Posted on 02/06/2014 1:58:22 PM PST by celmak
On many mornings, I wake up and think, “You know what this country needs? More culture war.” As I scramble up a couple eggs, I find myself wishing—fervently wishing—that we could spend more time reducing substantive issues to mere spectacle. Later, as I scrub the pan, I’ll fantasize about how those very spectacles might even funnel money toward some of the country’s most politicized religious groups.
Fortunately, Bill “the Science Guy” Nye has heard my wish—which, really, is the wish of a nation. Why else would he have traveled to Kentucky this week in order to debate Ken Ham, the young-earth creationist founder of Answers in Genesis, about the origins of the world?
Actually, there are two other reasons that Nye might have done so, and I’ve given both possibilities a great deal of thought in the past few days. The first is that Nye, for all his bow-tied charm, is at heart a publicity-hungry cynic, eager to reestablish the national reputation he once had as the host of a PBS show. When his stint on Dancing With the Stars ended quickly, Nye turned to the only other channel that could launch him back to national attention: a sensationalized debate, replete with the media buzz that he craves.
Possibility number two is that Nye is clueless—that, for all his skill as a science communicator, Nye has less political acumen than your average wombat.
After watching the debate, I’m leaning toward that second possibility. Last night, it was easy to pick out the smarter man on the stage. Oddly, it was the same man who was arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
That's not entirely accurate. It's the teaching of the atheists secular humanist creation account.
Evolution is the creation account of the atheist and secular humanist. It's the only option available to those who reject God because God is not needed in it. It's the God-free creation account.
Even ID doesn't fly with them because it too easily leads to God.
When you use an appeal to authority, you are trying to prove a specific point simply based on the fact that an authority said it, as she was going to do with her scientific family ties. I was making the observation that it was likely that God wouldn't approve of her lying.
So none of your points stand because of the simple fact that I was making an observation, not proving a point.
In other words, if I tell you that, "Your boss is likely to fire you if you skip work, maybe you should consider repercussions."
An appeal to authority is completely different. It's not a logical fallacy to think that an employer will fire you for not fulfilling the responsibilities of your job.
An appeal to authority is quite different.
I can't believe you'll type thousands of words about a silly samantic point that has no bearing on the discussion, but you haven't once in your life picked up a geology book to find out how scientists determine the age of the Earth.
Time is is an equally finite resource for everyone, and it's quite clear that learning science has never been a priority for you.
No, it is NOT. You continue to lie, and have NO EVIDENCE to back up this claim.
If you and celmak had spend FIVE MINUTES reading a short description of evolution, you would know that it makes no determination about the creation of life.
Factually inaccurate, wrong, dishonest, and a lie.
Appeal to authority, eh?
And just what is your belief in evolution based on?
Certainly not your own research work in the field.
No matter how you cut it, you are appealing to authority yourself.
Since you don’t have a science degree, you must appeal to the authority of those who do.
If you did have your own degree, you’d be appealing to the authority of yourself.
I'll give you a chance to get out of this.
Do some quick five minute reading on what the "creation account" is for the theory of evolution, and then share it with us.
Either produce evidence, or admit you were wrong.
I'm not ceding this point, but let's play with it.
What is the word that describes non-belief in Odin, and what is the word hat describes non-belief in the Tooth Fairy?
After you find those, what is the word that describes non-belief in the supernatural?
It's not distortion, it's calling a spade a spade.
Man is punished for the thoughts he/she has, independent of action. That is thought crime.
Unless you’re going to try to convince anyone that life just popped into existence at some point in time, abiogenesis HAS to be part of evolution.
If the scientific account of the evolution of life is correct, it would have developed along a continuum which went from non-life to life.
So, tell me, at what point did the non-living matter become living organisms? What about prions? Viruses? Are they alive?
What is life? What is the life force, as it were?
What makes it intrinsically different from non-living matter?
When a human being dies, what is different in that body before the decay sets in? What is it that is keeping that body alive that is now missing that makes it non-living matter?
You are misrepresenting what I said again.
The ToE is the creation account of the atheist and secular humanist because it is the god-free one.
God free is not a neutral position. there is either God or not God. There is no neutral stand when there are only two options.
By teaching the God free creation account, the schools are endorsing the creation account of the atheist and secular humanist, and since atheism is officially recognized as a religion, it is endorsing a religious belief.
If we could send a video camera back in time, and it showed a white haired figure wearing a robe, standing over a pool of water and snapping his fingers while winking over the camera and "creating" life, the mechanics of evolution would still apply fully.
It is not a theory of creation. Abiogenesis is a theory of creation.
Why do you insist on repeating this falsehood?
My supposition is the God of the Bible has not lied to us with His inspired Holy Words but your mileage seems to vary ~ quite a lot. :’)
I tend to wonder if those who try to follow the higher moral laws are the one’s the Devil targets with temptations far beyond what the atheist or agnostic experiences. Again your mileage probably varies from mine.
Right, evolution had to kick the abiogenesis foundation out from their err theory, no, religion, no no faith?, hmm what a quandry what do we call either one now?
To compare the two terms, abiogenesis & biogenesis: think abiotic vs biotic sources of fuel/energy for our modern transports. Does the oil just bubble up all the time from any source or do geologists know to look for ancient forests and swamps buried miles and miles deep.
And now this you state abiogenesis is only a theory too GR? Your burning your own bridge now.
And now a direct quote from Walt’s book followed by a geologist point of view regarding same.
“The Law of Biogenesis
Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.
Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis. However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.”
Did you get that?! It’s a law, man. Don’t break the law!
“Classic uniformitarian geology has failed to solve a number of problems in geology. By contrast, using catastrophic basic assumptions, Dr. Brown has given scientists a way of addressing many problems that is philosophically sound and scientifically acceptable to objective thinkers. Never before have I encountered a more intellectually satisfying and respectable attack on a broad spectrum of geologic and biologic problems that are laid bare in this work.”
Dr. Douglas A. Block, Geology Professor, Emeritus, Rock Valley College
Time is is an equally finite resource for everyone, and it's quite clear that learning science has never been a priority for you."
I have to hand it to you, I have not seen so many consistent and continuous hypocrisies, fallacies, loaded questions/comments and flat out lies from one person in a thread. All one has to do is read through the responses I and others gave to you to see the same points of refutation, I will not keep on repeating myself. Good luck!
You could to any department at any University or lab on the planet that studies paleontology and biology and simply ask them. The creationist cargo cults tends to (always) lie about these things since it interferes with their marketing strategy.
Abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary theory, and you could easily falsify this if you could simply post the abiogenesis mechanics that are supposedly taught by evolutionary theory.
So have at it.
So you're a know nothing that has proved nothing and contributed nothing, yet you're good at patting yourself on the back. You're like the Obama of this thread.
But please, keep going. I'm happy to keep pointing out the obvious for you, and if the end result is that you pick up an elementary school science book to learn the basics that have avoided you your whole life, when then it's all worth it.
“Non belief in Odin” involves two things. The meaning itself and the associated symbol or word which may or may not have been assigned to it.
Meaning exists independently of arbitrarily assigned sound-symbols (words).
That is so spot on, metmom. Atheist thinking really needs to slow down and take a careful look at itself.
Well it would have to. Just like any word to describe specifically non-belief in the God of Abraham.
I was trying to get you to find one word that describes non-belief in all of the gods that have ever been worshipped since the beginning of man as well as non-belief in the veracity of any religious text, and then combine it with the word for non-belief in the supernatural. If you were still able to call that a "religion", then I think you would render the word "religion" essentially meaningless.
Does it makes sense for me to say, "My favorite hobby is not playing golf."
Traditionally, religion has always meant some form of belief and set of customs based around the supernatural.
But if now NOT believing in the supernatural is also a religion, then the word religion simply becomes a word for any set of beliefs, opinions, deductions, and inductions. It becomes a word of no consequence.
You might as well call Constitutionalism, a belief in limited government, or a preference for the NFL over NCAA football a "religion".
If that's the case, then I have a whole bunch of religions that not only include non-belief in the supernatural, but a preference for infused cigars, spending time with my family, a good work ethic, the NFL, Texas style BBQ, and tropical beaches.
GunRunner, may the Good Lord bless you and your family, and I hope you find all the enjoyment of those things you mention, to the fullest extent possible in this life.
As for your comments, I must say I can’t see any way around the impossibility of rendering a word meaningless.
As for belief, it’s broader and deeper than simple preference or inclination. Belief, the way I’m using it here, is world view.
And it seems to me that when you’re not playing golf, you’re doing something else. You’re doing those things you prefer over playing golf.
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.