Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

My conversation with Dr. Lawrence Krauss

justin.graves
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 7:38:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Me: "Dr. Krauss

Hello, my name is Justin Graves. I am 15-years-old and live in Wilmington, NC. I have read several of your books including my favorite, The Physics of Star Trek. I love theoretical physics and read book after book about it. I even planned to go into physics when I went to college. However, when I started Algebra II, I realized something: I hate math. I love the ideas, but can't do it myself.

Now, Dr. Krauss, I love your work but I have one thing that has caused me to decide to start reading your books with a more critical eye. I watched your video interview that was shown on the Huffington Post where you compare teaching Creationism to children to child abuse. That was painful for me to watch. You see, I am a Creationist. I am not a Creationist because my parents told me to be one. I am a Creationist because I have looked at the evidence for both sides and made my choice. Yes, I was raised in a Christian home where Creationism was taught, but the sciences were and are a huge part of my life as well. I look for the truth in life. I don't believe something just because someone told me it was true. I looked at both sides of the argument and made my choice.

Dr. Krauss, calling my parents and, in advance, me a child abuser offended me. You told the internet world that teaching what you believe is a crime. Sir, I respect your beliefs as much as they sadden me. However, you stepped over a line when you told parents what they should teach their children. We know that Newton's theory of gravity is not entirely true, but we don't call parents child abusers because they taught it to their kids. I don't believe teaching kids Creation, which usually involves looking at the evidence, is a disadvantage for them. On the contrary, I think it is a huge advantage. When you are taught Creation, you are told to look at both sides of the argument on everything. That is a incredible advantage in the scientific community. I must respectfully say that you are wrong on this issue Dr. Krauss. However, I will still accept most of The Physics of Star Trek."

Dr. Krauss:
"thanks.. listen to what I said.. I said it is something all parents do at some level, and didn't call it a crime.. I said we should encourage our kids to question, and not withhold knowledge.. that is all..

I assume when you say you are a creationist, you don't mean a 6000 year old earth creationist.. because if you mean that, you haven't looked at the evidence, and if you did, you don't understand the science..

that was what I was referring to. In any case, thanks for writing.. I am responding because you are young person and I try to respond to emails from young people, but I get many emails, so this is all I have to say on this. Good luck in your studies either way and I encourage you to keep questioning.

best

LMK"

Well, apparently Lawrence doesn't get the concept of child abuse being a crime... because he called it child abuse, and child abuse is a crime. he also pretty much called me an idiot for believing in a literal six-day creation. Basically he said that either I'm ignorant, or I'm an idiot. Just nicely.
-Justin K. Graves, Demon Hunter
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 9:34:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 7:38:01 AM, justin.graves wrote:
Me: "Dr. Krauss

Hello, my name is Justin Graves. I am 15-years-old and live in Wilmington, NC. I have read several of your books including my favorite, The Physics of Star Trek. I love theoretical physics and read book after book about it. I even planned to go into physics when I went to college. However, when I started Algebra II, I realized something: I hate math. I love the ideas, but can't do it myself.

Now, Dr. Krauss, I love your work but I have one thing that has caused me to decide to start reading your books with a more critical eye. I watched your video interview that was shown on the Huffington Post where you compare teaching Creationism to children to child abuse. That was painful for me to watch. You see, I am a Creationist. I am not a Creationist because my parents told me to be one. I am a Creationist because I have looked at the evidence for both sides and made my choice. Yes, I was raised in a Christian home where Creationism was taught, but the sciences were and are a huge part of my life as well. I look for the truth in life. I don't believe something just because someone told me it was true. I looked at both sides of the argument and made my choice.

Dr. Krauss, calling my parents and, in advance, me a child abuser offended me. You told the internet world that teaching what you believe is a crime. Sir, I respect your beliefs as much as they sadden me. However, you stepped over a line when you told parents what they should teach their children. We know that Newton's theory of gravity is not entirely true, but we don't call parents child abusers because they taught it to their kids. I don't believe teaching kids Creation, which usually involves looking at the evidence, is a disadvantage for them. On the contrary, I think it is a huge advantage. When you are taught Creation, you are told to look at both sides of the argument on everything. That is a incredible advantage in the scientific community. I must respectfully say that you are wrong on this issue Dr. Krauss. However, I will still accept most of The Physics of Star Trek."

Dr. Krauss:
"thanks.. listen to what I said.. I said it is something all parents do at some level, and didn't call it a crime.. I said we should encourage our kids to question, and not withhold knowledge.. that is all..

I assume when you say you are a creationist, you don't mean a 6000 year old earth creationist.. because if you mean that, you haven't looked at the evidence, and if you did, you don't understand the science..

that was what I was referring to. In any case, thanks for writing.. I am responding because you are young person and I try to respond to emails from young people, but I get many emails, so this is all I have to say on this. Good luck in your studies either way and I encourage you to keep questioning.

best

LMK"


Well, apparently Lawrence doesn't get the concept of child abuse being a crime... because he called it child abuse, and child abuse is a crime. he also pretty much called me an idiot for believing in a literal six-day creation. Basically he said that either I'm ignorant, or I'm an idiot. Just nicely.

Well did you ever look at Neanderthal DNA?
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 9:48:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 7:38:01 AM, justin.graves wrote:
Me: "Dr. Krauss

Hello, my name is Justin Graves. I am 15-years-old and live in Wilmington, NC. I have read several of your books including my favorite, The Physics of Star Trek. I love theoretical physics and read book after book about it. I even planned to go into physics when I went to college. However, when I started Algebra II, I realized something: I hate math. I love the ideas, but can't do it myself.

Now, Dr. Krauss, I love your work but I have one thing that has caused me to decide to start reading your books with a more critical eye. I watched your video interview that was shown on the Huffington Post where you compare teaching Creationism to children to child abuse. That was painful for me to watch. You see, I am a Creationist. I am not a Creationist because my parents told me to be one. I am a Creationist because I have looked at the evidence for both sides and made my choice. Yes, I was raised in a Christian home where Creationism was taught, but the sciences were and are a huge part of my life as well. I look for the truth in life. I don't believe something just because someone told me it was true. I looked at both sides of the argument and made my choice.

Dr. Krauss, calling my parents and, in advance, me a child abuser offended me. You told the internet world that teaching what you believe is a crime. Sir, I respect your beliefs as much as they sadden me. However, you stepped over a line when you told parents what they should teach their children. We know that Newton's theory of gravity is not entirely true, but we don't call parents child abusers because they taught it to their kids. I don't believe teaching kids Creation, which usually involves looking at the evidence, is a disadvantage for them. On the contrary, I think it is a huge advantage. When you are taught Creation, you are told to look at both sides of the argument on everything. That is a incredible advantage in the scientific community. I must respectfully say that you are wrong on this issue Dr. Krauss. However, I will still accept most of The Physics of Star Trek."

Dr. Krauss:
"thanks.. listen to what I said.. I said it is something all parents do at some level, and didn't call it a crime.. I said we should encourage our kids to question, and not withhold knowledge.. that is all..

I assume when you say you are a creationist, you don't mean a 6000 year old earth creationist.. because if you mean that, you haven't looked at the evidence, and if you did, you don't understand the science..

that was what I was referring to. In any case, thanks for writing.. I am responding because you are young person and I try to respond to emails from young people, but I get many emails, so this is all I have to say on this. Good luck in your studies either way and I encourage you to keep questioning.

best

LMK"


Well, apparently Lawrence doesn't get the concept of child abuse being a crime... because he called it child abuse, and child abuse is a crime. he also pretty much called me an idiot for believing in a literal six-day creation. Basically he said that either I'm ignorant, or I'm an idiot. Just nicely.

You wrote a very well thought and respectful letter. Good work. "Child Abuse" is no doubt an overstatement at least as I can discern from your writing about it (I have not read it).

From his response I gather he was really focused on the fundamentalist belief of creationism where the biblical story is literal and the earth 10,000 years old.

If you are in that camp and I can take you to a spot here in north texas where we can find a 40 million year old oyster shells in an area that was not covered by seas in the last 10,000 years then he probably has a legitimate point.

The only explanation for these shells has been either the Devil planted them there or geologists are wrong and the seas covered the area in the last 10,000 years and carbon dating is so off that it can't even judge the difference between 40 million years and 10k years.

Any person who is honestly looking at scientific data and does not evoke "the Devil is trying to trick us" theory has to believe the earth is more than 10,000 years old.
justin.graves
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 10:14:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 9:34:58 AM, Dan4reason wrote:

Well did you ever look at Neanderthal DNA?

Yes, I have. The question is... have you? Did you know that the base difference results between the Neanderthals and humans is different with each specimen tested? (Wall, Kim-2007) They differed in the numbers of genome bases. Meaning that either the Neanderthals weren't Neanderthals, or there was contamination.

In fact, there was contamination by bacteria. And the more the contamination... the bigger the difference in genome. Plus, we only have 50 of the 70 base pairs of DNA, making any differences ~28.57% more than they actually are. The average human is 99.9% the same as another human. While Neanderthals (humans in my opinion) are 99.7% the same, with contamination AND only having ~.7412% of the DNA.

In reality, the difference is minimal, but only if you take into account the factors of testing such as contamination and lack of a complete genome.
-Justin K. Graves, Demon Hunter
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 10:27:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 7:38:01 AM, justin.graves wrote:
Me: "Dr. Krauss

Hello, my name is Justin Graves. I am 15-years-old and live in Wilmington, NC. I have read several of your books including my favorite, The Physics of Star Trek. I love theoretical physics and read book after book about it. I even planned to go into physics when I went to college. However, when I started Algebra II, I realized something: I hate math. I love the ideas, but can't do it myself.

Now, Dr. Krauss, I love your work but I have one thing that has caused me to decide to start reading your books with a more critical eye. I watched your video interview that was shown on the Huffington Post where you compare teaching Creationism to children to child abuse. That was painful for me to watch. You see, I am a Creationist. I am not a Creationist because my parents told me to be one. I am a Creationist because I have looked at the evidence for both sides and made my choice. Yes, I was raised in a Christian home where Creationism was taught, but the sciences were and are a huge part of my life as well. I look for the truth in life. I don't believe something just because someone told me it was true. I looked at both sides of the argument and made my choice.

Dr. Krauss, calling my parents and, in advance, me a child abuser offended me. You told the internet world that teaching what you believe is a crime. Sir, I respect your beliefs as much as they sadden me. However, you stepped over a line when you told parents what they should teach their children. We know that Newton's theory of gravity is not entirely true, but we don't call parents child abusers because they taught it to their kids. I don't believe teaching kids Creation, which usually involves looking at the evidence, is a disadvantage for them. On the contrary, I think it is a huge advantage. When you are taught Creation, you are told to look at both sides of the argument on everything. That is a incredible advantage in the scientific community. I must respectfully say that you are wrong on this issue Dr. Krauss. However, I will still accept most of The Physics of Star Trek."

Dr. Krauss:
"thanks.. listen to what I said.. I said it is something all parents do at some level, and didn't call it a crime.. I said we should encourage our kids to question, and not withhold knowledge.. that is all..

I assume when you say you are a creationist, you don't mean a 6000 year old earth creationist.. because if you mean that, you haven't looked at the evidence, and if you did, you don't understand the science..

that was what I was referring to. In any case, thanks for writing.. I am responding because you are young person and I try to respond to emails from young people, but I get many emails, so this is all I have to say on this. Good luck in your studies either way and I encourage you to keep questioning.

best

LMK"


Well, apparently Lawrence doesn't get the concept of child abuse being a crime... because he called it child abuse, and child abuse is a crime. he also pretty much called me an idiot for believing in a literal six-day creation. Basically he said that either I'm ignorant, or I'm an idiot. Just nicely.

Response: When a person believes that something can come from nothing, which is a claim beyond idiocy,or unintelligence can originate intelligence, which is even more foolish, what else did you expect from Krauss? His beliefs are clearly deluded.
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 11:22:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 10:27:08 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/22/2013 7:38:01 AM, justin.graves wrote:
Me: "Dr. Krauss

Hello, my name is Justin Graves. I am 15-years-old and live in Wilmington, NC. I have read several of your books including my favorite, The Physics of Star Trek. I love theoretical physics and read book after book about it. I even planned to go into physics when I went to college. However, when I started Algebra II, I realized something: I hate math. I love the ideas, but can't do it myself.

Now, Dr. Krauss, I love your work but I have one thing that has caused me to decide to start reading your books with a more critical eye. I watched your video interview that was shown on the Huffington Post where you compare teaching Creationism to children to child abuse. That was painful for me to watch. You see, I am a Creationist. I am not a Creationist because my parents told me to be one. I am a Creationist because I have looked at the evidence for both sides and made my choice. Yes, I was raised in a Christian home where Creationism was taught, but the sciences were and are a huge part of my life as well. I look for the truth in life. I don't believe something just because someone told me it was true. I looked at both sides of the argument and made my choice.

Dr. Krauss, calling my parents and, in advance, me a child abuser offended me. You told the internet world that teaching what you believe is a crime. Sir, I respect your beliefs as much as they sadden me. However, you stepped over a line when you told parents what they should teach their children. We know that Newton's theory of gravity is not entirely true, but we don't call parents child abusers because they taught it to their kids. I don't believe teaching kids Creation, which usually involves looking at the evidence, is a disadvantage for them. On the contrary, I think it is a huge advantage. When you are taught Creation, you are told to look at both sides of the argument on everything. That is a incredible advantage in the scientific community. I must respectfully say that you are wrong on this issue Dr. Krauss. However, I will still accept most of The Physics of Star Trek."

Dr. Krauss:
"thanks.. listen to what I said.. I said it is something all parents do at some level, and didn't call it a crime.. I said we should encourage our kids to question, and not withhold knowledge.. that is all..

I assume when you say you are a creationist, you don't mean a 6000 year old earth creationist.. because if you mean that, you haven't looked at the evidence, and if you did, you don't understand the science..

that was what I was referring to. In any case, thanks for writing.. I am responding because you are young person and I try to respond to emails from young people, but I get many emails, so this is all I have to say on this. Good luck in your studies either way and I encourage you to keep questioning.

best

LMK"


Well, apparently Lawrence doesn't get the concept of child abuse being a crime... because he called it child abuse, and child abuse is a crime. he also pretty much called me an idiot for believing in a literal six-day creation. Basically he said that either I'm ignorant, or I'm an idiot. Just nicely.

Response: When a person believes that something can come from nothing, which is a claim beyond idiocy,or unintelligence can originate intelligence, which is even more foolish, what else did you expect from Krauss? His beliefs are clearly deluded.

Define NOTHING camelman.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 11:42:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 10:27:08 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/22/2013 7:38:01 AM, justin.graves wrote:
Me: "Dr. Krauss

Hello, my name is Justin Graves. I am 15-years-old and live in Wilmington, NC. I have read several of your books including my favorite, The Physics of Star Trek. I love theoretical physics and read book after book about it. I even planned to go into physics when I went to college. However, when I started Algebra II, I realized something: I hate math. I love the ideas, but can't do it myself.

Now, Dr. Krauss, I love your work but I have one thing that has caused me to decide to start reading your books with a more critical eye. I watched your video interview that was shown on the Huffington Post where you compare teaching Creationism to children to child abuse. That was painful for me to watch. You see, I am a Creationist. I am not a Creationist because my parents told me to be one. I am a Creationist because I have looked at the evidence for both sides and made my choice. Yes, I was raised in a Christian home where Creationism was taught, but the sciences were and are a huge part of my life as well. I look for the truth in life. I don't believe something just because someone told me it was true. I looked at both sides of the argument and made my choice.

Dr. Krauss, calling my parents and, in advance, me a child abuser offended me. You told the internet world that teaching what you believe is a crime. Sir, I respect your beliefs as much as they sadden me. However, you stepped over a line when you told parents what they should teach their children. We know that Newton's theory of gravity is not entirely true, but we don't call parents child abusers because they taught it to their kids. I don't believe teaching kids Creation, which usually involves looking at the evidence, is a disadvantage for them. On the contrary, I think it is a huge advantage. When you are taught Creation, you are told to look at both sides of the argument on everything. That is a incredible advantage in the scientific community. I must respectfully say that you are wrong on this issue Dr. Krauss. However, I will still accept most of The Physics of Star Trek."

Dr. Krauss:
"thanks.. listen to what I said.. I said it is something all parents do at some level, and didn't call it a crime.. I said we should encourage our kids to question, and not withhold knowledge.. that is all..

I assume when you say you are a creationist, you don't mean a 6000 year old earth creationist.. because if you mean that, you haven't looked at the evidence, and if you did, you don't understand the science..

that was what I was referring to. In any case, thanks for writing.. I am responding because you are young person and I try to respond to emails from young people, but I get many emails, so this is all I have to say on this. Good luck in your studies either way and I encourage you to keep questioning.

best

LMK"


Well, apparently Lawrence doesn't get the concept of child abuse being a crime... because he called it child abuse, and child abuse is a crime. he also pretty much called me an idiot for believing in a literal six-day creation. Basically he said that either I'm ignorant, or I'm an idiot. Just nicely.

Response: When a person believes that something can come from nothing, which is a claim beyond idiocy,or unintelligence can originate intelligence, which is even more foolish, what else did you expect from Krauss? His beliefs are clearly deluded.

Please, do me a favor and watch this video on Lawrence Krauss and 'something from nothing'. It should clear up this misinterpretation you seem to have.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 12:48:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I love Lawrence Krauss!

Dr. Krauss teaches at the college that I am going to in a few years.

I probably won't be taking anything he teaches, but it's cool knowing I could run into him at any given time.

In response to the Neanderthal DNA vs Human DNA:

It seems to me that you were saying that since there is little change in DNA that it proves little to nothing about evolution.

I believe Richard Dawkins said something along the lines of our DNA not being that much different from a chimp. Obviously we differ greatly from chimpanzees in physical form and psychological form.
justin.graves
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 4:35:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 12:48:13 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
I love Lawrence Krauss!

Dr. Krauss teaches at the college that I am going to in a few years.

I probably won't be taking anything he teaches, but it's cool knowing I could run into him at any given time.



In response to the Neanderthal DNA vs Human DNA:

It seems to me that you were saying that since there is little change in DNA that it proves little to nothing about evolution.

I believe Richard Dawkins said something along the lines of our DNA not being that much different from a chimp. Obviously we differ greatly from chimpanzees in physical form and psychological form.

We are 98.7% similar in DNA to chimps. However, adjusted for interference, contamination, and the lack of complete DNA, we only differ less than .00001% more from Neanderthals than from one modern human to another. Something so small, it might as well be the same as a single mutation.
-Justin K. Graves, Demon Hunter
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 4:54:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The scientific community doesn't celebrate diversity because they don't value it. Different ideas come from different perspectives. It doesn't matter whether a given philosophy is true or not.

I would naturally expect that a creationist to find uses for junk dna which is the opposite of what an atheist would look for. I would expect such a person to find uses for organs that were thought of as useless. If the result is discovery and discovery is good then such science must also be good.

Sometimes it seems as though the scientific community is still stuck in the nineteenth century with their biases and prejudices.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 5:09:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 4:35:01 PM, justin.graves wrote:
At 7/22/2013 12:48:13 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
I love Lawrence Krauss!

Dr. Krauss teaches at the college that I am going to in a few years.

I probably won't be taking anything he teaches, but it's cool knowing I could run into him at any given time.



In response to the Neanderthal DNA vs Human DNA:

It seems to me that you were saying that since there is little change in DNA that it proves little to nothing about evolution.

I believe Richard Dawkins said something along the lines of our DNA not being that much different from a chimp. Obviously we differ greatly from chimpanzees in physical form and psychological form.

We are 98.7% similar in DNA to chimps. However, adjusted for interference, contamination, and the lack of complete DNA, we only differ less than .00001% more from Neanderthals than from one modern human to another. Something so small, it might as well be the same as a single mutation.

It is hard to make any grand proclamations on what we know about DNA. 98% of our DNA is non-coding. The comparisons on similarity between DNA is generally only done between coding dna. Until we really understand what the other 98% does any inferences between what we share is just a guess at this point. Throw in epigentics where things other than DNA is responsible for gene expression and proteins then it is very evident that we really don't understand exactly how we may or may not relate to other critters present and past.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 5:15:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 11:22:10 AM, bulproof wrote:

Define NOTHING camelman.

Response: What's inside your head. There's your definition.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 5:18:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 11:42:16 AM, muzebreak wrote:



Please, do me a favor and watch this video on Lawrence Krauss and 'something from nothing'. It should clear up this misinterpretation you seem to have.

Response: Something cannot come from nothing. When you or Krauss can show a video of something coming from nothing, then maybe you both will be able to have a point based on actual logic.
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 6:54:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 5:18:39 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/22/2013 11:42:16 AM, muzebreak wrote:



Please, do me a favor and watch this video on Lawrence Krauss and 'something from nothing'. It should clear up this misinterpretation you seem to have.

Response: Something cannot come from nothing. When you or Krauss can show a video of something coming from nothing, then maybe you both will be able to have a point based on actual logic.

What Dawkins tries to do is define nothing as a something in order to validate the hypothesis. If (nothing =/= something) then that is materially the same as (something =/= something) and it invalidates that argument.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 7:25:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 11:22:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/22/2013 10:27:08 AM, Fatihah wrote:

Define NOTHING camelman.

That's not a racial epithet, is it?
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 7:29:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 6:54:59 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:


What Dawkins tries to do is define nothing as a something in order to validate the hypothesis. If (nothing =/= something) then that is materially the same as (something =/= something) and it invalidates that argument.

Response: In other words, Dawkins is trying to make what clearly makes no sense as something that does. Nothing is not something. So Dawkins, as usual, fails.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 7:50:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 5:15:39 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/22/2013 11:22:10 AM, bulproof wrote:

Define NOTHING camelman.

Response: What's inside your head. There's your definition.

Lol, this did make me laugh.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 7:59:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ok so the atheist's position on this kind of thing always comes across as a little arrogant. What you are essentially taking issue with is a stereotype. If you were truly given the opportunity to make up your own mind, and given access to the scientific data and you have still decided that creation theory is the way for you, then I doubt anyone would assert that your parents abused you.

As a strong agnostic, I often agonise over what I would teach my children were I to have them at some later stage. It seems that no matter what information I expose them to regarding religion I will always bias their decision. It is difficult to even determine what an unbiased position is. Not educating them on religion biases them. Educating them that religion is fundamentally different from other philosophy is biasing them. Educating them on different religions will inevitably leave some of them out (and I am not even qualified to educate them on religion as I have never participated in it and do not intend to). Should one teach one's children about religion from a historical perspective? Should I take them to Sunday school? Can I even take them to multiple religious teaching institutions? The only thing I know for sure is that not exposing them to religion at all or exposing them only to one are just as bad as each other.
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 8:00:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 9:48:03 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/22/2013 7:38:01 AM, justin.graves wrote:
Me: "Dr. Krauss

Hello, my name is Justin Graves. I am 15-years-old and live in Wilmington, NC. I have read several of your books including my favorite, The Physics of Star Trek. I love theoretical physics and read book after book about it. I even planned to go into physics when I went to college. However, when I started Algebra II, I realized something: I hate math. I love the ideas, but can't do it myself.

Now, Dr. Krauss, I love your work but I have one thing that has caused me to decide to start reading your books with a more critical eye. I watched your video interview that was shown on the Huffington Post where you compare teaching Creationism to children to child abuse. That was painful for me to watch. You see, I am a Creationist. I am not a Creationist because my parents told me to be one. I am a Creationist because I have looked at the evidence for both sides and made my choice. Yes, I was raised in a Christian home where Creationism was taught, but the sciences were and are a huge part of my life as well. I look for the truth in life. I don't believe something just because someone told me it was true. I looked at both sides of the argument and made my choice.

Dr. Krauss, calling my parents and, in advance, me a child abuser offended me. You told the internet world that teaching what you believe is a crime. Sir, I respect your beliefs as much as they sadden me. However, you stepped over a line when you told parents what they should teach their children. We know that Newton's theory of gravity is not entirely true, but we don't call parents child abusers because they taught it to their kids. I don't believe teaching kids Creation, which usually involves looking at the evidence, is a disadvantage for them. On the contrary, I think it is a huge advantage. When you are taught Creation, you are told to look at both sides of the argument on everything. That is a incredible advantage in the scientific community. I must respectfully say that you are wrong on this issue Dr. Krauss. However, I will still accept most of The Physics of Star Trek."

Dr. Krauss:
"thanks.. listen to what I said.. I said it is something all parents do at some level, and didn't call it a crime.. I said we should encourage our kids to question, and not withhold knowledge.. that is all..

I assume when you say you are a creationist, you don't mean a 6000 year old earth creationist.. because if you mean that, you haven't looked at the evidence, and if you did, you don't understand the science..

that was what I was referring to. In any case, thanks for writing.. I am responding because you are young person and I try to respond to emails from young people, but I get many emails, so this is all I have to say on this. Good luck in your studies either way and I encourage you to keep questioning.

best

LMK"


Well, apparently Lawrence doesn't get the concept of child abuse being a crime... because he called it child abuse, and child abuse is a crime. he also pretty much called me an idiot for believing in a literal six-day creation. Basically he said that either I'm ignorant, or I'm an idiot. Just nicely.

You wrote a very well thought and respectful letter. Good work. "Child Abuse" is no doubt an overstatement at least as I can discern from your writing about it (I have not read it).

From his response I gather he was really focused on the fundamentalist belief of creationism where the biblical story is literal and the earth 10,000 years old.

If you are in that camp and I can take you to a spot here in north texas where we can find a 40 million year old oyster shells in an area that was not covered by seas in the last 10,000 years then he probably has a legitimate point.

The only explanation for these shells has been either the Devil planted them there or geologists are wrong and the seas covered the area in the last 10,000 years and carbon dating is so off that it can't even judge the difference between 40 million years and 10k years.

Any person who is honestly looking at scientific data and does not evoke "the Devil is trying to trick us" theory has to believe the earth is more than 10,000 years old.

That bit.

http://creation.com... - scroll down to carbon dating.

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...

"If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a foot-note. And if it is completely "out of date", we just drop it."
Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method, and many are still hesitant to accept C14 dates without reservations.

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 9:07:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 10:14:14 AM, justin.graves wrote:
At 7/22/2013 9:34:58 AM, Dan4reason wrote:

Well did you ever look at Neanderthal DNA?

Yes, I have. The question is... have you? Did you know that the base difference results between the Neanderthals and humans is different with each specimen tested?

Yes, I knew that. That is why the differences form a bell curve. There is genetic diversity.

(Wall, Kim-2007) They differed in the numbers of genome bases. Meaning that either the Neanderthals weren't Neanderthals, or there was contamination.

That is because we only got partial samples so you cannot all of them to have the exact same number of bases. In fact not all humans have the same number of nucleotide bases.

In fact, there was contamination by bacteria.

How much exactly? And the scientists did not factor this in when they presented their findings for peer review?

And the more the contamination... the bigger the difference in genome. Plus, we only have 50 of the 70 base pairs of DNA, making any differences ~28.57% more than they actually are.

Actually we should expect fewer differences because there are fewer genes to be tested. I doubt that professional scientists did not factor this simple math into their peer review. Such an exercize would have been routine and would have been quickly caught in peer review.

The average human is 99.9% the same as another human. While Neanderthals (humans in my opinion) are 99.7% the same, with contamination AND only having ~.7412% of the DNA.

Still a pretty large sample given how many base pairs in the genome.

In reality, the difference is minimal, but only if you take into account the factors of testing such as contamination and lack of a complete genome.

Actually the differences between humans and neanderthals is a quarter of the differences between humans and chimpanzees. We all know that a lot less separates us from other species than we might think by just looking at them.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 9:09:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 8:00:36 PM, errya wrote:
At 7/22/2013 9:48:03 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/22/2013 7:38:01 AM, justin.graves wrote:
Me: "Dr. Krauss

Hello, my name is Justin Graves. I am 15-years-old and live in Wilmington, NC. I have read several of your books including my favorite, The Physics of Star Trek. I love theoretical physics and read book after book about it. I even planned to go into physics when I went to college. However, when I started Algebra II, I realized something: I hate math. I love the ideas, but can't do it myself.

Now, Dr. Krauss, I love your work but I have one thing that has caused me to decide to start reading your books with a more critical eye. I watched your video interview that was shown on the Huffington Post where you compare teaching Creationism to children to child abuse. That was painful for me to watch. You see, I am a Creationist. I am not a Creationist because my parents told me to be one. I am a Creationist because I have looked at the evidence for both sides and made my choice. Yes, I was raised in a Christian home where Creationism was taught, but the sciences were and are a huge part of my life as well. I look for the truth in life. I don't believe something just because someone told me it was true. I looked at both sides of the argument and made my choice.

Dr. Krauss, calling my parents and, in advance, me a child abuser offended me. You told the internet world that teaching what you believe is a crime. Sir, I respect your beliefs as much as they sadden me. However, you stepped over a line when you told parents what they should teach their children. We know that Newton's theory of gravity is not entirely true, but we don't call parents child abusers because they taught it to their kids. I don't believe teaching kids Creation, which usually involves looking at the evidence, is a disadvantage for them. On the contrary, I think it is a huge advantage. When you are taught Creation, you are told to look at both sides of the argument on everything. That is a incredible advantage in the scientific community. I must respectfully say that you are wrong on this issue Dr. Krauss. However, I will still accept most of The Physics of Star Trek."

Dr. Krauss:
"thanks.. listen to what I said.. I said it is something all parents do at some level, and didn't call it a crime.. I said we should encourage our kids to question, and not withhold knowledge.. that is all..

I assume when you say you are a creationist, you don't mean a 6000 year old earth creationist.. because if you mean that, you haven't looked at the evidence, and if you did, you don't understand the science..

that was what I was referring to. In any case, thanks for writing.. I am responding because you are young person and I try to respond to emails from young people, but I get many emails, so this is all I have to say on this. Good luck in your studies either way and I encourage you to keep questioning.

best

LMK"


Well, apparently Lawrence doesn't get the concept of child abuse being a crime... because he called it child abuse, and child abuse is a crime. he also pretty much called me an idiot for believing in a literal six-day creation. Basically he said that either I'm ignorant, or I'm an idiot. Just nicely.

You wrote a very well thought and respectful letter. Good work. "Child Abuse" is no doubt an overstatement at least as I can discern from your writing about it (I have not read it).

From his response I gather he was really focused on the fundamentalist belief of creationism where the biblical story is literal and the earth 10,000 years old.

If you are in that camp and I can take you to a spot here in north texas where we can find a 40 million year old oyster shells in an area that was not covered by seas in the last 10,000 years then he probably has a legitimate point.

The only explanation for these shells has been either the Devil planted them there or geologists are wrong and the seas covered the area in the last 10,000 years and carbon dating is so off that it can't even judge the difference between 40 million years and 10k years.

Any person who is honestly looking at scientific data and does not evoke "the Devil is trying to trick us" theory has to believe the earth is more than 10,000 years old.

That bit.

http://creation.com... - scroll down to carbon dating.

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...

"If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a foot-note. And if it is completely "out of date", we just drop it."
Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method, and many are still hesitant to accept C14 dates without reservations.

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...

No scientist uses carbon dating for dates greater than 50,000 years which is recent history. You are attacking the wrong dating method.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 9:33:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 4:35:01 PM, justin.graves wrote:
At 7/22/2013 12:48:13 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
I love Lawrence Krauss!

Dr. Krauss teaches at the college that I am going to in a few years.

I probably won't be taking anything he teaches, but it's cool knowing I could run into him at any given time.



In response to the Neanderthal DNA vs Human DNA:

It seems to me that you were saying that since there is little change in DNA that it proves little to nothing about evolution.

I believe Richard Dawkins said something along the lines of our DNA not being that much different from a chimp. Obviously we differ greatly from chimpanzees in physical form and psychological form.

We are 98.7% similar in DNA to chimps. However, adjusted for interference, contamination, and the lack of complete DNA, we only differ less than .00001% more from Neanderthals than from one modern human to another. Something so small, it might as well be the same as a single mutation.

Where are you getting the .00001% from?