Kirk Cameron Attacks Stephen Hawking

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by transplant99

i feel for the kid but his reasoning is a load of bovine dung.

It doesn't matter one iota what his reasoning is. The Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that having a prayer during a graduation ceremonies at a public school is illegal. That's the only reasoning the kid needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_v._Weisman

[Thor]

A bit late, but did anyone else hope that the title of the thread was literal, and we'd get a video of Cameron attacking an old man in a wheelchair?

[metallicat]

The kid wanting prayer out of the graduation or whatever it is is just as dumb as Kirk Cameron. In fact, maybe even dumber. Emotionally destressing? What a joke. Just ignore the prayers and get on with your life.

[yads]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Gotta disagree. Having been in large assemblies where people are praying to something I don't believe in, it can definitely be unsettling and mildly 'distressing'. When you are expected to bow your head, close your eyes, clasp your hands in obeisance to an entity you don't believe in, it is distrssing. When it becomes a social norm to follow the rituals of a belief system you don't ascrbe to, that is distressing. When you propose a compromise such as a moment of silence in which people can choose to pray, or simply choose to reflect and you are shot down, that is distressing. Just because you are not distressed by it doesn't mean that someone else cannot be reasoably distressed in these situations.

Kind of like this? http://tinypic.com/player.php?s=6&v=2psiu07

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

The kid wanting prayer out of the graduation or whatever it is is just as dumb as Kirk Cameron. In fact, maybe even dumber. Emotionally destressing? What a joke. Just ignore the prayers and get on with your life.

Maybe the emotional distressing part is that he doesn't take part in it and is taking all kinds of abuse from students and teachers.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Shades

Talk about strawman arguments, photon. Right after you disparage someone for using them no less.

Archeological evidence supports everything that has been recorded in the Bible. Times. Dates. Events. Using your scientific approach, it's up to you to prove to me that the Bible doesn't actually, right?

What is evidenced though is trivial. You can't argue that because the bible makes mention of some landmarks and structures that exist(ed) that it means everything else in the bible is correct. It is like saying that because Moses parted the Red Sea, and that since the Red Sea exists therefore Moses must have parted it like in the bible.

A thousand years into the future, people will find the Harry Potter books, do you think they'll believe that Hogwarts was real because the books mentioned the train stations in London.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Maybe the emotional distressing part is that he doesn't take part in it and is taking all kinds of abuse from students and teachers.

Is it really worth the fight? He lives in the bible belt, he knew it was goingto stir up trouble. Is his mom right to cease communication? Of course not, she's a hateful human being. But is it really so hard to just bow your head while everyone else is praying? My buddy got married in a church last year an I was in the party. Should I have raised a stink about the praying? Activist atheists (or whatever they're called), are just as bad as extremist religious people.

[ynwa03]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

but as a scientist, the onus isn't on him to prove that something doesn't exist, it's up to Cameron and other Christians to gather evidence and put forth a case that God and heaven do exist (and sorry, but the bible doesn't count). so far there has never been any observable facts that would suggest heaven is a real place, so in the scientific realm it is perfectly acceptable to say that it doesn't exist

How much of science is based on theories and how much on proofs? Most of science is based on conjecture and theories. Does that mean any of it is less true?

[photon]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

My buddy got married in a church last year an I was in the party. Should I have raised a stink about the praying?

Praying at a private wedding isn't against the law.

[metallicat]

Ok fair enough, but is it worth the fight and the trouble this kid is going through now? Right or wrong, he brought it upon himself.

[photon]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

How much of science is based on theories and how much on proofs? Most of science is based on conjecture and theories. Does that mean any of it is less true?

There's no such thing as "proof" in science, proof is for math. All conclusions in science are provisional.

A theory in science means an extremely well supported framework complete with evidence, confirmed predictions, and explanatory power. It doesn't mean the same thing when you say "conjecture".

A theory of gravity doesn't mean a conjecture about how things fall, the theory of gravity predicts and explains gravitational interactions to such a high degree that we can send probes across the solar system and predict where things will be.

[photon]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Ok fair enough, but is it worth the fight and the trouble this kid is going through now? Right or wrong, he brought it upon himself.

The response is vastly disproportionate, and when should someone ever be persecuted to that degree for trying to upload the law?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Ok fair enough, but is it worth the fight and the trouble this kid is going through now? Right or wrong, he brought it upon himself.

So when do you stand up?

If it is only when there is nothing to lose then we would find a severe lack of Police Officers and Soldiers.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by photon

There's no such thing as "proof" in science, proof is for math. All conclusions in science are provisional.

A theory in science means an extremely well supported framework complete with evidence, confirmed predictions, and explanatory power. It doesn't mean the same thing when you say "conjecture".

A theory of gravity doesn't mean a conjecture about how things fall, the theory of gravity predicts and explains gravitational interactions to such a high degree that we can send probes across the solar system and predict where things will be.

Not to be picky, but you probably meant "law of gravity". Laws describe base fundamental rules of physics like motion and force, etc.

[pylon]

Just checking in to see if calgaryborn has come back to justify his bone headed statement. Didn't think so.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by photon

The response is vastly disproportionate, and when should someone ever be persecuted to that degree for trying to upload the law?

I don't disagree with what you're saying and I know it isn't right he's being persecuted for it, but I still question his motives.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So when do you stand up?

If it is only when there is nothing to lose then we would find a severe lack of Police Officers and Soldiers.

I guess you can stand up whenever you want if there's injustice, but we're not talking about violent or serious crimes here. It's about prayer. Again I understand what you guys are saying, I have no issue with that.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Not to be picky, but you probably meant "law of gravity". Laws describe base fundamental rules of physics like motion and force, etc.

Not really, since GR is a theory, and the best description of gravity we have.

A law as you say is like the base set of rules, it is a summary of observations that have always been true, so Newton's law of gravity predicted the path something would take, but didn't describe why it did so. GR describes why so it's a theory.

Newton ended up being wrong of course, so laws aren't immune to change.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Shades

Talk about strawman arguments, photon. Right after you disparage someone for using them no less.

Archeological evidence supports everything that has been recorded in the Bible. Times. Dates. Events. Using your scientific approach, it's up to you to prove to me that the Bible doesn't actually, right?

Some of the stuff recorded in the Bible is archaeologically accurate, yes. There is a lot of evidence for some of the landmarks or events like a great flood (which, amusingly, actually seems to occur at least once in most religious texts...maybe they're all the same event! ).

Either way, using parts of the Bible seems a bit silly, especially if you use anything but the original texts. Much of the context of such articles is lost (especially when people nitpick specific words or, even worse) of 2 translations (I believe the originals were in Hebrew, then were translated to Latin for priests, then translated by King James to English).

As an example, here's a link to an image of all the possible contradictions made in the English version of the Bible:
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1662676/...ible-got-wrong

And as photon once mentioned...:

Originally Posted by photon

I don't know if it's in there, but my favorite one is the story of Moses and the plagues in Egypt. The cattle managed to get killed twice, some of them even three times!

Exodus 9:6, all the livestock are killed in a pestilence.

Then in 9:18 there's a warning of a massive hail storm, and in 9:19 Moses is supposed to warn Pharaoh to bring his livestock so they don't die. Again.

Then in 11:5 it's warned the first born are going to die, including the twice dead first born of all the cattle.

And in 12:29 the threat is followed through on all the firstborn of the cattle were smote. Again.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by photon

Newton ended up being wrong of course, so laws aren't immune to change.

Sorry photon, hate to pick you up on this, but this is one of my pet peeves.

Newton wasn't "wrong", by any reasonable definition of correctness. He was merely inexact. His equations work on macroscopic scales, and they work almost perfectly. Just because they don't work on tiny scales where other equations take hold does not make him "wrong". We put a man on the moon and spacecraft beyond the solar system with Newton. Doesn't sound "wrong" to me.

Einstein did not prove Newton wrong, or turn over Newton's work. He improved upon it. Einstein's equations boil down to Newton's on a macro-scale. This would not be the case if Newton was wrong.