Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
941

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Your first post was back on page 14, here are all the “diverse” links you’ve posted thus far:

[quote]schmichael wrote:
Read this. http://crev.info/2012/09/denisovan-genome-reveals-interbreeding-with-modern-humans/
[/quote]

[quote]schmichael wrote:
Start with this regarding evidence http://creation.com/creation-wheres-the-proof

This is a response to your assertion that Creation science is not science http://creation.com/its-not-science
[/quote]

lol

[quote]schmichael wrote:
Actually there is one more. http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind-logic-and-creation
[/quote]

And your sole wikipedia link:

[quote]schmichael wrote:
you can read the rest here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction[/quote]

And wikipedia or any other encyclopedia isn’t a valid reference, you should know this.

Start being honest with yourself schmichael.[/quote]

942

So 3 out of five quotes you’ve found were from creation.com. Well at least 60 percent of the time you’re right every time!

Regardless, this is an example of the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context.

In laymens terms, you refuse to even consider the info due to the source. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day…

943

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

And wikipedia or any other encyclopedia isn’t a valid reference, you should know this.

[/quote]

says the guy who has posted several items straight from school textbooks!! Hypocrisy much!!!

944

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
WRONGGGG!

The evidence that we will wake up is because we as humans have witnessed/observed animals/people/whatevers going to sleep and waking up over the past thousand of years sleep has been documented and we know a lot about going to sleep there is plenty of evidence out there so that is definitely 100% NOT FAITH![/quote]

That is exactly faith. You have faith that the past will repeat itself, you can’t know for certain the sun will come up tomorrow. You can infer it from past events, but you cannot “know” it. Hume stated that unless you can know all the occurrences of an event, past present and future, you cannot ‘know’ that thing to be an absolute truth. Hume was an atheist.

You are using inductive reasoning, and while it’s generally reliave, it’s far from absolute. The only absolutes are deductive truths. Deductive truths don’t exist in the physical world. What makes the physical world function is the metaphysical laws that control them, and they cannot break that bond.

The physical world is one of inference and correlation. Absolutes DO NOT exist in the physical world.[/quote]

I’m not talking about knowing or having absolute truth, I’m talking about faith, the kind of faith where there’s no evidence, the kind of faith you need to believe in a god.

I’m not sure how you got faith mixed up with absolute truth…those seem like pretty big opposites to me.

Anyway, I agree with Bill Nye that creationism is not appropriate for children because evolution is a fact supported by hard evidence and creationism has squadoosh for evidence so there’s no sense in teaching that.

945

Okay Joe, give us your hard evidence (you know, observable, testable, repeatable stuff) for Human’s evolving from non-humans

946

[quote]schmichael wrote:
Okay Joe, give us your hard evidence (you know, observable, testable, repeatable stuff) for Human’s evolving from non-humans[/quote]

Are you saying you don’t believe evolution is true when it’s an observed and tested fact in the world of science? (Which is basically, the world.)

If you want to learn about evolution you just have to find a trusted site about evolution and off you go. http://www.talkorigins.org/ is actually all about the controversy that we’re debating right now so it’s great. But seriously, the evidence is out there all you have to do is know how to use the internet, and then actually want to find it.

Also, there are things called Science Journals which contain the “hard” evidence I think you’re referring to, peer reviewed by other scientists so you know it’s very reliable. Here is an example but it costs money, but I’ve seen free science journals online too but this one costs money: JHE | Journal of Human Evolution | ScienceDirect.com by Elsevier

You really have to learn to check your sources better though because I think it was you who was citing creationist websites and those are utter garbage. I could probably pick out 10 pieces of garbage information out of any article on a creationist site within minutes.
You can pick an evolution/atheist site, and then pick a creationist website, and the evolution/atheist sites may contain SOME bad information (like all websites might), but most creationist websites are COMPLETELY littered with crap from the inside out, so please be careful and check your sources.

947

Now Joe, I wasn’t asking you to point me in the direction of some website so that I can learn about evolution. My knowledge is quite adequate enough already.

And please give it a rest with the Genetic Fallacy. You need to demonstrate that a source is incorrect, not simply assert it.

I want you to show us some of this hard evidence. You claim “it’s an observed and tested fact in the world of science?” Again, please demonstrate.

Try this, if you had to pick your number one thing that proves that humans evolved from non-humans, what would it be?

948

[quote]schmichael wrote:
Now Joe, I wasn’t asking you to point me in the direction of some website so that I can learn about evolution. My knowledge is quite adequate enough already.

And please give it a rest with the Genetic Fallacy. You need to demonstrate that a source is incorrect, not simply assert it.

I want you to show us some of this hard evidence. You claim “it’s an observed and tested fact in the world of science?” Again, please demonstrate.

Try this, if you had to pick your number one thing that proves that humans evolved from non-humans, what would it be?

[/quote]

You my friend, are an idiot.

949

They’ve been doin the same thing to me schmichael. Maybe you’ll get further with the prince of pointless pontification, Pope Joseph here than I did.

950

[quote]schmichael wrote:
Now Joe, I wasn’t asking you to point me in the direction of some website so that I can learn about evolution. My knowledge is quite adequate enough already.
[/quote]

Actually your whole problem is that your knowledge is inadequate. Maybe not your knowledge, but your mindset. You seem to have chosen a side (or probably were born into it) and just want to defend your side instead of keeping an open mind.

And how can anyone ever say “My knowledge is adequate enough”, that’s like saying “Hey I’m just gonna stop learning right here, no need to get any smarter than this”. What a silly thing to say…

And I’m telling you, your knowledge isn’t adequate, you’re just afraid the information will affect you in a way you don’t like, so you don’t even wanna be exposed to it. So are you going to actually just refuse to read the site when it contains valuable information that pertains to the debate you’re so passionately involved in right now? Honestly if you just refuse to read the site like that, it really shows that you’re not being objective here because you have no reason to not wanna read that stuff.

Anyway, moving on now, got 3 or so more points to read by the guy who’s “knowledge is quite adequate enough already.” Frickin’ sigh…

[quote]schmichael wrote:
And please give it a rest with the Genetic Fallacy. You need to demonstrate that a source is incorrect, not simply assert it.
[/quote]

Name your favorite creationist site and I’m sure I could find an unbelievable amount of people shitting on it and could also shit on points within the site myself, probably 10 or 20 points within 5 minutes.

[quote]schmichael wrote:
I want you to show us some of this hard evidence. You claim “it’s an observed and tested fact in the world of science?” Again, please demonstrate.
[/quote]

Ok so let me get this straight, first your “knowledge is quite adequate enough already.” and now you “want me to show you some of this hard evidence”.

You do realize I just pointed you to about 20 years worth of Science Journals right? And I pointed you to talk-origins.

So I guess this is how you work:

  1. Demand evidence.
  2. If evidence is presented, then tell them “My knowledge is quite adequate enough already.” but then demand other evidence right after.
  3. Then if they bring that evidence tell them once again your knowledge banks are filled up for now.

You just make excuses to not read the evidence, that’s what wrong with you. This isn’t even about the information, this is your ego getting in the way.

[quote]schmichael wrote:
Try this, if you had to pick your number one thing that proves that humans evolved from non-humans, what would it be?
[/quote]

There is a body of work called Science and it’s been BY FAR our best method for determining truth and reality. The Scientists tell us evolution is true, and the science confirms it. That’s why I believe it. Now why don’t you believe it? And what’s your best argument for creationism?

951

[quote]schmichael wrote:
I love being a single-celled organism, there’s no need to expand, we’re all having a good time down here at the bottom of the ocean floor, no need to evolve, anybody that wants to evolve is going to have to come through me.[/quote]

952

Try not to laugh

953

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:
Now Joe, I wasn’t asking you to point me in the direction of some website so that I can learn about evolution. My knowledge is quite adequate enough already.

And please give it a rest with the Genetic Fallacy. You need to demonstrate that a source is incorrect, not simply assert it.

I want you to show us some of this hard evidence. You claim “it’s an observed and tested fact in the world of science?” Again, please demonstrate.

Try this, if you had to pick your number one thing that proves that humans evolved from non-humans, what would it be?

[/quote]

You my friend, are an idiot. [/quote]

Thanks. This pretty much summarizes my 4 paragraphs. So in case his knowledge is getting full again he can just refer to your abridged version.

hehe…no offense shmichael, just kiddin’ around.

954

Ben Stein’s Expelled is an interesting flick for the topic.

955

I wonder if the rest of the PHD’s in the word are as formidable as Dr. Joe here. Notice I didn’t question whether he actually had one. I have no problem believing he does.

956

[quote]CargoCapable wrote:
Ben Stein’s Expelled is an interesting flick for the topic.[/quote]

Yes because referring to abiogenesis as “lightening striking a mud puddle” is obviously scientific.

You’ve been had.

957

[quote]CargoCapable wrote:Ben Stein’s Expelled is an interesting flick for the topic.[/quote]Why?

958

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Only fundamentalists and atheists read those passages as literal historic accounts. Biblical scholars do not.
[/quote]

Agreed. I’m specifically referring to fundamentalism here (there are more than a few of them around this forum).

But you are right–I was lucky enough to develop a close relationship with a professor of mine from college, one of the most knowledgeable Biblical scholars in the University system right now, and he is really one of the most intelligent people I’ve ever met. But as such his beliefs are very, very different from the beliefs of the fervent/infatuated/paranoid crowd that hangs around here sometimes.[/quote]

Yes, but because people use it wrong, intemperate it wrong, or simply misunderstand it does not mean there is not truth there.
The whole talking snake thing really just means that tempters r temptation itself precipitates sin.

959

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:
I love being a single-celled organism, there’s no need to expand, we’re all having a good time down here at the bottom of the ocean floor, no need to evolve, anybody that wants to evolve is going to have to come through me.[/quote][/quote]

“My knowledge is quite adequate enough already, anyone who want’s to teach me more, is gonna have to come through me.”

Of course in reference to:

[quote]schmichael wrote:
Now Joe, I wasn’t asking you to point me in the direction of some website so that I can learn about evolution. My knowledge is quite adequate enough already…
[/quote]

haha Sorry schmichael, had to :stuck_out_tongue:

960

[quote]therajraj wrote:
So we’ve talked a lot about non-religious secular moral systems in the past and I’ve fielded answers.

So now I ask: For those of you who believe in universal moral system, what morals do you guys consider universal?[/quote]

Good and evil? Those are universal. What’s universal about morals?

  • Only sentient beings can do evil or good, and sentient beings can be the recipient of good or evil.
  • Freewill. There had to be a choice and even after that choice was made, one could have chosen otherwise.
  • Harm or benefit, choices that ultimately harm or help are moral acts.

Relativism pretty much ignores all this stuff. BTW, if you do a little research moral relativism is NOT a commonly accepted ethical philosophy even among atheists, at least in academic circles. The theory just falls apart in to many circumstance. For instance, slavery was wrong even when it was a commonly accepted practice. Owning, devaluing and forcing another simply because the color of their skin is wrong. It was wrong 200 years ago, 1000 years ago, and it’s wrong now. Mankind caught up with the moral precept, but it was always immoral.