re: Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham

quote:

---

There is no other theory that makes sense when you consider it logically. So Ham wins.

---

Actually space just was. It was always here. Always will be.

quote:

---

If you believe that something can be without beginning or without end, and I do, the answer is no. Most scientest believe the universe is without beginning or end. Are they equally naive?

---

No, I'm just trying to understand why your theory regarding the origins of the universe is to be regarded as a more logical conclusion than other theories that don't involve a magic deity. To be honest, disregarding all of the observed physical data such as the redshifting of what we do observe in space which indicates that all matter in the universe at one point converged into a singularity, and simply saying that a deity jumped in and made the universe so, seems lazy, and certainly doesn't seem to invoke any sort of logical progression.

However, if your claim (and I'll admit I haven't read all of your posts) is that at the origins of the universe (prior to the Big Bang event) it is logical to assume some sort of deity, I'll admit it's a bit more reasonable, but I still don't know how it's necessarily the most logical idea.

Very nice post. Short, sweet, and to the point. Upvoted.

Occam has always been regarded as a merely a starting point for analysis, not a conclusion of reasoning. Assumptions are made with any unprovable theory. In my view, creationism makes more sense

quote:

---

Occam has always been regarded as a merely a starting point for analysis, not a conclusion of reasoning.

---

Well duh

When it comes to God and the eternal nature of the universe, at this point all we have is philosophy and assumptions. Occam is MOST relevant in scenarios which cannot be tested to produce conclusive results. It's really just a form of inductive reasoning, given a set of premises which we assume to be true for whatever reason what is most probable.

quote:

---

Assumptions are made with any unprovable theory.

---

Which is why we must pick the one with the FEWEST assumptions if we're being intellectually honest, that's the point.

When a child falls asleep on the couch and wakes up tucked in their bed, should they assume a parent put them there or that they slept walk there? Whatever they choose, it is not provable in isolation.

quote:

---

In my view, creationism makes more sense

---

I know, I'm trying to show you how your view violates some very basic rules of logical reasoning.

quote:

---

So do you assume the universe, and all the biological elements of life, always existed without a creator.

---

I do not know how the universe began. It's about what I would answer if asked what is more likely.

quote:

---

If so are your assumptions testable?

---

The premise that the physical universe always existed could one day be testable, yes. It is unlikely that the existence of God ever becomes testable.

But you don't demand an explanation for where the creator came from as you do the universe and are thus being inconsistent.

Ken Ham's constant "You weren't there so you don't know" is absolutely ridiculous. He sounds like a 10 year old on the playground.

quote:

---

In my view, creationism makes more sense

---

Which creationism?

quote:

---

I've always wanted someone to counter with "Were you there when your parents fricked you into existence?"

---

Any rational person will look at radiometric dating and see a process that

A) Correctly dates objects of a known age.
B) Utilizes a variety of isotopes from a variety of elements that all give the same date for a sample being tested for age, providing a valuable check for validity when measuring ages from before human existence.

and from this will conclude that radiometric dating is a great process for ascertaining the ages of various objects.

However, there are people that without a single shred of evidence want me to believe that this process works perfectly well for objects in the last 6000 years, but at that mysterious point in time the laws of physics went haywire and the half life for these elements were no longer the same. If pressed for why they believe that this process which seems to work so well should be discounted, despite all evidence pointing to how valuable it is, they will always resort to "You weren't there, so you don't know what the half life of Carbon-14 was", which is not something I care to dignify with a response. It's just an example of people ignoring a valuable scientific contribution because it conflicts with their religion.