there is no means to and end with science is complete BS. We are all trying to figure out how and why we are here and what for, science more so than any other faith.
    Not sure I understand what you are saying...would like to reply if you reword it.
    02-04-2014 09:54 PM
  23. Jas00555's Avatar
    Also, before I watch it, I would like to point out that obviously you shouldn't literally interpret the Bible, and I say that as a Christian. That's honestly a new thing that's only happened within the past 100 years and there are a lot of people that don't take it literally, just using it as a "story" or "metaphor" if you will, but there's a vocal minority that takes it as fact. That's why I tend to laugh at atheists sometimes. Not that I agree or disagree with them, but that they're arguing against a minority of people, and they tend to make a big deal about it.

    I shall return after I watch the debate.
    02-04-2014 09:59 PM
  24. Angry_Mushroom's Avatar
    I rather enjoyed the debate. It didn't provide any new views, but I did enjoy the vigor that both sides flung themselves on the issue at hand. Personally I thought that Bill took the debate by a mile. Then again I do support his views strongly. I do believe that we need to teach more science in order to provide the future of humanity with a solid base on which to keep going.
    02-05-2014 01:51 AM
  25. snowmutt's Avatar
    The whole problem with the "Science Vs. Religon" debate isn't in the debate, it is in the debaters. Yes, prior to going any further, I am a born again Christian, and am happy to admit there is tons I don't know. I also walked away from God for about 5 years, learned as much as I could about other religons and their history. Also have spent tons of time on "Humanists/Athiest" sites and readings. I refuse to be ignorant. My path back was a long one, and I still have more questions then answers, which I believe is a good thing.

    What I didn't like about what Mr. Nye said (I have yet to see the whole thing, so I want the right to edit my opinions later) is the whole "Wait and see, scince is just BARELY opening the door, we will show the truth as we find it" argument. It is the most recent direction those trying to disprove the :need" for a God have gone. Quantum physics is another area in which people say "wait until we get more discoveries, we will unlock the truths then" argument.

    Meanwhile, people just ignore that these same arguments were made about biology, the fossil record, and a dozen other subjects at the turn of the last century.

    Of course, the fun part about being me is that if I had a Fundamental Christian on my right and an Athiest on my left, I think I could irratate them both equally. (With nothing but brotherly love, of course.) Because a pure literal interpretation of the Bible is plain impossible. Forget the science for a minute, just the imagery in books of the Bible like in Ezekial, Daniel, Job, and Revelations rules it out. The Bible is book of Theology which holds up under scrutiny extremely well, but it is not a science book.

    The easiest example of this is evolution. Nobody who has had a higher then 6th grade education can argue evolution is true. Species have evolved. Period. It has happened, it is true, it is accurate. Fundamental Christians that don't want the word even associated with anything are doing more harm then good.

    However, even after nearly a 200 year debate since "Origin of the Species" was written by Darwin, there is no proof at all the evolution was a creation method. Zero. No "missing link" has been found between mammals and other life forms, no "tree of life" effect, where one type of life begat another type a tad more complex. Life was more like a field according to the fossil record. One celled life around water, plant life exploded, then simple, water/air based life, then a small amount of complex life, then an explosion of life again, this time with complex life coming out of nowhere. This cycled continued. For some in the scince community and athiests to hold on to it as if it is the beat all end all of Faith also does more harm then good to their case.


    I won't ramble any farther, only to say that I see nothing in this debate which makes me think either of these two gentlemen broke new ground. I am not even sure they were debting the same thing.

    But, like jas00555, I need to watch it. I will make it my homework, mase.
    HaibaneReki likes this.
    02-05-2014 06:23 AM
44 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-02-2014, 09:39 AM
  2. Watch Satya Nadella address Microsoft employees for the first time as CEO
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-05-2014, 02:38 PM
  3. Sony currently in talks to sell off its PC division - various options are on the table
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-05-2014, 02:35 PM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-05-2014, 05:39 AM
  5. This webcast gives a glimpse of Satya Nadella's focus for MS...
    By Great deal in forum Microsoft News & Rumors
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-05-2014, 01:38 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD