Response to Bill Nye the intolerant science guy

[Annie]

I'm conservative. Religious of a sort. I can think of no circumstance that creationism belongs in science curriculum. I can see it in a religion curriculum, for literal based theologies, but not science. Evolution theory has its blanks, but the theory is science based.

In my opinion it's the best model we have at present. I haven't a problem with God creating life and evolution is one of his processes. Perhaps there is something else that will be more conclusive, but my guess is that evolution will play a role in that. Creationism? Nope. Literal bible readings are for religious studies, even then they are to teach a lesson, not to be taken literally.

 

[Erand7899]

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]

Whether one believes in Evolution or Creationism, the Bill Nye comments are nonsense. And, that is the type of nonsense that casts doubt on the subject he wants to further.

What I believe, or what 40% of the population believes, does not hinder any scientist in searching for answers to his/her beliefs.

 

[GuyPinestra]

som

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.

Sorry if you mind is closed to any discussion on the matter.

My mind isn't "closed" on the matter. I merely reject such silly suggestions that creationism be regarded as having some kind of scientific validity, when in fact it doesn't. If someone came to you and said that we should regard as "science" the theory that the world is flat, would you consider it being "closed minded" for you to reject the same?

But it seems to me that to believe that something that is seemingly beyond statistical possibility did happen by chance seems irrational.

Winning the lottery is beyond statistical probability, yet it happens frequently and by chance. What I find amazing is that you consider it "beyond statistical probability" that there exists material mechanics in the universe by which material events occur, even though you observe the material universe every single moment of your life. But you seem to consider it well within statistical probability that some mystical force or being that you've never once experienced is out there, somewhere, creating entire universes with a snap of its fingers.

You assume much. What do you say to those who HAVE experienced this 'mystical force', God, if you will?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Bill was great entertainment for my kids years ago. I haven't seen him in many years though.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

I seriously doubt that any thinking person is opposed to teaching what science knows. The objections derive from what science is guessing at, and also claim must be true.

Nor, do I support creationism being taught as science. I do object to creationism being taught as scientifically false. Thinking young people can make up their own minds as to what is, or is not, scientifically true.

 

[whitehall]

Relax lefties. Creationism as an alternative to evolution ain't gonna cause your kids to flunk out of school or drop out of society. Hell, most of the dumb pot heads don't even know how to spell evolution. There are plenty of other union based education agendas that might do that and the hip hop or MTV people will finish off the job.

 

[g5000]

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

At the end, the guy reads this:

"While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. ‘Evolution’ would appear to be the indispensible unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”

He reads this not with a supreme sense of irony, but with smugness!

.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

Yes, that would be a lie, since most creationists believe the world is about 6,000 years old. And, I wouldn't want a school to teach any child that, any more than I would want them teaching that life emitted from some primordial soup. There is no scientific evidence to support either theory.

Teach what science knows, and mention all the alternative theories, and let the students make up their minds as to what to believe, or not believe.

 

[g5000]

"Supposed billions of years of Earth history"? Holy fuck.

The Flintstones was not a true story.

thanks for the Barney like response.

The Creation Museum teaches that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

So we are talking about a very special kind of willful ignorance with these dunderheads in your video, and their kind of "education" should avoided if you want your kids to be raised as intelligent, thinking people.

.

 

[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]

Whether one believes in Evolution or Creationism, the Bill Nye comments are nonsense. And, that is the type of nonsense that casts doubt on the subject he wants to further.

What I believe, or what 40% of the population believes, does not hinder any scientist in searching for answers to his/her beliefs.

Just wanted a fair debate. Only made sense to post what the other two scientists were responding to.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

The ability to explain a plausable theory does not make that theory factual, or even a probability. It just makes it plausable. There are many solid reasons to reject the concept of spontanious creation of life, and even more to reject the idea that life could have evolved from there to the complex forms existing today. Creation of an immune system, and bisexual reproduction are just two good reasons.

 

[g5000]

Yes, that would be a lie, since most creationists believe the world is about 6,000 years old. And, I wouldn't want a school to teach any child that, any more than I would want them teaching that life emitted from some primordial soup. There is no scientific evidence to support either theory.

Teach what science knows, and mention all the alternative theories, and let the students make up their minds as to what to believe, or not believe.

This is the exactly the kind of illogic that is to be avoided. Crackpot ideas do not deserve an equal footing with science in the classroom. And a 6,000 year old Earth is as crackpot as it gets. Should we give a flat Earth theory equal footing with the evidence for a round Earth, or is it better to teach why a flat Earth theory is completely wrong?

If the latter, then we should also be teaching why a 6,000 year old Earth is just as ridiculous as a flat Earth. You want to bring your stupid ideas into the classroom, fine. But don't whine like a bitch when they are obliterated with the scientific method.

[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together. - Isaac Asimov



The idea of a 6,000 year old Earth is a human invention and does not have any effect on the existence of God, but it does have an effect on how the idiots who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old are perceived. They aren't exactly a banner any intelligent person would follow to Jesus.

.



.

 

[Erand7899]

I've never understood the anti-science movement.

OMG all the carnards are coming out. I seriously doubt there can ever be an honest discussion on this board.

Not with idiots that try to argue against billions of years of geological evidence. From the geology to the very DNA in the nucleus of every cell in your body, the evidence that evolution occured and is stll occuring is unequivical.

If a supreme being had the power to create and populate the earth, that being would have the power to make that earth appear as old as he desired. He would have the ability to create any illusion about the past as he desired.

The simplist cell that science knows about is a virus. That simple cell has thousands of components and would not work if any of those components were missing. Ask that highly intelligent mind of yours, what are the odds of all of those components coming together, connecting up, and then duplicating themselves, in the absence of an intelligence directing it. BTW, DNA is the intelligence that controls every action of a cell, and it did not get there by chance.

 

[rdean]

Republicans keep complaining about our schools not "teaching" and then they push this bullshit?

I wonder if any studies have been made about how well schools are doing in districts where this nonsense is indoctrinating young children?

This fits right in with the Texas Republican Party Platform.

 

[Erand7899]

Yes, that would be a lie, since most creationists believe the world is about 6,000 years old. And, I wouldn't want a school to teach any child that, any more than I would want them teaching that life emitted from some primordial soup. There is no scientific evidence to support either theory.

Teach what science knows, and mention all the alternative theories, and let the students make up their minds as to what to believe, or not believe.

This is the exactly the kind of illogic that is to be avoided. Crackpot ideas do not deserve an equal footing with science in the classroom. And a 6,000 year old Earth is as crackpot as it gets. Should we give a flat Earth theory equal footing with the evidence for a round Earth, or is it better to teach why a flat Earth theory is completely wrong?

If the latter, then we should also be teaching why a 6,000 year old Earth is just as ridiculous as a flat Earth. You want to bring your stupid ideas into the classroom, fine. But don't whine like a bitch when they are obliterated with the scientific method.

[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together. - Isaac Asimov



The idea of a 6,000 year old Earth is a human invention and does not have any effect on the existence of God, but it does have an effect on how the idiots who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old are perceived. They aren't exactly a banner any intelligent person would follow to Jesus.

.



.

Any person who thinks he/she has a lock on truth, is either a fool, or is lying to himself. Just about every thing that we consider scientific fact today, will be debunked over the next thousand years as scientists learn more about the universe. It won't all be found to be false, but most of it will be modified to fit new knowledge.

Logic is pretty straight forward, but it has to have a factual basis to be real logic. The earth, to all of our scientific knowledge, appears to be over 4 billion years old. That does not make it 4 billion years old.

I can accept that the earth is over 4 billion years old, and I can accept that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I don't know for sure, and neither does anyone else. If God does exist, he can build the earth 6,000 years ago, and make it look 4 billion years old. If God does not exist, why should I give a damn about how old the earth is?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Why do so many of you elevate celebrities by giving shit about their political or religious beliefs? They hold power because you give it to them. Who cares what they think.

 

[Annie]

Yes, that would be a lie, since most creationists believe the world is about 6,000 years old. And, I wouldn't want a school to teach any child that, any more than I would want them teaching that life emitted from some primordial soup. There is no scientific evidence to support either theory.

Teach what science knows, and mention all the alternative theories, and let the students make up their minds as to what to believe, or not believe.

This is the exactly the kind of illogic that is to be avoided. Crackpot ideas do not deserve an equal footing with science in the classroom. And a 6,000 year old Earth is as crackpot as it gets. Should we give a flat Earth theory equal footing with the evidence for a round Earth, or is it better to teach why a flat Earth theory is completely wrong?

If the latter, then we should also be teaching why a 6,000 year old Earth is just as ridiculous as a flat Earth. You want to bring your stupid ideas into the classroom, fine. But don't whine like a bitch when they are obliterated with the scientific method.

[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together. - Isaac Asimov



The idea of a 6,000 year old Earth is a human invention and does not have any effect on the existence of God, but it does have an effect on how the idiots who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old are perceived. They aren't exactly a banner any intelligent person would follow to Jesus.

.



.

I have to agree. The reason that 'ID or creationism' doesn't belong in science discussions. Ok in religion or philosophy, though unlikely before college studies. There's nothing to back it up. Now that's coming from someone who believes in a prime mover or great hand within evolution, but again, wouldn't be brought up in science classes.

 

[rdean]

Yes, that would be a lie, since most creationists believe the world is about 6,000 years old. And, I wouldn't want a school to teach any child that, any more than I would want them teaching that life emitted from some primordial soup. There is no scientific evidence to support either theory.

Teach what science knows, and mention all the alternative theories, and let the students make up their minds as to what to believe, or not believe.

This is the exactly the kind of illogic that is to be avoided. Crackpot ideas do not deserve an equal footing with science in the classroom. And a 6,000 year old Earth is as crackpot as it gets. Should we give a flat Earth theory equal footing with the evidence for a round Earth, or is it better to teach why a flat Earth theory is completely wrong?

If the latter, then we should also be teaching why a 6,000 year old Earth is just as ridiculous as a flat Earth. You want to bring your stupid ideas into the classroom, fine. But don't whine like a bitch when they are obliterated with the scientific method.

[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together. - Isaac Asimov



The idea of a 6,000 year old Earth is a human invention and does not have any effect on the existence of God, but it does have an effect on how the idiots who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old are perceived. They aren't exactly a banner any intelligent person would follow to Jesus.

.



.

Any person who thinks he/she has a lock on truth, is either a fool, or is lying to himself. Just about every thing that we consider scientific fact today, will be debunked over the next thousand years as scientists learn more about the universe. It won't all be found to be false, but most of it will be modified to fit new knowledge.

Logic is pretty straight forward, but it has to have a factual basis to be real logic. The earth, to all of our scientific knowledge, appears to be over 4 billion years old. That does not make it 4 billion years old.

I can accept that the earth is over 4 billion years old, and I can accept that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I don't know for sure, and neither does anyone else. If God does exist, he can build the earth 6,000 years ago, and make it look 4 billion years old. If God does not exist, why should I give a damn about how old the earth is?

Because if you can accept nonsense as the truth, then you are gullible enough to believe anything. A "6,000" year old earth. Ridiculous.

 

[paulitician]

This thread proves most Americans are generally intolerant of others' beliefs. And i bet these same people truly believe they're tolerant people.

 

[Ariux]

The reason that 'ID or creationism' doesn't belong in science discussions.

Just wondering, do you think scientific criticism of the Theory of Evolution belongs in science discussion?