Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1001

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Tribulus why would I even bother with you when you’re willing to say things like:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Science points directly and inescapably to the God of the bible.
[/quote]

What is your explanation for saying something so stupid? Do I even want to hear your explanation? Not really. Your opinion means nothing to me after reading your posts. You’re a complete whack. That’s my honest opinion.[/quote]Ok. I did apologize to you on the last page btw. In case you missed it.

1002

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:<<< I request that this begging of others to repent and talk of damnation cease and desist. >>>[/quote]I’m gonna just go ahead and guarantee you right up front that this will never happen while the present age persists. You are very late to the game here friend. Look around. You ain’t bringin nuthin new.

1003

I cannot believe I finally got caught up reading this thread. Man, you guys can type faster than I can read. I’m impressed.

(^_<)

1004

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

In the physical world death is absolute.[/quote]

The physical world is void of absolutes. You cannot deductively prove the physical, therefore while physical death seems to be a certainty in the physical realm, you cannot conclusively prove the physical realm even exists. You all could be a figment of my imagination. As silly as that sounds, it’s true. Senses are crude instruments for interpreting reality. [/quote]

Semantics, nothing more.
[/quote]

Semantics? Prove it’s only semantics. Because I can prove that you cannot trust your senses, that what you perceive as physical reality may not be accurate in any way. The claim is yours, hence so is the burden of proof.[/quote]

It’s semantics for one simple reason: you don’t believe it yourself. If you truely believed the above how in earth could you ever entertain religious beliefs at all?

Everything you value in a religious context has come to you through the filter of human existence. As such you must disqualify that context on the grounds that you can’t be certain it’s truthful, if you really believe what you’re saying in this post.

Here’s what I think: I think you’re just saying this without real conviction because it’s a nice stick to hit with.
[/quote]

You have it backwards. The religious are already comfortable with faith’s existence in the human condition. Heck, the problem isn’t even one for all atheists. It’s actually an issue for the new breed of atheists who must strangle any avenue of faith, so as not to give the religious any foothold as rational actors. However, in doing so they invite this line of argument. How does one falsify the reliability of the senses, and their perception of the Universe as we know it? Any and all evidence is processed by the organ in question, after all. There’s a simple answer, as infuriating as it is. It’s a matter of faith. An ‘assumption.’ There’s an assumption that our senses allow us to collect real evidence of a real universe. That we aren’t simply manufacturing our own evidence, to satisfy some…delusion.

1005

[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< You have it backwards. The religious are already comfortable with faith’s existence in the human condition. Heck, the problem isn’t even one for all atheists. It’s actually an issue for the new breed of atheists who must strangle any avenue of faith, so as not to give the religious any foothold as rational actors. However, in doing so they invite this line of argument. How does one falsify the reliability of the senses, and their perception of the Universe as we know it? Any and all evidence is processed by the organ in question, after all. There’s a simple answer, as infuriating as it is. It’s a matter of faith. An ‘assumption.’ There’s an assumption that our senses allow us to collect real evidence of a real universe. That we aren’t simply manufacturing our own evidence, to satisfy some…delusion. [/quote]Sincerely putting all of our recent tensions aside Sloth. YOU have it backwards. The mere state of being concious along with the data of the senses are so much blank nothingness unless subjected to an entirely unprovable and pre assumed framework of interpretation we call in the English language “logic”. Your general conclusion is true, but is in my view framed in an ineffective way and itself pre assumes what I’ve been droning on about it seems like forever now here. How do we account even for our own subjective self aware consciousness? To say nothing of the objective data that is incessantly bombarding it?

Again. To all of our self proclaimed evidence addicts around here. It’s at this level that you have no, none, ZEEROH answers and do in fact inescapably assume mine before even one minimally ineligible thought can occur in your mind. I embrace that with Joy, giving my Lord glory for His brilliant and magnificent creation because I have been put at peace with Him through the work of my savior and love Him for it.

You run from it, because you hate Him for holding you morally responsible to Himself and will concoct all manner of bizarre and foolhardy methods of convincing yourself it isn’t so. I’m watching it all around me. I was once just like you. In fact my rebellion AFTER knowing better is far worse than what any of you guys are doing. He is merciful indeed and faithful to His covenant brother, bride and son which He has made me in Christ. Don’t ever think I look down on any of you people.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I cannot believe I finally got caught up reading this thread. Man, you guys can type faster than I can read. I’m impressed.
(^_<)[/quote]Yeah, but none of us knows those leet ASCII art smileys so it all evens out =]

1006

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< You have it backwards. The religious are already comfortable with faith’s existence in the human condition. Heck, the problem isn’t even one for all atheists. It’s actually an issue for the new breed of atheists who must strangle any avenue of faith, so as not to give the religious any foothold as rational actors. However, in doing so they invite this line of argument. How does one falsify the reliability of the senses, and their perception of the Universe as we know it? Any and all evidence is processed by the organ in question, after all. There’s a simple answer, as infuriating as it is. It’s a matter of faith. An ‘assumption.’ There’s an assumption that our senses allow us to collect real evidence of a real universe. That we aren’t simply manufacturing our own evidence, to satisfy some…delusion. [/quote]Sincerely putting all of our recent tensions aside Sloth. YOU have it backwards. The mere state of being concious along with the data of the senses are so much blank nothingness unless subjected to an entirely unprovable and pre assumed framework of interpretation we call in the English language “logic”. Your general conclusion is true, but is in my view framed in an ineffective way and itself pre assumes what I’ve been droning on about it seems like forever now here. How do we account even for our own subjective self aware consciousness? To say nothing of the objective data that is incessantly bombarding it?

Again. To all of our self proclaimed evidence addicts around here. It’s at this level that you have no, none, ZEEROH answers and do in fact inescapably assume mine before even one minimally ineligible thought can occur in your mind. I embrace that with Joy, giving my Lord glory for His brilliant and magnificent creation because I have been put at peace with Him through the work of my savior and love Him for it.

You run from it, because you hate Him for holding you morally responsible to Himself and will concoct all manner of bizarre and foolhardy methods of convincing yourself it isn’t so. I’m watching it all around me. I was once just like you. In fact my rebellion AFTER knowing better is far worse than what any of you guys are doing. He is merciful indeed and faithful to His covenant brother, bride and son which He has made me in Christ. Don’t ever think I look down on any of you people.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I cannot believe I finally got caught up reading this thread. Man, you guys can type faster than I can read. I’m impressed.
(^_<)[/quote]Yeah, but none of us knows those leet ASCII art smileys so it all evens out =]

[/quote]

Benefit of having lived 10 years in Japan.

_(..)/

But seriously, I still don’t get why you get to make claims such as the very bold one you’ve made to Sloth, above, yet it doesn’t count for Catholics. Probably should move it to the epistemology thread, but I’d like to hear an answer to this.

*edited as T-Nation’s encoding does not appear to include characters from Japanese keyboards, severely curtailing my smiley prowess.

(;_:wink:

1007

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

In the physical world death is absolute.[/quote]

The physical world is void of absolutes. You cannot deductively prove the physical, therefore while physical death seems to be a certainty in the physical realm, you cannot conclusively prove the physical realm even exists. You all could be a figment of my imagination. As silly as that sounds, it’s true. Senses are crude instruments for interpreting reality. [/quote]

Semantics, nothing more.
[/quote]

Semantics? Prove it’s only semantics. Because I can prove that you cannot trust your senses, that what you perceive as physical reality may not be accurate in any way. The claim is yours, hence so is the burden of proof.[/quote]

It’s semantics for one simple reason: you don’t believe it yourself. If you truely believed the above how in earth could you ever entertain religious beliefs at all?

Everything you value in a religious context has come to you through the filter of human existence. As such you must disqualify that context on the grounds that you can’t be certain it’s truthful, if you really believe what you’re saying in this post.

Here’s what I think: I think you’re just saying this without real conviction because it’s a nice stick to hit with.
[/quote]

You have it backwards. The religious are already comfortable with faith’s existence in the human condition. Heck, the problem isn’t even one for all atheists. It’s actually an issue for the new breed of atheists who must strangle any avenue of faith, so as not to give the religious any foothold as rational actors. However, in doing so they invite this line of argument. How does one falsify the reliability of the senses, and their perception of the Universe as we know it? Any and all evidence is processed by the organ in question, after all. There’s a simple answer, as infuriating as it is. It’s a matter of faith. An ‘assumption.’ There’s an assumption that our senses allow us to collect real evidence of a real universe. That we aren’t simply manufacturing our own evidence, to satisfy some…delusion. [/quote]

It’s still bullshit. You deny anything anyone else can say by pointing out that anything revealed through the senses is essentially flawed, yet you yourself are unburdened by that flaw through faith.

Faith is nothing but you sell it as if it’s golden.

1008

[quote]ephrem wrote:

It’s still bullshit.
[/quote]

In what way? Do you have some objective evidence to present yourself, without depending on the organ/senses in question?

1009

[quote]ephrem wrote:
You deny anything anyone else can say by pointing out that anything revealed through the senses is essentially flawed, yet you yourself are unburdened by that flaw through faith.

[/quote]

Of course I take it on faith. You do too. Are you saying you don’t? Because, as bothered as you seem, you don’t actually deny the point.

1010

[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< Probably should move it to the epistemology thread, but I’d like to hear an answer to this. >>>[/quote]As much as it pains me to bump my own thread I was forced to do it.[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< *edited as T-Nation’s encoding does not appear to include characters from Japanese keyboards, severely curtailing my smiley prowess. (;_;)[/quote]An ENTIRELY unacceptable state of affairs. We’ll have to get LowFatMatt to address this inexcusable oversight at once :-bd

1011

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
You deny anything anyone else can say by pointing out that anything revealed through the senses is essentially flawed, yet you yourself are unburdened by that flaw through faith.

[/quote]

Of course I take it on faith. You do too. Are you saying you don’t? Because, as bothered as you seem, you don’t actually deny the point. [/quote]

Do you believe that faith can exist in various degrees? And, if so, do you not think that it takes more faith to believe that thousands of years ago a man died and was then resurrected from the grave than it does to believe that your eyes aren’t mistaken when they inform you that a traffic light has switched from red to green?

Edited a typo

1012

[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< anything revealed through the senses is essentially flawed, yet you yourself are unburdened by that flaw through faith >>>[/quote]ABSOLUTELY NOT Ephrem!!! The senses themselves aren’t flawed. Neither is the data. God designed both. YOU’RE flawed because of sin.(so am I) ALL finite beings are bound by the very state of being finite to take EVERYTHING on faith. It’s just a matter of what in. You have faith in YOU. Just like very sinner. I have faith in Jesus Christ. Just like every Christian. Remember? Two kinds of people and all that? From when we first new each other waaaaay back when? I know ya do.

Truth is you have faith in God too but you suppress that truth in unrighteousness like Romans 1 says for the 500th time. Don’t you be gittin all twitchy on me now buddy. I’m jist a deluded idiot remember? You don’t care what I think so that anger rising up inside of you right now is totally unnecessary.

Ephrem was one of the very first to viciously insult me when we started talkin about all this a few years ago. He’s another one with a special place in my heart. You will ever be in my prayers Eph. I’m not just saying that to aggravate you either. But you know that already.

1013

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

It’s still bullshit.
[/quote]

In what way? Do you have some objective evidence to present yourself, without depending on the organ/senses in question?[/quote]

What I call bullshit is your exception to your rule; faith. It’s convenient, and it’s bullshit.

1014

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
You deny anything anyone else can say by pointing out that anything revealed through the senses is essentially flawed, yet you yourself are unburdened by that flaw through faith.

[/quote]

Of course I take it on faith. You do too. Are you saying you don’t? Because, as bothered as you seem, you don’t actually deny the point. [/quote]

As I said before, I accept reality and existence as self-evident. That means that I don’t doubt my existence and I certainly don’t entertain the childish philosophical idea that we might merely be a dream.

Even if we were, it doesn’t change anything. Reality is still reality.

1015

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< anything revealed through the senses is essentially flawed, yet you yourself are unburdened by that flaw through faith >>>[/quote]ABSOLUTELY NOT Ephrem!!! The senses themselves aren’t flawed. Neither is the data. God designed both. YOU’RE flawed because of sin.(so am I) ALL finite beings are bound by the very state of being finite to take EVERYTHING on faith. It’s just a matter of what in. You have faith in YOU. Just like very sinner. I have faith in Jesus Christ. Just like every Christian. Remember? Two kinds of people and all that? From when we first new each other waaaaay back when? I know ya do.

Truth is you have faith in God too but you suppress that truth in unrighteousness like Romans 1 says for the 500th time. Don’t you be gittin all twitchy on me now buddy. I’m jist a deluded idiot remember? You don’t care what I think so that anger rising up inside of you right now is totally unnecessary.

Ephrem was one of the very first to viciously insult me when we started talkin about all this a few years ago. He’s another one with a special place in my heart. You will ever be in my prayers Eph. I’m not just saying that to aggravate you either. But you know that already.
[/quote]

You should really consider medication, T.

1016

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
You deny anything anyone else can say by pointing out that anything revealed through the senses is essentially flawed, yet you yourself are unburdened by that flaw through faith.

[/quote]

Of course I take it on faith. You do too. Are you saying you don’t? Because, as bothered as you seem, you don’t actually deny the point. [/quote]

Do you believe that faith can exist in various degrees? And, if so, do you not think that it takes more faith to believe that thousands of years ago a man died and was then resurrected from the grave than it does to believe that your eyes aren’t mistaken when they inform you that a traffic light has switched from red to green?

Edited a typo[/quote]

Your question doesn’t seem to capture the enormity of the line of posts. Does the traffic light turn green? Sure. Am I really sitting in a car, on a road, surrounded by real ‘other’ intelligences, on a real physical world, in a real physical universe, all of which are completely independent of me, waiting on a real light to turn green? I can’t possibly provide empirical evidence for that. See, the question is if I sense reality because it exists. Or, if what ‘exists,’ or what I ‘sense,’ is simply constructed by some form of intelligence that is me. I can’t provide evidence to that question, because all evidence is suspect. So we accept it without ANY objective evidence, and simply get on getting on with life. That’s all this line of thought is meant to point out.

1017

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

It’s still bullshit.
[/quote]

In what way? Do you have some objective evidence to present yourself, without depending on the organ/senses in question?[/quote]

What I call bullshit is your exception to your rule; faith. It’s convenient, and it’s bullshit.[/quote]

I don’t even understand what you mean by my exception? Are you ‘agnostic’ to your existence in a real universe?

1018

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
You deny anything anyone else can say by pointing out that anything revealed through the senses is essentially flawed, yet you yourself are unburdened by that flaw through faith.

[/quote]

Of course I take it on faith. You do too. Are you saying you don’t? Because, as bothered as you seem, you don’t actually deny the point. [/quote]

As I said before, I accept reality and existence as self-evident. That means that I don’t doubt my existence and I certainly don’t entertain the childish philosophical idea that we might merely be a dream.

Even if we were, it doesn’t change anything. Reality is still reality.
[/quote]

I haven’t raised doubt about my existence as a thinking intelligence. You’re not following.

1019

[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< You should really consider medication, T. [/quote]Waaaay aheadaya Chief. I am on a mortally dependent life support system of round the clock Holy Ghost. =] Go ahead n talk to Sloth though. I interrupted you two. I’m sorry.

1020

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
You deny anything anyone else can say by pointing out that anything revealed through the senses is essentially flawed, yet you yourself are unburdened by that flaw through faith.

[/quote]

Of course I take it on faith. You do too. Are you saying you don’t? Because, as bothered as you seem, you don’t actually deny the point. [/quote]

As I said before, I accept reality and existence as self-evident. That means that I don’t doubt my existence and I certainly don’t entertain the childish philosophical idea that we might merely be a dream.

Even if we were, it doesn’t change anything. Reality is still reality.
[/quote]

I haven’t raised doubt about my existence as a thinking intelligence. You’re not following. [/quote]

Why haven’t you? The ‘you’ you think you are exists solely due to the senses and brain. Are you taking yourself on faith too?