Bill Nye #2: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

Schmichael, can you demonstrate to me how creationism provides fecundity and gives auxiliary hypotheses?

And I did watch those videos. I heard lots of strawman arguments and argument from hyperbole. On that note, I was rather disappointed with Bill Nye’s video. I really think he could have done a lot better and should have thought out his response better.

Here’s an example of a historical science that has lead to real solutions to real problems that have been beneficial in real economics. Historical geology and the acquirement of natural resources from deep within the earth.

222

Your argument hinges on the fact that an insane person might not recognize my personhood as is. That means you acknowledge that the only way to support said argument is by invoking irrationality, and that means that your argument is irrational.

BTW, I’m glad you returned to this thread.

I reiterate: I am my body. There is no mind/body duality. My body exists, therefore I exist. Any rational person accepts this, but you use the .01% change we might be an illusion or simulation as enough proof to deny our existence in favor of your beliefsystem. I find that intellectually dishonest.

It’s a superficial solution, that’s what it is. True, I haven’t solved the problem of origins but I don’t presume to be able to solve that problem. You do, by believing and having faith precariously supported by an irrational argument. I don’t believe we can ever know the truth about our origins in an absolute sense, and I’m fine with that.

The mind is the great labeler; it takes that which is and assigns meaning and purpose to that which is. Without the mind there’s just that which is. I’ve told this before but I woke up once from a short slumber without me present. When my eyes opened my gaze fell on the clock on the wall. I didn’t recognize the clock nor did I realise that. There were no thoughts, there was no me to be aware of anything. I can only deduce this because there was passage of time; for nearly 15 minutes I stared at the clock not knowing what it was. The handle moved, sure, but nothing else.

After 15 minutes or so something snapped back into place and I realised I was going to be late. I knew something happened and that it was weird, but it also showed me that without the mind everything is meaningless.

I’ve spent the better part of 10 years in self-study; what drives a person, where does suffering come from, what is happiness, who am I? Instead of studying books and other people’s ideas and making them my own I dove deep down into what it means to exist. This search granted me selfknowledge, understanding of the human condition and peace.

I can’t quote scholars, philosophers and wax eloquently about ideas that are not mine, that is true. But if that’s your only criteria for listening to others it basically means you’re devoid of ideas.

223

Fletch, as one example of an auxiliary hypothesis, the creation model predicts that animals will reproduce “according to their kind”

Genesis 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

(kind is basically interpreted as a level above species. e.g. feline, canine etc)

Therefore, if the creation model is correct we would expect to find that animals (plants are included in verses 11 & 12) reproduce animals within the same kind, i.e. cats produce cats, whales produce whales, roses produce roses.

The observations back this up. Even in the fossil record. Animals appear in the fossil record fully formed. Punctuated equilibrium was postulated in order to avoid this inconvenient fact.

Even the long term evolution experiment that has been raised in this thread as evidence of evolution actually supports the creation model better. After over 50,000 generations the e-coli are still e-coli. They may have evolved the ability to use citrate as a source of energy, but they were still the same species.

224

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

And I did watch those videos. I heard lots of strawman arguments and argument from hyperbole. On that note, I was rather disappointed with Bill Nye’s video. I really think he could have done a lot better and should have thought out his response better. [/quote]

Can you give examples of the strawman arguments and argument from hyperbole? I have watched them too and found that they were mainly responding to Nye’s ridiculous assertions.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Here’s an example of a historical science that has lead to real solutions to real problems that have been beneficial in real economics. Historical geology and the acquirement of natural resources from deep within the earth. [/quote]

I would be interested in how you demonstrate that the historical aspect has been useful at all. I contend that it is the observations and testing in the present that has led to the advances and the benefits.

225

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The mind is the great labeler; it takes that which is and assigns meaning and purpose to that which is. Without the mind there’s just that which is. I’ve told this before but I woke up once from a short slumber without me present. When my eyes opened my gaze fell on the clock on the wall. I didn’t recognize the clock nor did I realise that. There were no thoughts, there was no me to be aware of anything. I can only deduce this because there was passage of time; for nearly 15 minutes I stared at the clock not knowing what it was. The handle moved, sure, but nothing else.

After 15 minutes or so something snapped back into place and I realised I was going to be late. I knew something happened and that it was weird, but it also showed me that without the mind everything is meaningless.[/quote]

That sounds like an experience I had when I tried salvia. It was like my brain was rebooted, I didn’t know who I was, who was in front of me, then as I came to, I “realized my existence”, as I kept repeating. Felt like some sort of rebirth, as subjective as that may be.

226

[quote]schmichael wrote:

Even the long term evolution experiment that has been raised in this thread as evidence of evolution actually supports the creation model better. After over 50,000 generations the e-coli are still e-coli. They may have evolved the ability to use citrate as a source of energy, but they were still the same species.[/quote]

Dude, do you actually think that 50000 generations of e. coli is a lot? That’s like looking through a pin hole, if even that.

227

Here’s one for each of you guys.

228

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The mind is the great labeler; it takes that which is and assigns meaning and purpose to that which is. Without the mind there’s just that which is. I’ve told this before but I woke up once from a short slumber without me present. When my eyes opened my gaze fell on the clock on the wall. I didn’t recognize the clock nor did I realise that. There were no thoughts, there was no me to be aware of anything. I can only deduce this because there was passage of time; for nearly 15 minutes I stared at the clock not knowing what it was. The handle moved, sure, but nothing else.

After 15 minutes or so something snapped back into place and I realised I was going to be late. I knew something happened and that it was weird, but it also showed me that without the mind everything is meaningless.[/quote]

That sounds like an experience I had when I tried salvia. It was like my brain was rebooted, I didn’t know who I was, who was in front of me, then as I came to, I “realized my existence”, as I kept repeating. Felt like some sort of rebirth, as subjective as that may be.[/quote]

While I love psychedelics I won’t touch salvia with a 10 foot pole. Sounds like that was quite an experience Matty o-O

229

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

And I did watch those videos. I heard lots of strawman arguments and argument from hyperbole. On that note, I was rather disappointed with Bill Nye’s video. I really think he could have done a lot better and should have thought out his response better. [/quote]

Can you give examples of the strawman arguments and argument from hyperbole? I have watched them too and found that they were mainly responding to Nye’s ridiculous assertions.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Here’s an example of a historical science that has lead to real solutions to real problems that have been beneficial in real economics. Historical geology and the acquirement of natural resources from deep within the earth. [/quote]

I would be interested in how you demonstrate that the historical aspect has been useful at all. I contend that it is the observations and testing in the present that has led to the advances and the benefits.[/quote]

I don’t have much time, but I’ll also add that a lot of science isn’t done for practical solutions but simply for knowledge and that is seen as good in and of itself. I’ll give you examples of what the theory of evolution actually does for biology and some practical applications.

230

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

Even the long term evolution experiment that has been raised in this thread as evidence of evolution actually supports the creation model better. After over 50,000 generations the e-coli are still e-coli. They may have evolved the ability to use citrate as a source of energy, but they were still the same species.[/quote]

Dude, do you actually think that 50000 generations of e. coli is a lot? That’s like looking through a pin hole, if even that.
[/quote]

What’s your point?

231

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

^ Bingo. Schmichael needs to learn how to learn.[/quote]

Of course! You are right Joe, I need to better understand you guys.

So please, enlighten me Joe (or Matt or anyine else). How does Lenski’s long term experiment prove that evolution is true?[/quote]

No, no, no, no, and no. How bout you stop using COnservapedia for your information, do some readings on science, perhaps try to read a biology book. IF you need assistance, most community colleges have bio classes that you could enter in to get a fundamental understanding of genearl biological concepts.

You are no different from an atheist who just found his first Christopher HItchens video. You are not educated enough on this topic for anyone to waste their time talking with you. [/quote]

So you know basically nothing about me but feel confident enough to proclaim that I’m lacking “a fundamental understanding of genearl biological concepts.”

Riiiight. Yet another dodge by a brainwashed evolution disciple.

I’ll give you a tip, like any good politician, I follow the old adage of “Never ask a question if you don’t already know the answer”. So I’ll ask again, How does Lenski’s long term experiment prove that evolution is true?[/quote]

Yes, I am completely comfortable and confident enough to claim you have virtually no understanding of Evolution. Your questions reflect this, as well as your intellectual heroes as you talked about in the previous thread, prove to me you are quite gullible.

DO you really think, that Biological Evolution is dependant upon Lenski’s experiments. So for over 150 years, of scrutiny and study by scientists all over the world, don’t you think one of them at some point in time would say jeeze, this ecoli thing is about all we got and it doesnt prove much?

By the way I am also confident enough to claim you know vertiaully nothin about his experiements with exception of what you can get on wikipedia and your beloved Conservapedia.

Every single major public institution in this country, including Harvard, Yale, Princieton, Stanford, etc… accept evolution.

Every single day that goes by more research continues to solidify Evolution as fact. We have enough evidence just on Biogeographical data alone to prove eveolution.
But you probably haven’t looked into that, or molecular genetics, or fossils, or really anything other than your creationists websites which all say the same shit over and over again in different ways.

10 times ID has gone to court and ten times they have failed in this country.

Intelligent Design is not, as I have stated earlier a scientifc stance, and never has been. SO to repeat, even if evolution somehow were to be proved wrong, it would not mean creationism is true, they are separate.

Interestingly enough it would be so easy to prove evolution wrong, all you have to do is find ONE, that’s righ ONE fossil that doesnt coincide with other simialr fossils of similar dates, and boom, evolution is destroyed. But fortunately, every single fossil ever found supports Evolution.

There is not a single scientific society that does not accept evolution.

One day, you might see the light kid…

232

^

I have noticed schmichael that it seems like most of your presumed knowledge of ToE comes from pro-creationist sites.

I’m limited in time so let me know if you want what I found at fault with the videos first, practical applications of ToE and new areas of research ToE has opened up which is part of what fecundity is, or elaboration on the practical application of historical geology.

Also, whenever I ask you about creationism, remember that by definition it falls outside the realm of what science currently is because it fails to follow methodological naturalism. If I get a chance, I’ll explain what exactly that is why it’s important to scientific explanations and theories. You’ll need a very good explanation to why you want to and should throw that presupposition out the door.

Sorry if I just seem to gloss over these things but there is so much you don’t seem to understand about ToE and I only have so little time on my hands.

And this one’s to Tirib. I have no idea why you want to take a literal translation of genesis. That’s one of the few books of the bible I’ve read a few times and even during my time as a Christian, I never read into it as anything more than metaphorical explanation of creation to ancient men who had no way to conceptualize the modern theories of historical cosmology, evolution, and historical geology.

233

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The mind is the great labeler; it takes that which is and assigns meaning and purpose to that which is. Without the mind there’s just that which is. I’ve told this before but I woke up once from a short slumber without me present. When my eyes opened my gaze fell on the clock on the wall. I didn’t recognize the clock nor did I realise that. There were no thoughts, there was no me to be aware of anything. I can only deduce this because there was passage of time; for nearly 15 minutes I stared at the clock not knowing what it was. The handle moved, sure, but nothing else.

After 15 minutes or so something snapped back into place and I realised I was going to be late. I knew something happened and that it was weird, but it also showed me that without the mind everything is meaningless.[/quote]

That sounds like an experience I had when I tried salvia. It was like my brain was rebooted, I didn’t know who I was, who was in front of me, then as I came to, I “realized my existence”, as I kept repeating. Felt like some sort of rebirth, as subjective as that may be.[/quote]

While I love psychedelics I won’t touch salvia with a 10 foot pole. Sounds like that was quite an experience Matty o-O[/quote]

I can kind of relate to the salvia experience. Because I did it too. I didn’t know what up and down was and how to relate with it so I was stumbling.

I didn’t understand visual perspective. I saw lines and saw some objects bigger or smaller than others but didn’t understand that they were edges and corners of walls and objects that some things were nearer or farther than others. It was like my perception of 3 dimensional space vanished.

Nine Inch Nails was playing in the background but there was only harsh pixelated noise incomprehensible as music.

It was just complete and utter chaos where my mind couldn’t connect the dots that my senses put into my brain.

God… I wish that stuff wasn’t made illegal in Texas. I think it is anyway.

234

I wonder if schmichael modeled his handle after Schlafly. Hmmm? That would be lulzy.

235


This one cracks me up

236

[quote]colt44 wrote:

Yes, I am completely comfortable and confident enough to claim you have virtually no understanding of Evolution. Your questions reflect this, as well as your intellectual heroes as you talked about in the previous thread, prove to me you are quite gullible.
[/quote]
You are assuming that I don’t know the answers to the questions I am asking. As I previously stated, in debates, I don’t ask questions that I do not know the answers to. I have been asking those questions to demonstrate that you guys can’t provide any solid evidence for evolution.
In stead you resort to ad hominem attacks, appeals to majority opinion, appeals to authority, equivication, special pleading, begging the question… The fallacies are numerous.

[quote]colt44 wrote:
DO you really think, that Biological Evolution is dependant upon Lenski’s experiments. So for over 150 years, of scrutiny and study by scientists all over the world, don’t you think one of them at some point in time would say jeeze, this ecoli thing is about all we got and it doesnt prove much?
[/quote]
I have never said that it does. YOU DID (or one of your fellow brainwashed evolution disciples). I merely pointed out that it doesn’t support your position.

[quote]colt44 wrote:
By the way I am also confident enough to claim you know vertiaully nothin about his experiements with exception of what you can get on wikipedia and your beloved Conservapedia.
[/quote]
HAving never been to Conservapedia, I can’t really comment on that one.

Here’s an idea, why don’t you DEMONSTRATE where I’m wrong about his experiments???!! I guess it’s wayyyy easier to simply assert your ignorant opinion from on top of your high horse, huh?

[quote]colt44 wrote:
Every single major public institution in this country, including Harvard, Yale, Princieton, Stanford, etc… accept evolution.
[/quote]
What’s your point? Are you trying to keep up with your quota of fallacies?

[quote]colt44 wrote:
Every single day that goes by more research continues to solidify Evolution as fact. We have enough evidence just on Biogeographical data alone to prove eveolution.
But you probably haven’t looked into that, or molecular genetics, or fossils, or really anything other than your creationists websites which all say the same shit over and over again in different ways.
[/quote]
And yet, in spite of the mountainous evidence in favor of evolution, you can’t provide even one scrap that we could discuss. Very convincing.

As for Genetic evidence, which theory do you think the latest ENCODE research supports, evolution or creation? Given that evolution “predicted” junk DNA, now that it’s been refuted, does that mean that evolution has been refuted?

[quote]colt44 wrote:
10 times ID has gone to court and ten times they have failed in this country.
[/quote]
Who cares? why is it that evolution requires legislation to protect it from scrutiny? no other scientific theory does. Oh, that’s right, evolution is “special”. Not in a good way though.

[quote]colt44 wrote:
Intelligent Design is not, as I have stated earlier a scientifc stance, and never has been. SO to repeat, even if evolution somehow were to be proved wrong, it would not mean creationism is true, they are separate.
[/quote]
Is that right, emperor Charlie! Of course ID isn’t science is you get to define science prior to looking at the evidence. Of course, I couldn’t care less what your opinion of what is or isn’t science.

[quote]colt44 wrote:
Interestingly enough it would be so easy to prove evolution wrong, all you have to do is find ONE, that’s righ ONE fossil that doesnt coincide with other simialr fossils of similar dates, and boom, evolution is destroyed. But fortunately, every single fossil ever found supports Evolution.
[/quote]
That is incredibly naive. What about the soft tissue, including blood vessel proteins and structures resembling cells, that has been recovered from dinosaur bone by Mary Schweitzer. The simple explanation is that the bone is not millions of years old but we can’t have that!!! In stead, let’s postulate that blood vessels can last for 200 MY!!!

[quote]colt44 wrote:
There is not a single scientific society that does not accept evolution.

One day, you might see the light kid…[/quote]

I have seen the light. I’m the one who has taken an honest look at both sides unlike you. You are adamant that creationism is wrong in spite of the fact that you know nothing about what it teaches.

237

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^

I have noticed schmichael that it seems like most of your presumed knowledge of ToE comes from pro-creationist sites.
[/quote]
That’s not correct. I have been right through public school/uni!!

But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that all of my info was from creationist sites. So what? You need to demonstrate that it is wrong not simply assert that it is prior to even looking. (genetic fallacy much!!)

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I’m limited in time so let me know if you want what I found at fault with the videos first, practical applications of ToE and new areas of research ToE has opened up which is part of what fecundity is, or elaboration on the practical application of historical geology.
[/quote]
Whatever dude. Go with no.2.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Also, whenever I ask you about creationism, remember that by definition it falls outside the realm of what science currently is because it fails to follow methodological naturalism. If I get a chance, I’ll explain what exactly that is why it’s important to scientific explanations and theories. You’ll need a very good explanation to why you want to and should throw that presupposition out the door.
[/quote]
on the contrary, as I have explained briefly before, creationism fully accepts natural laws. in fact, creationists challenge atheists to provide a foundation for their acceptance of them. after all, when you have a universe that creates itself from nothing, well, anything is possible isn’t it!

You need to realise that creationists only invoke a supernatural cause where it is specified in scripture. For these purposes, that would be at the very beginning of creation, the same place that evolutionists invoke their miracles (life from non-life, please!!! heard of thermodynamics, haha)

So I am not about to throw out that presupposition. indeed, why don’t you try and explain how it fits into your worldview?

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Sorry if I just seem to gloss over these things but there is so much you don’t seem to understand about ToE and I only have so little time on my hands.
[/quote]
Again, no one here has demonstrated any misunderstanding on my part. Sure, it has been asserted ad infinitum, but that doesn’t prove it.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

And this one’s to Tirib. I have no idea why you want to take a literal translation of genesis. That’s one of the few books of the bible I’ve read a few times and even during my time as a Christian, I never read into it as anything more than metaphorical explanation of creation to ancient men who had no way to conceptualize the modern theories of historical cosmology, evolution, and historical geology. [/quote]

I’m not Tirib but this falls into my camp anyway. Genesis is written as historical narrative. there is no change in style between chapters 1-3 (or 1-12) and the rest.

The method of interpretation that creationists use is called the historical grammatical method. That is, the interpreter is trying to understand what the writer was trying to convey by looking at the historical and literary context.

You wrote “I never read into it as anything more…” That is the problem. You shouldn’t be reading into the text anything. You should be reading what the text is trying to communicate to you.

Here’s a question, if God wanted to communicate that he created in 6 ordinary days, how should Genesis have been written?

238

^

You are confounding philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. There are plenty of theists who apply methodological naturalism.

And even if abiogenesis falls ToE still stands. We’ve been over that already.

And I mentioned the creationist website thing b/c whenever I look at them, they’re making the same kind of arguments you are. Maybe it’s just a coincidence.

Science shouldn’t be used to answer questions like where did all of existence come from. And worldview is irrelevant when it comes to doing good science. Now as far as applying science in an ethical and moral way worldview becomes of the utmost importance.

And I’m not saying creationism is wrong. I’m just saying it’s not science. When you interject supernatural forces as the premise of the theory you’re no longer using methodological naturalism.

And the thermodynamics thing has been explained to you already. You are referring to the entropy one, right?

239

I’d like to make a note that some sciences study man made objects, ideas, and cultures and to say that these are natural entities is to take a position of metaphysical naturalism. While these concepts are not of the natural world, it should also be noted that they are not super-natural either.

My understanding of ID and creationisms is that it basically disallows the study of ‘designing processes’ that is how a creator would design biology. It basically says a creator did it and that’s it. It’s a dead end. That’s the problem with interjecting the supernatural and not trying to figure out any of the processes. That’s why I asked about the fecundity or at least potential fecundity of creationism.

I also understand why you want to know my worldview now schmichael or at least I think you do. It’s because if I believe metaphysical naturalism I’m biased. That’s a fair concern and I believe that it would create a bias. But it is not my view. I’m not certain, I have a lot more studying before I can solidly say it, but based on conversations on this site and my so far short study of Spinoza, his contemporaries, and even a tiny bit Indian religion/philosophy I’m leaning towards monistic parallelism. I’d prefer not to get too deep into that one just because I don’t think this is the right thread for it.

I’m still going over that link you sent me Joab and thanks for it.

240

schmichael, what happens to your hypothesis if the bible isn’t the word of God?