Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

[Locke]

Are you asking me to refute God? It can't be done. It's impossible to disprove God for the very same reason it's impossible to prove God.



Your syllogism isn't valid because the existence of a God isn't verifiable. Syllogisms need verifiable premises in order to be valid. Nor is your connection between knowledge being possible and the existence of God. You claim God to be necessary for knowledge to exist but you have no proof of that assertion. We know that knowledge exists, we don't know that a God exists. There is no way to prove that God is necessary for knowledge to exist, it is an un-testable, un-demonstrable, assertion. It is YOUR opinion.

Just because God can't be refuted doesn't make it true. You can't refute the existence of Aliens, doesn't make them real. This is why you've been mislabeling me by calling me an atheist. I'm not saying there isn't a God, I'm saying he can't be proven. If you must label me, you can call me an Agnostic.



Oh man, I don't even know where to start with this one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the bible say that the creation of the Earth/Universe is concurrent with the Creation of Adam?



You yourself claim the creation of Adam as "fact" at 6,000 to 6,400 years ago. That means the Earth/Universe couldn't be any older than Adam, making the Earth about 6,000 years old as you claim. Then, when backed into a corner about Dinosaurs you say they lived 15,000 years ago? So which is it? 6,000 or 15,000? You're contradicting yourself, & you're contradicting your scripture. What a joke.

Furthermore, I'm glad you brought up Adam & Eve. How did they populate the Earth? Incest?



Was Adam banging the daughers? Eve banging the sons? The daughters and sons banging each other? A little of all the above?

Were Adam & Eve white? Where did all the black people come from? Asians? Indians? Did Eve magically spit out multi-cultural babies? You also want to try and rationalize Adam living for 930 years? (Or 1/6th the Earths age according to you, or 1/15th the Earth's age, I can't be sure, you keep changing your mind).

One more thing, so everything the Bible says is fact now? Is this fact?

"Psalm 137:9
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”

Will I really be happy if I dasheth my children against the stones?



I hope you were trying to be cute here. Hinduism states that the separation between all things is illusory. Not that "1+1= Illusion". The reason they make this claim is because they contest that Brahma the Creator IS everything in the universe. Every rock, every animal, plant, and human being, experiencing their joys and sorrows all at once, completely plunging himself into the adventure of forgetting who he is. All things, all other Hindu Gods, are merely expressions of the one, Brahma.

So by Hindu assertion, everyone and everything is God. Nothing is not God. & Doesn't that make sense? If there was a God would it really be an omnipotent God if he wasn't everything? Let me ask you this; are you God, Statler? If not, how can your God truly be omnipotent if he can't be you?

So now I’ll play your crazy game.

P1 Knowledge is possible
P2 For knowledge to be possible, Brahma must exist
C1 Brahma exists



Not my fault you don't understand how half-life's work. Here is a Christian's (with some sense) perspective on Radiometric dating.





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


Actually click and read the link before you mouth off on this, it goes into much further detail. Your argument is laughable, but here’s my homework for you. If you want to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, or 15,000 (whichever one you decide to roll with that day), then fine, that’s your perogative, but I want you to tell everyone you know that you think that, see how that works out for you.




Christians themselves aren't the problem. As long as you're harmless and don’t have a superiority complex about your particular religion, I don’t have a problem with religious folk. People with nutjob ideas and beliefs are the problem.



Only further speaks to your delsion. Look around, it’s probably clear to everyone but yourself that this thread has turned into 10 rational people trying to reason with someone who is incapable of reason.



So you say this with the intent to try and hurt Locke’s feelings? You also derive pleasure from a professor and a class full of students having their feelings hurt? Not very Christian of you.

Does being a Christian merely mean believing in Christ, or actually trying to be Christ-like? If it’s the latter, you’re no more a Christian than any of the rest of us.

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi
--

One last thing, I believe your beliefs not only give Christians a bad name, I think your beliefs give religious folk in general a bad name. Your beliefs are precisely the type of thing most Christians are trying to not have associated with their religion. Your beliefs are some of the most insane, delusional, demented, & lunatical assertions I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading. It truly does concern/sadden me that there are people on Earth who believe some of the things you do.

You forgot "I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." A cool Billy Madison picture would have been the coup de gras...

[rob19]

You forgot "I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." A cool Billy Madison picture would have been the coup de gras...

[Locke]

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


It's like he just read some of Statler's posts and he is responding to them. Everything he said is relevant. Classic...

[tylerdolphin]

I will NEVER watch that clip and not laugh hysterically. One of my favorite movie clip ever
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[tylerdolphin]

Well rob ended the thread with that long ass post. Not much else to add.

I will thank about 5 or 6 future rob posts purely for the point that I wish I could thank that one post about 7 times, but I cant.

[volk]

Wow, there is an awful lot of hostility in this thread with seemingly very little to do with the actual Bill Nye quote.

FWIW, I find Mr. Nye's comments saddening. He is implying that anything apart from a purely evolutionary outlook is "holding us all back" and that soon, any contrary viewpoint will be gone. Tragic.

The fact is that evolutionary theory is itself still evolving. There are scores of issues remaining to be solved before evolution as an origin of the species can be proven as indisputable fact. To believe in evolution as a factual origin of the species is indeed a statement of faith.

I realize that the "new atheists" such as Dawkins are all the rage right now, but they are every bit as narrow mined as they castigate the religious to be. By eliminating religion, they remove an entire trunk of human experience that brings about wonder, discovery, morality and reason. Religion has sparked the mind to investigate nature and has led to significant scientific discoveries, to say nothing of what it tells us about the human condition. Science tells us much about the world but little about life.

It appears to me to be thoroughly anti-scientific to close the door to all religious possibilities because you feel comfortable in an unproven scientific worldview. Why the fear of religious thought? Why the fear of skepticism? Isn't it skepticism that drives science? Bill Nye isn't advancing scientific thought here, he is rather stamping out wonder, mystery and the possibility that the world may be more than what we think we already know.

[rob19]

There's a marked difference betwixt keeping an open mind, & asserting things as factual which are indeed opinion based.

Btw, you say "religious thought", but I get the feeling you mean "Christian thought", am I right? Or do you think all religious assumptions are to be respected equally?

[rob19]

Why the fear of religious thought? Why the fear of skepticism? Isn't it skepticism that drives science?

Well, there is a reason the two have been separated. That's because it does you no good to suppose or not suppose God in an experiment. Whether or not God exists does you no good in understanding gravity, black holes, nuclear fission, or quantum mechanics. It doesn't matter.

Science is for the empirically verifiable. In other words, things that can actually be proven. They leave the ethereal to the Theologians, & Philosophers.

Personally I enjoy studying world religions, I won't however go around asserting that I can prove God with completely unverifiable syllogisms though. Ever study Taoism? Fascinating to me personally.

[phins_4_ever]

You are a little off base here with some of your opinion.

Wow, there is an awful lot of hostility in this thread with seemingly very little to do with the actual Bill Nye quote.

FWIW, I find Mr. Nye's comments saddening. He is implying that anything apart from a purely evolutionary outlook is "holding us all back" and that soon, any contrary viewpoint will be gone. Tragic.

The fact is that evolutionary theory is itself still evolving. There are scores of issues remaining to be solved before evolution as an origin of the species can be proven as indisputable fact. To believe in evolution as a factual origin of the species is indeed a statement of faith.

I realize that the "new atheists" such as Dawkins are all the rage right now, but they are every bit as narrow mined as they castigate the religious to be. By eliminating religion, they remove an entire trunk of human experience that brings about wonder, discovery, morality and reason. Religion has sparked the mind to investigate nature and has led to significant scientific discoveries, to say nothing of what it tells us about the human condition. Science tells us much about the world but little about life.

It appears to me to be thoroughly anti-scientific to close the door to all religious possibilities because you feel comfortable in an unproven scientific worldview. Why the fear of religious thought? Why the fear of skepticism? Isn't it skepticism that drives science? Bill Nye isn't advancing scientific thought here, he is rather stamping out wonder, mystery and the possibility that the world may be more than what we think we already know.

Evolution is not a theory is still evolving. To use it the word evolve with evolution is degrading scientific recoveries and analysis in regards to Evolution. The evolution theory is merely being proven more and more and gaps are being filled the more we learn. What was once a simple theory has been proven many ways by now. There are still gaps, just like in any scientific project, but science thrives on solving one problem to move onto to the next. Every solution raises additional questions which need to be answered. Science is an endless project of discovering problems/gaps, solving them and moving on to the next problem/gap. While technically you could say that the evolution theory is still evolving it is really only used by religious people trying to show flaws in the evolution theory without proving such flaws.
It is fascinating to listen to religious people talking about "oh well, evolution has not been 100% proven and is still evolving" when at the same time your very own religion disallows straying away or even questioning religion though religion is the least proven theory.

Dismissing evolution IS holding us back. I.e. discoverie in medicine and technology has its roots in science and evolution. Without that we still be praying to the gods, of whatever your religion is, for better health when a person has an appendix breach and is dying.

Religion has sparked no mind to investigate anything. You are fooling yourself if you actually subscribe to that believe. Remember "there is no other god". Religion is set and disallows any investigation and questions yet prohibits proof as well. Without science we would not know why the leaves change color in the fall and fall off in winter time. Without science we still be dying at he age of 40 because medicine is disallowed or has not been discovered, just to touch the surface.

Before religion has the right to question science it has to prove itself in some way. Show me a person who walks on water, can split the ocean or performs miracles. You can't. You rely on a book which in today's time would be considered a 'fairy tale'.

Science is not narrow minded. It invites religion all the time to contradict science to prove itself. But religion doesn't, except referring to a non-scientific fairy tale book which has been written over several hundreds of years by people who weren't even alive when the miracles all happened and has copied sections from different other earlier religions.

Science and non believers don't fear religion. Not at all. I don't. It makes me smile. I also don't fear religious people. What is putting fear out, are people like Statler who are nuts. Crazies are the danger. The nut cases who would kill to advance their believes. People who would hunt and go after non-believers or believers of different religions. Those people strike fear because despite their religious believes they are not acting up on their believes but making their believes politics of fear and hate.
And these are not unfounded fears as the many crusades are proof of that and the millions who have been slaughtered are silent witnesses to the brutality of religion against non-believers.

[volk]

Evolution is not a theory is still evolving....While technically you could say that the evolution theory is still evolving it is really only used by religious people trying to show flaws in the evolution theory without proving such flaws.

So you agree that evolutionary theory is still evolving, but believe it is degrading to state so because the origin of such claims is frequently religious in nature? The source should be irrelevant to the investigation of the facts for a true naturalist, which is really what makes Bill Nye's claim so tragic.

It is fascinating to listen to religious people talking about "oh well, evolution has not been 100% proven and is still evolving" when at the same time your very own religion disallows straying away or even questioning religion though religion is the least proven theory.

Perhaps now would be a beneficial time for you to clarify what you mean by evolution? While you should be able to make a valid case for micro-evolution, macro-evolution as an origin of the species has far more than a few "gaps" to fill to be anywhere near being definitively correct. Cambrian explosion, punctuated equilibrium, incomplete and contrary fossil evidence and a limited amount of time to complete such massive amounts of speciation are hardly small issues to overcome. This does not even begin to address the direct contradictions raised by what is seen in nature and society with regard to societal benevolence, beneficial mutation and the world's tendency toward decay.

Dismissing evolution IS holding us back. I.e. discoverie in medicine and technology has its roots in science and evolution. Without that we still be praying to the gods, of whatever your religion is, for better health when a person has an appendix breach and is dying.

You are seriously overreaching here. Darwinian evolution is not the hinge upon which all medicine and technology turn. The claim itself is laughable given the amazing achievements prior to the concept of evolution even existing. Furthermore, a very strong argument can be made for religion being every bit as critical to societal health and evolution. Without religion to guide us morally and attach meaning to life and the most difficult issues of self and society, we might still be exterminating entire races in an attempt to create the super race Darwin's philosophy ultimately imagined.

Religion has sparked no mind to investigate anything.

This is merely opinion and not fact. Since we are discussing science as it primarily leads to health and life sciences, perhaps you might consider the most significant scientific advancement of it in our age, the human genome project and it's head, Dr. Francis Collins. Collins is a devout Christian and sees no problems with science and faith integration. Also, the scientific community is not so nearly as atheistic as you may believe.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You are fooling yourself if you actually subscribe to that believe. Remember "there is no other god". Religion is set and disallows any investigation and questions yet prohibits proof as well.

Stating opinion as fact does not make it so. Since you appear to be fixated on Christianity, any honest investigation of the Christian Bible will show that it makes several scientific claims and encourages investigation. It applauds a skeptical perspective and the testing of ideas to see what is true. As an aside, the Bible is full of examples of people questioning God and being met not with judgement, but with compassion. Not to be rude, but perhaps a deeper reading of the source material may provide a more factual understanding.

Before religion has the right to question science it has to prove itself in some way. Show me a person who walks on water, can split the ocean or performs miracles. You can't. You rely on a book which in today's time would be considered a 'fairy tale'.

Science is not narrow minded. It invites religion all the time to contradict science to prove itself. But religion doesn't, except referring to a non-scientific fairy tale book which has been written over several hundreds of years by people who weren't even alive when the miracles all happened and has copied sections from different other earlier religions.

Science and non believers don't fear religion. Not at all. I don't. It makes me smile. I also don't fear religious people. What is putting fear out, are people like Statler who are nuts. Crazies are the danger. The nut cases who would kill to advance their believes. People who would hunt and go after non-believers or believers of different religions. Those people strike fear because despite their religious believes they are not acting up on their believes but making their believes politics of fear and hate.
And these are not unfounded fears as the many crusades are proof of that and the millions who have been slaughtered are silent witnesses to the brutality of religion against non-believers.

I find it ironic that you demand more evidence from religion than you do from science. It isn't surprising, really, since at this level they both require faith. It is humorous to me that those who put all their eggs in the basket of science do so on what is not and cannot ever truly be 100% scientifically proven. It is faith in the evidence of only that which can be conclusively proven when it cannot be conclusively proven.

Lastly, you say you don't fear the religious but contradict yourself by enumerating the fears you have of the religious. I will not pretend that bad things have not been done in the name of religion, but they pale in comparison to those done in the name of advancing purely naturalistic philosophies. This is not an argument that a naturalist really wants to hang their hat on...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD