Posts Tagged ‘Science’

The Great Debate: Nye vs Ham: The Outcome

February 13, 2014

Just a quick note about the debate.  I love Ken Ham.  He is brilliant.  However, he let the debate be about the age of the Earth and other such lesser issues.  He didn’t effectively challenge “The Science Guy” to account for matter, energy, consciousness, or information (DNA).  The closest thing to a challenge was from an audience question about consciousness.  More later.

The Limits of Science and the Bias of Scientists

October 9, 2013

Scientists cannot explain why the universe is infinite yet expanding. How can infinity expand? And what is space. Nothing, they say. So how can nothing expand? Sometimes scientists should just say “we don’t know” and then be quiet. The problem with scientism is that it presumes, without proof, that “material” (matter) is all there is, and knowledge can only be derived from observing matter. (this is philosophical materialsim) They study the physical sciences and glibly speak of metaphysics (i.e., spiritual matters) as if observing the physical world can tell us something about the spiritual world – they do this while they can’t even provide a reasonable degree of certainty of the nature of the physical world that they allege to know so well. When challenged, they often respond with forceful authority and big words, and use an assortment of offensive names to belittle anyone that disagrees with their inbred philosophies. In reality they are, above all, Malthusians; and the real agenda is to rid the world of religion so that people will stop obeying the Bible’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”, for they are convinced that the Earth is doomed unless people stop breathing and eating (in other words die – except for them, of course). Yet according to past warnings from the-sky-is-falling Malthusians, the world should have already been destroyed, with the Earth’s resources completely exhausted decades ago. But that has not happened. And why is that? Could it be that their philosophical leanings skew their empirical observations of the Earth’s capabilities? Probably.