Bill Nye #2: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
401

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Matt and Ano, how do you explain the huge lack of missing links?[/quote]

Answer my question first, and I’ll get to yours.[/quote]

I did. Now it would seem you’re obligated to answer mine.

But will you?[/quote]

“But will you?”
Why didn’t you just triple dog dare me instead?

There’s a lot of information from valid paleontologists, archaeologists and others out there for you to peruse push. If you choose to go over the material with a closed mind because of your religious beliefs, that’s your problem not mine.
I’m sure you won’t like these sources, but they are a valid starting point for anyone wondering where to begin their search.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

http://www.teachthemscience.org/falseweaknesses#there-are-no-transitional-fossils-false

Here’s a great link about gene flow that Dr Skeptix was talking about from the top of the page if you missed it.
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/atlas.html

Also consider picking up a first year biology textbook. It would be an invaluable resource for you. I have an extra one. It’s an older edition but if you’d like, I’d be more than happy to mail it to you, so long as you covered the shipping costs.

402

Here’s one about fleas push
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/02/29/giant-jurassic-fleas-sucked-but-couldn?t-jump/#more-6459

403

Push, where do these fellows fit in with the creationist worldview?

More specifically these two.

and

407

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Push, where do these fellows fit in with the creationist worldview?

More specifically these two.

and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromagnon[/quote]

Speaking of human fossils and especially their alleged primate ancestors, where are they? There should be billions of them. In actuality there are very few. And in many cases all we get are bone fragments or teeth.

Matt, by the way, you should never have mentioned Neanderthal and Cromagnon. You just shot yourself in the foot, my friend.[/quote]

Okay, then why don’t you explain how they fit into your creationist worldview? Why aren’t they mentioned in the bible?

408

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Matt and Ano, how do you explain the huge lack of missing links?[/quote]

Answer my question first, and I’ll get to yours.[/quote]

I did. Now it would seem you’re obligated to answer mine.

But will you?[/quote]

“But will you?”
Why didn’t you just triple dog dare me instead?

There’s a lot of information from valid paleontologists, archaeologists and others out there for you to peruse push. If you choose to go over the material with a closed mind because of your religious beliefs, that’s your problem not mine.
I’m sure you won’t like these sources, but they are a valid starting point for anyone wondering where to begin their search.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

http://www.teachthemscience.org/falseweaknesses#there-are-no-transitional-fossils-false

Here’s a great link about gene flow that Dr Skeptix was talking about from the top of the page if you missed it.
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/atlas.html

[/quote]

That’s what I thought. None of these links explain the dearth of missing links that should be absolutely required for a theory to be considered a strong one.

If they did can you explain why committed, leading evolutionists felt compelled to propose the punctuated equilibria theory.

Please do.

Mail it to:

Push Winchester Harder
General Delivery
Two Dot, Montana 59085

When I ride down out of the mountains to wean calves this fall I will surely pick it up. Don’t disappoint me.

[/quote]

Are you serious about the textbook? If so, just pm me and we can make arrangements.

You’re getting your misperceptions and reality mixed up, not all evolutionary scientists agree on punctuated equilibrium. Unlike your bible, science changes with new information.

409

Also push, where do neolithic people like those found at Catalhoyuk(sp?) fit in?
If Adam(and Eve) was the first, then how come there’s fossil evidence for people existing before he showed up?

410

Missing links? The changes over time are so minute that there aren’t any. Evolution takes place over eons and is incredibly minute in scope.

412

[quote]Headhunter wrote:Missing links? The changes over time are so minute that there aren’t any. Evolution takes place over eons and is incredibly minute in scope.[/quote]Of course.
EDIT: I have to be honest. I don’t have a low regard for HeadHunter. That’s the wrong understanding of my attitude. I was every bit as lost as him before Jesus showed His mercy on me and I would never have done something like adopt a little girl and give her a home even if I was able. He is far better than I was.

413

[quote]ephrem wrote:

You know, I don’t disagree with you here; this whole existence could be an illusion. Where we part ways is at how likely it is that existence might be an illusion. If it’s a 50/50 chance then I’d have to admit what you’re saying is correct, but I don’t believe that.

We’re here and I believe that the chance that our existence is not an illusion is 99.9%. This is certain enough to behave in a manner that’s equal to 100% certainty.
[/quote]
Ah, but that’s the point. Chance, percentage etc. is not certainty, period. Am am as certain as you are about physical reality, but we cannot prove it. It’s impossible. And as long as that is the case, you have to accept that there is a chance what we understand about it is wrong. Indeed we know very little about it, in context, so even what we think we know can be errored. You hold a pencil in your hand, you don’t know a lot about it. You don’t know where it’s from or it’s history, beyond maybe the pencil factory. You don’t know what it was previously. You don’t know everything about it holding in your hands. The sub atomic particles that make up the atoms could have come from completely different parts of the universe and yet landed as part of the same atom. You don’t know how much space is in the pencil as it is mostly space. You don’t know the forces that bind it or why it’s able to do that. You know it’s a pencil, you know you can write with it, or throw it, or whatever, but there is very little you really know about it.

Common sense isn’t always right, even if common. What things appear to be and what they really are, may be completely different. That’s why you have to keep in perspective about what you can know.
Science tells us a lot, but what it tells us most clearly is we know very little.

I am going to go out on a limb and blame ego and a simple refusal to accept the fact that God exists. You know the argument better than most, you know it cannot be beaten, you know it’s deductive and if true than absolutely true.
I think the connection you are missing is the link between physical and metaphysical, between the pencil your hand and that which makes it a pencil. What makes it a pencil is more real than the pencil itself. It’s just the facts of all physical objects. Once you understand this connection, the whole God thing is a lot less mystical.

[quote]

A number of what, exactly? There can be a number of planets in a star system but without the mind giving it a number, a label, there are just planets.

Absorb other people’s ideas, parrot theory and even conflate them to suit my own beliefs and worldviews? I could do that, but I’d feel insincere and dishonest. This is how I study, and I’m truely grateful you’re assisting my in my studies…[/quote]

Well that’s one way.

414

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Ahteism has led to the greatest mass murders and atrocities in history. The worst religious nut jobs could only look on in awe. This whole atheism utopia has been tried. If it wasn’t so tragic it would be a laughable failure.
You think religion makes people crazy? Atheism has led to greatest atrocities mankind has ever known. If you want to be on that side, go nuts, just don’t kill my family, I will put up a fight
[/quote]

Still trying to peddle this old meme I see…[/quote]

Since you have been unable to defeat it, no one has, then I don’t feel the need to ‘peddle’ anything else. If I switched my arguments all the time, it certainly would make you happy because it means I found error in it. But there is no error, you can’t prove it wrong, you never will.
You hide behind slogans, name calling and idiotic banners that don’t prove a thing. You are mired in a world where circular reasoning is the MO and somehow, in the case of atheism it’s ok to use even though in the real world is fallacious and wrong. You hammer on a book you never read about something you don’t believe and then you think that proves something?

Or is calling me ‘patty’ make your arguments for you? So you think if you mock me you win?
No. The problem is your wrong and you will never be right, you got no arguments, you go no proof, you have nothing. Just slogans, circular reasoning, and name calling. Which means you have shit.

415

[quote]schmichael wrote:
Pat sure seems really narrow-minded to me. Why don’t you quit looking at both sides of the argument and simply push you’re own ignorant opinion instead!!! That seems to work great for all of these atheists…

(c;[/quote]
Can you clarify? How am I narrow minded?

416

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Ahteism has led to the greatest mass murders and atrocities in history. The worst religious nut jobs could only look on in awe. This whole atheism utopia has been tried. If it wasn’t so tragic it would be a laughable failure.
You think religion makes people crazy? Atheism has led to greatest atrocities mankind has ever known. If you want to be on that side, go nuts, just don’t kill my family, I will put up a fight
[/quote]

Still trying to peddle this old meme I see…[/quote]

Since you have been unable to defeat it, no one has, then I don’t feel the need to ‘peddle’ anything else. If I switched my arguments all the time, it certainly would make you happy because it means I found error in it. But there is no error, you can’t prove it wrong, you never will.
You hide behind slogans, name calling and idiotic banners that don’t prove a thing. You are mired in a world where circular reasoning is the MO and somehow, in the case of atheism it’s ok to use even though in the real world is fallacious and wrong. You hammer on a book you never read about something you don’t believe and then you think that proves something?

Or is calling me ‘patty’ make your arguments for you? So you think if you mock me you win?
No. The problem is your wrong and you will never be right, you got no arguments, you go no proof, you have nothing. Just slogans, circular reasoning, and name calling. Which means you have shit. [/quote]

Nobody has been able to defeat it?? LOL…your hubris smells, but at least your consistent.

Tell me, what drives a MAO, a Hitler, or a Pol Pot do do what they did? Was Hitler even an atheist? If it helps…you could try google.

Also, I’m typically not insulting you, rather I’m describing you. Learn the difference, dumb ass.

417

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Ahteism has led to the greatest mass murders and atrocities in history. The worst religious nut jobs could only look on in awe. This whole atheism utopia has been tried. If it wasn’t so tragic it would be a laughable failure.
You think religion makes people crazy? Atheism has led to greatest atrocities mankind has ever known. If you want to be on that side, go nuts, just don’t kill my family, I will put up a fight
[/quote]

Still trying to peddle this old meme I see…[/quote]

Since you have been unable to defeat it, no one has, then I don’t feel the need to ‘peddle’ anything else. If I switched my arguments all the time, it certainly would make you happy because it means I found error in it. But there is no error, you can’t prove it wrong, you never will.
You hide behind slogans, name calling and idiotic banners that don’t prove a thing. You are mired in a world where circular reasoning is the MO and somehow, in the case of atheism it’s ok to use even though in the real world is fallacious and wrong. You hammer on a book you never read about something you don’t believe and then you think that proves something?

Or is calling me ‘patty’ make your arguments for you? So you think if you mock me you win?
No. The problem is your wrong and you will never be right, you got no arguments, you go no proof, you have nothing. Just slogans, circular reasoning, and name calling. Which means you have shit. [/quote]

Nobody has been able to defeat it?? LOL…your hubris smells, but at least your consistent.
[/quote]
Defeat it then sampson… Put your money where your mouth is. I won’t hold my breath.

And introducing strawmen is the best you can do? Really? What does that have to do with shit, really? Sounds like you are trying to avoid the argument. Typical.

You don’t know me to describe me, dumbass. You can’t even support your own claims much less describe me as a person. Come on now, show me you big ego… You can do it!

One thing is clear, you have proven yourself incapable of reasoned discussion, your as much an emotional headcase as tirib, filled with banners, slogans and histrionics.

EDIT: BTW, if you just post a bunch of silly links, then so will I. That doesn’t prove you know shit. Anyone can google.

418

So, first you say this…

[quote]pat wrote:
Defeat it then sampson… Put your money where your mouth is. I won’t hold my breath.[/quote]

Then this falls out of your sewer…

[quote]pat wrote:
BTW, if you just post a bunch of silly links, then so will I. That doesn’t prove you know shit. Anyone can google.[/quote]

Jesus H. Fucking Christ on a stick, you really are dumb as a bucket of mule piss. It’s conversations such as this that qualify me to label you a dumb ass. Way to avoid the debate, patty cakes. Or…I have an idea, maybe you can make the attempt to answer my questions; maybe. I rather hope you try.

419

Meanwhile back at the ranch.

420

I think adherents of macro evolution are absolute proof that people can be convinced of anything provided some authority tells them something. After all, if you don’t have God, you HAVE to have some kind of explanation for how we got here. What makes Christians (Yes, CHRISTIANS) actually some of the world’s greatest discoverers and scientists (YES, SCIENTISTS) is that we don’t so easily fall into a stupid dogma of man, thus allowing us more freedom and creativity. Every non-believer knows God is real, but the natural human reaction is to “Hide, because I was naked”. I personally feel rather sorry for people who spend their whole lives looking for an answer to a question that has been so obvious from the beginning. But as as the saying goes “what’s new under the sun?”