Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

DjPyro3 wrote:
But...what? How could he assert that?

The idea that natural laws operate the same way across all time and space is not a matter of direct observation but rather a matter of logic.

DjPyro3 wrote:
Why aren't natural laws just changing willy nilly then? How could science even..,be if that was the case?

What he's ultimately suggesting is an argument about the nature of the relationship between God and nature; namely, that God arbitrarily makes and changes "the rules" of physical reality. If that is how nature works, then the results of experiments that we observe, even if they are repeatable, only tell us about whatever God currently wishes nature to be like. Given that (this conception of) God could at any moment and in any instance change his mind about how nature works, any knowledge we might obtain through experimentation -- considering that each experiment only accounts for one particular instance -- has no necessary relationship with any other instance; that is, no necessary relationship with the rest of nature.

So we can build and fly planes ... as long as God allows it.

We can take MRIs and create vaccines ... as long as God allows it.

Now, as to what evidence Ham could offer that God has changed his mind about how nature works in the past 6000 years ... I'd like to hear it.

 Overlord Thraka wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I knew the "evolution is a religion" line was coming sooner or later...

Well to be fair it is a belief. Not proven fact. The theory of Evolution is just that, a theory.

I swear this has to be a troll account.

 Manchu wrote:
What he's ultimately suggesting is an argument about the nature of the relationship between God and nature; namely, that God arbitrarily makes and changes "the rules" of physical reality. If that is how nature works, then the results of experiments that we observe, even if they are repeatable, only tell us about whatever God currently wishes nature to be like. Given that (this conception of) God could at any moment and in any instance change his mind about how nature works, any knowledge we might obtain through experimentation -- considering that each experiment only accounts for one particular instance -- has no necessary relationship with any other instance; that is, no necessary relationship with the rest of nature.

Yeah. He's taking a position you can't argue with, because he's allowed to change rules at will to suit is view.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Overlord Thraka wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I knew the "evolution is a religion" line was coming sooner or later...

Well to be fair it is a belief. Not proven fact. The theory of Evolution is just that, a theory.

I swear this has to be a troll account.

I assure you. I'm in no way a troll

 Overlord Thraka wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Overlord Thraka wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I knew the "evolution is a religion" line was coming sooner or later...

Well to be fair it is a belief. Not proven fact. The theory of Evolution is just that, a theory.

I swear this has to be a troll account.

I assure you. I'm in no way a troll

Well you don't understand the meaning of the word "Theory" in a scientific context, that's for sure.

 Overlord Thraka wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I knew the "evolution is a religion" line was coming sooner or later...

Well to be fair it is a belief. Not proven fact. The theory of Evolution is just that, a theory.

To paraphrase Stephen Fry whilst referring to that kind of statement, "When Scientists use the word theory, they don't use it in the way others do.". Scientific theories are a statement of fact with clear sources. The theory of evolution is a fact, it has clearly observable clauses. The theory that there's a giant spaghetti monster that craps clouds isn't observable, and so it doesn't hold up as scientific theory.

Which is to say; what you said was just a tad misinformed. =P

 Chongara wrote:
Yeah. He's taking a position you can't argue with, because he's allowed to change rules at will to suit is view.

Oh you can argue against it. Bill Nye so far is not doing that ...

 Overlord Thraka wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I knew the "evolution is a religion" line was coming sooner or later...

Well to be fair it is a belief. Not proven fact. The theory of Evolution is just that, a theory.

A scientific theory is different than what you think it is. There are two things in science, laws and theorys. Laws say what happens, theorys usually say why. A scientific theory can never be proven because new information is constantly being found. Until you know everything, you can't prove a scientific theory. On the other hand, scientific theorys such as evolution are treated as fact because all the evidence points to it being correct, and there is a TON of evidence.

 Manchu wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Yeah. He's taking a position you can't argue with, because he's allowed to change rules at will to suit is view.

Oh you can argue against it. Bill Nye so far is not doing that ...

What argument about the past you can make that can't be countered by "Yeah, but it didn't work that way in the past because god"?

A theological argument.

 Manchu wrote:
A theological argument.

Well at that point you've just admitted accepting some kind of biblical view, if not his specific account of creation. He still wins, maybe not formally but he wins.

 Chongara wrote:
Well at that point you've just admitted accepting some kind of biblical view, if not his specific account of creation. He still wins, maybe not formally but he wins.

Well, (1) Ham "loses" before we being when it comes to science because he's not talking about science (and importantly this is a logical rather than a scientific insight) and (2) Ham is (as I mentioned above) arguing a specific theology -- specifically regarding the relationship between God and nature -- so the only way to actually engage him is to also argue theologically. Now, I realize Bill Nye has no interest in doing so. But science does not "lose" if someone explains to Ham why his theology is so poor.

 Manchu wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Well at that point you've just admitted accepting some kind of biblical view, if not his specific account of creation. He still wins, maybe not formally but he wins.

Well, (1) Ham "loses" before we being when it comes to science because he's not talking about science (and importantly this is a logical rather than a scientific insight) and (2) Ham is (as I mentioned above) arguing a specific theology -- specifically regarding the relationship between God and nature -- so the only way to actually engage him is to also argue theologically. Now, I realize Bill Nye has no interest in doing so. But science does not "lose" if someone explains to Ham why his theology is so poor.

Scientist argues theology with him, he gets to go "See. They can only debate me with the word of god!" he wins. Every time you engage you him he wins. It's like trying to argue with master Fnog.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Overlord Thraka wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I knew the "evolution is a religion" line was coming sooner or later...

Well to be fair it is a belief. Not proven fact. The theory of Evolution is just that, a theory.

A scientific theory is different than what you think it is. There are two things in science, laws and theorys. Laws say what happens, theorys usually say why. A scientific theory can never be proven because new information is constantly being found. Until you know everything, you can't prove a scientific theory. On the other hand, scientific theorys such as evolution are treated as fact because all the evidence points to it being correct, and there is a TON of evidence.

Regardless of the meaning of the Scientific version of Theory, Evolution is a BELIEF. You believe it to be true.

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
Evolution is a BELIEF. You believe it to be true.

Sure, in the sense that you believe you are alive. So what?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:
Every time you engage you him he wins.

That's exactly right because his only real goal (right now) is to appear to offer a valid alternative view. In order to engage anyone about any topic, you have to acknowledge the validity of their view even if only to dispute it.

 Manchu wrote:

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
Evolution is a BELIEF. You believe it to be true.

Sure, in the sense that you believe you are alive.

Exactly

I believe that gravity exist, and there's facts to back that up. I don't believe that the moon's made of cheese as there's evidence to disprove that. Neither do I believe that the rhetoric of the bible should be taken as fact as there's contemporary sources that disprove it as just a mouth piece for a cult, whilst it blithers on about men walking on water and reincarnation (of which a load of knicked from other texts where it was written as fiction, but miraculously taken as facts as they appear in the bible). =)

 Overlord Thraka wrote:

Regardless of the meaning of the Scientific version of Theory, Evolution is a BELIEF. You believe it to be true.

Being a controversial topic, evolution is likely the single-most researched topic of science in the world. Everything points towards it being fact, everything is mutually supportive and it is one of the best-understood aspects of recent science.

It is a 'belief' in much the same way that we 'believe' space to be cold, that the moon has lower gravity, or that fossil fuels produce harmful gases upon combustion.

 Overlord Thraka wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I knew the "evolution is a religion" line was coming sooner or later...

Well to be fair it is a belief. Not proven fact. The theory of Evolution is just that, a theory.

No, it is a fact. No faith is required.

Oh noes... not the St-Helens lava dome! Oh woe be to us all... oh wait... they were told the method they insisted on using would return a false result and still used it?

Say it ain't so...

When a lava mound forms evidently all of the rock that it consists of must have been created at the same time. Huh, oh, so I suppose that the magma doesn't travel up through the layers picking up various materials. No, it just sprouts from the ground from the same point. ...Primary school geography man.

It doesn't bode well for his argument when he's using disproved results.

* Edit. Nye's rebuttal statement needed a booyah. =)

I'm glad that Ham is basically just citing scripture, which makes Nye's job that much easier.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
When a lava mound forms evidently all of the rock that it consists of must have been created at the same time. Huh, oh, so I suppose that the magma doesn't travel up through the layers picking up various materials. No, it just sprouts from the ground from the same point. ...Primary school geography man.

It doesn't bode well for his argument when he's using disproved results.

* Edit. Nye's rebuttal statement needed a booyah. =)

I think you mean Geology.

Oh thank you, he nailed the gordian knot.

Geology's part of Geography at that level, thus why I made that point. You don't need to go to uni to study the former to know how a volcano works.

@Chongara: Nye is dancing around an exegetical argument by referencing Ham's literalist approach to English translations of the Bible.

LOL Nye is being a little dumb with the telephone example. The problem is not that the Biblical account was at some point scientifically accurate and became less accurate over time and translations. The problem is the Bible was never a scientific account of nature.

I like how Ken needed to bring in others as his vindication. While Bill used his own knowledge and experience.

What I see is a man profoundly insecure in his faith, unable to rectify the discoveries of modern (and even not so modern) science with his beliefs in God.

"Lots of people agree with me". Great start.

WTF's a "Kind"? Oh, those animals look the same, so they must be related. Its been proven recently that there's no such thing as a fish. They're just many types of sea animal that happen to share similar aspects.

Again with the Noah's Ark having only two of each species. Please, if you're going to cite the bible at least get your figures correct.

His answers are really troubling. "We didn't see it. It didn't happen." What kind of person thinks like that?