Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

[Statler Waldorf]

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


Dinosaurs lived within the last 15,000 years? How do you figure? Unless you're talking about the theory that dinosaurs evolved into modern day birds, but that can't be it since that would mean you were acknowledging evolution. So, what's the basis for your claim that dinosaurs were around in the last 15,000 years...?

Simple really, we now find soft tissue within dinosaur fossils quite frequently, and the empirically verified decay rate of soft tissue would leave no traceable amounts after 15,000 years, so those dinosaurs had to live and die within the last 15,000 years. There’s no way around that. Dinosaurs and humans coexisting is not farfetched at all, even you believe there are numerous animals alive today who could have been found living during the dinosaur era, so why not Dinosaurs? IS there some rule against that? Of course not, you’ve just been so heavily indoctrinated with the idea that humans and dinosaurs were separated by eons that you think any contrary idea is silly and yet you have no reason for believing this.

[Locke]

Simple really, we now find soft tissue within dinosaur fossils quite frequently, and the empirically verified decay rate of soft tissue would leave no traceable amounts after 15,000 years, so those dinosaurs had to live and die within the last 15,000 years. There’s no way around that. Dinosaurs and humans coexisting is not farfetched at all, even you believe there are numerous animals alive today who could have been found living during the dinosaur era, so why not Dinosaurs? IS there some rule against that? Of course not, you’ve just been so heavily indoctrinated with the idea that humans and dinosaurs were separated by eons that you think any contrary idea is silly and yet you have no reason for believing this.

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

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

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


OK guy. Your special ed logic totally negates thousands of scientists over the last 2 centuries who have been studying this. Yup, makes perfect sense.

But, I'll play along. You said empirically verified, so post up a link to the study that found that to be true. In fact, if it's empirically verified, you're going to have the initial study, and at the very least, one more to verify the findings, so go ahead and give us both of those links. It will make for an interesting read for us "uneducated" atheist heathens. While you're at it, how about a link to something that confirms your ridiculous claim that we are finding soft tissue in fossils "frequently". That'll be another interesting read. I'm eagerly await these links...

[Statler Waldorf]

OK guy. Your special ed logic totally negates thousands of scientists over the last 2 centuries who have been studying this. Yup, makes perfect sense.

Scientific fact isn’t determined by majority opinion or consensus. Not only that, but modern science hasn’t even known about dinosaurs for 200 years, so even when you are making logically fallacious points you still can’t get your facts straight.

But, I'll play along. You said empirically verified, so post up a link to the study that found that to be true. In fact, if it's empirically verified, you're going to have the initial study, and at the very least, one more to verify the findings, so go ahead and give us both of those links.

So you don’t require articles or links from anyone else but me? It must be nice to be able to move the goalposts like that whenever you’re getting pushed around in a debate. Even though your request is nothing more than logically fallacious special pleading I will grant you a bit of grace and play along…

The quick degeneration of soft tissue has been a known fact verified by forensic science for decades now, the excavation of a mere 150 year old Jesse James corpse resulted in barely enough soft tissue to do DNA testing. Under normal temperature conditions, human blood begins to degenerate in a matter of days and is completely un-usable after a week. The empirically observed decay rates of soft tissue and proteins are discussed in great detail in the article “Schweitzer’s dangerous discovery” in Discover 27 which came out in 2005.

It will make for an interesting read for us "uneducated" atheist heathens.

You and I both know you won’t read any of these articles because they completely destroy your view of reality, and nobody likes to admit that everything they thought they knew growing up is completely wrong, you’ll be quite content continuing to live in darkness

While you're at it, how about a link to something that confirms your ridiculous claim that we are finding soft tissue in fossils "frequently".

Schweitzer, M.H., Suo, Z., Avci, R., Asara, J.M., Allen, M.A., Arce, F.T. and Horner, J.R., Analyses of soft tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex suggest the presence of protein, Science 316

That article above talks about how now that they know what to look for they are having difficulty finding a dinosaur fossil that DOESN’T contain soft tissue.

Vreeland, R.H., Rosenzweig, W.D. and Powers, D.W., Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal, Nature 407

[Locke]

Scientific fact isn’t determined by majority opinion or consensus. Not only that, but modern science hasn’t even known about dinosaurs for 200 years, so even when you are making logically fallacious points you still can’t get your facts straight.



So you don’t require articles or links from anyone else but me? It must be nice to be able to move the goalposts like that whenever you’re getting pushed around in a debate. Even though your request is nothing more than logically fallacious special pleading I will grant you a bit of grace and play along…

The quick degeneration of soft tissue has been a known fact verified by forensic science for decades now, the excavation of a mere 150 year old Jesse James corpse resulted in barely enough soft tissue to do DNA testing. Under normal temperature conditions, human blood begins to degenerate in a matter of days and is completely un-usable after a week. The empirically observed decay rates of soft tissue and proteins are discussed in great detail in the article “Schweitzer’s dangerous discovery” in Discover 27 which came out in 2005.




You and I both know you won’t read any of these articles because they completely destroy your view of reality, and nobody likes to admit that everything they thought they knew growing up is completely wrong, you’ll be quite content continuing to live in darkness




Schweitzer, M.H., Suo, Z., Avci, R., Asara, J.M., Allen, M.A., Arce, F.T. and Horner, J.R., Analyses of soft tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex suggest the presence of protein, Science 316

That article above talks about how now that they know what to look for they are having difficulty finding a dinosaur fossil that DOESN’T contain soft tissue.

Vreeland, R.H., Rosenzweig, W.D. and Powers, D.W., Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal, Nature 407

Later, in 1822, large teeth discovered in England by Mary Ann Mantell and her husband, Gideon, were thought to be the remains of a huge and extinct iguana. It wasn't until 1841 that British scientist Richard Owen came to realize that such fossils were distinct from the teeth or bones of any living creature. The ancient animals were so different, in fact, that they deserved their own name. So Owen dubbed the group "Dinosauria," which means "terrible lizards."

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


My bad, 191 years. You got me, I was 9 years off.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I'm still waiting for your links for EMPIRICALLY VERIFIED proof that the rate of soft tissue decay would leave no traceable amounts after 15,000 years. You yourself said empirically verified, so it should be quite easy to find the studies that lead to these findings to be called empirically verified. Yet, you didn't post them? Now why is that? My guess would be that you're making it up and you won't find anything that supports your claims.

And no, I won't read those links, because you didn't either. You curious how I know that? You didn't give me a link. You gave me an APA formatted citation of the paper, probably off of some website that actually read the paper for something else entirely. You have to have access to a university database to access any of these papers. That means you're either faculty or a student, and have the proper log in information. You are neither, which means you didn't have access to the content of that study. These are copyrighted works, you'd have to download them off of a torrent to get them any other way. You did not read them.

And before you sit here and try to argue with me, I'm a damn PhD candidate at the University of New Mexico. I access these databases daily for both the undergrad classes I teach, and for references to the study I'm working on. I work with the American Psychological Association weekly as part of my dissertation (if you don't know why that is relevant, then you're in WAY over your head in this discussion). These papers cannot be accessed any other way.

You're a liar, and you've been caught in that lie. I asked for links to these papers knowing full well that you wouldn't be able to find them. I thought Christians were moral people and didn't lie...?

[Statler Waldorf]

I'm still waiting for your links for EMPIRICALLY VERIFIED proof that the rate of soft tissue decay would leave no traceable amounts after 15,000 years.

I already gave them to you, the rates of decay for soft tissue can be directly observed, and has been directly observed to be very fast, that’s empirical verification right there. It’s completely absurd to believe soft tissue could survive for 65 million years, that goes completely against everything we know about how entropy affects soft tissue and proteins. That’s exactly why so many in the secular community were vehemently opposed to the idea that these were really soft tissue, they knew what the implications of that were (hence why nobody had ever even looked for it before, they “knew” it couldn’t possibly be found in dinosaur fossils). The evidence is so irrefutable though that many now accept that they are soft tissue they just choose to ignore the implications.

You yourself said empirically verified, so it should be quite easy to find the studies that lead to these findings to be called empirically verified.

Something being empirically verifiable doesn’t necessarily require “studies”, it’s “empirically verifiable” that water freezes at 32 degrees at sea level, and yet you’d find it tough to find a peer reviewed “study” proving that because it’s simply so obvious. If DNA can last for millions of years then how come it was so difficult to test Jesse James’ body when he had only been dead for 150 years?

Yet, you didn't post them? Now why is that? My guess would be that you're making it up and you won't find anything that supports your claims.

I gave you a peer-reviewed article that supported my claim, did you read it?

And no, I won't read those links, because you didn't either.

I knew you wouldn’t because they directly prove my point, stick your fingers in your ears and scream “I can’t hear you!” I actually have read all of those articles.

You curious how I know that? You didn't give me a link.

I didn’t realize that the only material a person can read is online; they do still print journals in paper you know.

You have to have access to a university database to access any of these papers.

Then why did you ask for them in the first place if you knew you wouldn’t be able to read them? Classic. You actually don’t need such clearance though, you can subscribe to Science and Nature if you’d like.

That means you're either faculty or a student, and have the proper log in information. You are neither,

How do you have any idea what I am? I was a student at University, and even if I wasn’t those journals are available at any local library, they’re the two biggest journals in print.

These are copyrighted works, you'd have to download them off of a torrent to get them any other way.

Actually I did, you haven’t though.

And before you sit here and try to argue with me, I'm a damn PhD candidate at the University of New Mexico.

Yeah, but you’re probably a Ph.D. candidate in some pseudo-science like psychology, which doesn’t impress me much. That’s great though, you should then have access to those articles and you can then read them!

I access these databases daily for both the undergrad classes I teach, and for references to the study I'm working on. I work with the American Psychological Association weekly as part of my dissertation (if you don't know why that is relevant, then you're in WAY over your head in this discussion).

Looks like you need to work a bit harder there bub… I am starting to seriously question whether you’ve ever even set foot in a university…

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna


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



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


Wow I can access nearly every article from Nature and I can even subscribe to Science without any special university clearance! Apparently the only liar around here is….well…you :-P

You're a liar, and you've been caught in that lie. I asked for links to these papers knowing full well that you wouldn't be able to find them. I thought Christians were moral people and didn't lie...?

See above.

[Locke]

Something being empirically verifiable doesn’t necessarily require “studies”, it’s “empirically verifiable” that water freezes at 32 degrees at sea level, and yet you’d find it tough to find a peer reviewed “study” proving that because it’s simply so obvious. If DNA can last for millions of years then how come it was so difficult to test Jesse James’ body when he had only been dead for 150 years?

Now this guy is trying to tell me that empirical means something different than it's real definition?

em·pir·i·cal (
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
m-pîr
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
-k
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
l)adj.1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

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


Still want to sit here and say empirical evidence doesn't require a study? It's right there, in black and white. Or are Webster, Oxford, and Brittanica all wrong and the mighty infallible Statler right? And I know you looked up this definition before posting, because you purposely came up with a piss-poor example of an "observation" to try and make your point. An observation is still done in a study, with all the independent variables accounted for and controlled, and the dependent variable measured. This is basic science. I'm talking elementary school basic. They learn the scientific method before entering junior high.

And lastly, what the **** are those links you gave me? Nature the magazine? Discover magazine? What the **** does that prove? I asked for links to the studies you mentioned, not to some magazines. You're in over your head. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you haven't this entire time. I literally laughed out loud when you said you used to be a university student. That's about as likely as Stephen Hawking standing up river dancing on a table...

[JackFinfan]

Yeah, but you’re probably a Ph.D. candidate in some pseudo-science like psychology, which doesn’t impress me much. That’s great though, you should then have access to those articles and you can then read them!

Psychology is a pseudo science????????? lmao, I'm sure Locke will now quit college because all his hard work and knowledge does not impress the all mighty Waldorf.

[Locke]

Psychology is a pseudo science????????? lmao, I'm sure Locke will now quit college because all his hard work and knowledge does not impress the all mighty Waldorf.

Right? I don't know what to make of this guy. He is either trolling everyone here, or he is the portrait of everything that is wrong with the extreme religious right. I'm really really hoping that he is trolling us, because if not, then there are a lot of really dangerous people in this country...

[Statler Waldorf]

Psychology is a pseudo science????????? lmao, I'm sure Locke will now quit college because all his hard work and knowledge does not impress the all mighty Waldorf.

Oh snap, I was right? His degree is in Psychology? I was just guessing, I knew it wasn’t going to be in any of the actual sciences like mine is. Funny story while I am thinking about it, when I was in Physics in university the professor was teaching on the black board and the Psychology prof in the adjacent room was really writing on the board with authority. So you could hear the chalk quite loudly in the room we were in and it was kind of difficult to focus. So the Physics professor walks out into the hall and into the other classroom and asks quite politely, “Could you please write a little quieter? Thanks.” As he then walked back into the hall he leaned back into the classroom and with a smile said, “Oh and by the way, you guys aren’t a real science.” It was hilarious. Anyways, I digress.

Now this guy is trying to tell me that empirical means something different than it's real definition?

Empirical - 1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

Where does it say anything about something only being empirical if is found in “published studies”? So it appears you’re the one that doesn’t understand what empirical means.

1. Still want to sit here and say empirical evidence doesn't require a study? It's right there, in black and white.

Where? It doesn’t say anything about a published study, just simply observation. Which the examples I gave were all based on direct observation.

Or are Webster, Oxford, and Brittanica all wrong and the mighty infallible Statler right? And I know you looked up this definition before posting, because you purposely came up with a piss-poor example of an "observation" to try and make your point.

Wait, so now you are admitting that empirical can just mean observation and not experimentation? Well which is it? You’re a slippery one, that’s for sure.

An observation is still done in a study

Yup, but not all observations are studies, so something can be empirically verified and not ever published in a study. Learn your Venn diagrams, I think they’ll really help you out.

Nature the magazine? Discover magazine? What the **** does that prove? I asked for links to the studies you mentioned, not to some magazines.

Oh my gosh!!!! Those are the peer-reviewed journals! You are hilarious. You didn’t know that they looked like magazines? That’s funny. Yes, they look like magazines and yes every article is a peer-reviewed study. Obviously you have never been published before. That just made my day.

You're in over your head. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you haven't this entire time.

So that’s why you thought that you had to be a student to read the articles in SCIENCE and NATURE? Or how about the fact you didn’t even know what peer-reviewed journals look like which obviously means you’ve never read one? You’re so small time.

I literally laughed out loud when you said you used to be a university student.

Yup, even graduated. Guess what else; we used to have to use those peer-reviewed journals that you didn’t know what they looked like in our research. I am starting to wonder if psychology even had a peer-review system.

[Statler Waldorf]

Right? I don't know what to make of this guy. He is either trolling everyone here, or he is the portrait of everything that is wrong with the extreme religious right. I'm really really hoping that he is trolling us, because if not, then there are a lot of really dangerous people in this country...

Yeah look out for those dangerous people who can actually back up their positions with logic, point out logical fallacies used by the opposition, and who also know what peer-reviewed journals look like! Those are some really dangerous people :-P I think what’s actually scary is the fact that a person can even come close to getting their PhD (even if it is only in psychology) while having no clue about what an actual peer-reviewed journal even looks like, now that is scary.