Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
163

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< That made my eyes bleed…[/quote]I don’t understand. Chesterton btw is one of my all time favorite Catholics.
[/quote]

Can start off with the massive straw man of ‘turning science into a philosophy’ and then degenerates into the whole ‘miracles’ thing. I fail to see how that thinking can be taken seriously.[/quote]

Science IS a philosophical proposition. Just like anything else, it’s method that functions on certain assumptions, as with any other mode of study.
That’s why you get PhD…It’s called a Doctor of Philosophy for a reason. Everything rolls up to philosphy because that’s where it all comes from, simply asking targeted questions. But science rolls up to philosophy, not the other way around.[/quote]Yer killin me again Pat, jist killin me!!! If I only knew of a way to coax you into aligning the rest of your fractured thought with the pure undiluted brilliance you sometimes blurt out, like this for example, you’d be in my “camp”. Heck, you’d be in my tent!!! How scary is that? Your absolutely right. Science CANNOT happen without philosophy happening first. That’s another way of saying that true objectivity is a fleeting delusion. Oh what I wouldn’t give to have a calm reasoned conversation with you. Nobody “just studies” in an intellectual vacuum.
[/quote]

If that is what Pat means , then I agree. Because philosophy at its root means ‘love of knowledge’.

But that is not what Chesterton meant in what he was saying as I understand it, and I think Thunderbolt agrees. He says ‘A philosophy’ as in a total system or all encompassing world view ,such as religion.

That’s why I asked for clarification from Pat on what he meant.
[/quote]

I don’t know this Chesterton fella. That is what I mean, but sadly I cannot have a reasoned, well measured exchange with tirib because I have tried. He couldn’t get away from insulting my faith, blatantly, worse than any atheist has done on this site, cherry picking my posts to extrapolate a single quote that was not the point of the post, and making the constant weird homo-erotic metaphors about my faith, or me which I found most puzzling of all.
If you follow what I say, nothing it fractured in my thoughts. It’s all quite linear.[/quote]

I hear you. He does have a severe bug up his ass for you catholic fellows…

164

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I say so because because the myth that scientists - “even serious or even semi serious scientists” - are somehow immune to “normalcy” and are pure as the wind-driven snow citadels of intellectual honesty and objectivity needs to be exposed as the fairy and bedtime story that it is.

Scientists are just people - human beings that are completely incapable, as a general rule, of operating in or out of their vocation without presuppositions, assumptions and belief (aka faith) systems that influence anything and everything they think and do.

Time spent training and/or working in their chosen scientific field certainly elevates their level of expertise but doesn’t necessarily make one a good or “serious” or “even semi serious” scientist and doesn’t somehow magically dismiss inherent prejudices that plague (or enhance depending on the situation) all people in every field of work and business. I know plumbers, engineers, accountants, baseball players, hair dressers, warehousemen, financial planners, insurance salesmen, carpet cleaners, executives, janitors, lawyers, physicians, gunsmiths, disc jockeys, realtors, clerks, landscapers, bus drivers, funeral home operators, computer technicians, pastors, boat builders, asphalt pavers, software writers, etc., etc., and guess what? Many of them are serious and even semi serious but none of them, no matter how long they’ve been doing what they’re doing, can claim Truth rests squarely in their province.

None of them.

Scientists are no different.

They are just people. Flawed, fallible, here today-gone tomorrow people.
[/quote]

Right. Because that’s what I said. Not.

Did I say anything about total ‘Truth’ or any other such lofty goals?

They can certainly claim to have a better clue than others about the things that rest in their province of expertise, when those claims are repeatable and verifiable for all to see. And they attempt to apply that ‘scientific method’ to all kinds of things that are considered the realm of the ‘metaphysical’ to try gain an understanding of what it may or may not be. They may get results or they may not, and anyone is welcome to disagree. But it is disingenuous to say that all men are the same in their attachment to dogma. Some are more, some are less, in everything in life.

To my mind, it beats the hell out of the alternatives. You believe you have ‘The Truth’? More power to you. But the ’ the fairy and bedtime story ’ criticism cut both ways.

You don’t like what they have to say? Don’t listen.

166

Creationism cannot be falsified. Therefore it CANNOT qualify as science in any sense.

Bill Nye is correct…presenting Creationism as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution is like saying a novel is equivalent in truth value to a physics text.

Preposterous.

Oh and Go Navy, Beat the Irish!!!

167

Just leave this here

168

Macro evolution can be proved wrong through physical evidence and observation. Creationism cannot be proved wrong. Therefore, creationism is philosophical/religious belief and macro evolution is science.

169

[quote]pushharder wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:…There is no need for this hostility between you and I as men. Never was.[/quote]There would be no need if indeed your bipolarity did not pervade your presence on PWI.[/quote]Once again I did not mention nor address you, yet here you are. Try n remember this post later when you’re hallucinating about my obsession with you some more.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote: Macro evolution can be proved wrong through physical evidence and observation. Creationism cannot be proved wrong. Therefore, creationism is philosophical/religious belief and macro evolution is science.[/quote]Please enunciate for me a scenario wherein macro evolution can be demonstrated to be certainly wrong. (I should take this back over the epistemology thread. Ya know that don’t ya Fletch =] ) I won’t though. I’m jist askin. Maybe there is.

170

If you find a rabbit fossil in precambrian rock, and it’s shown not to just be a fluke, than the whole theory goes out the window. I’ve got more, but I’ll have to look at some resources if you’d like.

171

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Just leave this here[/quote]

One question to always ask the whacko bible-thumpers: “How do you know that God didn’t speak to Charles Darwin?”

172

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
If you find a rabbit fossil in precambrian rock, and it’s shown not to just be a fluke, than the whole theory goes out the window. I’ve got more, but I’ll have to look at some resources if you’d like.[/quote]

Kinda sad that you have to explain that to any adult.

45% of Americans believe that the biblical story of creation is legit. Don’t know whether to be sad or lololololololololol.

173

I wanna hear moar.

174

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:If you find a rabbit fossil in Precambrian rock, and it’s shown not to just be a fluke, than the whole theory goes out the window. I’ve got more, but I’ll have to look at some resources if you’d like.[/quote]I do hereby submit that NO MATTER WHAT findings are EVER brought to the light of day and studied, enough so called scientists will absolutely find a way to interpret that “evidence” so as to allow for the possibility of evolution and not allow for what is to them a credible possibility of creation by God. Even though there’s already plenty. I don’t really keep up with this sort of stuff because I don’t really care and it’s not my preferred method of defending the faith.
You have to REALLY WANT macro evolution to be true to see it in what has been proposed so far. The dating methods are full of flaws or at least questions, the earth is festooned in every corner with the aftermath of a catastrophic world wide flood. There has not been even one conclusively demonstrable transitional specimen found anywhere in the fossil record, even though for all life forms to have evolved from earlier ones, there should almost not be one square foot anywhere on earth where the literally astronomical numbers required weren’t found. Just lying around. Everywhere. We should be tripping over them if ALL present life forms evolved from endlessly mutating previous ones over bbbbbilllllionsss of years. Should be three feet deep everywhere we look.
This isn’t even mentioning the information issues. Like, forget how DNA was coded… into zillions of different living varieties? How pray tell does the information in that code add up to be code at all? Even relatively tame and simple human language isn’t language unless someBODY says it is. What makes a letter A what it is in our alphabet? Or 2 + = and 4 what they are simply from the linguistic standpoint to say nothing of the data they carry as concepts? Why is there absolutely no known mechanism in all the currently explicable universe to demonstrate so much as the possibility for ANY beneficial increase in the information present in living matter when meaninglessly vaaaast such increases would be necessary just for a feather to emerge where there wasn’t one before. OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER … increasing and becoming more complex and beneficial each time.
Why do you believe in a process whereby you have risen from slime when NO beneficial increase in information has ever been shown at all, yet millions of years worth, ever upward, ever more complex and ever more beneficial would be required? Why? And multiply that by the mind numbing number of types of organisms live on this planet. Really? This is science? I guess so. None for me I’m drivin. It takes far more faith to believe that than to just believe my God designed it.
Oh, they’ll have answers for all this. Just listen and see if you can catch a glimpse of wishful faith in there.

175

A lot of strawmen and hyperbole there. To address each and every point, I’d have to go into depth explaining the scientific method and development of science as a method before I go into the evidence. I also need to know if I need to explain Wegner’s model of plate tectonics. Basically, do you believe that deep time and plate tectonics is invalid?

176

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.

177

You’re so fucking brainwashed Tiribulus.

You have no measurable evidence for the existence of your God. And no the bible is not a valid or reliable source, so take your circular reasoning and fuck off with it.

At least science has the humility to say “We don’t know, we’re working on it.” while you just jump to the conclusion(and the assumption of correctness) of the theory of an unknowingly complex super-entity that is capable of listening to everyone’s thoughts and judges them based on what HE hears and sees. Contradictory to his super powers, this omnipotent entity also happens to be the pettiest thing to have ever existed.

When’s the last time you took part in a public stoning Tiribulus? That’s in the bible too, or do you just pick and choose what parts you’d like to follow?

Religion was a control mechanism to keep people in line because life was very shitty back then and people were liable to rise up on a moments notice. When the fraudulent promise of heaven was waved in front of them that a better life awaited them when they were dead, it calmed them down and they had something to strive for.

The fact that in the 21st century, seemingly intelligent people like yourself are still capable of falling under the spell of religion shows just how powerful and dangerous a drug theism can be. If you were born somewhere else you’d be praying to Allah or Vishnu or Quetzalcoatl or any of the other Gods that you have just as much evidence to believe in but choose not to. The bible is a thought-trap for any person that isn’t capable of thinking for themselves, it’s time to wake up already.

For you or anyone else to condemn others, and to claim that you possess knowledge of this super-entity and that you know what it is that he wants is absolutely abominable and you should be ashamed of yourself for telling such lies.

178

Not attempting to troll here but I genuinely want to know. How do creationists explain dinosaurs?

179

[quote]BeefEater wrote:
Not attempting to troll here but I genuinely want to know. How do creationists explain dinosaurs?[/quote]

Old Earth creationists believe dinosaurs were brought into existence directly by God hundreds of millions of years ago; lived for many generations; and died off before human beings existed. Old Earth creationists do not believe that the six days of creation were 24-hour days, but rather six eras (“days” as in “my father’s day”).

I am pretty sure that New Earth creationists believe dinosaurs were brought into existence directly by God several thousand years ago during the six 24-hour days of creation; lived at the same time as some human beings; lived for some number of generations; and died off.

Macro-evolutionists believe that dinosaurs evolved from more primitive life forms hundreds of millions of years ago; lived for many generations; and died off (except the ones that evolved into birds).

I am pretty sure that all three groups, for the most part, believe that dinosaurs lived during some time period, and then died off. The disagreements would pertain to how they came to be, and when they lived.

180

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< so take your circular reasoning and fuck off with it. >>>[/quote]I sopped reading right here. You’re the brainwashed one who’s entire existence is one giant ripoff of mine. Your reasoning is every bit as circular as mine is only with no resolution. You can’t even tell me why 2+2=4 without assuming my God to do it. My triune God at that. That’s no attack on you personally though. Everybody does this. They have no choice. You will almost certainly not agree, but I have thought this through faaar further than you have. Fletch might even back me on that. You’re wastin both of our time. No need for profanity or shortness of breath. I have found that the more upset somebody becomes with what I say the more plausible they are finding it. This should be the pert where you jump and down and tell me what an $!~!@#% I am and that ANYTHING is more believable than this !@#%!*#@! I’m telling you.
You know why I don’t get angry with people like you? By which I assure you I intend no insult again. Because your arguments hit my like a cottonball from a toy slingshot. The real battle is far below, philosophically speaking, any of these which are all built on it. Again. Until we settle HOW we know anything at all? Any discussion of WHAT we know is so much mental masturbation.