Aug 29 - Bill Nye The Science Guy Rips On American's Who Teach Creationism To Children

most viewed right now
 46
Whoo Kid says 50 Cent used to be out here beatin up random drug dealers
27 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 40
The internet reacts to people getting finessed by the mother of the viral bull..
132 comments
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 39
Image(s) inside 19 yo Becky with a phatty 🍑
42 comments
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 34
NFL NFL Network suspends Marshall Faulk, Heath Evans, Ike Taylor due to sexual..
179 comments
@sports

section   (0 bx goons and 1 bystanders) Share this on Twitter   Share this on Facebook
 

Props Slaps
 5 years ago '11        #181
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 nightmare said:
for example wen dude man was talking about the blind faith that exists in science, u kept prattling on about radioactive decay, going all off the main point
Because it is blind faith. Many people say, science shows us that the Earth is this old. The basis of their method is based on an a.ssumption. Therefore, you have faith, not evidence, but faith that this a.ssumption is correct. There's nothing that shows a decay rate now is even applicable pass 100 years. Without evidence of decay rates even a thousand of years ago, we are believing we can predict the decay rate constant billion of years ago.


Last edited by Kadillac87; 09-02-2012 at 09:38 PM..
 5 years ago '04        #182
HHS 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$5,554 | Props total: 93 93
 Kadillac87 said:
That is the definition of a random occurrence. And have you not heard of The Big Bang Theory? Quantum fluctuations? Science explains things already confined to predefined physical laws. With no God or catalyst, science will have to observe an event completely unconnected to anything which produces these set of predefined laws. That's the basis of The Big Bang Theory. An event completely unconnected to anything without a catalyst is science's blind faith.
But this falls into the same category as the radioactive decay that we've discussed and you've rejected as being truly random. It's all governed by the uncertainty principle. And quantum fluctuations have even been proven experimentally. Now, there are certainly unknowns in the origin theory, and it may turn out to be wrong, but it's not a construction of blind faith, it's a construction of mathematics and scientific evidence.

And again, how can something based on chance be treated as a constant? That is the big a.ssumption radioactive dating relies on. The crutch of radioactive dating is an a.ssumption. How can one be certain when at the core, it rely on an a.ssumption?
Because the chance involves its occurrence in individual particles, but we're looking at a collection of atoms, and all evidence indicates that the occurrence of decay within a certain time period is a constant (even if we can't say when in that time period it will occur for an individual atom. In terms of certainty, I'm not sure that absolute certainty is attainable in any human knowledge, but things can be certain enough for practical purposes if repeated evidence and experimentation supports the conclusions involved. So, unless there were some reason to suspect that the decay rate isn't constant, and our current understanding can be disproven, it's a valid dating method because known studies of decay show that certain isotopes aren't significantly effected by outside conditions, and can therefore be expected to be constant.


Last edited by HHS; 09-02-2012 at 09:53 PM..
 09-02-2012, 09:50 PM         #183
Drone 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 HHS said:
But this falls into the same category as the radioactive decay that we've discussed and you've rejected as being truly random. It's all governed by the uncertainty principle. And quantum fluctuations have even been proven experimentally. Now, there are certainly unknowns in the origin theory, and it may turn out to be wrong, but it's not a construction of blind faith, it's a construction of mathematics and scientific evidence.



Because the chance involves its occurrence in individual particles, but we're looking at a collection of atoms, and all evidence indicates that the occurrence of decay within a certain time period is a constant (even if we can't say when in that time period it will occur for an individual atom. In terms of certainty, I'm not sure that absolute certainty is attainable in any human knowledge, but things can be certain enough for practical purposes if repeated evidence and experimentation support the conclusions involved. So, unless there were some reason to suspect that the decay rate isn't constant, and our current understanding can be disproven, it's a valid dating method.
Dude is k!lling the thread
 5 years ago '11        #184
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 HHS said:
But this falls into the same category as the radioactive decay that we've discussed and you've rejected as being truly random. It's all governed by the uncertainty principle. And quantum fluctuations have even been proven experimentally. Now, there are certainly unknowns in the origin theory, and it may turn out to be wrong, but it's not a construction of blind faith, it's a construction of mathematics and scientific evidence.
Not really, but that's another discussion.

 HHS said:

Because the chance involves its occurrence in individual particles, but we're looking at a collection of atoms, and all evidence indicates that the occurrence of decay within a certain time period is a constant (even if we can't say when in that time period it will occur for an individual atom. In terms of certainty, I'm not sure that absolute certainty is attainable in any human knowledge, but things can be certain enough for practical purposes if repeated evidence and experimentation supports the conclusions involved. So, unless there were some reason to suspect that the decay rate isn't constant, and our current understanding can be disproven, it's a valid dating method because known studies of decay show that certain isotopes aren't significantly effected by outside conditions, and can therefore be expected to be constant.
We can only be certain of things we can observe experimentally, right? We have only observed decay rates for less than 100 years so we can only be certain of the decay rates of less than 100 years. We have already proven that human interactions can speed up the depletion of the O-zone. Why is it logical to a.ssume that the decay rate is not affected at all by outside factors then? Just because it is accompanied by a mathematical equation doesn't make it infallible. What makes it valid pass 100 years? Nothing, but a.ssumptions.
 5 years ago '04        #185
HHS 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$5,554 | Props total: 93 93
 Kadillac87 said:
Not really, but that's another discussion.



We can only be certain of things we can observe experimentally, right? We have only observed decay rates for less than 100 years so we can only be certain of the decay rates of less than 100 years. We have already proven that human interactions can speed up the depletion of the O-zone. Why is it logical to a.ssume that the decay rate is not affected at all by outside factors then? Just because it is accompanied by a mathematical equation doesn't make it infallible. What makes it valid pass 100 years? Nothing, but a.ssumptions.
It's been experimentally shown that they're not effected by a wide range of outside factors, so that isn't an a.ssumption. Also, decay rates in supernovas have been observed, so we actually can be certain of decay rates much older than 100 years (and if they're unaffected by a supernova, I don't know what on Earth could alter them).
 5 years ago '06        #186
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
 HHS said:
It's been experimentally shown that they're not effected by a wide range of outside factors, so that isn't an a.ssumption. Also, decay rates in supernovas have been observed, so we actually can be certain of decay rates much older than 100 years (and if they're unaffected by a supernova, I don't know what on Earth could alter them).
this guy kno his sh*t
 5 years ago '06        #187
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
 Kadillac87 said:
A lot of things in science are considered THEORY. A lot of things in science are speculatory that you accept as fact. The basis of science is speculatory. It relies on a.ssumptions. As I have said, again and again, how can something speculatory in nature disprove something else you consider speculatory in nature?
i dont think you have an understanding between the difference of a.ssuming something that has not solid evidence of being real (faith) and something that has been proven consistently with a wide array of instruments and in actual time in many different conditions. its not the same thing and they cant be compared like that
 5 years ago '11        #188
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 HHS said:
It's been experimentally shown that they're not effected by a wide range of outside factors, so that isn't an a.ssumption. Also, decay rates in supernovas have been observed, so we actually can be certain of decay rates much older than 100 years.
And at one point, Newton's laws were not effected by a wide range of outside factors. So yes, it is still an a.ssumption. Just because you haven't proved it is not affected, doesn't mean it is not affected.

And yes, we observed the decay rate of Cobalt from a supernova. Let's a.ssume that radiometric dating is done using cobalt, which it is not, and we can safely a.ssume we have decay rate for 170K years. That's still nowhere near a billion. Still a large a.ssumption being made even if it was a million years of data. At the end, you're still relying on an a.ssumption.
 5 years ago '11        #189
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 nightmare said:
i dont think you have an understanding between the difference of a.ssuming something that has not solid evidence of being real (faith) and something that has been proven consistently with a wide array of instruments and in actual time in many different conditions. its not the same thing and they cant be compared like that
I think you don't have an understanding of your own bias that prevents you from question the unknown in science with the veracity you question the unknown in religion.
 5 years ago '06        #190
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
 Kadillac87 said:
I think you don't have an understanding of your own bias that prevents you from question the unknown in science with the veracity you question the unknown in religion.
lol i understand that science hasnt developed to point where we can say its the end all be all in the universe, my overall point is that, theres alot more evidence to support that, then blind faith in an organized religion of questionable legitimacy, thats been my point from day 1. ur just being defensive

 5 years ago '06        #191
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
 Kadillac87 said:
And at one point, Newton's laws were not effected by a wide range of outside factors. So yes, it is still an a.ssumption. Just because you haven't proved it is not affected, doesn't mean it is not affected.

And yes, we observed the decay rate of Cobalt from a supernova. Let's a.ssume that radiometric dating is done using cobalt, which it is not, and we can safely a.ssume we have decay rate for 170K years. That's still nowhere near a billion. Still a large a.ssumption being made even if it was a million years of data. At the end, you're still relying on an a.ssumption.


wasnt the intial argument talking about last few thousand years, see there u going off topic to cover ur a.ss
 5 years ago '11        #192
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 nightmare said:
[/B]

wasnt the intial argument talking about last few thousand years, see there u going off topic to cover ur a.ss
Ummm, no. My point was that they both rely on a.ssumptions. That has never changed. Being generous, I acknowledged use of a method not even used in radiometric dating to show how things don't change. Even if we use that, we have 170K data, not billions and billions of years of data.

Let me put in mathematical terms for you. Even if we say we know how something decayed 170K years ago we are relying on 0.0000425% of data to determine certainty. In the end, you are still relying on a huge a.ssumption.


Last edited by Kadillac87; 09-02-2012 at 11:01 PM..
 5 years ago '11        #193
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 nightmare said:
lol i understand that science hasnt developed to point where we can say its the end all be all in the universe, my overall point is that, theres alot more evidence to support that, then blind faith in an organized religion of questionable legitimacy, thats been my point from day 1. ur just being defensive

Not being defensive. Like I have always said, they both have gaps. You question gaps in religion, but not the gaps in science. Any evidence a religious person present, it's because they believe in God in the first place. Any person a non religious person present, it's accepted as fact and not because they didn't believe in God in the first place. Both have a bias, but yet you question one and not another? Again, and again I have stated, they both have a.ssumptions. How can say something based on a.ssumptions disprove something else you consider based on a.ssumptions? I believe it was you guys who went from science being infallible and disproving religion to something having more mathematical evidence than religion. Again, show me where my message has changed. They both have gaps. They both rely on a.ssumptions. An over 99% gap is good enough for you?



Last edited by Kadillac87; 09-02-2012 at 11:07 PM..
 5 years ago '06        #194
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
 Kadillac87 said:
Ummm, no. My point was that they both rely on a.ssumptions. That has never changed. Being generous, I acknowledged use of a method not even used in radiometric dating to show how things don't change. Even if we use that, we have 170K data, not billions and billions of years of data.

Let me put in mathematical terms for you. Even if we say we know how something decayed 170K years ago we are relying on 0.0000425% of data to determine certainty. In the end, you are still relying on a huge a.ssumption.
will idk wat ur argument is, but my argument is still in line with the original, like i sed more u on some other sh*t, because u couldnt defend the intial argument
 5 years ago '06        #195
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
 Kadillac87 said:
Not being defensive. Like I have always said, they both have gaps. You question gaps in religion, but not the gaps in science. Any evidence a religious person present, it's because they believe in God in the first place. Any person a non religious person present, it's accepted as fact and not because they didn't believe in God in the first place. Both have a bias, but yet you question one and not another? Again, and again I have stated, they both have a.ssumptions. How can say something based on a.ssumptions disprove something else you consider based on a.ssumptions? I believe it was you guys who went from science being infallible and disproving religion to something having more mathematical evidence than religion. Again, show me where my message has changed. They both have gaps. They both rely on a.ssumptions. An over 99% gap is good enough for you?

WTF? first of all i never sed it was totally infalliable, u crossing my words with other posters who sed that.

secondly who are u to quanitfy a 99% gap in knowledge, thats an arbitrary as hell and thats contradictory to ur original statement saying its unknown.

thirdly, its a MUCH bigger a.ssumption to take the route of creationism. theres WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more evidence supporting science in this situation here on earth than creationism, now if u wanna go off and talk about other parts of the universe thats irrelevant, the argument is about here on earth since the beginning of MANKIND and in that arena, ur argument falls short
 5 years ago '04        #196
Ironik 8 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$587 | Props total: 464 464

[pic - click to view]

 5 years ago '04        #197
HHS 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$5,554 | Props total: 93 93
 Kadillac87 said:
And at one point, Newton's laws were not effected by a wide range of outside factors. So yes, it is still an a.ssumption. Just because you haven't proved it is not affected, doesn't mean it is not affected.

And yes, we observed the decay rate of Cobalt from a supernova. Let's a.ssume that radiometric dating is done using cobalt, which it is not, and we can safely a.ssume we have decay rate for 170K years. That's still nowhere near a billion. Still a large a.ssumption being made even if it was a million years of data. At the end, you're still relying on an a.ssumption.
There's plenty of evidence to indicate that the rate is constant, and none to indicate otherwise. That isn't blind faith or mere a.ssumption.

You're abusing the word "assumption" to force this false equivalency between the level of "faith" at work in science and the blind faith that forms the entire basis and standard of proof for religion.

As I've already said, I don't think absolute certainty is obtainable, I've never claimed science to be infallible, and I don't think anyone has claimed that science is without gaps and uncertainties, or without level of extrapolation or theorizing, but the major difference is that there is an established standard that requires evidence to underpin all of this in science, while in religion there is not, and the core religious standard is merely blind faith. There's a huge difference between absolute certainty and nothing but blind faith, and science and religion are so far separated on that scale as to make them incomparable. To try and say they both ultimately operate on the same blind faith is just completely silly.

And science doesn't have to bother disproving religion, as religion has no valid standard of proof to examine. Now, if increased understanding of the universe through science has made many claims put forth by religion look absolutely ridiculous, that's merely a collateral effect.


Last edited by HHS; 09-03-2012 at 02:41 AM..
 5 years ago '11        #198
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 nightmare said:
WTF? first of all i never sed it was totally infalliable, u crossing my words with other posters who sed that.

secondly who are u to quanitfy a 99% gap in knowledge, thats an arbitrary as hell and thats contradictory to ur original statement saying its unknown.

thirdly, its a MUCH bigger a.ssumption to take the route of creationism. theres WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more evidence supporting science in this situation here on earth than creationism, now if u wanna go off and talk about other parts of the universe thats irrelevant, the argument is about here on earth since the beginning of MANKIND and in that arena, ur argument falls short
That's the point of this thread. Science proves God didn't create the world. Nothing has been proven. Saying there is way more evidence supporting science is not entirely true. There's method that produce a young earth and there's methods that produce an old earth. This is not a young earth vs old earth argument though. This is, I believe my a.ssumptions are valid, so I will discredit anything that goes against it. Same thing you say religious people do. Both rely on a.ssumptions. Both discredit things that don't fall within in their beliefs.
 5 years ago '11        #199
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 HHS said:
There's plenty of evidence to indicate that the rate is constant, and none to indicate otherwise. That isn't blind faith or mere a.ssumption.

You're abusing the word "assumption" to force this false equivalency between the level of "faith" at work in science and the blind faith that forms the entire basis and standard of proof for religion.

As I've already said, I don't think absolute certainty is obtainable, I've never claimed science to be infallible, and I don't think anyone has claimed that science is without gaps and uncertainties, or without level of extrapolation or theorizing, but the major difference is that there is an established standard that requires evidence to underpin all of this in science, while in religion there is not, and the core religious standard is merely blind faith. There's a huge difference between absolute certainty and nothing but blind faith, and science and religion are so far separated on that scale as to make them incomparable. To try and say they both ultimately operate on the same blind faith is just completely silly.

And science doesn't have to bother disproving religion, as religion has no valid standard of proof to examine. Now, if increased understanding of the universe through science has made many claims put forth by religion look absolutely ridiculous, that's merely a collateral effect.
Actually, there's plenty of evidence to indicate it's not constant either. Well I should say the parent/daughter ratio isn't constant. It's just rejected by those who are trying to prove an old Earth. Again, this isn't a young earth vs old earth argument. Known samples less than 20 years old has been calculated to be million of years old. This is an argument of the validity of believing the unproven. If I said, less than 1% of the Bible is proven to be true, therefore, the authenticity of it shouldn't be questioned, you would say that's not enough evidence. But If I say, less than 1% of decay rate has been observed, therefore, the other 99.9% can certainly be determined, you'll say that's good enough. Why is less than 1% valid for science, but not religion? How can you say my a.ssumptions are more valid than your a.ssumptions just based on the fact that I believe them more? Again, as I have stated many times before. They both have gaps. One has a 99.9% gap that you do not question, but yet you question the other? So remember, the next time you say there's no evidence of God, you had enough faith to believe wholeheartedly in something where 99.9% of the evidence is absent just because science said it was so.



Last edited by Kadillac87; 09-03-2012 at 08:30 AM..
 5 years ago '04        #200
HHS 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$5,554 | Props total: 93 93
 Kadillac87 said:
Actually, there's plenty of evidence to indicate it's not constant either. Well I should say the parent/daughter ratio isn't constant. It's just rejected by those who are trying to prove an old Earth. Again, this isn't a young earth vs old earth argument. Known samples less than 20 years old has been calculated to be million of years old. This is an argument of the validity of believing the unproven. If I said, less than 1% of the Bible is proven to be true, therefore, the authenticity of it shouldn't be questioned, you would say that's not enough evidence. But If I say, less than 1% of decay rate has been observed, therefore, the other 99.9% can certainly be determined, you'll say that's good enough. Why is less than 1% valid for science, but not religion? How can you say my a.ssumptions are more valid than your a.ssumptions just based on the fact that I believe them more? Again, as I have stated many times before. They both have gaps. One has a 99.9% gap that you do not question, but yet you question the other? So remember, the next time you say there's no evidence of God, you had enough faith to believe wholeheartedly in something where 99.9% of the evidence is absent just because science said it was so.

The percentage of time directly observed is not the same as the level of certainty, because direct observation isn't the only way to examine something, so the way you're attempting to frame it and the percentages you're inventing are not a valid examination of the issue.
Home      
  
 

 






most viewed right now
 18
Elle Duncan got Cari Champion the F outta here!
87 comments
1 day ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 16
LIL FLIP shows $1,000,000 worth of JEWELRY!!!!!!
91 comments
2 days ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 15
Image(s) inside Time Traveler Came From 4127 To Get Away From Child Support
47 comments
1 day ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 8
Sakura, Blanka, Flake, Cody, G , & Sagat DLC SF5
70 comments
1 day ago
@games
most viewed right now
 6
NFL Things got out of control real quick during Sea/Jax game..player almost ju..
95 comments
21 hours ago
@sports
most viewed right now
 5
Video inside fu-k YOU BUNGIE........
56 comments
1 day ago
@games
most viewed right now
 5
Video inside My experience after record deal (warning)
295 comments
1 day ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 4
Image(s) inside I Wanna Fu** U Hard On The Sink, After That, Give U Sumthin 2 Drink
69 comments
1 day ago
@thotsdimesetc
back to top
register contact Follow BX @ Twitter Follow BX @ Facebook search BX privacy