God and Bananas

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anhar Miah said:
Sir Issac Newton was also a creationalist as was many of sciences greatest thinkers.

Anhar
Click to expand...

This is a classic Appeal to Authority fallacy: Isaac Newton was a great mind, so any belief held by this man enjoys elevated truth-value, because a great mind believed it. Theories must stand on their own; the fact that a great mind like Newton was a creationist has zero implications for the validity of the theory itself.

The fact that we remember and honor Newton for his Principia, mathematical papers and lectures rather than for any document he produced on the notion of creationism, is meaningful. If a great mind like his had produced any sort of even halfway worthwhile text on the subject, we'd all know it by name.
 
Sad Max said:
The pair of bananas in that video demonstrate that if they were created by a deity, he aimed very low and settled for very little.

Although it *does* nicely illustrate the general intellectual quality of creationist types.
Click to expand...
Isn't that Kirk Cameron in the video? Why yes, yes it is. :)
 
Sad Max said:
This is a classic Appeal to Authority fallacy
Click to expand...


Not really you started off with a classical Ad-Hominen fallacy on "Creationalist" Reference:

Sad Max said:
Although it *does* nicely illustrate the general intellectual quality of creationist types.
Click to expand...

Essentially my response was a rebuke to your point that you attempted to tar everyone into one narrow type, then by defining that narrow type as inferior to then conlcude that their thoughts thus must also be inferior. This is classical Ad-Hominen fallacy , I merely pointed out the even the Ad-Hominen that you used does not hold true.

Anhar
 
Bututta... I didn't even have to google it... this is what I mean by using logic. I think the best debates are those that happen entirely within logical ideas... and to me the idea that we MUST be... HAVE to be... on the DAWN of knowledge... is inevitable because of TIME... in a universal sense. So yeah... I agree with your research... and that was the information I wanted people to "discover".

Sad Max said:
Either side?
Click to expand...

Yeah... either side of the debate.

It's the same exact argument I use in SETI debates.

We (humans) are brand new on the scene... universally speaking. I'm not saying it's the best platform for a debate on God and Science (meaning God v. Science)... but I think it's a point that's overlooked by both sides.

So my thought is/was... I wonder if the most intellectual minds think we are closer to the beginning of discovery... or if we're on the last plateau.

I think that we just started a new ascent of knowledge in the last century... and it doesn't matter which side of the debate you're on... I was hoping that idea prompts some sense of wonder about where it's all headed... regardless of what you believe.

Are we living through the last 10% of knowledge? (arbitrary percentage... call it whatever value you want... even 50%)...

An interesting fact is that on a universal timeline 10-15 billion years old... ALL of human existence... ALL of it... from the stone age up to now... would be a FRACTION of a hair's WIDTH (not length) on a timeline the length of a football field.

If you take the other side of the argument, that we've only been here for less then 10K years... then the argument is even more bizarre because cut that hair's width into a fraction of a fraction. So hopefully it inspires wonder about what happened a foot back... or 10 feet back... or what could happen in just the next fraction of a hair's width? Or the next foot forward on the timeline?

So yeah... both sides. It's a simple... neutral... factual... concept.
 
Last edited:
MattinSTL said:
I wonder if the most intellectual minds think we are closer to the beginning of discovery... or if we're on the last plateau.
Click to expand...

I think some people used to believe we were on the last plateau, mainly because all the simpler theories, the low hanging fruit in science had already been picked. However, the more scientists investigate things at the quantum level, the stranger things get, and the more new questions arise. For instance, a recent experiment may have confirmed the theory that the universe is a giant hologram--

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?
 
Batutta... this is what I mean about that timeline... the timeline that is absolutely a FACT... so if we're living within a hair's width on a timeline as long as a football field... what of the next hair's width over? Or a foot over... or ten feet over?

It's seriously a neutral thought... to me it inspires wonder.

"The simpler things get"... the more complicated it all becomes... does that refute science? No... but it should inspire wonder instead of certainty.

People on both sides like tidy answers... and I think we're a long ways from that.
 
MattinSTL said:
Just so you know, if you put "dinesh d'souza" in quotes (to limit the returns to the fewest) and google it... just like that... you get 289,000 results... "william craig lane" gets 376. I'm just saying... those guys weren't exactly "nobody" :) They are highly regarded.
Click to expand...

I just realized it's William Lane Craig, which yields 121,000 Google hits. :)

You may now resume your discussion.
 
Oh c'mon Mark... don't actually TRY to close the damn thread down :)

Thanks Jason... FTR I wasn't trying to make any point outside of my disappointment in the debate I ran sound for... regarding BOTH sides debated... by what are supposed to be well-known and well-respected authorities on their respective platforms.

I was trying to respond to the brain-surgeon vs. local butcher implication that d'souza was "nobody" in comparison to Lane.

Batutta... that was an interesting article... which (as best I can figure) is attributing the concept of our existence as a hologram to the black hole information paradox... and I'd posit that rather then black hole evaporation being attributed to holographic existence from some distant 2D "world"... that the black hole information paradox is more likely attributed to the law of diffusion... in some combination with quantum physics... and that the information contained in a black hole isn't simply disappearing but that instead, the tremendous forces within a black hole are EJECTING matter (in this case called information)... on a sub-atomic level... and that matter is becoming anti-matter... or perhaps becoming sub-atomic "dust" that exists within the universal "white noise" that the radio telescopes say is remaining proof of the big bang.

I don't think the black holes are evaporating so much as pulsing off sub-atomic dust.

I don't have any education on any of this... but I'm just using logic, according to my OPINIONS about how things would logically work... instead of a vastly more complicated hologram theory.

Of course in all fairness... I'm just some dude who points mics at mouths... I'm no scientist.
 
Q

Q

Batutta said:
I disagree on that. Anyone who calls themselves a scientist knows any theory must agree with experiment, and that there is always a degree of uncertainty in their findings.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should have said that "lots of people on both sides" like tidy answers.

People have raging (and rude) debates based on current knowledge up to today... and while that's reasonable... my "uncertainty" point is that maybe we shouldn't hang the guy with the opposing view... just in case of what may still be discovered.

I could easily debate current religion in it's current state (any of 'em)... but that's based on the premise that I doubt we could be even remotely close to comprehending an idea that couldn't possibly fit inside of even a 300 IQ.
 
MattinSTL said:
Oh c'mon Mark... don't actually TRY to close the damn thread down :)
Click to expand...

My logic is just as sound as the video's. Don't even let me get started on all the places a human penis will fit into. I mean, God must want us to have sex with EVERYTHING.

Besides, I agree with Batutta. People who call themselves scientists do not assume they have answers. They seek. The other people. Well, they don't.
 
Last edited:
Mark Harris said:
Besides, I agree with Batutta. People who call themselves scientists do not assume they have answers. They seek. The other people. Well, they don't.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying anything different then that... in fact, I'm saying that over and over... that using logic, we obviously have a lot to still learn. A lot of "scientifically minded" people DO assume they have the answers. BIG TIME.

Einstein was hoping to unify everything... and while that may have been a detriment in his time... I don't think it's too crazy to think that maybe one day there will be some unifying answers.

My point, the entire time, is that maybe EVERYBODY should stay somewhat open minded to the inevitable concept of future discovery.
 
Mark Harris said:
Besides, I agree with Batutta. People who call themselves scientists do not assume they have answers. They seek. The other people. Well, they don't.
Click to expand...

Have you really looked at the scientific community lately? Sure, there are people who objectively look at data and experiments and try to reach the most logical conclusion. But there are just as many – and probably more, I'll have to take a census – that look at things with a pre-determined answer already in mind. Sometimes it's because of their worldview. Sometimes it's because of who's financing the study. To think that scientists as a whole are a group without bias or agendas takes more faith even Kirk the Bananaman has.

And now I'll have to excuse myself from this thread as I don't have the energy for it at the moment. Oh, for my younger days. Or kids who can sleep through the night.
 
Batutta said:
Now THAT would be a kind, loving God.:)
Click to expand...

Yeah because having sex with things never leads to any problems :)

I do think that sex is heavily biased (like 99.9%) towards pure science... but the remaining .1% is hard to explain judgement about what to have sex with, and what not to.

Not everybody has that judgement... but one of my "anti" arguments is that life ISN'T fair... and that is also a fact.
 
JasonFox said:
Have you really looked at the scientific community lately? Sure, there are people who objectively look at data and experiments and try to reach the most logical conclusion. But there are just as many – and probably more, I'll have to take a census – that look at things with a pre-determined answer already in mind. Sometimes it's because of their worldview. Sometimes it's because of who's financing the study. To think that scientists as a whole are a group without bias or agendas takes more faith even Kirk the Bananaman has.
Click to expand...

Please do take a census. Or at least give some examples of how this is widespread in the "scientific community." Because the only time I ever hear this is when a creationist is trying to force religion into schools.

Obviously, everyone has bias to overcome, and scientists are wrong all the time. But you will not be able to back your assertion up with actual facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top