Skip to comments.
Bill Nye the Science Guy says creationism not good for kids
Reuters ^
| August 28, 2012
| Lily Kuo
Posted on 08/28/2012 3:39:34 AM PDT by rickmichaels
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 321-329 next last
To: Agamemnon
Playing the victim card are we now?Stating a fact. I'd only be a victim if you could actually cause any damage. As it is, you just make yourself look bad.
201
posted on
09/07/2012 3:53:01 PM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic; rickmichaels
"Dont bad theories get replaced with good ones?" Not if their proponents shout, "Deniers!!!" at those who offer alternatives -- instead of considering their data...
Like Nye does...
202
posted on
09/07/2012 4:02:18 PM PDT
by
TXnMA
("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
Hey Bill, ya smarmy pointy headed intellectual...
How do you know that the engineering crew from some Vulcan Starship didn’t come down for a little R and R, and do up a bunch of Neanderthal babes?
203
posted on
09/07/2012 4:05:15 PM PDT
by
ROCKLOBSTER
(Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
To: TXnMA
Not if their proponents shout, "Deniers!!!" at those who offer alternatives -- instead of considering their data... You know the history of science. It's been tried before, and it never works. If you've got better data and a better theory, it will win.
204
posted on
09/07/2012 4:12:05 PM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: Agamemnon
Aww, I missed you too! Glad to see you are still your charming old self.
So glad to see you acknowledge the ignorance of your thought processes right up front and with your first posting to this thread.
Better to see you upholding the creationist time-honored tradition of taking quotes out of context. No point in stopping now.
a "fact," which you simply do not have, and no evolutionist who was ever acquainted even casually with the scientific method would ever claim as fact.
Yes, yes. Except for almost every single biologist in the world. Even Christian ones.
Now is where you respond, if I remember correctly, with your personal accomplishments (multi-degreed scientist, patents, wealth beyond my wildest imagination... For an ignoramus, I remember you well.
Darwin Central retreads such as yourself
And I remember things like you getting suspended here more than once. And I remember how I have never been banned or suspended. Mildly threatened once, maybe 8 years ago. That's right, over 10 years on FR for me. I never went anywhere. I'm still the same quiet guy whom you once accused of making up things like having a job, a wife and a disabled son.
Remembering now? To date, you are the only person in the world to have accused me of such ridiculous things. Congratulations. Now, I'm not sure of your definition of "retread," but I think I'm fairly safe from it.
I've also noticed you haven't yet published your refutation of evolution or given us any reason to think you have evidence to do so.
205
posted on
09/07/2012 4:24:48 PM PDT
by
whattajoke
(Let's keep Conservatism real.)
To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop
No! They are non-physical, immaterial, and moreover universal. You and Betty pique a question. That is, "How does the evolutionist attend, epistemologically, with the order of mind, consciousness, or any other abstract, invarient universal entity. It seems that as one asserts that a biological entity is declared to have any of these abstract entities, especially consciousness, it is declared to have evolved an entity which has no way to explain its origin. If it is said to have developed superveniently upon this universe (something derived from another entity which it does not have) it has abandoned naturalism and have embraced panpsychism. But in embracing panpsychism, it has abandoned physicalism and naturalism and cannot yet account naturalistically for theirphysicalist worldview. No, naturalism is in its death rattle and its devotees must come to grips with these questions or abandon that worldview. It has embraced a metaphysical episteme for what they say is an evolutionary worldview.
To: Texas Songwriter; betty boop; TXnMA
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear Texas Songwriter! Lately, they've been calling the mind, soul or consciousness an "epiphenomenon" of the physical brain. Epiphenomena are secondary phenomena which can cause nothing to happen.
That means a physical brain caused the above post. "You" didn't cause it to happen. "You" are just an epiphenomenon. "You" can't cause anything to happen.
If they really believed this nonsense they would have to say a person couldn't be tried for a crime. He is just an innocent epiphenomenon. He can't cause anything to happen. He didn't do it. He couldn't.
That raises a humorous legal point - if only the physical brain can be guilty for causing a crime, it would be cruel and unusual to punish the innocent epiphenomenon or the rest of the physical body.
To: TXnMA
To: Alamo-Girl
I guess my point is, if they perport that consciousness, or the soul are epiphenomenon which superveins on a biological entity then they have to explain how it originates. Biological entities (purely physical, they say) would have to have this epiphenomenon emerge, even though there is nothing like it in the physicalist worldview. So, there are two choices for the physicalist...(1)abandon physicalism and embrace dualism, or (2)accept the epiphenomenonalism which forces them to espouse panpsychysm and by definition, a metaphysical reality. If they do not accept one of these two worldviews they must deny that consciousness, sentience, numbers, any abstract, invariant, univeral entity even exists....and that is a hard one for them to have a conversation about. I do not believe their argument,otherwise, is sustainable. Metaphysical naturalism is on its way out, it seems to me. It must be defeated whereever we find it.
To: Alamo-Girl
As you know, the underpinning of the Criminal and Civil law is Natural law which presupposes, as our Founders did, the dualistic nature of man. It seems the law deals with reality more forthrightly than those stewards of biology.
To: MamaTexan
Hint: Galileo did not get guff from Rome because he believed in God.
211
posted on
09/07/2012 9:57:16 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(let me ABOs run loose, lew (or is that lou?))
To: Texas Songwriter
Indeed. I suspect they use epiphenomenonalism to treat mind, soul, spirit, consciousness as irrelevant to their "reality."
To: Alamo-Girl
We cannot allow them to get away with that kind of nonsense.
To: Alamo-Girl
Who knows what epiphenomenalism even means. Is it itself an epiphenomenon?
214
posted on
09/07/2012 10:01:03 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(let me ABOs run loose, lew (or is that lou?))
To: HiTech RedNeck
Epiphenomenalism is the concept which describes the sudden appearance of an emergent property (a new kind of property) which is unique in its property and character which appears
sui generis. If we assume that mental properties are genuinly emergent
sui generis properties, then given the mereological hierarchy and its top/down causation, the emergent mental properties presents at least two problems for naturalism. First, for those naturalists who accept a causal criterion of existence, emergent mental properties are epiphenomenal and thus do not esist in their mind. One must either accept phenomenal consciousness, which construes emergent mental properties along familiar lines as what-it-is-like to be such and such and rejects causal closure
or one retains causal closure and rejects phenomenal consciousness exactly because it is epiphenomal. That is to say with a metaphysical naturalist or physicalist that quality which is epiphenomenal cannot be reduced to a basal causation in the merelogical hierarchy. It cannot be reduced to any other that itself. It is not the stuff of this universe and is not compelled by the physical laws of the universe. Mental properties are emergent in the sense that they are genuinely new
kinds of properties.
I hope that helps.
To: Alamo-Girl
Indeed. I suspect they use epiphenomenonalism to treat mind, soul, spirit, consciousness as irrelevant to their "reality." That's going to be hard to do, given that they've already recognized and considered it significant enough to give it a name. The concept is already integrated into their "reality".
216
posted on
09/08/2012 5:51:21 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: Texas Songwriter
i just must dig out that philosophy 101 text
217
posted on
09/08/2012 8:17:15 AM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(let me ABOs run loose, lew (or is that lou?))
To: Texas Songwriter
Like a secular counterpart to the extreme forms of Christian Calvinism, it’s a cop out.
218
posted on
09/08/2012 8:27:55 AM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(let me ABOs run loose, lew (or is that lou?))
To: HiTech RedNeck
Yes. Science is a slave to philosophy and cannot exist apart from it.
To: HiTech RedNeck
Like a secular counterpart to the extreme forms of Christian Calvinism, its a cop out.If by your analogy you mean those who proclaim epiphenomenalism accounts for the emergence of consciousness and fail to explain it ontology, then I suppose you could go there. They want a word (epiphenomenalism) to be accepted as an explaination of causation. It is just a word. Now that we understand the word (which explains an alledged phenomenon) now we need them to explain HOW it occurred. They cannot. They cannot explain how a completely new kind of property can supervene in a brute universe and suddenly produce consciousness...that is, produce what it does not have to give. They do not get something for nothing. They do not get a pass. Nowadays we are demanding the HOW it worked. Explain for us HOW and show us the evidence, not just how one wants it to be.
Calvinism is whole 'nuther' thread. Please don't get me started on another subject.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 321-329 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson