Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
961

Joe, I’ll say it again show me YOUR PERSONAL number one piece of hard evidence that proves that humans evolved from non-humans? Then we can see if it actually qualifies as hard evidence. I think you are dodging the question because you can’t offer anything other than some interpretations, which are certainly not “hard evidence”. Do you understand the difference between facts and interpretations?

My own best argument for creationism is philosophical. The Christian worldview is able to provide the necessary preconditions for doing science by establishing a basis for things such as laws of logic, uniformity of nature and reliability of our senses and memory. These are all required in order to learn anything about the universe.

According to the naturalistic worldview, however, the universe is an accident, and there is no intelligence, plan or purpose behind it. In that worldview, therefore, there is no logical reason why any of these preconditions should be true. Furthermore, if the human brain is merely the product of random chemical accidents, why should we trust its reasoning?

962

[quote]ephrem wrote:

In the physical world death is absolute.[/quote]

The physical world is void of absolutes. You cannot deductively prove the physical, therefore while physical death seems to be a certainty in the physical realm, you cannot conclusively prove the physical realm even exists. You all could be a figment of my imagination. As silly as that sounds, it’s true. Senses are crude instruments for interpreting reality.

963

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

"My knowledge is quite adequate enough already, [/quote][/quote]

Apologies for that. I didn’t intend it to sound all arrogant like I know it all. I meant to actually complete that sentence with …adequate enough already for the purpose of debating you (or something similar)

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

haha Sorry schmichael, had to :stuck_out_tongue:
[/quote]

And I honestly couldn’t care less about ad hominem attacks against me. Other than violating my no dickheads rule, it simply shows the lack of sound argument that the attacker (for want of a better word) has.

964

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

We don’t trust the brain’s reasoning without experiments, tests and research that proves [which means a very large degree of certainty] that something is true, or works a certain way.

If we can repeat an experiment and get the same results everytime, a hypothesis is proven to be true with a very large degree of certainty.

To put religous faith on the same footing as scientific endevours because both rely on faith is disinginuous because if you hold religous faith to the same standards as you would scientific theory, there’d be very little left of religious faith.

[/quote]

Are you trying to use science to test the presuppositions of science?[/quote]

Reality is what it is. There’s little we can change about that. We can test and try to find out why or how something is happening the way it’s happening and we can get some results and understanding that way.

The [partial] answers science offers to certain problems, evolution for instance, are to me far more satisfying than saying that god did it in 6 days.

Wouldn’t you agree?[/quote]

Satisfying doesn’t mean right. And quite frankly, they do not actually contradict. Contrary to popular belief, the bible does not claim the universe is 6000 years old. No where, from cover to cover does it make that claim. That’s mans interpretation on what they think the bible is saying. The bible says God brought forth life on earth and that it was good. Not that it went “POOF!” in what we consider to be a day in current times.

965

schmichael, you’re saying the Christian worldview which when put under closer scrutiny falls to pieces, and based on any verifiable evidence is make believe and requires magic to exist is a better choice?

If you’re so accepting of the Christian worldview, then why not Hinduism, Islam, Judaism or any one of the other religions of the world?

966

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
You’re assuming that chemical reactions are random.
They’re not.
As I previously said, go learn about chemistry(general>organic>biochemistry) before commenting on it.[/quote]

They are not random, but our understanding of them is correlational, not causal. That doesn’t mean it is not causal, it just means we cannot prove it.

967

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Yes. I’m quite certain that my parents were aware that a child could result from their “activities”.

You think in absolutes far too much.[/quote]

They had a pet stork? Cool!

968

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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

Actually Bible Scholars are all over the board.

There are some who consider the bible a complete fiction to those who take an extremely literal interpretation and everything in between.

There are atheist bible scholars.[/quote]

Well, it doesn’t matter much what people consider it. That doesn’t affect what it actually is.

969

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[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.
[/quote]
The evidence for God is existence itself. And the existence can be proven deductivly and by necessity. That’s way stronger than any reaction in a petrie dish.

You don’t understand the deductive logic behind it then. I posted some very good links about it a couple of pages ago.

I don’t actually think Bill Nye the science guy knows what’s good for children. I think he is over reaching. I agree that creationism isn’t really a science, but for kids, creationism may be a perfectly acceptable understanding of how life came to be as it is, until they are old enough to understand the nuances and biological science behind evolution theory.

970

[quote]schmichael wrote:
Joe, I’ll say it again show me YOUR PERSONAL number one piece of hard evidence that proves that humans evolved from non-humans? [/quote]

I’ve already pointed you to 40 years worth of science journals and an entire website talking about the debate. Why does this not qualify as evidence? It can’t just be one thing that’s posted, it has to be enough information to give you a well rounded understanding. And for you that’s gonna take a lot more than is allowed in this box I’m afraid.

The scientists are the best people at science, and science is unquestionably the best method there is, so why are you here asking for evidence when the evidence is out there all over the internet and in the science journals, published and peer reviewed?

Evolution is accepted, you’re just not accepting it. You’re sitting here asking for it but refusing to read it. I really don’t understand your behavior at all. You pretend to want to learn but I’m sorry it really looks like you’re stubborn and close minded.

My main question to you at this point is why you’re ignoring the peer reviewed science journals that have been published about evolution?

971

Dr. Joey you really are a weakling aren’t you? You did this same crap to me and I’m not even tuned up on this method of argumentation at all. You came in here declaring yourself eminently qualified to silence all comers (or so it sure seemed you were) and yet when challenged you are unable to produce a single syllable of YOUR OWN THOUGHT on this topic. Come on man. You have done nothing but sneer derisively and tell us how stupid we are. I never did get my definitions. Now this guy shows some interest in your thought as well and you just spout off, “HOHOHO, everybody knows what I believe is right.” Is that really all ya got doctor? Really? I dropped outta high school in 10th grade. Don’t look like I missed squat.

972

[quote]pat wrote:
The evidence for God is existence itself.
[/quote]

Alright then thanks for that. I’m now a believer.

973

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
yet when challenged you are unable to produce a single syllable of YOUR OWN THOUGHT on this topic. [/quote]

That’s my point. Why do you want my thought when the scientists thoughts are way more qualified (I’m not a scientist) than mine? If you want the most reliable information about donuts, you go to Tim Hortons. If you want the most reliable information about Science you go to the Scientists.

So the real question is: Why are you ignoring the Scientists evidence for Evolution?

(Because who the cares how well I can re-iterate/copy and paste what they say?)

974

Friends, I do stand most humbly and contritely corrected. OldManJoe is not the guy who said he had a PHD in chemistry. It was Cryogen. I was doing too many things at once earlier. Our whole dialog has been based on an honest though mistaken assumption on my part and not your fault. My mistake and I offer my sincere apology Joe.

975

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
yet when challenged you are unable to produce a single syllable of YOUR OWN THOUGHT on this topic. [/quote]

That’s my point. Why do you want my thought when the scientists thoughts are way more qualified (I’m not a scientist) than mine? If you want the most reliable information about donuts, you go to Tim Hortons. If you want the most reliable information about Science you go to the Scientists. [/quote]

Okay Joe, what if the scientists don’t all agree? Go here to see a list of scientists who agree with the statement “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php

And these are just the ones who are secure enough to sign a public list. There are many, many others who’s jobs would be in jeopardy if they signed the list.

And please don’t throw out the no true scotsman fallacy.

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
So the real question is: Why are you ignoring the Scientists evidence for Evolution? [/quote]

Who says I’m ignoring it? I am giving you the chance to put forward your strongest “hard evidence” for evolution so that you can’t accuse me of attacking a strawman. Shall I just pick an article at random from talkorigins and refute it for you?

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
(Because who the cares how well I can re-iterate/copy and paste what they say?)[/quote]

So you are accusing me of not having enough knowledge (despite knowing virtually nothing about me) and yet you admit that the best you can do is cut & paste!!

976

[quote]therajraj wrote:
There is no my truth, your truth, his truth there is simply the truth.

That’s why this whole “different interpretation” angle is a complete and utter lie.[/quote]

I agree. There is absolute truth.

977

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I went to Catholic high school and we were taught evolution. We discussed Genesis in religion class.[/quote]

Precisely. The warfare over these positions exists in the fevered minds of two camps of blinkered extremists. The rest understand the positions, properly understood, are not irreconcilable.

Science is a body of knowledge of based on a methodology of observability and measurability, and therefore empiricism; religion is based on faith.

Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith because it cannot do so adequately. Religion shouldn’t try to answer questions about science because it cannot do so adequately. That isn’t an indictment of either one - it is simply a truth that each handles and informs a different aspect of human inquiry.[/quote]

Very well said.[/quote]

I wouldn’t say so because he says "Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith "

I don’t see how that makes any sense. Science is useful for answering questions about everything so why not Faith too?

For example it was a great idea to Scientifically conduct prayer tests because now some of us are aware that prayer (related to faith) doesn’t accomplish anything except possibly giving someone a false sense of accomplishment. This is another example of Religion polluting the mind because you have all these people wasting time all over the world praying when they could be doing something that’s actually productive.[/quote]

Lol…there is mental benefits to prayer. Science proves it.

Further, you’re assuming a causal effect between prayer and miracles. There is, but it is not based on our actions solely, but the will of someone that science can’t quantify.

This is like running scientific studies on kids asking their parents for something and not even bothering to look at the parent who’s will has to produce the effect. This being a supernatural parent makes this possibility an impossibility because science deals with nature not super-nature.

This just goes along with the hubris of materialism and scientism. Which I say stems from nihilism, which is by far one of the most blindly followed and faith based assumptions of modernism in our contemporary culture, that most people do not even realize they hold. The fact is that once you throw in reason in the debate of nihilism vs. Catholicism (which I believe is the fullness of truth and nihilism is the anti-thesis to Catholicism) Catholicism wins out 10 out of 10 times.

978

[quote]schmichael wrote:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php
[/quote]

Have you ever heard of Project Steve?

Please just give it a quick read because there are more scientists with the name Steve that vote FOR evolution than there are scientists on your miniscule list.

The strongest hard evidence I can provide you with is a pointer to the evidence itself: The Scientists evidence. The majority of Scientists state the following from the project Steve link I just posted above:

The statement:

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."

THAT is the majority opinion. Your list is less than 1%. But not that majority is always right.

So answer this, how do you ignore the above statement when it so strongly supports the Theory of Evolution and the source in which it comes from is the single most reliable source and authority in which there is to retrieve such information from?

979

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php
[/quote]

Have you ever heard of Project Steve?

Please just give it a quick read because there are more scientists with the name Steve that vote FOR evolution than there are scientists on your miniscule list.

The strongest hard evidence I can provide you with is a pointer to the evidence itself: The Scientists evidence. The majority of Scientists state the following from the project Steve link I just posted above:

The statement:

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."

THAT is the majority opinion. Your list is less than 1%. But not that majority is always right.

[/quote]

So let me see if I’ve got this right, you are pointing to the majority opinion as your so called hard evidence and then refuting yourself by stating that the majority is not always right?

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it.

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
So answer this, how do you ignore the above statement [/quote]

I don’t ignore the statement, I reject it. There is a huge difference.

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
when it so strongly supports the Theory of Evolution [/quote]

It doesn’t support the ToE, it assumes that it is true before looking at any evidence.

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
and the source in which it comes from is the single most reliable source and authority in which there is to retrieve such information from? [/quote]

I do hope you’re not referring to the NCSE. They are a political lobby group.

980

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

In the physical world death is absolute.[/quote]

The physical world is void of absolutes. You cannot deductively prove the physical, therefore while physical death seems to be a certainty in the physical realm, you cannot conclusively prove the physical realm even exists. You all could be a figment of my imagination. As silly as that sounds, it’s true. Senses are crude instruments for interpreting reality. [/quote]

Semantics, nothing more.