Kirk Cameron schools Stephen Hawking in science

The BBQ Pit
501

More importantly, why would you bother wondering about something as inane as that?

In the end, everything we perceive could be an illusion. But we live our lives with the assumption that what we see is real and we aren’t just walruses living in tree houses eating mushrooms while being served by talking pink butterflies.

I just don’t get what you theist apologists get out of positing a God that is undetectable. Are you just uncomfortable with the idea that we were not “created”, do you really believe in a more active God and playing games to make your belief more rational, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

502

Hey, you dropped some straw over here. If you find a theist apologist, let me know. I’m arguing for the sake of arguing. :smiley:

503

For my first post I want to put this here: The Relativity of Wrong

This talks about the notion that science is as wrong as it was before. Really you all should go read it. (Have I mentioned it’s from Isaac Asimov?)

504

No, it steadily becomes less wrong.

505

So, in other words, you didn’t read the link.

506

So I haven’t been keeping up on this thread. What are we talking about now? Is Scylla still gibbering and trying to backpeddle out of his stupidity?

507

No, for the last three days we have been debating about the possibility of a god that can be both unfalsifiable and relevant.

508

Well, yes, something unfalsifiable can be relevant, just not in a science class.

509

Ok, I should have worded it different:

This talks about the notion “science is as wrong as it was before” is incorrect.

So, yeah, basically you didn’t read the thing.

510

Actually, yeah, I did read it. And I just read it again. And I fail to see how my “it steadily becomes less wrong” statement conflicts with it.

511

I’m with **Revtim **on this one, having just read it. “It steadily becomes less wrong” seems to me to be a great capsule summary of the article.

512

The opening word in your statement of “No, it steadily becomes less wrong” implied disagreement with the article, followed by what appeared to be a restatement of what the article said.

Statement: “Here’s an article–the article talks about the notion that bacon isn’t delicious.”
article says “Bacon is totally delicious”
Response: “No, bacon is totally delicious.”

I read that as incongruous, although in retrospect I suppose your “no” makes sense if I read it as being directed at the “notion” clause and not the article.

513

Yes, I meant science steadily becomes less wrong, not the article.