I once attended Loomis Chaffee and these convocations were quite possibly my favorite part of Loomis. I watched until the in hopes of hearing what the students had to ask Genie Scott. I wish whoever has uploaded this video would post the Q&A at the end.
That's the spirit! Seriously. If you just influence 5 persons and each of those manage to influence more than one other human being the word will spread. You are doing just the right thing and your videos are very interesting and enjoyable.
@QueenCrocuta That's the spirit! Seriously. If you just influence 5 persons and each of those manage to influence more than one other human being the word will spread. You are doing just the right thing and your videos are very interesting and enjoyable.
Genie misspoke very near the end of her lecture. She said: "I would like to present to you [the concept] that Intelligent Design is a subset of Creation Science. ... Everything in Intelligent Design is inside Flood Geology." For the latter term, she means Creation Science. See 40:45 Btw. I do not agree with that statement.
W. J. Bryan's point 2, as Genie presents it, is true enough. Read Genesis 2. Scientists cannot really "interpret" Genesis to their liking, just as they do not like citizens deciding scientific issues and dogma (Bryan's point 3)
(4) I say that Darwinism should be reduced to a Conjecture. And the reason why it is not, is because of personal detachment from religion, and the assumptions of Naturalism, and the Continuity Hypothesis. - J. G. Lewis
Not to say there are not problems with... Creation Science, . Actually, there are, especially radiometric dating. We do not yet know how to explain this yet, and some, including William Dembski, accepts Old Age Earth I do not 'accept' this. I tend to believe Young Earth Creationism, as being probably correct, but I am undecided on this specific issue. And this is frankly a great problem with you strict scientists: you do not realize that much of science is actually a matter of probability
Give every mathematical step to get A. ce LL or a brain by chance and/or natural processes but you have to give every step. I know you cannot OK I'll be fair give half the steps I'm in the Gerald schroeder camp on this issue he showed that the Hebrew of Genesis won the order of events match modern science and time is relative if you run the number 6 days now or about 14 billion years of the early universe because time stretches as the universe stretches In the Atlantic Lawrence Kraus confessed that science has never shown that something can come from nothing
You guys are hilarious. Nobody thinks something can come from nothing, except Christians, who believe god came from nothing and made the universe from nothing.
Reply to frankos (3), conc. But there are hidden assumptions inside much of scientific, especially modern biological, thought. Assumptions regarding Naturalism, and the Doctrine of Continuity. Dembski/Denton's critique is simply one of probability: the "Probability Concern" as I coined it. This will be less of a concern if you hold those two assumptions. But even yet, *it will and must still be a concern*. This is the strength and power of the critique: we operate inside of your assumptions.
frankos: This is not a simple a topic as you might think, with all respect. As a result of the so-called Enlightenment, Hume's critiques, and other 'advances', religion is no longer considered an area of human pursuit where knowledge can be arrived at. If this is true, it may be said, what are we doing at all, advancing our (Creationist) ideas into the Scientific arena? But is the assumption true, after all? - J. G. Lewis
"Flood Geology" Visit Eastern Washington... a crazy area, and giving evidence of a great flood. A deluge. Genie Scott: "There are a lot of problems with the Ark Story as a literal event...." Not if you dump Naturalistic assumptions, along with the Continuity Hypothesis, and accept a Creator God.... If God could so Create the Universe, He could very well create a Great Flood. Reasoning from the greater to the lesser, as John Calvin would say.
(3) But.... I withdraw saying that, though not because it is incorrect, but because it is slightly rude and forward. it takes time to realize something of that sort; a matter of Grace too. Yet anyway, if, even disregarding 'religious' claims, even of true religion (again, as Calvin would say, meaning, Christianity & the Judeo-Christian tradition), and rather concentrating on *mathematics and probability*, as Scientists should be doing anyway, one will see that Darwinism is lacking strength.
No, it doesn`t. You don´t have the faintest idea what the scientific method is. But congratulation, you just solved the overcrowding problem in your prisons! Every murder ever convicted will be set free...
earlysda "Evolution fails the scientific method". A statement which is demonstrable false. There are three possible explanations: 1) your understanding of evolution is flawed 2) your understanding of the scientific method is flawed 3) both of the above. No judging involved. As I have seen you have other problems with evidence and science I think that at least #2 is true. Please humour me and define for me what the scientific method is.
KopernikusGKK "Evolution hasn't been observed while it's happening". That means Evolution fails the scientific method. But you knew that already, right?
Again, you are wrong on two counts. 1) evolution has been observed *many* times in action. 2) again you show, that you have no idea what the scientific method is. Because you have not given me any information on what *you* think the scientific method may be, i have to surmise your strawman, having talked to other creationists before. *NO*, a fact has not to be observed by a person to be considered a fact. After your definition of "science" every murderer or rapist who has been convicted on the strength of material evidence must be set free immediately. If you have GSR on your hands, you have used a weapon. FACT. No need for an observer to be present at the actual crime. If you look at the dwarf-planet pluto, which has been discovered around 1930, it has an orbital period of about 250 years. We haven´t known about it´s existence long enough to have seen a complete pluto-year, but we know that as a FACT. If you have *evidence* for something than you can safely assume that as a *FACT*. And in some cases the absence of evidence *does* mean evidence of absence. Like when something *must* be there, but isn´t. To get back to the court analogy, when you don´t have a bullet wound, then the person has not been shot! So, please read the wikipedia article on the scientific method and don´t try to push the nonsense creationists spout about it as truth. But you knew that already, right? And you didn´t give a ... about it.
OK, let's look at "god". Here's a being who got bored or lonely, so he decides to create a universe and somewhere in that universe he creates humans. (can't see how bored he could have been, after all there are 3 of him, the trinity, you know, big daddy, junior and the spook) Anyway, since he loves us so much he demands we spend our whole short life kissing his feet and as a reward we can then spend eternity kissing his feet. If we don't agree, he sends us to burn for eternity in a lake of fire, because he loves us so much of course. Frankly, I've had just about as much love as I can take !!
I like Genie Scott so much though... it almost makes me want to be a Darwinian....(!) She is a very nice lady. Some on our side have somewhat of a down your nose attitude. W. Dembski possibly, also Mr. Berlinski. Another gentle person on the side of the Darwinists is Kenneth Miller.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I keep hoping for a 'win a date with genie scott' contest...but it never comes :(
I once attended Loomis Chaffee and these convocations were quite possibly my favorite part of Loomis. I watched until the in hopes of hearing what the students had to ask Genie Scott. I wish whoever has uploaded this video would post the Q&A at the end.
Eugenie is a Hero in Education.
That's the spirit! Seriously. If you just influence 5 persons and each of those manage to influence more than one other human being the word will spread. You are doing just the right thing and your videos are very interesting and enjoyable.
Starts at 2:40
13 years later yet still current ifo thanks
@QueenCrocuta That's the spirit! Seriously. If you just influence 5 persons and each of those manage to influence more than one other human being the word will spread. You are doing just the right thing and your videos are very interesting and enjoyable.
Genie misspoke very near the end of her lecture. She said: "I would like to present to you [the concept] that Intelligent Design is a subset of Creation Science. ... Everything in Intelligent Design is inside Flood Geology." For the latter term, she means Creation Science. See 40:45
Btw. I do not agree with that statement.
W. J. Bryan's point 2, as Genie presents it, is true enough. Read Genesis 2. Scientists cannot really "interpret" Genesis to their liking, just as they do not like citizens deciding scientific issues and dogma (Bryan's point 3)
(4)
I say that Darwinism should be reduced to a Conjecture. And the reason why it is not, is because of personal detachment from religion, and the assumptions of Naturalism, and the Continuity Hypothesis.
- J. G. Lewis
Excellent, illuminating talk. Thank you for uploading.
Not to say there are not problems with... Creation Science, . Actually, there are, especially radiometric dating. We do not yet know how to explain this yet, and some, including William Dembski, accepts Old Age Earth
I do not 'accept' this. I tend to believe Young Earth Creationism, as being probably correct, but I am undecided on this specific issue. And this is frankly a great problem with you strict scientists: you do not realize that much of science is actually a matter of probability
John G. Lewis So why does the Catholic Church who know the Bible better than any nutjob American pastor accept evolution ?
Give every mathematical step to get A. ce LL or a brain by chance and/or natural processes but you have to give every step.
I know you cannot
OK I'll be fair give half the steps
I'm in the Gerald schroeder camp on this issue he showed that the Hebrew of Genesis won the order of events match modern science and time is relative if you run the number 6 days now or about 14 billion years of the early universe because time stretches as the universe stretches
In the Atlantic Lawrence Kraus confessed that science has never shown that something can come from nothing
You guys are hilarious. Nobody thinks something can come from nothing, except Christians, who believe god came from nothing and made the universe from nothing.
(2)
Indeed, I may say.... that all of science is a matter of probability, because it all rests on the Good Will, the Grace, of God.
Reply to frankos (3), conc.
But there are hidden assumptions inside much of scientific, especially modern biological, thought. Assumptions regarding Naturalism, and the Doctrine of Continuity. Dembski/Denton's critique is simply one of probability: the "Probability Concern" as I coined it. This will be less of a concern if you hold those two assumptions. But even yet, *it will and must still be a concern*. This is the strength and power of the critique: we operate inside of your assumptions.
frankos:
This is not a simple a topic as you might think, with all respect. As a result of the so-called Enlightenment, Hume's critiques, and other 'advances', religion is no longer considered an area of human pursuit where knowledge can be arrived at. If this is true, it may be said, what are we doing at all, advancing our (Creationist) ideas into the Scientific arena? But is the assumption true, after all?
- J. G. Lewis
"Flood Geology"
Visit Eastern Washington... a crazy area, and giving evidence of a great flood. A deluge.
Genie Scott: "There are a lot of problems with the Ark Story as a literal event...."
Not if you dump Naturalistic assumptions, along with the Continuity Hypothesis, and accept a Creator God.... If God could so Create the Universe, He could very well create a Great Flood. Reasoning from the greater to the lesser, as John Calvin would say.
(3) But.... I withdraw saying that, though not because it is incorrect, but because it is slightly rude and forward. it takes time to realize something of that sort; a matter of Grace too. Yet anyway, if, even disregarding 'religious' claims, even of true religion (again, as Calvin would say, meaning, Christianity & the Judeo-Christian tradition), and rather concentrating on *mathematics and probability*, as Scientists should be doing anyway, one will see that Darwinism is lacking strength.
Genie Scott doesn't seem to remember that Evolution fails the scientific method.
Next.
No, it doesn`t. You don´t have the faintest idea what the scientific method is.
But congratulation, you just solved the overcrowding problem in your prisons! Every murder ever convicted will be set free...
KopernikusGKK Thank you for judging me. Sadly, your criteria for judging is faulty, so you have arrived at a faulty conclusion.
earlysda
"Evolution fails the scientific method".
A statement which is demonstrable false.
There are three possible explanations:
1) your understanding of evolution is flawed
2) your understanding of the scientific method is flawed
3) both of the above.
No judging involved. As I have seen you have other problems with evidence and science I think that at least #2 is true.
Please humour me and define for me what the scientific method is.
KopernikusGKK "Evolution hasn't been observed while it's happening".
That means Evolution fails the scientific method.
But you knew that already, right?
Again, you are wrong on two counts.
1) evolution has been observed *many* times in action.
2) again you show, that you have no idea what the scientific method is.
Because you have not given me any information on what *you* think the scientific method may be, i have to surmise your strawman, having talked to other creationists before.
*NO*, a fact has not to be observed by a person to be considered a fact. After your definition of "science" every murderer or rapist who has been convicted on the strength of material evidence must be set free immediately.
If you have GSR on your hands, you have used a weapon. FACT. No need for an observer to be present at the actual crime. If you look at the dwarf-planet pluto, which has been discovered around 1930, it has an orbital period of about 250 years. We haven´t known about it´s existence long enough to have seen a complete pluto-year, but we know that as a FACT.
If you have *evidence* for something than you can safely assume that as a *FACT*. And in some cases the absence of evidence *does* mean evidence of absence. Like when something *must* be there, but isn´t. To get back to the court analogy, when you don´t have a bullet wound, then the person has not been shot!
So, please read the wikipedia article on the scientific method and don´t try to push the nonsense creationists spout about it as truth.
But you knew that already, right? And you didn´t give a ... about it.
silly silly people
great video!
Philosophical or Ontological Naturalism...
There is also two, or more, types of Methodological Naturalism....
(37:50)
OK, let's look at "god". Here's a being who got bored or lonely, so he decides to create a universe and somewhere in that universe he creates humans. (can't see how bored he could have been, after all there are 3 of him, the trinity, you know, big daddy, junior and the spook) Anyway, since he loves us so much he demands we spend our whole short life kissing his feet and as a reward we can then spend eternity kissing his feet. If we don't agree, he sends us to burn for eternity in a lake of fire, because he loves us so much of course. Frankly, I've had just about as much love as I can take !!
That was really well said, and I'm a habs fan.
1991stratplus A habs fan? That's ok, nobody's perfect.
Seeker22000
Well according to to scripture, there was this one fellow.... but i call a 5 min major BS on that.
She is so likable, it almost wants me to be a Darwinian.
I like Genie Scott so much though... it almost makes me want to be a Darwinian....(!)
She is a very nice lady. Some on our side have somewhat of a down your nose attitude. W. Dembski possibly, also Mr. Berlinski. Another gentle person on the side of the Darwinists is Kenneth Miller.
@psb1964 sign me up