Response to Bill Nye the intolerant science guy

[peach174]

I've never understood the anti-science movement.

I think the basic cause of it is that if you have science, you don't need God.

If you don't need God, you really can't go around guilting people into feeling bad about mundane stuff like masturbating.

Masturbating is not a sin. Masturbation is not in the Bible anywhere.
It is a Man made sin.

 

[Shelzin]

Bill Nye, Creationism is Highly Appropriate for our Children - YouTube

Well... Lets put up the video that this is a response to. Seems fair, yes?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU]Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Freewill]

I am guessing it was the guy from Brown university to which you disagree?

For the most part, I disagree with both these quacks.

You do understand that the argument is not evolution per se but creation which evolution, and science are incapable of explaining.

You're right about something here. Evolution does not, and never has been intended as, an explanation for how life was created on our planet. You're wrong to say that science is incapable of explaining it. Only, scientific study is ongoing to learn more a bout how life may have come into existence on our planet. There are several working theories.

In any event, that fact has nothing to do with the validity of creationism. Creationism is nothing more than an apologetic for ultra orthodox interpretations of Abrahamic religious texts. There is nothing scientific about it.

Did you know that the big bang theory came from a Catholic Priest? The only people saying that science and religion are not compatible are those who have no religion. The creation "story" is not just an "Abrahamic" religious story. In different forms but the same theme the creation story is shared by many diverse religion across the globe who could conceivably did not have contact with one another. Same with the flood story. Most certainly there was a great flood at one time in the past. The "Abrahamic" text is most certainly scientific, as scientific as any theory on how life came from non-life here on Earth. Did you know that your computer works on 1s and 0s? I am sure you did. Do you know that the human brain can hold 4 times that information? Thus making the human mind more complicated then our best computers. How that could have come from random chance seems to be incredibly unbelievable.

But think about it. All the creation stories have a commonality. A god, God, Goddess came down from the Heavens to start life on Earth. Naturally if this were true you would not be calling them Gods you would be calling them aliens or some other term. But religion has taught that these beings were Gods, or bringer of life or creator if you will. As with anything knowing the cause of an event doesn't mean we need to know the cause of the cause. So let's say that "someone" came down to Earth and created life. OR life was seeded from space and someone came down and interjected themselves unto the Earth. Or maybe we came from them. That makes sense of a whole lot of things going on in ancient stories. The worship of men as gods. Maybe these men were decendents of those who brought life and the further we get away from that time the less we remember and the less we believe. Now the stories of these men seem to be nothing but religious mumbo gumbo. Yet there is no other explanation of how life began on Earth especially man. Except of course a random game of chance. Why did the ancients have such a fascination with the stars and build giant buildings only to abandon them? Matter of fact how did they build them?

The point is, if you listen to the creation story and let you mind slam shut because it is nothing but religion I am thinking you are closing your mind. Why would the ancient people come up with such a fantastic story, and so many of diverse place come up with basically the same story? And don't be confused because of the imagery of who they are describing. Most of the stories were oral for a very long time so the stories were told in ways that related what people didn't understand to what they did understand. So when the Bible speaks of a chariot of fire what exactly did the person see?

 

[HUGGY]

Bill Nye, Creationism is Highly Appropriate for our Children - YouTube

I had a hard time deciding which of the two, the man or the woman, was dumber. Maybe the woman because she claimed to be a scientist.

 

[Freewill]

I've never understood the anti-science movement.

I think the basic cause of it is that if you have science, you don't need God.

If you don't need God, you really can't go around guilting people into feeling bad about mundane stuff like masturbating.

Really you are guessing. The reason that people think that science is being rejected is that they can't get those who believe in creation to accept what they believe to be true. Which is in reality nothing. Evolution will be used to explain life on Earth until it is pointed out that evolution can not explain creation. Then there will be agreement and it will then be said that even though evolution can't explain it, and the person has no other explanation except time, the person knows for sure that there can not be a God involved. YOU have no more of an idea how life could have started on Earth then does Bill Nye. Yes, there are theories but nothing that has been proved. Show me a half eye. Show me where life is beginning anew anywhere on the Planet. For crying out loud deer can't even evolve enough not to know to run into or in front of cars.

It is a straw man argument that says people that believe in creation are rejecting science.

 

[Shelzin]

Bill Nye, Creationism is Highly Appropriate for our Children - YouTube

I had a hard time deciding which of the two, the man or the woman, was dumber. Maybe the woman because she claimed to be a scientist.

Einstein used to get upset when people would use his theories to discredit god.

Eh.. Found the quote:

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.

 

[Freewill]

Bill Nye, Creationism is Highly Appropriate for our Children - YouTube

I had a hard time deciding which of the two, the man or the woman, was dumber. Maybe the woman because she claimed to be a scientist.

I guess you are smater then all of them because you have an advanced degree from Brown, as does the man?

 

[HUGGY]

Bill Nye, Creationism is Highly Appropriate for our Children - YouTube

I had a hard time deciding which of the two, the man or the woman, was dumber. Maybe the woman because she claimed to be a scientist.

Einstein used to get upset when people would use his theories to discredit god.

Eh.. Found the quote:

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.

— Prince Hubertus zu Löwenstein, Towards the Further Shore (Victor Gollancz, London, 1968), p. 156; quoted in Jammer, p. 97

Dunno... I met Bill and talked with him several times. He didn't mention Einstein.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Why is it the religious want to kill sceince to save their failed myths?


It will never happen so give up.

Bliieve your myths if you like but dont think you can stop sceince.

maybe you should learn to spell the word......hey just sayin....

 

[paulitician]

Most Americans are intolerant of others' beliefs. And ironically, it's the ones who are always boasting about being so tolerant, who are usually the most intolerant. Most do not believe in Freedom & Liberty. Most just want to force their agendas on others. Hopefully that will change someday. But i don't expect it to happen anytime soon.

 

[Shelzin]

I had a hard time deciding which of the two, the man or the woman, was dumber. Maybe the woman because she claimed to be a scientist.

Einstein used to get upset when people would use his theories to discredit god.

Eh.. Found the quote:

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.

— Prince Hubertus zu Löwenstein, Towards the Further Shore (Victor Gollancz, London, 1968), p. 156; quoted in Jammer, p. 97

Dunno... I met Bill and talked with him several times. He didn't mention Einstein.

I'm sure he didn't mention the scientists in that video either. The point was you can be scientist and still believe in religion. Unless of course you don't believe Einstein was a scientist.

 

[AmyNation]

There is a difference in beliefs and facts. You are entitled to your beliefs, just don't call them science and try to force schools to teach it.

 

[paulitician]

There is a difference in beliefs and facts. You are entitled to your beliefs, just don't call them science and try to force schools to teach it.

People have been forcing schools to teach all sorts of things for many years. That's what that intolerance thing is all about. You want to force others to accept your agenda, while at the same time complaining about others doing the same thing. I see nothing wrong with a school deciding to include this in their curriculum. Presenting many differing views and beliefs is a good thing. That's tolerance

 

[bodecea]

I am guessing it was the guy from Brown university to which you disagree?

You do understand that the argument is not evolution per se but creation which evolution, and science are incapable of explaining.

Sorry if you mind is closed to any discussion on the matter. But it seems to me that to believe that something that is seemingly beyond statistical possibility did happen by chance seems irrational.

How old is the Earth?

Old enough

Afraid to answer, I see. Why?

 

[paulitician]

Some people will always fear & suppress anything that doesn't support their agendas. It's the ultimate intolerance.

 

[AmyNation]

There is a difference in beliefs and facts. You are entitled to your beliefs, just don't call them science and try to force schools to teach it.

People have been forcing schools to teach all sorts of things for many years. That's what that intolerance thing is all about. You want to force others to accept your agenda, while at the same time complaining about others doing the same thing. I see nothing wrong with a school deciding to include this in their curriculum. Presenting many differing views and beliefs is a good thing. That's tolerance

I agree, children should be presented different views and theories. However I think you have to have some basis in fact in order to include it.

 

[paulitician]

There is a difference in beliefs and facts. You are entitled to your beliefs, just don't call them science and try to force schools to teach it.

People have been forcing schools to teach all sorts of things for many years. That's what that intolerance thing is all about. You want to force others to accept your agenda, while at the same time complaining about others doing the same thing. I see nothing wrong with a school deciding to include this in their curriculum. Presenting many differing views and beliefs is a good thing. That's tolerance

I agree, children should be presented different views and theories. However I think you have to have some basis in fact in order to include it.

Well see, that's your own intolerance being expressed. You can't have it both ways. If you're gonna force your agendas on others, you have to accept that others will want to do the same.

 

[8537]

People have been forcing schools to teach all sorts of things for many years. That's what that intolerance thing is all about. You want to force others to accept your agenda, while at the same time complaining about others doing the same thing. I see nothing wrong with a school deciding to include this in their curriculum. Presenting many differing views and beliefs is a good thing. That's tolerance

I agree, children should be presented different views and theories. However I think you have to have some basis in fact in order to include it.

Well see, that's your own intolerance being expressed. You can't have it both ways. If you're gonna force your agendas on others, you have to accept that others will want to do the same.

If someone tries to teach my child that the earth is 4,000 years old, I want that suppressed. Not because I'm intolerant, but because it's a lie.

 

[JoeB131]

I've never understood the anti-science movement.

I think the basic cause of it is that if you have science, you don't need God.

If you don't need God, you really can't go around guilting people into feeling bad about mundane stuff like masturbating.

Really you are guessing. The reason that people think that science is being rejected is that they can't get those who believe in creation to accept what they believe to be true. Which is in reality nothing. Evolution will be used to explain life on Earth until it is pointed out that evolution can not explain creation. Then there will be agreement and it will then be said that even though evolution can't explain it, and the person has no other explanation except time, the person knows for sure that there can not be a God involved. YOU have no more of an idea how life could have started on Earth then does Bill Nye. Yes, there are theories but nothing that has been proved. Show me a half eye. Show me where life is beginning anew anywhere on the Planet. For crying out loud deer can't even evolve enough not to know to run into or in front of cars.

It is a straw man argument that says people that believe in creation are rejecting science.

Actually, the evolution of eyes has been explained, as have the creation of life itself. I would suggest you educate yourself on the Miller-Urey expirament.

Now, I'd suggest you stop hanging around "Answers in Genesis", because clearly, you are just repeating their baseless arguments.

 

[peach174]

I agree, children should be presented different views and theories. However I think you have to have some basis in fact in order to include it.

Well see, that's your own intolerance being expressed. You can't have it both ways. If you're gonna force your agendas on others, you have to accept that others will want to do the same.

If someone tries to teach my child that the earth is 4,000 years old, I want that suppressed. Not because I'm intolerant, but because it's a lie.

I think you mean 6,000 years.