Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 2:38 pm
Your whole argument is a fallacy. You, who may or may not believe in God, it really doesn't matter, are of the secular herd mentality. Meaning, you just CAN'T be wrong. Much like the whole Liberal (I am NOT saying you are a Liberal, I don't care one way or the other) movement this election. They just CAN'T have lost this election so they trot out one excuse after another while completely ignoring the fact that they had a WEAK candidate and an arrogant POTUS that had forced an unpopular agenda on a people that had just finally had enough. You THINK you have overwhelming evidence that really just doesn't hold up to REAL science. What REAL proof of evolution do you have?Interbane wrote:And, there are articles and websites that agree with what I think. How should we decide which is correct? Do you not contemplate the differences, and instead just agree with what you already believe?You've read through my links and they go against what YOU think, plain and simple.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
That's a fallacy Barry.Barry wrote: To think we evolved from some lower life form is ridiculous. LOL
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
That's another fallacy Barry. Sentence after sentence.Barry wrote: I think it stinks that you dismiss out of hand the millions, if not BILLIONS of people that believe God created man from the dust of the ground.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
The fallacies you use in your reasoning mean your reasoning doesn't work. It's a fact born from the examples above. Such poor reasoning is how you develop and maintain false beliefs. You ARE wrong Barry, and your faulty reasoning is a sign you can't ignore. You can turn around and say WE'RE wrong, but the flaws in your reasoning suggest otherwise. Your last two replies to me were filled with fallacious reasoning. There's no reason to think the rest of your worldview isn't similarly faulty.
If you knew anything about the self-correcting nature of the scientific enterprise, you'd realize how silly this is. There is no vast conspiracy theory, Barry. The conclusions of science aren't born from a desire for more grant money. They're born from adherence to method. If money had the massive impact you believe, we'd be living in a very different world. Because in that world, money would trump the truth. The vast majority of scientists from all over the world would need to conspire in real time to subvert the results of their findings. The funding department of every government would need to believe the same thing, and influence the scientists in their countries in the same way, and even control their findings in detail. The coordination of belief is something we already know doesn't exist, especially across cultures and between governments, many of which are theocratic. Which means there is some other reason the entire world of scientists have arrived at the same conclusion - because it's true.But of course, your tens of thousands of scientists, that will say ANYTHING to keep their jobs and grant money, are right.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evil_Liber ... Conspiracy
There are several theories of evolution. Which is the correct one? Evolutionary scientist, Simon Conway Morris, said "When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: 'It happened.' Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7400816797
On February 9, 2007, Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, wrote:
“ "“The history of organic life is indemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else.” http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinis ... evolution/
So, there are many "theories" of evolution. You may not like these links, seeing they fly in the face of the deity of evolution. I mean, you have no evidence of evolution because you CANNOT demonstrate it. You CANNOT observe one whole species evolve into another one. That is why I really do not care that you smugly ridicule me or imply that I am not educated enough to dare debate you. lol I am past the childish "theory" that we somehow "evolved" from some lower life form. I don't need links or sources. It is an asinne theory that has been around since ancient times whem man first rebelled agaist his Creator.
Evolution is not so much a modern discovery as some of its advocates would have us believe. It made its appearance early in Greek philosophy, and maintained its position more or less, with the most diverse modifications, and frequently confused with the idea of emanation, until the close of ancient thought. The Greeks had, it is true, no term exactly equivalent to " evolution"; but when Thales asserts that all things originated from water; when Anaximenes calls air the principle of all things, regarding the subsequent process as a thinning or thickening, they must have considered individual beings and the phenomenal world as, a result of evolution, even if they did not carry the process out in detail. Anaximander is often regarded as a precursor of the modem theory of development. He deduces living beings, in a gradual development, from moisture under the influence of warmth, and suggests the view that men originated from animals of another sort, since if they had come into existence as human beings, needing fostering care for a long time, they would not have been able to maintain their existence. In Empedocles, as in Epicurus and Lucretius, who follow in Hs footsteps, there are rudimentary suggestions of the Darwinian theory in its broader sense; and here too, as with Darwin, the mechanical principle comes in; the process is adapted to a certain end by a sort of natural selection, without regarding nature as deliberately forming its results for these ends. http://www.iep.utm.edu/evolutio/
So, knock yourself out and stay in your little box. I broke out years ago and thank God I did.