Bill Nye Debates Creationist Ken Ham Live 2/4/2014

Then Yhwh is not omniscient. Omniscient or free-will, pick one; they are mutually exclusive.

e.g.: if a deity knows for truth what choice you will make given a specific set of circumstances, because it knows past, present and future, it is not a test.

This is why people like you are breeding the "faith of science". You block it out. You block it out because it is something that you don't want to hear. You don't like to listen to your own vulnerabilities. By doing this, this disallows science from getting better.

I'll just stop since our arguments are only tangentially related at this point. I don't know who you're referring when you mention people who think we know everything, but none of those people are in this thread.

4. “The concept of uncertainty is poor argument to make against scientific evidence”. Agree or Disagree
Agree- Uncertainty is a poor argument because we have the evidence that supports a different theory. We do know the conditions of early earth based on very real observations that can be made today. Scientists do rely on the assumption that laws and processes did work the same way back then as they do now (Uniformitarianism), but it's an assumption that needs to be made to be able to study literally anything. For example, what's the point of studying antibiotic resistance in one plate of bacteria if we can't assume that the same processes are occurring in another plate of identical bacteria? There's nothing to be gained from a non-parsimonious explanation of the past (or present) that includes mysterious or unknown forces we have yet to encounter. (While this is a great post, I realize later he never addressed why uncertainty is less salient.)
Disagree (Keityan)- Uncertainty is the process in which science adds more hypothesis to the stack. When you create a hypothesis, you ask more questions about what you are uncertain about. This is the nature of hypothesis testing. Thus, if someone tells you that there is “too much uncertainty” because the artifacts may be too old to be reliable, the goal of a scientist is to create enough facts to prove that it is reliable. Overcoming uncertainty is a process of science, therefore it is no less salient of an argument.

Then Yhwh is not omniscient. Omniscient or free-will, pick one; they are mutually exclusive. e.g.: if a deity knows for truth what choice you will make given a specific set of circumstances, because it knows past, present and future, it is not a test.

it's because I have a logical mind, and illogical thoughts have no place there. It's a safeguard to prevent my brain from experiencing the blue screen of death.

Then Yhwh is not omniscient. Omniscient or free-will, pick one; they are mutually exclusive.

e.g.: if a deity knows for truth what choice you will make given a specific set of circumstances, because it knows past, present and future, it is not a test.

Uniformitarianism doesn't stipulate that conditions remain constant like in your example. It says that laws and processes, such as radioactive decay, remain conserved through time and across distances. So the conditions of the atmosphere have changed but the rate at which process of decay stays the same. Can corrections be made for atmospheric composition? ***, I dunno. I don't work with isotopes, but the point is the assumption that decay remains consistent is what allows for estimates with a measurable level of uncertainty.

This is the part of the argument that pertains to you:

he brings it up to help give his own crooked world views credibility

You summarized my argument incorrectly and completely misquoted me, which is pretty brazen seeing how anyone can just refer to my original post to see what I said. Also, at no point did I imply that our knowledge is complete and unerring.

@ Pleebo:

The only reason why you think he is, as you said:


is because you both don't agree with his world views and are scared of such world views.

I mean, why else would you attack said views if you aren't frightened of them?

He's not highlighting scientific uncertainty for the betterment of science, he brings it up to help give his own crooked world views credibility.

lulz

This is true in the sense that his goals are different. But by bringing up these topics, we are forced to look at these questions in a higher degree of scrutiny, thus fortifying our evidence. It may not be his intention, but this is the end result. Science gets stronger after debates like these, not weaker.

Uncertainty is a poor argument because we have the evidence that supports a different theory.

This is true in the sense that his goals are different. But by bringing up these topics, we are forced to look at these questions in a higher degree of scrutiny, thus fortifying our evidence. It may not be his intention, but this is the end result. Science gets stronger after debates like these, not weaker.

spout nonsense behind a podium.

Both sides need to be able to stop for a second and theorize, yeah I could be completely wrong." And open their minds a bit like that creation website claims they want to do.

I thought the endgame of science was ascension into omnipotent, pure energy beings or have I been watching too much Stargate lately?

If your answer is known before you've made it, it is not free will. The simple fact of knowing all things at all times negates the idea of choice. It was never a choice, only an outcome. You will choose A. You are choosing A. You chose A. B was never a possibility. This is fate.

I miss SGU. :(

What's the obsession with crime dramas?

Stargate Universe not Special Victims Unit lol...

This is why people like you are breeding the "faith of science". You block it out. You block it out because it is something that you don't want to hear. You don't like to listen to your own vulnerabilities. By doing this, this disallows science from getting better. Because of this, I encourage you to read it because it might give you insight of how to think scientifically instead of using your preconceived prejudices to judge arguments.

This is exactly what I'm doing because limitations is one of the arguments made against science. It's real. I won't care if Christans pointed it out, scientists pointed it out, gay, lesiban, black, white, Chinese, Indian. It's the argument that counts.

It's a matter of perception. What if it isn't that the answer is known before you've made it but that you've already made that decision?

The idea is that god exists in everything at all times past present and future. Just because you know something doesn't mean that you dictated that it would happen.