this one is pretty intelligent too

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...91576908-9.jpg

Our Origins Made Easy Playlist by potholer54
 

Below is an entire playlist relevant to this topic. Each episode is about 10 minutes long.

Click the top left corner to pick your "episode." Watch in order or hop around.

I highly recommend episode 10 - The Scientific Method Made Easy. It was made later in the series, but I think its a good place to start.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX8RpvQfjdupAKFWKjtMhTe

^another video to watch to add to that list is "The Root of all Evil"

science and religion are just two perspectives of the same thing.

Both are skewed on their own respective axis.

by religion I don't mean a particular religion... like Christianity. If anything Christianity is amongst of the most skewed religions.

for those of you who heavily rely on the scientific perspective of this world... an example of a skewed science is the science of any science that has been accepted as true, then refuted some time later, and another truth is accepted (time is not of importance [as it is highly subjective], could be replaced by next month's scholarly article, or next decade, or next million years).

it's just that when you're living in a petri dish, it's a lot easier to identify your surroundings within that enclosed dish, than to go out and find a creator which is beyond the next 10 levels of environment which surround the dish, which surrounds you.

everything is basically some very complicated twisted form of semantics.

there are no universal truths or falses, when talking about existence from the highest/greatest perspective, which encompass all other forms of existence.

in my opinion, bill nye should be sided with a group of scientists, and that religious dude, should be sided with a buncha different religions. and they can only debate with common ground within their groups.

Christianity does not represent religion or spirituality. it would be like picking a single random thing on this planet, to represent all of earth and life. Christianity is just a slice of the pie.

anyway, they're arguing two different things with two different tools.

the model of the debate is flawed and skewed as well.

Bill Nye should debate William Craig. 2 intellectual minds with the same "if you prove my view wrong with evidence, I will be more than happy to give it up" mentality. Only problem, is that they might just agree on too many things.

If you don't know who Craig is, look up the argument that he has been defending for the past 20ish years. The Kalam Cosmological Argument. What I love about it is that if tone down the theistic wording that Craig can use in his premises, the conclusion doesn't say God. The conclusion only states that it is a being with similar properties that God has in a mono-theistic style of religion. Really makes you think.

Um No.

Catholics ARE Christians. But not all Christians are Catholics.

The foundation of all Christianity is the belief in Christ. The foundation of Catholicism is the belief in Christ. There are several other groups of Christians with their own unique spin, but their foundations are all the same: Christ

Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Lutheran, Anglican, and more are all forms of Christianity.

I saw this a while back, and posting this because it was an interesting read, and maybe another way of looking at life:

I see flagella disagrees with my post.. Just curious why.

only had enough time to listen to half, but ken doesnt have much on bill really. bill is open to changes, on the other hand ken seems to be a train going in only one direction

lol. anytime religion is brought into a debate, its no longer a debate...

Where would someone who believes in the Big Bang Theory but also believes in a higher power fall under in this debate? Religious is probably the wrong word but I have a couple friends who are spiritual and yet believe most of the scientific theories about evolution and how the universe created and whatnot.

Being religious/spiritual doesn't automatically mean you're an ignorant deep-rooted Southern USA Christian who believes dinosaurs tended human babies a hundred years ago. That's one of the things that bugs me when I read science v. religion threads... most people here or anywhere else equates anyone who says "I believe in God/Buddha/Xeno/Your Mom" with being out of touch with the rest of the world.

And going further OT here, religion isn't the source of the majority of the wars on Earth over the centuries... it's the nonacceptance of someone else's faith that helps fuel it. And atheists telling a Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Scientology member that what they believe is bullshit is tantamount to the same thing.

I don't think Ken Ham was arguing that "observational science" is non-factual; in fact, he agrees with Bill Nye that they are.

His argument is that you cannot use "observational science" to predict "historical science."

Imagine you're watching a flowing stream of water; the water's flow will be greatest at the source, and it'll slow down as you're further and further away (And the rate at which the water slows down may be non-linear- ie. not at a constant rate). Based on "observational science," we're predicting the past based on the knowledge we have cultivated in the past 200-300 years (which, in the example of the water flow, might be towards the end).

At least, that's my take on it. (And no, I'm not christian, and I also believe in evolution).

^I'm not sure you could use the river example in this case (though I know what you mean by it).

In the river example, observational science would tell you that water flows fastest at it's source. So in the end you'd figure out that water flow isn't constant along the length of the entire river.

I'm not sure if there are any examples that you can pull that take a "short" amount of time (as in not thousands/millions of years). Ken Ham does have a point that you really can't assume things like continental drift or sediment deposition happen at a consistent-enough rate to say that it applies in the past as well. That said, Ken Ham's only source of evidence is The Bible, which to me is unsatisfactory (as in they're (Creationists) happy with that explanation, as opposed to using the scientific method to find better evidence).

the big bang does not encompass all of existence of all of eternity, which is infinite in both directions.

the big bang only encompasses a fraction of our observable universe.

the big bang is simply a cavitation.

a cavitation is just the expansion of space within another space (any engineers here should know what a cavitation is fairly well).

all of our science only explains things WITHIN a SMALL PART of the cavitation. a small little bubble in the eternal cosmos of existence.

a higher power is almost a given. i don't mean a bearded guy (although it's plausible lol). A higher power can be anything... dark energy, dark matter (although I think those are still insignificant in the larger picture).

To a bird, a higher power could be the wind the earth generates on its surface to provide their wings lift. That's a really crappy example only looking at things directly observable. but you guys get my drift.

as for an "intelligent" higher power... intelligence is subjective. when systems are viewed from a bigger perspective, they all appear intelligent (ex. the gaia theory, another... really short sighted crappy example... trying not to go too cosmic. people tend to not be able to conceptualize things they cannot see lol).

How did I know Ulic would respond to my post. lol

By using the Big Bang Theory reference, I merely made use of that as an example of not believing in the assumption that the world was created in seven days. Whether the Universe is infinitely larger than the cavitation we can explain, I don't think we'll ever know (within our own lifetime, anyway), though I'm of the belief that our own expanding Universe is merely part of something even larger (I suddenly get the image in my mind from Men in Black of various aliens playing marbles with different solar systems within each one). And although I'm also of the belief that it's merely unknown scientific means behind the untold pressures and chemical reactions that created our Universe, I'm perfectly open to the possibility that there very well may be some variation of Zeus in control of literally everything that goes on... though I feel that if it's true, it's not going to be some physical being and rather some strange combination of unknown elements and chemicals and who knows whatever else.

I know it's probably useless, especially on a site like RevScene. But.. if you truly do not believe in God but are open to understanding the views and reasons Christians do, these videos are a very good watch. It's called the Skeptics Forum from a local Church in Surrey called Village. I've been attending there for about two years, and it's nothing like any Church I've been to during my short 25 years on the planet. And goes over everything form "If God exists why is there suffering," "Why should I trust the Bible," "Isn't faith the opposite of reason and science," and a few more. If you have an open mind and want to hear a very intelligent person speak about them (unlike this Ken Ham character), watch them.

Village Church Surrey BC - Skeptics Forum 2012



At the very least watch the 2 min. video at the top. And if you only watch one long one watch the Faith VS. Reason and Science. Much better explanation than Ken Ham's, and answers a lot of questions in this thread from a Christians point of view.

i gotta ask, if we "know" our universe is expanding (or appears to be, could be some sorta perspective illusion)... what the hell are we expanding INTO?

nothing? nil? that... "nothing/nil" (if u choose to call it that) is still something. as soon as you are able to label it... it... it exists.. it's SOMETHING.

I'm almost absolutely certain that finite, beginning, and end are merely mortal/human concepts.

there was no beginning and there is no end. things have just always been around. existence has been around for all of eternity. the concept is something humans cant understand.

i'll just throw this in anyway, cuz it relates to the topic... we live in a fractal universe. fractals are apparent at every level of existence as far as the scientific community is concerned. if you just look at the mathematical equations for fractals, then it becomes very apparent, that the inherent nature of fractals is eternal... forever in both directions. fractals are everywhere because it is the most effective way to cram "infinity" into a formula that isn't monstrously complex.

anyway your MIB marble example, although cartoonish, is a very crude example of fractals. if you were to zoom out of the alien playing marbles, there would be another alien playing marbles. and so on so forth forever.

recursive, fractal universe is apparent in science, and has been long explained by hindus and buddhists (and probably other religions that i have yet to study).

there are no ultimate creators. there are only ultimate creators subjective to which enclosed system you are looking at. there's always another system above or below. infinite. recursive.

religion nor science can ever explain those things.

everything is just a smaller version of something bigger (conceptually and in the role they play, ignoring physical appearance)

one doesn't have to look to the stars and cosmos to see infinity. One can just look within and perceive infinity within the mind.


lol i realise i am stomping on both science and religion (as science types will disagree because it hasnt been proven and is not "observable" nor testable... and religious types... well my story doesn't align with all religions). but if you drop all the semantics and stories for both sides, you can clearly see they're talking about the same thing.

I think we're in agreement, but just to be clear:

Ken Ham is arguing that we're looking at such a small slice in time, and we're basing our "observational science" to predict "historical science" aka the past.

Imagine if we're living during a period of time near "the end of the flow", then it's hard to predict what has happened in the past, or "near the source of the flow". Like you said, things may not progress linearly through time- aka water flow faster at the source. So our "observational science" only has a small glimpse of the river, yet we're trying to predict the flow of the overall river (by extrapolating what we can observe).

It's a shame he only follows-up that argument with The Bible...

^
what you guys are both talking about are chaotic systems. the butterfly effect.

our instruments and minds are unable to predict the past or future with great precision because the systems in place are chaotic (chaotic in the scientific sense, so sensitive to change, that the smallest change can result in the biggest change in the far future).

there are very few constants that we know of (if they are even constants, perhaps they're constants only in our short time frame perspective). To be able to accurately say what exactly has happened in the distant past or future at a precise time is near improbable... if not impossible.

what you observe and test and measure, are only relevant facts that matter NOW. in the past or future, those facts may be different and environmental and situational settings will be vastly different.

it is the reason why it has been so hard to predict the future using past and present info. the further out you go, the more off accuracy you are by a lot.

this applies to a lot of things, just to name a few... the weather system, the economic markets, human action. and of course the flow of a river.

the river example you can just look at water flowing down any path. the path is not predictable. every little spec of dust can divert the water in some chaotic path. over millions of years, it would be impossible to predict which way the water will go, and how it will carve a river into the earth. this goes forwards and backwards.

i think the inherent problem is science deals with the facts of now, and what matters now. and religion tries to define eternity. which of course is ambiguous and, i don't even think the collective knowledge and computing power of all humans that have ever existed can answer that question LOL.

nothing stays in one state forever, nothing is permanent, everything is ever changing and morphing (all systems in place, all entities, all religions, sciences, ideologies, everything that exists, physical or not)... that mixed in with a choatic system... good luck predicting or solving anything at a cosmic level (or beyond your own level).

Christianity has been twisted and manipulated to suit different needs over thousands of years. This is just the newest twist, and they got you to follow. All they are doing is picking the good bits they like, and leaving out the rest because it's inconvenient. There are plenty of other parts of the bible that people ignore because it doesn't suit their needs.

And I have nothing against that. But like any other religion, I am not going to debate it or argue about it. It just is what it is, like any other religion or belief.

I get what you mean. I know where you're trying to get to with respect to the river example, and perhaps I went a step ahead and just said that "eventually you'll figure out that rivers don't flow at the same rates along their paths" as per the eventual observation of a river with time and exploration.

But yes it's very unfortunate that Ken Ham basically trolls by saying "well there's in fact a book" blah blah blah.

To me at least, the debate shows that Creationists are happy with whatever the Bible says, instead of doing what a mainstream scientist would do and try everything in their power to explore for a better explanation than "I don't know" or "The Bible says so".

For those who don't believe in a god, where exactly do you think science is leading you to?

Meaning, if you don't believe God or a god created the universe, what do you think science is trying to achieve by studying the past of the universe?

(I'm by no means challenging anyone, nor do I have an answer, just want to see what are people's views)

Never thought of science like that. Thanks!

lol science just helps you adapt to your current environment faster than evolution does.

you can say science is hyper evolution.

it will lead us to goddom. we ourselves will become gods over whatever is below us that we oversee.

in some ways, hyper evolution also helps you control the direction you wish to evolve in. you can create your own image and destiny, or at least try to.

science detaches our dependency from mother nature. I would like to think the more technologically advance something is, the more independent it is from nature. the less it relies on nature for anything. at some point you become an independent being, separated from nature in all ways... "god".

i mean, that is the inherent definition of technology right? every step you take up in the tree of technological advancement, is one less thing in that stands in our way that nature has put there.

come to think of it, a master of technology, would be the master of mother nature.

technology will make nature our bitch. With but a stroke of a pen, or push of a button, or a thought, we will be able to manipulate nature like an artist does an empty canvas.

Believe what you want to believe, but I'm also assuming you didn't watch it. Believing in science and creationism are not mutually exclusive.

It takes more faith for an atheist to believe that we came from nothing, through random events that lined up perfectly over billions of years than it does to believe in a Divine Creator.