Response to Bill Nye the intolerant science guy

[Freewill]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-AyDtD6sPA&feature=player_embedded]Bill Nye, Creationism is Highly Appropriate for our Children - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Greenbeard]

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

The Flintstones was not a true story.

 

[Freewill]

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

The Flintstones was not a true story.

thanks for the Barney like response.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Your OP is barney-like. There's nothing intolerant about what Bill Nye said. Theology doesn't belong in the science classroom.

 

[EriktheRed]

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

...and the rest of the world just laughs.

 

[Freewill]

Your OP is barney-like. There's nothing intolerant about what Bill Nye said. Theology doesn't belong in the science classroom.

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.

 

[Greenbeard]

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?

 

[initforme]

4.6 billion years old. The young earth theory has zero credibility.

 

[Freewill]

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

 

[Freewill]

4.6 billion years old. The young earth theory has zero credibility.

Who brought up young Earth?????

BTW how do you know its age? Did you count the tree rings?

 

[AmyNation]

I've never understood the anti-science movement.

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

 

[Truthmatters]

Some people are sooo braindead they cant understand carbon dating

 

[Freewill]

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.

 

[bodecea]

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

Ah....evolution is bad in the Muslim world....he did just hold that up, didn't he?

 

[Freewill]

Some people are sooo braindead they cant understand carbon dating

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA carbon dating can't be used to date the age of the Earth.........so you are right for once.

 

[bodecea]

4.6 billion years old. The young earth theory has zero credibility.

Who brought up young Earth?????

BTW how do you know its age? Did you count the tree rings?

 

[Freewill]

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

Ah....evolution is bad in the Muslim world....he did just hold that up, didn't he?

He didn't say evolution was bad, did you listen?

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

 

[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.