Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t believe vast amounts of time are required for anything we see because God created His universe mature. Adult if you will, just like He did Adam. If Adam walked up to you 2 minutes after being created you’d think he was decades old already from today’s standpoint. The universe and this earth are “full grown”, but ARE aging. [/quote]

This is why this isn’t science. You have to be able not only to formulate hypotheses but also conduct later experiments. There’s this thing called ‘the scientific method’.

Creationism ain’t science.

Creationism is actually an attempt by religious authorities to shut down the human mind. By attempting to make creationism axiomatic, they want it taken as dogma. Anyone who contests the dogma get ostracisized or burned at the stake (long ago).

religion = the greatest trick ever played on humanity.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t believe vast amounts of time are required for anything we see because God created His universe mature. Adult if you will, just like He did Adam. If Adam walked up to you 2 minutes after being created you’d think he was decades old already from today’s standpoint. The universe and this earth are “full grown”, but ARE aging. [/quote]

Ok,That really is a total shocker of a statement…

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< Jesus Christ Tiribulus, smh, go to 4:30. Math is math, not religion >>>[/quote]Ya really don’t get it Matty. Oh yes it is. I keep offering to prove it to ya.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< Science in general relies on philosophy that at it’s core is based on fundamental axioms and tautologies so in a sense, evolution is based on faith. But not in the way I think your suggesting.[/quote]Not in a sense. At bottom, it is EXACTLY the same kind of faith that Christians have. It is based on an entirely unprovable alogical foundation, which in the realm of unbelieving sinful autonomous man, commands no more reasonable belief than the tooth fairy. Before we can fire so much as a single synapse in the investigation of ANYTHING, we MUST first know HOW we know anything at all. Evolution or creation (and everything else) is a meaningless discussion until we settle how and whether 2+2=4.
If God is required for the investigation to proceed then no interpretation of alleged evidence can by definition be legitimately employed to disprove His existence. If God is not required then the investigation is over before it starts. He doesn’t exist. Not the tirune God of Christianity anyway. My method and argument which I stand by as guys like HeadHunter and Matty refuse to engage it, is that, not just any ol god, but the God of the bible, is a presuppositional necessity for every man, all of whom are created in that God’s image. As such they have no choice but to assume Him in the very act of denying Him. This is the biblical teaching in a philosophical package. Kamui is the one and only non Calvinist human being I have ever heard of who actually grasps what I mean by that after the larger discussion has taken place. He has constructed in my view (the bible’s view and hence God’s view) an alternative anti Christian epistemological framework to account for this. You have adopted much of his thought. I see it. He should be flattered. =]

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

And how is “scientists are still working on it” any different from “God did it”? That is the epitome of blind faith.[/quote]

To admit that you dont know and probably never will is the epitome of blind faith?

For your reading pleasure:

[/quote]

No. To believe something is true in spite of contradictory observations while hoping that scientists will answer the problem in the future is blind faith.

In this case we have never observed spontaneous formation of life and we have the law of biogenesis to overcome.
[/quote]

Absence if proof is not proof of absence.

[quote]orion wrote:<<< Absence if proof is not proof of absence. [/quote]No, absence of proof means believing anyway is faith.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:<<< Absence if proof is not proof of absence. [/quote]No, absence of proof means believing anyway is faith.
[/quote]

Yeah, but noone does that in this case.

[quote]orion wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]orion wrote:<<< Absence if proof is not proof of absence. [/quote]No, absence of proof means believing anyway is faith.[/quote]Yeah, but noone does that in this case. [/quote]Probability in a logical vacuum void of certainty is meaningless. Without faith that is.

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
And I just noticed, you’re talking about abiogenesis. That’s separate from evolution. Evolution doesn’t break down if abiogenesis does. And scientists are still working on abiogenesis. This has been discussed in the thread already.[/quote]

It is not separate from evolution. That is a convenient, self serving, excuse served up so that evolutionists can ignore the obvious problem.

And how is “scientists are still working on it” any different from “God did it”? That is the epitome of blind faith.[/quote]

This is just wrong. Evolution is not dependent on origin of life theories, it stands on it’s own. Evolution also is observable and has been observed.

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
MattyG-

I would think if single celled organisms were spontaneously forming that would be taught in basic science course as part of the cell theory. [/quote]

Not spontaneous, but interesting nonetheless
http://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_unveils_synthetic_life.html[/quote]

You’re right, this is very interesting. Unfortunately for you this does nothing to strengthen an argument for evolution and it seriously undermines any sort of argument for a spontaneous origin of life by demonstrating the high complexity of “simple” life forms. If anything, this is evidence for intelligent design…[/quote]

Read the entire dialogue. I never indicated that I was putting it forth as evidence.
It is not evidence for intelligent design, even if things appear to be designed, that in no way indicates that God did it.

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t believe vast amounts of time are required for anything we see because God created His universe mature. Adult if you will, just like He did Adam. If Adam walked up to you 2 minutes after being created you’d think he was decades old already from today’s standpoint. The universe and this earth are “full grown”, but ARE aging. [/quote]

Ok,That really is a total shocker of a statement…[/quote]

Welcome to creationism

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Why don’t you help me get it, and why don’t you go read Hindu texts to see what they have to say with respect to matters of God theory. There’s 1 billion Hindus you know. Also, again, why don’t you watch those Sapolsky videos that I keep having to post, and you keep willfully ignoring.
Your purposeful ignoring of the content of my responses to you is no way to maintain a dialogue.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Probability in a logical vacuum void of certainty is meaningless. Without faith that is.
[/quote]

This short 14 word statement contains the absolute essence of truth. It actually obliterates most of the arguments that have been made so far in this thread. And it will be skimmed over and then ignored by the very people who most need to read it.


This should have been my first post

So is support of teaching evolution in public schools, to a captive audience, partly dependent on the hope that it erodes religious thought? Or, to simply teach evolution? Some of the language here, and the atheist ‘authorities’ evoked, suggests the former. Firstly, anyone holding that scripture was not meant to transmit facts/theories of nature is ‘immune.’ That theological/moral understandings are transmitted originally to an audience who wouldn’t even know what a cell was, much less understand evolution from a first cell(s). Instead, using a cosmology familiar to the audience these concepts are deposited with. Forget evolution, I’ve known as a small child that there weren’t gates in the ‘dome’ above to let the waters (rain) pass through.

So, while I have no problem with evolution personally, the arrogant misuse of science as a hammer, to pound away at the religious thought of citizens (as a side ‘benefit’) via their children, through the compulsory nature of the public school system, turns me off to the ‘cause.’ And the secret? Believing in evolution, or not, has no bearing on the vast majority of careers. The evangelical doctor doesn’t need it. The evangelical small business man doesn’t need it. Actuaries don’t need it. Accountants. Engineers don’t need it. An evangelical chemistry professor needn’t speak once to it in order to deliver a rock solid chemistry education.

Again, Dawkingelicals and Hitcherites salivating over a potential one size fits all edict on this issue irks me. Also, I find the overstating of the importance of teaching evolution to every child, silly. There are very few avenues, career and academic, where I’d agree knowledge of the subject is critical (much less outright acceptance).

But, tell ya what, end the public school system as we know it. Perhaps use vouchers or some such. Us Catholics will have kids learning about evolution in one period, and attending mass during another. Atheistic/secular schools can teach evolution in one period, and then maybe pass out contraceptives in the next. And evangelicals can do whatever they like. Problem solved. National crises averted. I won’t even bill the tax payer for my time.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Probability in a logical vacuum void of certainty is meaningless. Without faith that is.
[/quote]

This short 14 word statement contains the absolute essence of truth. It actually obliterates most of the arguments that have been made so far in this thread. And it will be skimmed over and then ignored by the very people who most need to read it. [/quote]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So is support of teaching evolution in public schools, to a captive audience, partly dependent on the hope that it erodes religious thought? Or, to simply teach evolution? Some of the language here, and the atheist ‘authorities’ evoked, suggests the former. Firstly, anyone holding that scripture was not meant to transmit facts/theories of nature is ‘immune.’ That theological/moral understandings are transmitted originally to an audience who wouldn’t even know what a cell was, much less understand evolution from a first cell(s). Instead, using a cosmology familiar to the audience these concepts are deposited with. Forget evolution. I’ve known as a small child that there weren’t gates in the ‘dome’ above to let the waters (rain) pass through.

So, while I have no problem with evolution personally, the arrogant misuse of science as a hammer, to pound away at the religious thought of citizens (as a side ‘benefit’) via their children, through the compulsory nature of the public school system, turns me off to the ‘cause.’ And the secret? Believing in evolution, or not, has no bearing on the vast majority of careers. The evangelical doctor doesn’t need it. The evangelical small business man doesn’t need it. Actuaries don’t need it. Accountants. Engineers don’t need it. An evangelical chemistry professor needn’t speak once to it in order to deliver a rock solid chemistry education.

Again, Dawkingelicals and Hitcherites salivating over a potential one size fits all edict on this issue irks me. Also, I find the overstating of the importance of teaching evolution to every child, silly. There are very few avenues, career and academic, where I’d agree knowledge of the subject is critical (much less outright acceptance).

But, tell ya what, end the public school system as we know it. Perhaps use vouchers or some such. Us Catholics will have kids learning about evolution in one period, and attending mass during another. Atheistic/secular schools can teach evolution in one period, and then maybe pass out contraceptives in the next. And evangelicals can do whatever they like. Problem solved, and I didn’t even charge the tax payer.

[/quote]

So many kids leave school being so exceedingly bad at the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic (functionally illiterate almost)that yes, there are probably many other issues that take priority in regards to schooling before the evolution/creatonism debate.

But for better or worse, the ‘where do we come from’ question is so basic to us as (sometimes) thinking beings that it’s impossible to avoid, especially with hopefully curious young minds.

Of course private education that serves the parent’s wants is the answer to it. In public schools, the correct answer to the question “Does god exist?” or all religious questions is : Ask your parents. A school should not be an indoctrination factory, in a perfect world. But in reality , for both sides , that’s what they are. Because once you have the children, you have the next generations in your camp.

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< Why don’t you help me get it, and why don’t you go read Hindu texts to see what they have to say with respect to matters of God theory. >>>[/quote]I once owned the Bahgvad Gita and the vedic hymns (spelling?) dude. [quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< There’s 1 billion Hindus you know. >>>[/quote]Yes… I know. [quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< Also, again, why don’t you watch those Sapolsky videos that I keep having to post, and you keep willfully ignoring.
Your purposeful ignoring of the content of my responses to you is no way to maintain a dialogue.[/quote]Also, again, why don’t you read those threads or that document that I keep having to post (not just to you), and you keep willfully ignoring. Your purposeful ignoring of the content of my responses to you is no way to maintain a dialogue. I will watch your videos, you have my word, if you will go to this thread The Secret History of Money - Politics and World Issues - Forums - T Nation and tell me why you are certain that 2+2=4. (yes again guys, it works every time) I’ll even go first. If you agree? I promise you will know in short order just how abysmally shallow your thinking has been your entire life. Not because I’m the deepest most profound thinker who ever lived. Not at all. You’ve just never had anybody challenge you where it counts most. Absolutely NOTHING I know originated with me.

Headhunter has seen this dialog. That’s why he WILL NOT bite even when I use cheap ego bashing tactics on him. He knows he CANNOT win. On his declared basis and yours, a tautological stalemate, in other words uncertainty, is the best you can hope for. If you decide to step up here? Read that document http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/dox/Brother_Greg_refromed_apologetic.pdf It will give you a fair head start if you read it carefully and assume nothing except that I may actually not be an imbecile. I expect that you’ll be intractably arrogant, dogmatic and dismissive. Just like you’ll say I am. I’m used to it.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]orion wrote:<<< Absence if proof is not proof of absence. [/quote]No, absence of proof means believing anyway is faith.[/quote]Yeah, but noone does that in this case. [/quote]Probability in a logical vacuum void of certainty is meaningless. Without faith that is.
[/quote]

I dont even know what that means.