Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

[irish fin fan]

WTF are you rambling about?

Do you actually believe in what you write?

This one is special. I think they have to be drunk out of their mind when putting these posts together.

[rob19]

Already did, see the syllogism that still stands un-refuted in the Dawkins thread.

If knowledge is possible, then God exists

Prove this premise to be true.

Did you radio-metrically date any rocks of known age yet? :- ) I am anxiously awaiting the results of that test.

Human history alone goes back farther than 6000 years. I'm out the door atm, be back later with more info to improve your obsolete world view.

[Statler Waldorf]

Scientific discover and what you personally want are two very different things. One is based on evidence the other is based on whim, or i suppose in this case indoctrinated decree.

Apparently you missed something because you’re making points that are completely irrelevant to my point. Atheism makes science impossible because it cannot account for induction, which is the type of reasoning science is built upon. By teaching our kids that atheism is true we are essentially teaching them that science is impossible.

And he asked for children to receive an education, hilariously that makes him an atheist.

No, the fact that he doesn’t believe in any god or gods does.

This one is special.

The fact that evidentially I seem to be the only one in this area of the forum who has learned one iota about philosophy and logical reasoning does make me special. I’d prefer not to be though because it makes the conversations rather boring and trivial.

I think they have to be drunk out of their mind when putting these posts together.

Wait, are you saying that I am capable of presenting logical arguments when I am drunk that you cannot even begin to address much less refute when you are sober? That doesn’t make you look very good my friend. “This guy just schooled me in a debate, but he must be drunk” lol.

Prove this premise to be true.

I already did through the impossibility of the contrary. You actually helped me do so, so thanks. A person cannot provide a purely natural explanation for the preconditions necessary for knowledge, so therefore knowledge would be impossible in a purely natural universe. If knowledge is impossible without God, then I can say if knowledge is possible then God must exist and that is exactly my premise above.

Human history alone goes back farther than 6000 years.

How do you know that?

I'm out the door atm, be back later with more info to improve your obsolete world view.

Worldviews don’t become obsolete silly man. They are either logically consistent from the get-go or they fall apart from the get-go. Unfortunately yours has always completely refuted itself.

[Spesh]

Apparently you missed something because you’re making points that are completely irrelevant to my point. Atheism makes science impossible because it cannot account for induction, which is the type of reasoning science is built upon. By teaching our kids that atheism is true we are essentially teaching them that science is impossible.

No, the fact that he doesn’t believe in any god or gods does.

No no, i caught where you blamed Atheism for everything and went on a ramble suggesting scientific results must be "moral"(read: it doesnt. While scientific experimentation requires strong ethics, results in of themselves do not, conclusions are based upon the evidence gathered through experimentation or observation) and how atheism makes science impossible(laughable considering religions "ethical" history of murdering the worlds most brilliant minds) and etc. The fact is i completely skipped all of that because you dont seem to have even the basic understanding of what science is.

Please point to the part of the video in which Bill Nye declares there is no god.

[phins_4_ever]

I already did through the impossibility of the contrary. You actually helped me do so, so thanks. A person cannot provide a purely natural explanation for the preconditions necessary for knowledge, so therefore knowledge would be impossible in a purely natural universe. If knowledge is impossible without God, then I can say if knowledge is possible then God must exist and that is exactly my premise above.

Honestly, just this paragraph alone proves that you live in a very twisted world.

If knowledge is impossible without God, then I can say if knowledge is possible then God must exist and that is exactly my premise above.

Basically your entire basis on your argument is what you think and what you can say without any facts.

Knowledge is possible without God. Science has proven that in the absence of God and Faith. Science has discovered many illnesses and cures despite Faith and the believe in God not because of it. Science has discovered many new inventions to make our lives easier and more convenient despite of Faith and God and not because of it. Sciences has done a lot of things and explained a lot of things despite Faith and Religion.

Science is knowledge. Science is the drive of humanity to learn even more.

Religion exists despite knowledge. It exists to explain to people a complex world in terms they may understand while literally dumping down education and knowledge. The language and knowledge of science is globally. Yet Religions can not find a common ground across the globe. If you are born in India you are Hindu. If you are born in Turkey you are most likely a Muslim. Here you are a Christian and every Religion claims to be the right one. Which one is the right one? They all have one thing in common: they exist in the absence of knowledge. But the knowledge of 1+1=2 is global. Heart transplants (an invention of science through knowledge) are global. Cures for illnesses developed through the knowledge of science are global. So is Quantum Physics, Relativity Theory etc etc etc.

Science continues to gather information and increase knowledge. With every problem solved another problem appears. And only the drive for more knowledge keeps science going. Religion has a final story. This is it. No thinking required. No knowledge required. It is a fictional story with a happy ending written by different people in different times copying a lot of contents from Religions prior to your very own you claim to be the one and only religion. The right one.

Morality is arbitrary and depends on the individual. Morality can exist without God or Religion. Religion dictates a certain morality and please you can live by it. Morality can live and survive without science as well. Morality is a way of living totally independent from influences from the outside and relies on each individual to define it.

The world can exist without Religion but it wouldn't without science and knowledge.

Science is a danger to Religion. The more complex our world becomes, the more knowledge we gather through science, the less need for Religion who has a hard time explaining that the World is only 6000 years old and humans and dinosaurs co-existed. People like you escape into the fairy tell book because the world has become to hard to understand for you.

On the other hand Religion is a danger to the world. As history has proven (how many crusades were there again) if Science becomes to powerful and Religion loses its influence Religion will use force to simplify the world around us again. Uneducated people are easy to control. Education and knowledge is not part of any Religion.

[tylerdolphin]

It astounds me that Statler cant see the leap of faith he makes in his supposed proven train of logic.

[rob19]

The fact that evidentially I seem to be the only one in this area of the forum who has learned one iota about philosophy and logical reasoning does make me special. I’d prefer not to be though because it makes the conversations rather boring and trivial.

The last thing I would describe your rantings to be would be philosophical or logical. You are the only one however that keeps asserting things to be true which you have no proof of.

I already did through the impossibility of the contrary.

First of all, we should change that to "My perceived impossibility of the contrary". Second, that doesn't cut the mustard, you still have to be able to prove yourself that God does the things you claim, which of course you can't. Your only support is that the Bible says God does those things, which again, no one can prove or disprove. Your belief in God is just that, a belief.

How do you know that?

First, about radiometric dating

• Radioactive dating is a scientifically tested and valid technique, although some non-scientists enjoy doubting results obtained with dating techniques. These techniques make use of the tendency for certain isotopes of an element to decay over time in a predictable way; looking at the decay retrospectively, it is possible to calculate when the original isotopes were incorporated into the material.
  
  

Isotopes, Half-life and Decay

• Any atom of an element is guaranteed to have the same number of protons as any other atom of that element, but not necessarily the same number of neutrons. Neutrons, the neutral subatomic particle, occasionally are ejected from the atom by a number of processes such as beta decay or emission of positrons or alpha particles. These variations are called isotopes and denoted with a number after the element name, such as carbon-12 or carbon-13. While it is impossible to predict when an individual atom will shed a neutron by decaying, the decay of a group of atoms in an element is very predictable. Scientists use the term "half-life" to refer to the time period it takes for half of the atoms in the material to decay down to the next lowest isotope. These half-lives vary from material to material and from element to element but are known values.
  
  
• 
  

Using Known Half-life to Calculate Unknown Age

• When scientists use radiometric dating, they use a mass spectrometer to analyze the isotopes present in the material, both of the old material and of the new, decayed isotope. Using the known half-life of materials (for example, the half-life of carbon-14 is 6,000 years), scientists can compare how much of each type of isotope (the original isotope, known as the parent, and the decayed isotope, known as the daughter isotope) is present in the material. Using this information, highly accurate dating can be established for even very old objects.

Now, if you believe scientific dating methods (which I'm sure you won't regardless of what I post), would have the first anatomically correct humans arising out of Africa 200,000 years ago, and reached behavioral modernity about 50,000 years ago. I mean, we've known about the civilizations of Mesopotamia in 3500 BCE (5500 years ago), the Egyptian civilization on the Nile in 3300 BCE, Harappan civilization in the Indus Valley in 3300 BCE, etc and so forth. So lets think about this logically, since your such a fan. Are you really suggesting that the formation of Earth from it's early molten-magma stage, through the developing of an ocean, an atmosphere, single-celled organisms, mutli-celled organism, plants, fish, insects, land venturing creatures, the reign of dinosaurs, the rise of warm-blooded rodents and mammals, the ice age, apes, neanderthals, cromagnums, & eventually humans, all happened in a span of 500 years before giving rise to the civilizations in Egypt? It's absurd, let it go, I'm not sure why you're even so attached to this idea. Plenty of less delusional Christians are willing to concede that 6,000 years is a ludicrous proposition. Since, however, you are such a man of education though, why not run this theory by your local college Astronomy professor and see if you don't get looked at as though you're a couple fries short of a happy-meal.

You are in luck though, if you don't trust radiometric dating, here's a few other methods of dating that have nothing to do with isotopes, & half-lives.

Worldviews don’t become obsolete silly man. They are either logically consistent from the get-go or they fall apart from the get-go. Unfortunately yours has always completely refuted itself.

Sure they do. It used to be "logical" to think that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Eventually that worldview became obsolete, just as eventually yours will too. You are a dying breed, you are one of the last Mohicans, compadre.

[phins_4_ever]

The last thing I would describe your rantings to be would be philosophical or logical. You are the only one however that keeps asserting things to be true which you have no proof of.



First of all, we should change that to "My perceived impossibility of the contrary". Second, that doesn't cut the mustard, you still have to be able to prove yourself that God does the things you claim, which of course you can't. Your only support is that the Bible says God does those things, which again, no one can prove or disprove. Your belief in God is just that, a belief.



First, about radiometric dating



Now, if you believe scientific dating methods (which I'm sure you won't regardless of what I post), would have the first anatomically correct humans arising out of Africa 200,000 years ago, and reached behavioral modernity about 50,000 years ago. I mean, we've known about the civilizations of Mesopotamia in 3500 BCE (5500 years ago), the Egyptian civilization on the Nile in 3300 BCE, Harappan civilization in the Indus Valley in 3300 BCE, etc and so forth. So lets think about this logically, since your such a fan. Are you really suggesting that the formation of Earth from it's early molten-magma stage, through the developing of an ocean, an atmosphere, single-celled organisms, mutli-celled organism, plants, fish, insects, land venturing creatures, the reign of dinosaurs, the rise of warm-blooded rodents and mammals, the ice age, apes, neanderthals, cromagnums, & eventually humans, all happened in a span of 500 years before giving rise to the civilizations in Egypt? It's absurd, let it go, I'm not sure why you're even so attached to this idea. Plenty of less delusional Christians are willing to concede that 6,000 years is a ludicrous proposition. Since, however, you are such a man of education though, why not run this theory by your local college Astronomy professor and see if you don't get looked at as though you're a couple fries short of a happy-meal.

You are in luck though, if you don't trust radiometric dating, here's a few other methods of dating that have nothing to do with isotopes, & half-lives.





Sure they do. It used to be "logical" to think that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Eventually that worldview became obsolete, just as eventually yours will too. You are a dying breed, you are one of the last Mohicans, compadre.

Didn't you know that Earth was formed by a dude with beard sitting in no-mans land and formed it like a snowball. Get with the program.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[rob19]

Didn't you know that Earth was formed by a dude with beard sitting in no-mans land and formed it like a snowball. Get with the program.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[irish fin fan]

Apparently you missed something because you’re making points that are completely irrelevant to my point. Atheism makes science impossible because it cannot account for induction, which is the type of reasoning science is built upon. By teaching our kids that atheism is true we are essentially teaching them that science is impossible.



No, the fact that he doesn’t believe in any god or gods does.



The fact that evidentially I seem to be the only one in this area of the forum who has learned one iota about philosophy and logical reasoning does make me special. I’d prefer not to be though because it makes the conversations rather boring and trivial.



Wait, are you saying that I am capable of presenting logical arguments when I am drunk that you cannot even begin to address much less refute when you are sober? That doesn’t make you look very good my friend. “This guy just schooled me in a debate, but he must be drunk” lol.



I already did through the impossibility of the contrary. You actually helped me do so, so thanks. A person cannot provide a purely natural explanation for the preconditions necessary for knowledge, so therefore knowledge would be impossible in a purely natural universe. If knowledge is impossible without God, then I can say if knowledge is possible then God must exist and that is exactly my premise above.




How do you know that?




Worldviews don’t become obsolete silly man. They are either logically consistent from the get-go or they fall apart from the get-go. Unfortunately yours has always completely refuted itself.

Sir, you wouldn't know logical reasoning if it hit you in the face. Based on your petty viewpoint one has no morals without believing in your god, talking about self delusional.

Folks when you laugh at how ignorant people can be when they follow groups such as the Taliban, remember we have the equivalent in this country with posts like the above from the religious extremists. As far as i'm concerned these people are a direct threat to what made this country great.