Kirk Cameron, YOU FAIL

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Amiright wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Actually all of you people are scientifically wrong. Movement, especially in the context of space, is entirely relative.

The only thing you can scientifically do is to record speeds and movements from a specified moment frame.

Point being there is really no absolute perspective on movement. From the moment from of the earth (something I would assume of the writers of the bible) the sun very much goes around the earth.

And even more technically an orbit is actually a straight path in space time making the idea of the earth going �??�?�¢??around�??�?�¢?? the sun technically incorrect. The earth is moving in a straight line, space-time is curved by the suns gravity. For all you idiots that said the earth goes around the sun, go read up on general relativity (the current model for planetary motion) and then open your mouth.

See I can use the technicalities of science to mock your writing too and this science has been available for decades.

Bam.

Plus, anything quoted from an English language bible can’t be taken at face value anyway, translators often take liberties with the original text, particularly when dealing with figures of speech.

But… it doesn’t really matter. Evolution is the best answer science has at the moment. That doesn’t mean its right, or infallible, just that it makes sense in light of the evidence.

Science is based on the premise that what exists, exists. Since the existence of God must be taken on faith, God has no place in science. This is not an indictment of God, rather, it is fundamental to the scientific method.

I don’t have a problem with anyone’s faith. I do have a problem with faith being taught as science. If you’re going to insist that the Christian creation story be taught as an alternative to evolution, then other creation stories ought to be taught as well, since they are equally valid from a faith-as-science perspective.

Faith and religion has no place in the class room. How do you not have a problem with FAITH being taught as SCIENCE? There are thousands upon thousands of creation stories… faith just has no place in public schools… keep it in the private institutions.

All science REQUIRES a measure of faith. So to say there should be no faith involved is a little too far. [/quote]

You got me there, not even going to fight it… I should know better

My bad, I had to read through that about five times before I noticed. I’m dyslexic upon other things.

83

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

All science REQUIRES a measure of faith. So to say there should be no faith involved is a little too far. [/quote]

I’m not sure I understand what you mean.

The basis for all science is that the world, as we perceive it, behaves in certain reproducible ways, and we can, by observing the world, make predictions.

This requires that:

  1. What exists, exists (we are not hallucinating or dreaming)
  2. A is A (each thing we observe is itself, nothing more or less)

Is that what you meant?

84

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

All science REQUIRES a measure of faith. So to say there should be no faith involved is a little too far.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean.

The basis for all science is that the world, as we perceive it, behaves in certain reproducible ways, and we can, by observing the world, make predictions.

This requires that:

  1. What exists, exists (we are not hallucinating or dreaming)
  2. A is A (each thing we observe is itself, nothing more or less)

Is that what you meant?
[/quote]

Probably the biggest thing Iâ??m referring to (that I find suspect in science) is the fundamental assumption that physical laws of the universe are eternal and unchanging.

All of science is based on this, and it isnâ??t really that logical of an assumption given the tremendous difference between the actual time scale and our sample size. Even if we truncate existence to starting at the big bang, our sample size is much to small to logically draw this conclusion.

For me, thatâ??s a big leap of faith which I agree to take only because itâ??s practical.

But also yes, as push pointed out, more complex theories require even larger measures of faith. Faith in instruments (things like carbon dating for example), faith in the integrity of scientists, faith in more basic physical axioms. Compounded together, itâ??s a lot of faith.

85

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

All science REQUIRES a measure of faith. So to say there should be no faith involved is a little too far.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean.

The basis for all science is that the world, as we perceive it, behaves in certain reproducible ways, and we can, by observing the world, make predictions.

This requires that:

  1. What exists, exists (we are not hallucinating or dreaming)
  2. A is A (each thing we observe is itself, nothing more or less)

Is that what you meant?

Probably the biggest thing Iâ??m referring to (that I find suspect in science) is the fundamental assumption that physical laws of the universe are eternal and unchanging.

All of science is based on this, and it isnâ??t really that logical of an assumption given the tremendous difference between the actual time scale and our sample size. Even if we truncate existence to starting at the big bang, our sample size is much to small to logically draw this conclusion.

For me, thatâ??s a big leap of faith which I agree to take only because itâ??s practical.

But also yes, as push pointed out, more complex theories require even larger measures of faith. Faith in instruments (things like carbon dating for example), faith in the integrity of scientists, faith in more basic physical axioms. Compounded together, itâ??s a lot of faith.
[/quote]

There is no such assumption.

Some scientists may talk about science as if it is universal, but physicists, at least, know full well that the laws of nature may depend on the location (in spacetime) in the Universe at which the observations are made**.

It’s not faith, it’s pragmatism. If we say, “well, we can’t know anything, let’s just give up and say God did it,” we wouldn’t have airplanes or modern medicine. Good scientists know that they are not perfect observers, and that their instruments are not perfect. Experiments are repeated many times, and many different experiments are conducted in order to gather evidence for a theory. A good scientist knows that theory is not perfect, but it is the best that we can do with the available observations. This is Scientific Method 101, and if it’s not being taught (or understood) in the science classroom, then we have a problem.

That said,

  1. Presenting a supernatural creation story as science is not the same as acknowledging that science is not always right
  2. If we are going to present the Christian creation story as science, we must present the Egyptian, Hindu, Australian Aboriginal, and Native American creation stories as science as well, because they have exactly the same amount of scientific evidence.

**For example, if the Universe is indeed expanding, in 10 billion years, the inhabitants of this region of the Universe will be completely unable to observe any astronomical objects, so future physicists may well believe that the Universe is not only empty, but static. Indeed, in the far future, gravity may well “condense” into two or more distinct forces, much like the electroweak force condensed from the strong force at the theoretical beginning of the Universe.

86

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Amiright wrote:

Faith and religion has no place in the class room. How do you not have a problem with FAITH being taught as SCIENCE? There are thousands upon thousands of evolution stories… faith just has no place in public schools… keep it in the private institutions.

Fixed that post for you in the spirit of complete disclosure.

As DD alluded above, evolutionary theory is loaded with requirements of faith. I mean the saddlebags have hundreds of pounds of lead ingots in them and the poor burro can barely stand up. Yet the faithful masses of sheeple don’t see that; someone told them that burro is a Thoroughbred racehorse that just took the Triple Crown…and they believe it.

[/quote]

Actually, evolution is based on one theory:
Genetic changes in the germline of an organism lead to genetic changes in their offspring. Should these changes express themselves as a phenotype, the phenotype (and thus genotype) may be selected for or against by increased or decreased breeding potential respectively. Over time, this selection mechanism produces individuals and species with increased breeding potential.
We have evidence for the somantic mutations (cancer, Down’s syndrome, meiosis), we have evidence of gradual changes in species. We even have quickly reproducing organisms that adapt to their environment (HIV).
Come on, let’s here these problems with evolution.

87

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

All science REQUIRES a measure of faith. So to say there should be no faith involved is a little too far.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean.

The basis for all science is that the world, as we perceive it, behaves in certain reproducible ways, and we can, by observing the world, make predictions.

This requires that:

  1. What exists, exists (we are not hallucinating or dreaming)
  2. A is A (each thing we observe is itself, nothing more or less)

Is that what you meant?

Probably the biggest thing I�¢??m referring to (that I find suspect in science) is the fundamental assumption that physical laws of the universe are eternal and unchanging.

All of science is based on this, and it isn�¢??t really that logical of an assumption given the tremendous difference between the actual time scale and our sample size. Even if we truncate existence to starting at the big bang, our sample size is much to small to logically draw this conclusion.

For me, that�¢??s a big leap of faith which I agree to take only because it�¢??s practical.

But also yes, as push pointed out, more complex theories require even larger measures of faith. Faith in instruments (things like carbon dating for example), faith in the integrity of scientists, faith in more basic physical axioms. Compounded together, it�¢??s a lot of faith.

There is no such assumption.

Some scientists may talk about science as if it is universal, but physicists, at least, know full well that the laws of nature may depend on the location (in spacetime) in the Universe at which the observations are made**.

It’s not faith, it’s pragmatism. If we say, “well, we can’t know anything, let’s just give up and say God did it,” we wouldn’t have airplanes or modern medicine. Good scientists know that they are not perfect observers, and that their instruments are not perfect. Experiments are repeated many times, and many different experiments are conducted in order to gather evidence for a theory. A good scientist knows that theory is not perfect, but it is the best that we can do with the available observations. This is Scientific Method 101, and if it’s not being taught (or understood) in the science classroom, then we have a problem.

That said,

  1. Presenting a supernatural creation story as science is not the same as acknowledging that science is not always right
  2. If we are going to present the Christian creation story as science, we must present the Egyptian, Hindu, Australian Aboriginal, and Native American creation stories as science as well, because they have exactly the same amount of scientific evidence.

**For example, if the Universe is indeed expanding, in 10 billion years, the inhabitants of this region of the Universe will be completely unable to observe any astronomical objects, so future physicists may well believe that the Universe is not only empty, but static. Indeed, in the far future, gravity may well “condense” into two or more distinct forces, much like the electroweak force condensed from the strong force at the theoretical beginning of the Universe.[/quote]

Ah! But now all of science is entirely relative and can only include interpolation (even though interpolation still requires the assumption to a lesser extent). Theories including extrapolation (like universe origins ei the big bang) require large faith in this assumption. Like you point out, who the hell knows that â??big Gâ?? was big G at the beginning of the universe? Thatâ??s a HUGE leap of faith.

However all science makes this assumption, though generally on a smaller scale. You perfectly illustrate my point when talking about experiment repetition. The repetition of experiments is only productive when this assumption is made. If you include the factor that governing laws may not be consistent or static experiment repetition is pointless because of the added variable (not constant) of the governing laws. From one experiment to the next you must make this assumption. You assume it even further when you apply lessons learned outside of the initial experimentation.

The rest of it Iâ??m going to assume was directed at others in this thread. Iâ??ve never wanted religion in a science classroom.

I have already said I pragmatically accept the assumptions of science I have a problem with people that deny they exist.

According to science a perfect instrument still has error. Perfect measure isnâ??t even an analytical physics possibility.

People that use god as an excuse to not think, would find another reason without religion.

It is possible the universe becomes semi static in the future, where rate of expansion is constant. (Einstein went to his grave believing the universe was static)

Philosophically, science is no more valid than religion on matters of things like creation or existence. Iâ??ve never understood how people can believe that either the material of the big bang poofed into existence, or that matter has existed for infinity (and intellectually lazy way of avoiding the actual question by introducing a term no body can ever actually understand) and then talk down to people that think existence started closer to the present state. My personal belief is that matter had to have a cause and I donâ??t really see the philosophical difference if that was 14 billion years ago or yesterday.

However once again, thatâ??s philosophy, not science and it shouldnâ??t go in a science classroom.

88

[quote]OrcusDM wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Amiright wrote:

Faith and religion has no place in the class room. How do you not have a problem with FAITH being taught as SCIENCE? There are thousands upon thousands of evolution stories… faith just has no place in public schools… keep it in the private institutions.

Fixed that post for you in the spirit of complete disclosure.

As DD alluded above, evolutionary theory is loaded with requirements of faith. I mean the saddlebags have hundreds of pounds of lead ingots in them and the poor burro can barely stand up. Yet the faithful masses of sheeple don’t see that; someone told them that burro is a Thoroughbred racehorse that just took the Triple Crown…and they believe it.

Actually, evolution is based on one theory:
Genetic changes in the germline of an organism lead to genetic changes in their offspring. Should these changes express themselves as a phenotype, the phenotype (and thus genotype) may be selected for or against by increased or decreased breeding potential respectively. Over time, this selection mechanism produces individuals and species with increased breeding potential.
We have evidence for the somantic mutations (cancer, Down’s syndrome, meiosis), we have evidence of gradual changes in species. We even have quickly reproducing organisms that adapt to their environment (HIV).
Come on, let’s here these problems with evolution.[/quote]

And there are about a million little axioms required for the theory.

And HIV is not living and does not reproduce as a living organism does.

89

[quote]conorh wrote:
OrcusDM wrote:
“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

I couldn’t find the earth is flat, but something on it being stuck in one place and unmoving, so the sun must revolve around it. What it does do is provide a handy price list for a virgin. I think the point was that the bible makes many indefensible statements, do bible literalists believe in these statements too?

1 Samuel 2:8 (King James Version)

8He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and he hath set the world upon them.[/quote]

He’s got the whole world in his hands

90

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Ah! But now all of science is entirely relative and can only include interpolation (even though interpolation still requires the assumption to a lesser extent). Theories including extrapolation (like universe origins ei the big bang) require large faith in this assumption. Like you point out, who the hell knows that â??big Gâ?? was big G at the beginning of the universe? Thatâ??s a HUGE leap of faith.
[/quote]

That is science, though, not an indictment of science. We think that G has been constant since it condensed out of the unified force because the physical evidence indicates such (i.e, Earth is still here instead of constituent molecules floating in space). The best that we can ever do is essentially interpolation of a finite number of observations.

But scientific theories do not require faith in the conventional sense. You don’t need to believe that there was, in fact, a “Big Bang” in order to use the mathematical model to make predictions about the current state of the Universe - predictions which, more often than not, are correct, which is why the “Big Bang” is the current model for the beginning of the Universe.)

(As an aside, we have no physical evidence of anything prior to the Big Bang, so any theory as to where the energy came from is just guesswork.)

(Of course, it all goes to hell if we’re sitting in a “privileged” region of space-time, but we still have evidence that local laws, at least, have remained constant.)

That’s true. Science is based on the principle of reproducibility. Again, we don’t have to take this on faith; people really do verify experiments, and if the results don’t match, it’s a big deal. If gravity suddenly began behaving erratically, you can bet that physicists would start trying to revise the current model without the assumption of universally constant gravitation.

I guess my point is that science doesn’t require faith in the sense of belief. Science merely requires that we make assumptions in order to solve practical problems. We fully accept the possibility that those assumptions are incorrect, but we take them to be correct until we have evidence to the contrary, or until a more robust model can be tested, for pragmatic reasons.

Of course, in the real world, ego comes into play, but that’s another topic entirely.

Yes. Push, primarily. I am still extremely curious why the Christian creation story has such a privileged position, while the others are “obviously” bunk.

I doubt I’ll get an answer.

Yes yes yes

Which just goes to show that even brilliant scientists still get things wrong, especially when they think with their hearts and not their heads. Einstein also said, “God does not play dice.”

Unfortunately, the evidence indicates that God does play dice, (so to speak) and what’s worse, the dice are loaded.

In summary, science is just a tool, and so is organized religion. Their purposes are completely different, and attempts to reconcile science and religion make about as much sense as reconciling a hammer and a screwdriver; it just doesn’t need to be done. This is why, if Richard Dawkins showed up at my door, I would hit him in the mouth.

91

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
OrcusDM wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Amiright wrote:

Faith and religion has no place in the class room. How do you not have a problem with FAITH being taught as SCIENCE? There are thousands upon thousands of evolution stories… faith just has no place in public schools… keep it in the private institutions.

Fixed that post for you in the spirit of complete disclosure.

As DD alluded above, evolutionary theory is loaded with requirements of faith. I mean the saddlebags have hundreds of pounds of lead ingots in them and the poor burro can barely stand up. Yet the faithful masses of sheeple don’t see that; someone told them that burro is a Thoroughbred racehorse that just took the Triple Crown…and they believe it.

Actually, evolution is based on one theory:
Genetic changes in the germline of an organism lead to genetic changes in their offspring. Should these changes express themselves as a phenotype, the phenotype (and thus genotype) may be selected for or against by increased or decreased breeding potential respectively. Over time, this selection mechanism produces individuals and species with increased breeding potential.
We have evidence for the somantic mutations (cancer, Down’s syndrome, meiosis), we have evidence of gradual changes in species. We even have quickly reproducing organisms that adapt to their environment (HIV).
Come on, let’s here these problems with evolution.

And there are about a million little axioms required for the theory.

And HIV is not living and does not reproduce as a living organism does.[/quote]

Yes, so we have to assume that the laws of physics have not drastically changed at any time, which we have no evidence for. So assuming that reproducibility in any experiment is possible, what are the problems with evolution theory?

Actually, that would depend on how you classify living. I (along with most of my university) include viruses. There are bacterial systems that adapt to their environment, just not as quickly as HIV does, see antibiotic resistance.

92

[quote]denv23 wrote:
Boner Stabone reference wins every time.

[/quote]

Hahaha!

93

i never denounced my faith asshat. i said that you can’t build an argument around faith. I also am DEFINITELY not completely convinced in science’s idea of how life began. i just can’t see a bunch of molecules chilling in a primordial soup and just combining together, forming amino acids, and over billions of years gradually evolving into life.

Why would amino acids just start to expand and multiply into modern day plants and animals? Science isn’t able to explain this gap in evolution yet, which basically means that neither argument has any validity. Evolution is a gradual process. when a BIG gap of that gradual process is missing, its not exactly as overwhelmingly valid as scientists make it seem.

94

[quote]MangoFighter wrote:
I also am DEFINITELY not completely convinced in science’s idea of how life began. i just can’t see a bunch of molecules chilling in a primordial soup and just combining together, forming amino acids, and over billions of years gradually evolving into life. Why would amino acids just start to expand and multiply into modern day plants and animals? Science isn’t able to explain this gap in evolution yet, which basically means that neither argument has any validity. [/quote]

Ugh. You seem to have absolutely no idea what evolutionary theory explains.

95

[quote]MangoFighter wrote:
as a Christian i have to admit that creationists CAN’T win this argument. I am taking a class on logic right now and have learned of the fallacy of the Appeal to Ignorance. Basically, creationists are putting the burden of proof on evolutionists, mainly because almost the entire creationists argument is based on faith. faith is obviously not an acceptable form of argument and therefore must be tossed aside. like i said, as a Christian it is hard to be caught in the middle of all this.[/quote]

I think the problem here is circular logic. Your teacher doesn’t want a creationist to win the argument and thus, structures the argument and the rebuttal to suit that belief. The creationist argument is based on much more than faith. There are a ton of things the Bible says that have later been confirmed by “modern science.” Some examples can be found in Job, when God is asking Job questions meant to put Job back in his place, as it were. Those questions reference the sun dictating wind patterns (it does) and springs on the ocean floor (which scientists “discovered” in 1976). Take those two things and think about how an ancient man could possibly have that knowledge. Observe the wind and sun patterns perhaps, and that’s a stretch at best. As for the ocean floor, I’ve yet to hear a good explanation from the opposing side. And in case you’re wondering, Job is included in the Dead Sea Scrolls, verified by “modern science” as being over 5,000 yrs. old at the time of discovery almost 40 yrs. ago.

96

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Actually all of you people are scientifically wrong. Movement, especially in the context of space, is entirely relative.

The only thing you can scientifically do is to record speeds and movements from a specified moment frame.

Point being there is really no absolute perspective on movement. From the moment from of the earth (something I would assume of the writers of the bible) the sun very much goes around the earth.

And even more technically an orbit is actually a straight path in space time making the idea of the earth going �¢??around�¢?? the sun technically incorrect. The earth is moving in a straight line, space-time is curved by the suns gravity. For all you idiots that said the earth goes around the sun, go read up on general relativity (the current model for planetary motion) and then open your mouth.

See I can use the technicalities of science to mock your writing too and this science has been available for decades.

Bam.

Plus, anything quoted from an English language bible can’t be taken at face value anyway, translators often take liberties with the original text, particularly when dealing with figures of speech.

But… it doesn’t really matter. Evolution is the best answer science has at the moment. That doesn’t mean its right, or infallible, just that it makes sense in light of the evidence.

Science is based on the premise that what exists, exists. Since the existence of God must be taken on faith, God has no place in science. This is not an indictment of God, rather, it is fundamental to the scientific method.

I don’t have a problem with anyone’s faith. I do have a problem with faith being taught as science. If you’re going to insist that the Christian creation story be taught as an alternative to evolution, then other creation stories ought to be taught as well, since they are equally valid from a faith-as-science perspective.[/quote]

If evolution is the best thing going and stands the test of science, then why is so much of the science community moving away from it? Because it’s not as great as once believed. Where’s the next step? The better human? The more efficent shark? The predator to supplant the lion? They’re not there and never will be. Evolution was a theory(and still is because it cannot be proven) developed by studying populations in a closed environment- an island. I would not dispute that within small populations, there is adaptation to the locality. However, as a general idea for the entire world, it’s never been documented because it doesn’t happen.

97

[quote]SRT08 wrote:
If evolution is the best thing going and stands the test of science, then why is so much of the science community moving away from it? Because it’s not as great as once believed. Where’s the next step? The better human? The more efficent shark? The predator to supplant the lion? They’re not there and never will be. Evolution was a theory(and still is because it cannot be proven) developed by studying populations in a closed environment- an island. I would not dispute that within small populations, there is adaptation to the locality. However, as a general idea for the entire world, it’s never been documented because it doesn’t happen. [/quote]

Who are all these people “moving away” from evolution?

98

[quote]SRT08 wrote:
If evolution is the best thing going and stands the test of science, then why is so much of the science community moving away from it? Because it’s not as great as once believed. Where’s the next step? The better human? The more efficent shark? The predator to supplant the lion? They’re not there and never will be. Evolution was a theory(and still is because it cannot be proven) developed by studying populations in a closed environment- an island. I would not dispute that within small populations, there is adaptation to the locality. However, as a general idea for the entire world, it’s never been documented because it doesn’t happen. [/quote]

wow. just wow.

99

So in other news, I got “The Greatest Show on Earth”. Good book, would definitely recommend.

I would just stop talking if I were you.

100

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

If evolution is the best thing going and stands the test of science, then why is so much of the science community moving away from it? Because it’s not as great as once believed. Where’s the next step? The better human? The more efficent shark? The predator to supplant the lion? They’re not there and never will be. Evolution was a theory(and still is because it cannot be proven) developed by studying populations in a closed environment- an island. I would not dispute that within small populations, there is adaptation to the locality. However, as a general idea for the entire world, it’s never been documented because it doesn’t happen. [/quote]