And only if you succeed in giving it no push at all.
Science beats stupid every time.
Science totally worked, and beat that stupid girl in the face. (and should beat her stupid teacher in his bank account)

That doesn't sound like circular reasoning to you?

It would sound circular if none of those had any other basis for their timelines other than each other, which, not being an expert, I have to guess is not the case. You, the one making the enormous claim that the entire field of geology is unscientific, have to demonstrate that.

I found some more cherry-picking. From that article about mudstones, you take this one quote: "One thing we are very certain of is that our findings will influence how geologists and paleontologists reconstruct Earth's past" and determine from it that the age of the planet will be scientifically revised from many billions of years to a few thousand. You have no basis for that. Also, why are you quoting geologists? That isn't even a science, I thought, right? Is it just because these ones happen to sound like their story could be twisted to agree with yours?

Your argument from incredulity not-withstanding, I think Max Planck sums it up rather nicely: " A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

If by that quote you mean that old people tend to have a hard time changing their minds about things in face of contradictory evidence, you're right -- that's human nature. If you mean that scientific theories change randomly because new opinions grow and the old ones die out like cultural habits, you're wrong.

There was a paradigm shift from catastrophism to uniformitarianism in the late 19th century. It was a deliberate move away from the idea of a global flood. To make their theories worked, they needed vast amount of time

This is another grand claim. Can you give a verifiable non-biased (non ID) reference as to the deliberateness of the shift, and the pre-formed idea that they needed to conjure up vast amounts of time? Science doesn't become conventional wisdom without a preponderance of evidence to back it up. It doesn't mean any of it is correct, just that there's a lot of supporting evidence.

In other words, you believe whatever the scientists say and there is no reason to understand the alternative viewpoint.

No. You're the one making ridiculous claims. I'm rebutting for fun, for sport. I don't believe your religion is real. I trust scientists more than dogmatists, and if I have to choose how to spend 1.5 hours, it's going to be reading Feynman or watching TYT or studying math or practising card tricks. You brought up the topic, and I happen to only care enough about it to rebut a bit, not to dedicate hours to it. Also, you have a history here of providing horribly unscientific quotes and references without any attempt at intellectual honesty, and based on that, I can guess the quality of that video, and I don't need to spend 1.5 hours only to be disappointed in myself for trying. If I were really that curious, I would go to the geology department of my university and ask some professors about the circular argument, and what the original basis was for the dating. If you care that much about actually finding the truth, you'll do just that. But I think you're too afraid to learn something contradictory to your dogma.

It's all predicated upon the philosophy of deep time. Deep time is the cornerstone of modern research, and it supported by flimsy, circumstantial evidence.

Non-ID reference for the flimsiness required for grand claims.

GOD is real, GOD can heal. GOD does heal.
This time science came to the rescue of this person.

I can't even prove that the color blue I am seeing is the same for you as it is me, proof is hard


It's very possible it isn't the same for me, at least at some level. There's quite a range in terms of color perception (with outliers like color blind people or those who experience synaesthesia) and it's clear that to a certain extent color discrimination varies between cultures and sexes.

Disregarding those differences, it's likely there is at least some commonality between our perceptions. Assuming you believe our experiences are rooted in our brains, it seems likely that the structures for perceiving color would be generally similar. As our understanding of the brain grows, we'll be able to nail this question down much better.

In any case, though, just because one thing (which may not even be a true thing) that sounds simple (our experience of seeing color) is hard to prove a point about, that doesn't mean that in general proof is hard. We evaluate evidence a million times a day in order to guide decisions and actions, and over time science has come up with a tremendous amount of evidence for very complicated and sometimes unintuitive propositions. Now clearly "absolute proof" is usually hard, and probably impossible for most useful subjects - but proof (in the looser sense of sufficient evidence to believe) is all around us, and the basis for almost everything we do.

@Lolthien: "I honestly believe our potential is limitless."

Right, that seems like a rare sentiment, but how could our potential not be limitless?

Our potential is only limited by our biology, which is only limited by science + time.

(In the long run, or a blink of the eye on the scale of cosmic time, science can re-shape our biology to any form.)

Re: evidence against God:
Well, obviously this is a tough one, because you can never prove a negative. The problem is you cannot prove it positively either. Or rather, no one has. We can prove that zebras exist, because there are pictures/videos, many, many people have seen zebras and the thought "makes sense" to us. While I have not seen a zebra, I take it faith, for lack of a better word, that they exist and that it is not an elaborate scheme or conspiracy. It is also relatively easy to verify the theory of a zebra at any given time. It is not all that easy to verify a proof of God, because all the "evidence" are aberrations: Jesus in a can of beans, someone being healed of some disease or being awed by nature. Do you see my point?
To be able to dispute a claim of God, I have to have a definition to go on. Many times when someone disproves a definition, people go "well, but that's not my God". If you make a hypothesis of your God, I'll do my best to disprove that hypothesis.

The Christian Creation theory is not just illogical it is blatantly false and foolish. Creation makes very definite claims, for instance young earth Creationism (earth <10.000 years old) is provably false, the claim that God made all species they way they are now with no transitions is provably false. When a religious doctrine makes such definite claims about our natural world the scientific method has crushed them every time. God seems to retreat into more muddy waters every time science proves him wrong; "God in the gaps".

Re: faith and logic
Your argument that you are able to correlate your faith and logic is more indicative of your ability to overlook some scripture and accept other parts. To make the Bible, for instance, cover the world as we see it now, we have to pick-and-choose which parts we really want to follow and which parts are just gibberish. I think this is a wrong way to go about it. There is a reason the Bible is as it is, you have to either accept it or not. Christianity as an idea is also "evolved" over time, into the many, many variations we see now. Some differences are greater than others, and some are minute. I am troubled by the pick-and-choosing, because that is not the way we learn things about the world. I view the Bible as the evidence that Christians use, and in that case you have to be able to fit everything into your theory, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. Or make a new theory.

I respect your reverence of your parents, but they can be wrong too. Not that you should questions everything they say, but my point is that they may not really have the answer you are looking for.

The Scientific method is not well equipped to handle moral or ethical questions, because they are not (yet, anyway) a countable, measurable thing. We can't observe moral in its pure form, only the effects it has on people. It is possible to form theories about how it has originated through social sciences and anthropology, but "hard science" has trouble with it. Concerning philosophical questions, it really depends on what kind of philosophical question it is. Some are surprisingly easily bounded in biological evidence, while others are more ethereal.

If God chose to reveal himself, he would manifest in our natural world and thus the scientific method would suddenly apply to at least that avatar in our world. We could then do tests and gather evidence on this manifestation and, at least, get some ideas of how he exists. The fact that this has never happened, does seem to show a tendency.

Re: Existence of the universe
You're just throwing curve balls, aren't you?

Your third possible answer is the same as number two or one. The unmoved mover would need an origin too, and either he has his own 3 or he came from nothing or he always existed.

The problem with inserting God in that theory is that it can never explain anything. You enter into an infinite regress, that goes: "Us <-- God <-- superGod <-- supersuperGod" and so on (<-- "made by").
We have very little scientific evidence that shows the origin of the universe, but that does not mean that we should insert a prime mover into the equation, because that does not logically add up.

I will submit that the nature of the universe may be more mysterious than we think now and that the three possibilities does not adequately cover what "really" happened. Time could be cyclical, or something entirely different from a different point of view than our 3 dimensional world. I'm inclined to that the universe always existed in some form or another, but I have no scientific basis for that thought.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]

An excellent example of one major world religion struggling to survive in the rational era.

Now that people don't believe in or fear creator gods anymore, they have no choice but to peddle their lies in modern rational and scientific language.

At the same time, science has moved to the opposite extreme, denying that there exists an underlying intentionality of nature.

This post has been removed from the Science channel by channel owner rembar.

I agree with you rembar that creationism, or "intelligent design" is not science, and never will be science, however: this movie is about science, made by people who are hostile to science, and who wants ideas based on no evidence at all to be called "science". So in that sense, I think it does have some sort of relevance to the science channel. But it does serve some poetic justice to Expel this from the science "classroom"

the scientific status quo

Where to begin? every word of every sentence by creationists are so soaked in complete ignorance and misinformation it is difficult to come to terms with.. there is no "scientific status quo" For the billionth time: Science is a METHOD, not a creed.

Ben Stein: ..random chance and chemical processes..

"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"

Get it? now repeat that 4,7 billion times, and lets see how it evolves to

"I'm a stupid fucking hack creationist, and I'll never, ever get it."

Please he totally stole that bit from Douglas Adams...

lol yes. But this isn't the first time science has taken its ideas from fiction and had its consciousness raised. Look at the advances that came out of Star Trek - the mobile phone, for one.