Bill Nye #2: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
702

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:
a whole bunch[/quote]I find it astonishing that people that seem hell bent on scrutinizing evolution are unable or unwilling to apply the same level of critical thinking to their creationism.[/quote]I don’t find it astonishing at all that people who ARE hell bent on scrutinizing the living God are unable and unwilling to apply the same level of critical thinking to their belief that 2+2=4.

DrMatt. Allow me to subtly, but profoundly rephrase my question. What MAKES 2+2=4? Language is the vehicle. I’m talkin about the cargo.
[/quote]

I have already answered this several times in this tread.
[/quote]

I figured him ignoring your first response to that was accepting the answer and moving on, but nope I’ve still seem him bring up that 2+2 thing several times after.[/quote]

I marvel at how someone who questions the epidemiological foundations of something as simple as 2+2=4 goes on to claim he has knowledge of the “One True Living God.” Complete hubris.[/quote]I dunno. I keep thinking this is English I’m typing, but maybe not. Here. Lemme try yet again. I do not question the foundations of ANYTHING. I KNOW 2+2=4 and why. I know why YOU KNOW 2+2=4. YOU are the ones who REFUSE to know at the very same time you have no choice whatsoever except TO know. Yessir, 2+2=4 for everybody. for all time, everywhere in the universe. When DrMatt advances mathematical reasons for 2+2 equaling 4 he has already assumed the truth of my position because he has no choice. He’s created that way. It’s what he is. AND what I am as well. That’s WHY we both know ANYTHING. 2+2=4 is just a convenient example. The answer has NOTHING to do with mathematics LOL! Or genetics, or physics or medicine or geology or any other scientific discipline that depends for it’s very life breath on the the very same specie of faith it so amusingly asserts itself to be free from.

BTW, I believe you were grasping for “epistemological” there. Not “epidemiological”. Never rely on the spell checker. =]

703

A mathematician, a biologist and a physicist are sitting in a street cafe watching people going in and coming out of the house on the other side of the street. First they see two people going into the house. Time passes. After a while they notice three persons coming out of the house.
The physicist: “One of the two measurements wasn’t very accurate.”
The biologist: “They have reproduced”.
The mathematician: “If now exactly one person enters the house then it will be empty again.”

704

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]nsimmons wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
See, everybody’s jumpin up and down sreamin about chromosomes n isotope half lives n stuff and I’m still waitin for the 1st person to tell me the how and why of 2+2 equaling 4.
[/quote]

Because they are defined as such, and nothing more.

Investigate Formalism. Numbers need not represent ‘countables’. Z=x+iy is a number, even if one can not have 2+3i Apples.

People seriously underestimate how complex and deep these fields are. They expect instant simple answers to questions that others have slaved for years or decades to understand, but they refuse to do the heavy lifting themselves. The more I learn, the more there is to learn.

Here is a primer, suitable for one with a couple years of University mathematics.

Edit:
Excellent Link
http://www.ms.uky.edu/~droyster/courses/fall08/MATH6101090/PDFs/Chapter03.pdf[/quote]

Those works, while interesting, are not really all that applicable or relevant to this discussion. Algebraic number theory does not define integers or the basic operations on them, which is what this discussion is on, but rather expands on the idea of algebraic structures (such as integers) and explores specific algebraic operations related to them, but not the one we need for this discussion. For this discussion, the relevant topics are Abelian Groups and Equivalence Classes, which are usually covered in introductory abstract algebra classes.
[/quote]

Those are covered further first in the text, though I will defer since I was not a math major.

705

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Lol religion. Love that South Park where the practicing Catholic and Protestant are in hell and ask why and the guy is like “Mormon, Mormon was the correct religion.” It is fun to try and watch people explain the unexplainable. But the flying spaghetti monster…he’s the one in charge. Sure everyone has a different spaghetti monster, but they all know he’s out there.

If the God exists that the Bible says exists then he is the biggest prick in existence and I wouldn’t bow down to him anyways. Seriously. Believe in me or be punished for ALL ETERNITY? We call that terrorism and don’t you guys say we don’t negotiate with terrorists? And yes I’ve heard all the responses to this, but it never ceases to amaze me the amount of people who buy into this fable.

Also big flamer I haven’t read all your post, but it will be interesting to see if anyone tries to tackle that.

And creationism has absolutely no room in a science class. None. Unless you would like your science class to not be about science of course, and many seem to want that. [/quote]

LOL @ people who comment about a book they never read. What other books haven’t you read that you care to comment about? Is there like some little atheist sowing circle where you get together and discuss things you don’t know shit about?[/quote]

I’ve read the Bible cover to fucking cover more than once. Been a while as I moved on from fiction, but I’ve done it. Any other fairy tales you want to believe about me to make your arguments more friendly to your views? [/quote]

You demonstrate no knowledge of it, therefore you’re a fucking liar. I can tell when someone has read it and someone has not, I can tell you have not.

Here’s a fairy tale, something from nothing. You either have to prove that or cop out like the rest of your weak minded cronies and claim you can’t be bothered with it because things just are, which is circular and therefore bad logic.

You’re just another silly little angry atheist with some chip on his shoulder. Atheism is a complete fallacy unsupportable by any method of logic.

Atheists are so predictable, it’s like they read the same book.

707

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
A mathematician, a biologist and a physicist are sitting in a street cafe watching people going in and coming out of the house on the other side of the street. First they see two people going into the house. Time passes. After a while they notice three persons coming out of the house.
The physicist: “One of the two measurements wasn’t very accurate.”
The biologist: “They have reproduced”.
The mathematician: “If now exactly one person enters the house then it will be empty again.”[/quote]LOL!! Very good indeed. And does somewhat humorously illustrate our little communication problem here doesn’t it?

708

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Lol religion. Love that South Park where the practicing Catholic and Protestant are in hell and ask why and the guy is like “Mormon, Mormon was the correct religion.” It is fun to try and watch people explain the unexplainable. But the flying spaghetti monster…he’s the one in charge. Sure everyone has a different spaghetti monster, but they all know he’s out there.

If the God exists that the Bible says exists then he is the biggest prick in existence and I wouldn’t bow down to him anyways. Seriously. Believe in me or be punished for ALL ETERNITY? We call that terrorism and don’t you guys say we don’t negotiate with terrorists? And yes I’ve heard all the responses to this, but it never ceases to amaze me the amount of people who buy into this fable.

Also big flamer I haven’t read all your post, but it will be interesting to see if anyone tries to tackle that.

And creationism has absolutely no room in a science class. None. Unless you would like your science class to not be about science of course, and many seem to want that. [/quote]

LOL @ people who comment about a book they never read. What other books haven’t you read that you care to comment about? Is there like some little atheist sowing circle where you get together and discuss things you don’t know shit about?[/quote]

I’ve read the Bible cover to fucking cover more than once. Been a while as I moved on from fiction, but I’ve done it. Any other fairy tales you want to believe about me to make your arguments more friendly to your views? [/quote]

You demonstrate no knowledge of it, therefore you’re a fucking liar. I can tell when someone has read it and someone has not, I can tell you have not.

Here’s a fairy tale, something from nothing. You either have to prove that or cop out like the rest of your weak minded cronies and claim you can’t be bothered with it because things just are, which is circular and therefore bad logic.

You’re just another silly little angry atheist with some chip on his shoulder. Atheism is a complete fallacy unsupportable by any method of logic.Atheists are so predictable, it’s like they read the same book. [/quote]

The fairy tale is easy to match or better… something from nothing?

How about everything, all the time.

And I maybe wrong, but I don’t think I’m seen as the angry atheist type. As an fyi…I want to believe.

710

Tirib,

You mentioned first graders who are able to both understand and explain the answer to your question.

Would you be able to clearly outline your position as though you were speaking to these children?

What I mean is, is it at all possible for you to just spell it out while refraining from using vague analogies like “that’s the paint job; tell me why she runs”?

Can you do this as succinctly as possible, for instance, by just writing “God” instead of “His most Holy and Terrific majesty, whose eternally omnipotent and benevolent wishes and whims drive every electron to orbit in a manner fundamentally in tune with, but not as a result of, the Natural physical laws by which so many blindly place their faith in to His exclusion”?

Is your style of debate on this subject purposeful (is there a method to your madness), or is this really the best you can explain it?

You keep writing that extremely smart people just can’t seem to grasp this basic concept, and I gotta admit that they are not alone in their confusion. I think I see what you are driving at, but I’d rather not plod through 2, 3 or 4 30+ page threads to clarify.

711

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Lol religion. Love that South Park where the practicing Catholic and Protestant are in hell and ask why and the guy is like “Mormon, Mormon was the correct religion.” It is fun to try and watch people explain the unexplainable. But the flying spaghetti monster…he’s the one in charge. Sure everyone has a different spaghetti monster, but they all know he’s out there.

If the God exists that the Bible says exists then he is the biggest prick in existence and I wouldn’t bow down to him anyways. Seriously. Believe in me or be punished for ALL ETERNITY? We call that terrorism and don’t you guys say we don’t negotiate with terrorists? And yes I’ve heard all the responses to this, but it never ceases to amaze me the amount of people who buy into this fable.

Also big flamer I haven’t read all your post, but it will be interesting to see if anyone tries to tackle that.

And creationism has absolutely no room in a science class. None. Unless you would like your science class to not be about science of course, and many seem to want that. [/quote]

LOL @ people who comment about a book they never read. What other books haven’t you read that you care to comment about? Is there like some little atheist sowing circle where you get together and discuss things you don’t know shit about?[/quote]

I’ve read the Bible cover to fucking cover more than once. Been a while as I moved on from fiction, but I’ve done it. Any other fairy tales you want to believe about me to make your arguments more friendly to your views? [/quote]

You demonstrate no knowledge of it, therefore you’re a fucking liar. I can tell when someone has read it and someone has not, I can tell you have not.

Here’s a fairy tale, something from nothing. You either have to prove that or cop out like the rest of your weak minded cronies and claim you can’t be bothered with it because things just are, which is circular and therefore bad logic.

You’re just another silly little angry atheist with some chip on his shoulder. Atheism is a complete fallacy unsupportable by any method of logic.

Atheists are so predictable, it’s like they read the same book. [/quote]

One of us sounds very angry right now like he has a chip on his shoulder. And also called me a fucking liar.

Hint: It’s the believer. It’s you. I already put that I don’t care if you don’t believe me. Raised Methodist in a small Kansas town and was a believer until I got to be about 19 or 20. It wasn’t an overnight thing (me becoming agnostic or atheist) by any means but a gradual process of moving away from the church and it’s ways of thinking.

You’re free to believe whatever you want, but that’s the truth. Would it help if I said God’s honest truth? Now you believe me?

Also LMAO at the burden of proof being on us. You think a God exists. I don’t. It’s up to me to prove I’m right where you get to just be right because hey man you’re already right anyways so I gotta prove you wrong. And also, just for fun, you’ll dismiss about 100% of the things we use as proof anyways. But the burden is ALL on non-believers. Interesting. You’d think as the correct one you’d feel a bit more stronger in your case.

Strong hypocrisy in the first part, strong being a poor Christian, and strong logic. Well done, that was a terrific post!

712

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

…Then please share with us one public institution in the States that accepts that model…

[/quote]

What is it about you fellers that gets you to slobbering about the government’s role in all this? Why the quasi-worship of government?

I think I know why.[/quote]

WHy don’t you answer the questions?..
[/quote]

I did. Many times.

I just didn’t do it in your prescribed manner.[/quote]

Requiring people to go on a goose chase through old posts to find your thoughts isn’t the prescribed manner in many threads.

713

[quote]anonym wrote:
Tirib,

You mentioned first graders who are able to both understand and explain the answer to your question.

Would you be able to clearly outline your position as though you were speaking to these children?

What I mean is, is it at all possible for you to just spell it out while refraining from using vague analogies like “that’s the paint job; tell me why she runs”?

Can you do this as succinctly as possible, for instance, by just writing “God” instead of “His most Holy and Terrific majesty, whose eternally omnipotent and benevolent wishes and whims drive every electron to orbit in a manner fundamentally in tune with, but not as a result of, the Natural physical laws by which so many blindly place their faith in to His exclusion”?

Is your style of debate on this subject purposeful (is there a method to your madness), or is this really the best you can explain it?

You keep writing that extremely smart people just can’t seem to grasp this basic concept, and I gotta admit that they are not alone in their confusion. I think I see what you are driving at, but I’d rather not plod through 2, 3 or 4 30+ page threads to clarify.[/quote]

I have asked him several times to state and justify his position, but he has so far not done so, except to say it is indefeasible (which I guess a position that is never stated is indefeasible in a way). I have explained my side several times to accommodate him, so until he actually makes and justifies an argument then I see no point in continuing my conversation with him.

714

Did Pat Robertson just say to trust science? Ironically, this makes me less sure of my position. Oh shit, Pat Robertson and I agree on something!

715

[quote]anonym wrote:<<< You keep writing that extremely smart people just can’t seem to grasp this basic concept. >>>[/quote]What I keep writing is that everybody practices it out of inescapable necessity and when confronted with it outright very rarely get that they are doing so. Being extremely smart and or educated is no help and in fact is many times an impediment.

Me, in kiddy voice to a 6 year old girl dancing around at my church: “How many is 2+2 _______(name)?”
6 year old still dancing in tone calculated to indicate the silliness of the question: “4 brother Greg”(duh)
Me to tirelessly dancing 6 year old: “are you sure?”
6 year old in respectful tone: “yes sir.”
Me: “why are you sure?”
6 year old states matter of factly without missing a step: “because that’s how God made it”.

There is not a PHD on this earth who not only cannot refute that statement, but every one will necessarily prove it true in the very attempt.
2+2=4 is universally and certainly true because it is spawned from the mind of a God who is certainly and universally true. He designed us as finite derivative replicas of Himself and we simply CANNOT function as if it weren’t. Mathematics is but one manifestation of the objective certainty that has been designed into the fabric of the universe. We answer to that certainty as living, cognizant intellectually and morally responsible beings by necessity of innate design.

God being the ground and source of all being and intellect, He MUST be assumed first before even 2+2 can actually equal 4. Everybody, Christian or not does in fact do this. Sin is the refusal to acknowledge that and to exalt one’s self in the place of God as the final arbiter of ANYTHING, never mind whether the God they already assume exists or not. It’s like refusing to believe in the existence of oxygen while breathing it in order to deny it. This is why scientific so called “evidence” alleged to demonstrate the needlessness of God is impossible from the start. We are not possessed of that kind of objectivity even without sin. In point of fact, the very first sin was an attempt at exercising that kind of objectivity and off we’ve been ever since.

There is very much more and I promise you this, though you’re welcome to try. You will NOT throw me an argument to the contrary that I have not already heard and probably already addressed here ten times. This the ground floor of an entire building with every detail considered and accounted for. Yes, it MUST be the triune God of the bible. The one whose moral standard is universally binding upon every person ever born, including His only begotten Son, Jesus of Nazareth. Any ol God will not do. I am in the middle of a discussion with Kamui on the problem of the one and the many which illustrates why it MUST be THIS triune God.
From a couple months ago to Severiano.

716

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Me, in kiddy voice to a 6 year old girl dancing around at my church: “How many is 2+2 _______(name)?”
6 year old still dancing in tone calculated to indicate the silliness of the question: “4 brother Greg”(duh)
Me to tirelessly dancing 6 year old: “are you sure?”
6 year old in respectful tone: “yes sir.”
Me: “why are you sure?”
6 year old states matter of factly without missing a step: “because that’s how God made it”.
[/quote]

Oh, that makes so much more sense now.
Brainwashed 6 year old said so. Why didn’t I think of that?!?!

[quote]
There is not a PHD on this earth who not only cannot refute that statement, but every one will necessarily prove it true in the very attempt. [/quote]
Doesn’t mean it was the biblical God Tiribulus. You’ve still got all your work ahead of you.

717

^ The moral authority thread, right? I really want to follow that dialogue.

And this one you wrote has me hung up:

That almost sounds like you’re saying that Man and God are not ontologically distinct. That they are the same except for an infinite magnitude, but I also know that you’ve explicitly stated that isn’t true in the past. So basically my question is how’s that one work?

718

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:<<< You keep writing that extremely smart people just can’t seem to grasp this basic concept. >>>[/quote]What I keep writing is that everybody practices it out of inescapable necessity and when confronted with it outright very rarely get that they are doing so. Being extremely smart and or educated is no help and in fact is many times an impediment.

Me, in kiddy voice to a 6 year old girl dancing around at my church: “How many is 2+2 _______(name)?”
6 year old still dancing in tone calculated to indicate the silliness of the question: “4 brother Greg”(duh)
Me to tirelessly dancing 6 year old: “are you sure?”
6 year old in respectful tone: “yes sir.”
Me: “why are you sure?”
6 year old states matter of factly without missing a step: “because that’s how God made it”.

There is not a PHD on this earth who not only cannot refute that statement, but every one will necessarily prove it true in the very attempt.
2+2=4 is universally and certainly true because it is spawned from the mind of a God who is certainly and universally true. He designed us as finite derivative replicas of Himself and we simply CANNOT function as if it weren’t. Mathematics is but one manifestation of the objective certainty that has been designed into the fabric of the universe. We answer to that certainty as living, cognizant intellectually and morally responsible beings by necessity of innate design.

God being the ground and source of all being and intellect, He MUST be assumed first before even 2+2 can actually equal 4. Everybody, Christian or not does in fact do this. Sin is the refusal to acknowledge that and to exalt one’s self in the place of God as the final arbiter of ANYTHING, never mind whether the God they already assume exists or not. It’s like refusing to believe in the existence of oxygen while breathing it in order to deny it. This is why scientific so called “evidence” alleged to demonstrate the needlessness of God is impossible from the start. We are not possessed of that kind of objectivity even without sin. In point of fact, the very first sin was an attempt at exercising that kind of objectivity and off we’ve been ever since.

There is very much more and I promise you this, though you’re welcome to try. You will NOT throw me an argument to the contrary that I have not already heard and probably already addressed here ten times. This the ground floor of an entire building with every detail considered and accounted for. Yes, it MUST be the triune God of the bible. The one whose moral standard is universally binding upon every person ever born, including His only begotten Son, Jesus of Nazareth. Any ol God will not do. I am in the middle of a discussion with Kamui on the problem of the one and the many which illustrates why it MUST be THIS triune God.
From a couple months ago to Severiano.

You haven’t proved anything here. You’ve argued by assertion.

“God being the ground and source of all being and intellect, He MUST be assumed first before even 2+2 can actually equal 4.”

You;ve taken God’s existence as a premise, not shown it as a conclusion.

I third the request for a coherent argument. A simple set of steps, if that helps.

719

^
I know I’m not Tirib. but here goes.

Just in case you haven’t noticed, what Tirib is talking about has very little to nothing to do with math and everything to do with his epistemiological base for his world view. And to be able to come to a conclusion of any sort, you must first start with tautologies. A position made in at least part ‘faith’ if you will.

Please correct me if I’m mistaken Tirib.

720

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
And this one you wrote has me hung up:

That almost sounds like you’re saying that Man and God are not ontologically distinct. >>>[/quote]God and man ARE ontologically distinct. We are derivative in our intellectual and moral nature because we bear His likeness, but we are not made of the same “substance” as God. 2+2=4 for you because it does for Him and it does for Him because it is His eternal nature. You derive from Him both the capability and the framework for everything you are and think because you ARE like Him in that sense. Sin drives you to ANY conclusion except that one.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< And to be able to come to a conclusion of any sort, you must first start with tautologies. >>>[/quote]The tautological nature of one’s first foundational principle (epistemology) is an inescapable symptom of finitude. Add sin to finitude and the faith required by finite beings to overcome the ultimately tautological nature of their knowledge of ANYTHING is deflected from God to self. [quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< A position made in at least part ‘faith’ if you will. >>>[/quote]Made entirely by faith. Observe with smh23.

[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< You’ve taken God’s existence as a premise, not shown it as a conclusion. >>>[/quote]Indeed I have. By joyful choice. You have too. By unwitting and grudging necessity. You can’t help it. Neither can I, but I don’t wanna help it. On one hand you are utterly bound by what you are as a creature of God, by design to think His thoughts after Him if you are to think coherently at all. This is objective certainty. You have it. I have it.

On the other, you act as if YOU are in a position to discern objective propositions of knowledge in and by yourself. I deny that and defy you to demonstrate you can. You take YOURSELF as the premise, just as I said, and will fail for the rest of your natural life to show you as a conclusion(source of truth). To use your terminology.
That is the basic function of sin. “Show me and I’LL decide”. Impossible. SO, you fall back on faith, oh yes you do, and simply live and function all day every day as if 2+2 were 4 without the slightest logical reason on YOUR basis for doing so. Unless you can tell me from whence arises this pragmatic certainty you cannot avoid living in. Try living for 3 seconds as if 2+2 were NOT 4. Why can’t you do that? I’ll be waiting for your answer… forever.

721

Thanks for clarifying, T. It’s pretty much what I thought it was going to be.

Not sure how it points to your interpretation of Christianity as being the correct faith, or even if I necessarily agree with it at all (in that it points to a Creator), but since it is something I’ve never taken the time to consider I won’t jump into the middle of a 30 page debate without first seeing what’s been addressed already.