Bill Nye debates Ken Ham

[Gemini]

Read Rene Descartes.

"cogito ergo sum"

Like some religions, the current liberal green movement if very cultish. In religions, you can't be too holy. In the lib green movement, you can't be too green.

"go 100% green, kill yourself." (I made that up)

Haven't we de-railed the thread enough already? Do we have to make it a 'right wing vs liberal' trainwreck as well? ;/

[morfiend]

  It's obvious to me that no one here watches the history channel,if you did you would clearly know that it was the aliens that started all this!


  Politics and religion are verboten here but all I have to say is Man made God in his own image and found it was good,religion is the opiate of the masses.....

  Sry Roy but I couldnt help myself!




    

[Arbiter]

Ummm....he believes in things that are demonstrably not true. That's delusional.

So you insulting him and calling him delusional is any better than the behaviors you assign to him? But I guess that is just your highly "rational" mind at work I guess.  

[Arbiter]

 It's obvious to me that no one here watches the history channel,if you did you would clearly know that it was the aliens that started all this!


  Politics and religion are verboten here but all I have to say is Man made God in his own image and found it was good,religion is the opiate of the masses.....

  Sry Roy but I couldnt help myself!




    

[Gemini]

So you insulting him and calling him delusional is any better than the behaviors you assign to him?

If you call someone with no hair 'bald', is that insulting them, or stating a fact?

If you call someone who is morbidly obese 'fat', is that insulting them, or stating a fact?

If you call someone who writes the following 'a delusional lunatic', is that insulting them, or stating a fact?

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,358885.msg4759952.html#msg4759952
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,358885.msg4759860.html#msg4759860
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,358885.msg4759984.html#msg4759984

"666=WWW

that is FACT I am not making that up.....

666=WWW"

 

[gyrene81]

Psychology and paleontology are scientific disciplines (I worked in the field of psychology for several years). They use the scientific method to produce results. The work they produce is observable, testable, repeatable and fasifiable, otherwise its not considered accurate.
Archeology has a foot in the camps of science and humanities. It uses scientific methods for much of its work, but also relies on histories and human cultural studies and interactions, so cannot be considered as a 'science' alone.

Science is not a matter of which sources you chose to believe, that's just bias. Science is a method of determining the explanation that best fits the evidence. Its the best and most reliable method of doing this that humankind has developed.

Does it get everything right? No. All answers in science are tentative and subject to be overturned, even the 'laws' (as they are descriptive, not proscriptive). Thus, Copernicus overturned Ptolmey, Einstein overturned Newton, uniformism overturned catastrophism and Darwin disproved Lamarck. Science often works by people trying to break the work of others (often kindly known as peer review  )

so science can be wrong regardless of how many people believe whatever theory is being postulated at the time. and it can boil down to being a matter of which sources you choose to believe, especially in the fields of physics, archeology and astronomy to name a few. take the field of physics for example, string theory vs loop quantum gravity.

psychology is the one field i find to be the most subjective of all fields. yet, people readily jump on one bandwagon theory flavor of the month after another. it's no wonder people are messed up in the skull.

[BuckShot]

"You're delusional."

"No, you're delusional."

"no, you are."

"uh uh, you are."

[Gemini]

[Jabberwock]

The concept of a soul is found in nearly all cultures and religions, though the interpretations of its nature vary considerably.

Argument from popularity.

The concept of dragons is found in nearly all cultures and mythologies, though the interpretations of their nature vary considerably.

Which is more real then, a dragon or a soul?

[Changeup]

It's funny the "scientists" in here leave no room for possibilities.  Science is all about possibilities...

[Gemini]

Science is all about possibilities...

Spot on That's why professional fence sitters (also known as agnostics) like myself keep an open mind about the existence of some kind of omnipotent being, or an afterlife. As soon as there is some kind of evidence to support it, we'll quite happily change our minds.

On the other hand, believing in something despite piles of evidence to the contrary (Earth is 6000 years old, intelligent design, etc) is just idiotic. Or, 'faith', if you prefer that term.

[Changeup]

Spot on That's why professional fence sitters (also known as agnostics) like myself keep an open mind about the existence of some kind of omnipotent being, or an afterlife. As soon as there is some kind of evidence to support it, we'll quite happily change our minds.

On the other hand, believing in something despite piles of evidence to the contrary (Earth is 6000 years old, intelligent design, etc) is just idiotic. Or, 'faith', if you prefer that term.

Thank you.  My expectations of a response without sarcasm and an air of superiority were low.  Well done.

[Jabberwock]

so science can be wrong regardless of how many people believe whatever theory is being postulated at the time.

Yes. Science is always tentative.

and it can boil down to being a matter of which sources you choose to believe, especially in the fields of physics, archeology and astronomy to name a few. take the field of physics for example, string theory vs loop quantum gravity.

No. That's false. You don't get to pick and chose your facts in science and you don't get to chose some sources and ignore others (otherwise, you end up looking like Deepak Choopra, or Michael Behe in Kitzmiller v. Dover). String theory and loop gravity are theoretical frameworks, not properly graduated theories.

You do know there is a difference between the popular usage of the word 'theory' and the scientific definition 'theory', don't you?

psychology is the one field i find to be the most subjective of all fields. yet, people readily jump on one bandwagon theory flavor of the month after another. it's no wonder people are messed up in the skull.

"People" =/= science. Just because popular opinion about particular psychological theories oscilates and people have subjective interpretations of those theories, doesn't mean that the science is incorrect.

[GScholz]

even if there is tangible evidence that it exists? just like anything else in science, it just depends on whether or not you believe the source...

No tangible evidence exists, thus I have no confidence in anyone claiming there is such a thing.

[Jabberwock]

It's funny the "scientists" in here leave no room for possibilities.  Science is all about possibilities...

Sure, but all we need is evidence.

Its possible that there's a teapot orbiting the sun in between Earth and Mars, but the time to believe that is when I'm presented with evidence, not with assertion.