Bill Nye The Science Guy Debate.......

i had no idea that jim henson died. now i'm kind of sad.

mr. wizard was kind of like bill nye, only earlier. google tells me that he is dead; i assume that's who i was thinking of.

 

I'll have you know...I'm alive and well.

 

I don't have a side. I can accept that there are some things that are just unknown, which no "expert" has the answer to.

I never claimed they're the same thing. Science still does not explain everything. It doesn't explain why we're here, the nature of human intellect and emotion, etc.

In other words, I don't believe life is just some scientific "accident" that happened to spontaneously occur. That doesn't mean I accept the biblical version of "creation," either.

 

Yet.

Maybe you are asking the wrong questions. There might not be a 'why'.

 

Religion = We know exactly what happened and absolutely will never change our viewpoint. We ignore new evidence because it contradicts what our old books say.

Science = We don't know what happened, but here is our best guess based on the available evidence. If new evidence becomes available, we will re-evaluate our position.

 

LOL.....


based on some of the scientific "research" I've seen, you sure they aren't the same thing?

please point me in the direction of the genesis of life itself
or how about a real clear and obvious fossil that plainly shows species crossover, not just adaptation to environment.

how about just show me a simple black hole.

There are lots of scientific theories that are generally accepted as fact and the majority of people don't bother to question information presented by someone in a white lab coat.

Then please direct me to 100 random people in the general public who actually understand and comprehend the scientific method and how to carry out proper scientific research, (that ones gonna be tough).

How about 100 people from the same sampling who actually know a damn thing about what the theory of evolution actually is and what it claims and the numerous holes and flaws contained within that theory.

Science is always tentative and is solely based on probabilities, not absolutes.

Gee, maybe God decided to start the whole shebang and then let evolution/natural selection take over.

Evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive and for those who think they are, it just indicates a dogmatic attitude and a general lack of knowledge concerning both topics.

 

I'm with PR

1. It never will. The universe is actually infinite, it's not just some New Age hippy bullshit.. There are always more questions to be asked, and science without questions is dogma.
People follow science religiously as it is, it's only saving grace is that people are only slightly willing to re-evaluate their theories, as long as it won't affect their bank account and status of credibility.

2. The whole basis of science is why.


Now, where you aim that "why" question changes things a little.. which is why I can sympathise with the Ham guy, but most of what he talks is a load of shit.. I only gave it 30mins before I got bored..

 

I watched a little bit of the debate. I thought the creationist guy was making a sales pitch more so than a logical argument.

Science can't explain all the mysteries of the universe, but scientists merely aim to learn what they can during their short time on earth and put it together with what other scientists have uncovered. Science is a neutral collection of facts and observations, nothing more and nothing less.

 

How about you show me a resurrection or a virgin birth.

 

1. So you know the universe is infinite? Please share your wisdom with the rest of us, since I doubt this has been proved without a doubt by either science or religion.
Yes ofcourse there will be more questions, but that doesn't mean that questions can't or won't be answered, even though the answer provides us with more questions.

2. 'Why' might be a starting point, but science answers 'how'.
Science can't answer why we are here, but it can answer how we did.

 

We don't actually know if the universe is infinite or not. It may actually be a torus shape, it's really hard to tell actually, we could actually be looking at repeat images of stars an galaxies.

 

Yeah, I was under the impression that since the universe has been proved to be expanding (and that rate of expansion is increasing) that de facto it must have been smaller, therefore finite.

 

^^^ oh snap @gongshaman

I tell my parents things like that and all I ever get back is, "that's where faith comes in."

Oh. Ok.

 

Yes definitely finite. I was referring to the geometry, it may (and I think most likely) be constrained ie. light (or anything else) can't travel past the "edge". There really wouldn't be any edge since the geometry is continuous...like the surface of a donut, you can't travel off of that surface. The whole geometry would be expanding.

 

Side note: I'm watching the debate now. I like how Bill has debated entirely on his own (thus far), and Ken has had about 10 video clips from other Christian scientists. Fight your own fight, dude.

 

Oh I understand what you're saying. Well said.

 

if u want a good debate just look up christopher hitchens

 

"That's where making my own stuff up and filling the gaps comes in."

:sunny:

 

Yea, that's how these galaxies can be moving away from each other faster than the speed of light cuz the whole space time is expanding and the light gets redshifted as it gets stretched out.