Response to Bill Nye the intolerant science guy

[Freewill]

Here's my thing.

I think we should at least address creationism in the classroom.

Because these kids are going to hear about it regardless...

And if the Public Schools refuse to mention it, these kids will just assume it's part of the "grand atheist conspiracy".

So take a day or two to discuss it. Fairly present the case, fairly present why it's all bogus.

And move on.

OK, you are the teacher, tell me, why is it bogus. No, just because.

 

[Freewill]

Here's my thing.

I think we should at least address creationism in the classroom.

Because these kids are going to hear about it regardless...

And if the Public Schools refuse to mention it, these kids will just assume it's part of the "grand atheist conspiracy".

So take a day or two to discuss it. Fairly present the case, fairly present why it's all bogus.

And move on.

Shithead, what if the teacher is a Creationist, do you think she's going to teach your Atheist doctrine that Creationism is bogus?

That teacher is going to teach the curriculum, and if it's secular, he/she can pound sand and find a private school to teach at.

Yes!!!! They will teach as they are told. They will march as they are told. They will say what they are told. They will think as they are told. The will march as they are told. SIG HEIL, SIG HEIL.

 

[Freewill]

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 ***** 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.

What do you mean there is nothing to back "it" up. There is you and me and that is all I need. Again, show me half an eye.

 

[Freewill]

the best part of the video was where they guy relied on the muslim world who allegedly denies evolution, hahaha

Yeah, had he actually done that it would be funny, but since he did not then only you are funny. He mentioned other cultures that did not reject creation for evolution only. Remember now, evolution can not explain creation of life from nothing. So logically both do exist it is only folks like you that reject all thought on something other then talking point canards.

 

[8537]

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 ***** 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.

What do you mean there is nothing to back "it" up. There is you and me and that is all I need. Again, show me half an eye.

So because you can't find a half eye (a bogus argument, but anyway....) it means that Intelligent Design is correct?

 

[Freewill]

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.

But you do have a problem. Evolution theory can not and does not explain creation of life from non-life. You are allowing the atheist to mix the two, they are compatible. Although it is really hard to see evolution when we don't see any sign of an animal with 1/2 and eye. Take the evolutionary tree for man and apes. It is now separate branches with man on one and apes on the other. Then those branches go down and meet on an unknown common link. In other words they have made the tree fit what they believe.

If you believe in God, as I think you say, then what role did He play in mankind? And what religious text do you use?

 

[Freewill]

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.

Actually I am going to disagree with you a little bit. The left is not tolerant at all. They accept sodomy as a right thus they do not need to be tolerant. But bring up creation and belief in a God bigger then oneself then they have a problem. Put a cross up on a government space that they are all over it. Christians on the other hand are by far pro-life but are tolerant. If they were not tolerant then they would be doing more against abortion mills that do nothing but demean woman and make a profit.

The left is the most intolerant of all and Bill Nye is one of them.

 

[Freewill]

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.

I think you mistyped, no one believes in religion, or should.

 

[Freewill]

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.

Creationism is not an alternative to evolution.

 

[Shelzin]

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.

I think you mistyped, no one believes in religion, or should.

No. I did not mistype.

 

[Freewill]

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 ***** 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.

And you believe in what? You believe that by random chance life evolved from non life? If you do then you go against evolutionary theory which does not teach such a silly notion. Could the world be 4 billion years old but man's exisistance on the Earth be 6000 years? Although they have apprently found much older humanoids which speaks to when exactly did they evolve? Where are the half humans? What you, and so many like you are doing, is taking the Bible exactly literal with the 6000 years, because it is intellectual laziness.

 

[GuyPinestra]

2 Peter 3:7-9

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

People who get hung up on 6,000 years, skeptics and believers alike, have not read the Book. When you operate on the frame of eternity does time have ANY meaning?

 

[Harry Dresden]

From Kansas to Texas, we have seen the GOP joining the forces of willfull ignorance to advance a fundementalist religious view of the world in the classroom. That is simply a fact, and should be addressed by the sane component of the GOP.

did that answer my question?.....because they dont teach religious shit out here and yet these Schools are doing pretty shitty.......top 5 in the 70's......bottom 5 today.....what the hell happened?.....

Prop. 13 happened.

i dont buy that......this State has thrown more ******* money into Education then some states budgets.....and it has a Lottery which is supposed to be helping,which of course is bullshit too....more than half the State budget something like 52% is spent on K-12

 

[theDoctorisIn]

did that answer my question?.....because they dont teach religious shit out here and yet these Schools are doing pretty shitty.......top 5 in the 70's......bottom 5 today.....what the hell happened?.....

Prop. 13 happened.

i dont buy that......this State has thrown more ******* money into Education then some states budgets.....and it has a Lottery which is supposed to be helping,which of course is bullshit too....more than half the State budget something like 52% is spent on K-12

K-12 education accounts for about 40% of state general fund spending - and California is ranked 35th in terms of per-student spending.

Education spending is such a high percentage of the state general fund because of Prop. 13 - which cut local property taxes (which had previously accounted for a large portion of education funding)

 

[JoeB131]

Here's my thing.

I think we should at least address creationism in the classroom.

Because these kids are going to hear about it regardless...

And if the Public Schools refuse to mention it, these kids will just assume it's part of the "grand atheist conspiracy".

So take a day or two to discuss it. Fairly present the case, fairly present why it's all bogus.

And move on.

Shithead, what if the teacher is a Creationist, do you think she's going to teach your Atheist doctrine that Creationism is bogus?

Well, if someone can get a degree in biology and a teaching certificate while holding the belief that the dinosaurs aren't here anymore because Noah didn't have room for them on the Ark, then it's probably a sad commentary on our higher education institutions.

 

[JoeB131]

Here's my thing.

I think we should at least address creationism in the classroom.

Because these kids are going to hear about it regardless...

And if the Public Schools refuse to mention it, these kids will just assume it's part of the "grand atheist conspiracy".

So take a day or two to discuss it. Fairly present the case, fairly present why it's all bogus.

And move on.

OK, you are the teacher, tell me, why is it bogus. No, just because.

We've got fossils. We win.

The creation story has all sorts of silly things in it, like plants appearing before the sun does.

For the earth to have been created 6000 years ago, God would have created all these stars that are billions of light years away billions of years ago so their light would just get here now.

Talking snakes. NO, really. The snake talks in the bible.

 

[Freewill]

2 Peter 3:7-9

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

People who get hung up on 6,000 years, skeptics and believers alike, have not read the Book. When you operate on the frame of eternity does time have ANY meaning?

The most literally inflexible interpretation of the Bible come from those who deny it is true. I offer them a challenge, show me where it says that the Earth is 6000 years old.

 

[Freewill]

Here's my thing.

I think we should at least address creationism in the classroom.

Because these kids are going to hear about it regardless...

And if the Public Schools refuse to mention it, these kids will just assume it's part of the "grand atheist conspiracy".

So take a day or two to discuss it. Fairly present the case, fairly present why it's all bogus.

And move on.

OK, you are the teacher, tell me, why is it bogus. No, just because.

We've got fossils. We win.

The creation story has all sorts of silly things in it, like plants appearing before the sun does.

For the earth to have been created 6000 years ago, God would have created all these stars that are billions of light years away billions of years ago so their light would just get here now.

Talking snakes. NO, really. The snake talks in the bible.

Fossils prove what? How long does it take for a fossil to form? All they prove is that there is an age to the Earth.

Did you ever call your bad boss a snake?

The order of creation in Gensis:

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (LIGHT ON THE FIRST DAY)

Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Gen 1:6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.

Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Gen 1:9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.

Gen 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.

(The oceans and land separated, perfectly logical)

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

(food for the animals that have yet to come)

Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Gen 1:14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

(the seasons are created)

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.

(this is speaking of the order of the universe and all that is in it. If not then light and darkness came twice)

Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Gen 1:20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

(just like evolutionary theory and others life started in the sea)

Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Gen 1:24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

(then land animals)

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

(finally man)

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Gen 1:29 ¶ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, you can always tell when you've won an argument with a bible thumper... when they start a verse wall on a post. It's like an octopus with an ink cloud.... The Verse proved my point, there were plants before there was a sun.. which we know didn't happen.

Fossils prove what? How long does it take for a fossil to form? All they prove is that there is an age to the Earth.

And that life changed over time. a very, very, very long time. Which is the opposite of creationism, where it all happened at once and he got it in one.

Did you ever call your bad boss a snake?

No, I usually used much more graphic language implying carnal relations with a parent.

But the bible describes a snake that apparently God condemned to eating dirt by taking away it's legs.. No, really.

 

[Seawytch]

2 Peter 3:7-9

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

People who get hung up on 6,000 years, skeptics and believers alike, have not read the Book. When you operate on the frame of eternity does time have ANY meaning?

The most literally inflexible interpretation of the Bible come from those who deny it is true. I offer them a challenge, show me where it says that the Earth is 6000 years old.

If it doesn't say it, why are Christians divided into two categories...those that believe a literal translation of the bible and believe the earth is 6,000-13,000 years old and those that take the Genesis story as allegory and believe the science?