 |
|
|
|
August 27th, 2012
11:31 AM ET
Bill Nye slams creationismBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN)–Famed TV scientist Bill Nye is slamming creationism in a new online video for Big Think titled "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children." "Denial of evolution is unique to the United States," Nye begins in a YouTube video posted on Thursday. The video quickly picked up steam over the weekend and as of Monday morning had been viewed more than 1,100,000 times. Nye - a mechanical engineer and television personality best known for his program, "Bill Nye the Science Guy" - said the United States has great capital in scientific knowledge and "when you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in it, it holds everyone back." "Your world becomes fantastically complicated if you don't believe in evolution," Nye said in the Web video. Creationists are a vast and varied group in the United States. Most creationists believe in the account of the origins of the world as told in the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories In the creation account, God creates Adam and Eve, the world, and everything in it in six days. For Christians who read the Genesis account literally, or authoritatively as they would say, the six days in the account are literal 24-hour periods and leave no room for evolution. Young Earth creationists use this construct and biblical genealogies to determine the age of the Earth, and typically come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years. Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critique The Gallup Poll has been tracking Americans' views on creation and evolution for the past 30 years. In June it released its latest findings, which showed 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution. During the 30 years Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years. Survey: Nearly half of Americans subscribe to creationist view of human origins "The idea of deep time of billions of years explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your worldview becomes crazy, untenable, itself inconsistent," Nye said in the video. "I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, that's completely inconsistent with the world we observe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems," he said. Creationists' beliefs about the origins of the Earth are often a narrow focus, based in large part on religious beliefs, and while they reject evolution as "just one theory," they often embrace other fields of science and technology. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter In "The Genesis Flood," the 1961 book that in many ways help launch the Young Earth creationism movement in the United States, the authors write: “Our conclusions must unavoidably be colored by our Biblical presuppositions, and this we plainly acknowledge." Their goal for the book was to harmonize the scientific evidence with the accounts in Genesis of creation and the flood. The idea of creationism has been scorned by the mainstream scientific community since shortly after Darwin introduced "The Origin of Species" in 1859. By 1880, The American Naturalists, a science journal, reported nearly every major university in America was teaching evolution. "In another couple centuries I'm sure that worldview won't even exist. There's no evidence for it. So..." Nye ends his video. soundoff (14,640 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 Next » |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
@Philip,
I donot make stuff up for my cause. Not typing the URL here, but this comes from the site DR JENNER"S HOUSE –
The Anti-vaccinationists
Soon even political cartoonists, such as James Gillray, were publishing engravings that showed people growing cow's heads on their bodies. People became fearful of the possible consequences of receiving material originating from cows and opposed vaccination on religious grounds, saying that they would not be treated with substances originating from God's lowlier creatures.
Variolation was forbidden by Act of Parliament in 1840 and vaccination with cowpox was made compulsory in 1853. This in its turn led to protest marches and vehement opposition from those who demanded freedom of choice.
Opposition within the Medical Profession
Jenner's newly proven technique for protecting people from smallpox did not catch on as he anticipated. One reason was a practical one. Cowpox did not occur widely and doctors who wanted to test the new process had to obtain cowpox matter from Edward Jenner.
In an age when infection was not understood, cowpox samples often became contaminated with smallpox itself because those handling it worked in smallpox hospitals or carried out variolation. This led to claims that cowpox was no safer than smallpox inoculation.
There were also many surgeons who did not want Jenner to succeed. They were the variolators whose large incomes were threatened by Jenner's safer and more effective cowpox treatment.
You appear to have misunderstand my previous post. I did not say you made up stuff but that some of your historical information was inaccurate. In your latest post you acknowledge it was not just the clergy who opposed Jenner and that vaccination was not made compulsory in 1840. It was variolation that was made illegal in 1840. The same Act provided for optional free vaccination. Although compulsory vaccination was introduced in 1853 opposition to the practice remained strong, despite financial penalties on parents who refused to have their children vaccinated. In 1898 an Act of Parliament permitted parents to apply to Magistrates for a certificate of exemption but Magistrates generally refused to apply the Act and in 1907 another Act removed financial penalties for refusing to allow a child to be vaccinated. As an aside I was never vaccinated as a child only as an adult. My wife wanted our children vaccinated and, of course, they were.
The Boston clergy made solid resistance to vaccination. I did put up some other links too, if you want to go through them. The statement that religion resisted vaccination IS NOT NONSENSE.
And what part of vehement opposition is it that is not understandable??? Now, were these vehement oppositionists doing so bcoz an atheist led them, or maybe Satan led them!
The concerns of the others in medical fraternity can still be understood – they wanted to test it themselves, also I did mention the mix-up of cowpox and small pox samples (which even caused some deaths).
Dear Mrs,
You may already know this, but in case Alex has neglected to tell you, I am assigning him to detention for one hour this Friday, April 22nd. The reason is as follows:
Alex consistently defied me. During class he contradicted me numerous times when I insisted that the length of one kilometer was greater than that of one mile. Every other student in class accepted my lesson without argument, but your son refused to believe what I told him, offering such rebuttals as, “You’re lying to the class,” and commanding other students to challenge my curriculum.
Although he was correct, Alex’s actions show a blatant disregard for authority, and a complete lack of respect for his school. In the future, Alex would be better off simply accepting my teachings without resistance.
Please see to it your son understands this.
Regards,
Adam Hilliker
I have no doubt that Mr. Adam Hilliker is an evangelical Christian...
Please advise how the following is incorrect:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.htmlCached – Similar
YOU have no doubt but it would be nice to know one way or the other for certain.
@nope (on any post)
nope
Folks, no matter how many evolution preachers say you are stupid for not believing in this simpletons fairy tale, it will not change the fact that NOT one thing can happen in such amazing order by accident, not ONE. IMPOSSIBLE.
And too many of you start talking about the Bible and religion, stop it, allow evolution to defend itself with out misdirection.
One thing can't happen in any order- you need multiple things to happen for there to be an order of events.
Do the work, prove evolution wrong, collect your Nobel Prize....
If you think evolution involves things that happen by accident, you don't even understand basic physics.
Evolution has no problem defending itself. For anyone who has studied it for more than a moment, they know that the process of evolution is established fact, not flimsy theory as the archaic religious zealots would have you believe. They throw away observable, tested, fundemental laws of nature for magical miracles, virgin births, transfiguration of sticks into snakes and even human levitation and say, "Yup, it's all true in the bible" but scoff at the repeatable, testable fact of evolution. That, to me, is the definition of stupid.
It's hard to argue with you. 633music. You're mind is made up and you don't want to be confused with facts. It's like trying to describe the color red to a blind person. How did you ever allow yourself to become so biblewashed?
Exactly what are you talking about? Why don't you take a course in Astronomy or Astrophysics and then we will talk. Or maybe even organic chemistry, biology, or physics. We seem to be able to perfectly explain some incredibly complex phenomenon, contrary to your opinion. The bible didn't give us differential calculus. The bible didn't cure polio, or teach us how to cure cancer. The bible didn't explain how to predict volcanic eruptions, or how to treat diabetes. The bible never helped us go to the moon, breathe underwater, or fly. These things are highly complex, and yet PEOPLE figured them out. give us some credit.
To say this clearly shows a lack of understanding concerning probability and the enormity of the age of all that is. Your opinion is clearly presuppositionalist in nature. What specifically couldn't happen by accident? And if you are so convinced that the world as it stands is so perfect as a result of super-natural refinement, i point you toward the human eye. The light receptors are completely and absolutely backwards so that massive amounts of brain power are used up in order to reverse the image, again, in our mind. This was clearly not created because other animals, like owls, have perfectly fine light receptors. Are you implying that a God that gave us sentience favors owls over ourselves (i wouldn't be surprised if you didn't catch the rhetoric). To you i give another question, if our morality is solely based off of the eating from the tree of knowledge and evil, and by extension Satan himself, how do dolphins have morals? As a social species they demonstrate all that we would call moral in human society, with less of the violence, but they exist unable to eat apples, being carnivores. I don't suppose that there is a magical trout that dolphins were told not to eat from because it would give them morals, but then again i wouldn't be surprised.
Here's how 633music deals with difficult calculus:
∫ π/2 0 dx 1+(tan(x)) 2 =
633music "Hmmm, okay, thats a tough one, let's see, hmmm, hmmm, um, I got it!! I got it!! The answer is God!!"
@Truth –
On another thread, Moby Schtick offered the following formula, which I think is applicable to 633music:
4+banana=swing set
Too good not to post again. Thanks Moby.
There it is again, assumptions, erroneously made.
What and why is the Bible brought in to the discussion?
You think that is the only theory other than evolution?
You have all came to your conclusions based on many different considerations, perhaps I looked at those same references and remained positively unconvinced by it.
You condemn and call me ignorant for it, if I am, then I am not alone, many of the greatest minds in history, inventors and scientists, who truly understand the complexities of life and did not adroitly ignore or bypass them.
Who of you here has ever brought matter to life?
Who of you here can explain even the basics of biology?
Who of you here can understand the thought process of the necessity of simultaneous evolution in most if not all living beings?
Who of you here can explain the reason for something as simple as taste buds?
My guess?
You are just regurgitating the regurgitation's of those who teach in a classroom.
My guess is that few if any of you have ever created, painted, written or invented one original thing, yet, you go around telling everyone just how easy it is..
633music wrote, " You think that is the only theory other than evolution?"
Um, Sparky? There is only one theory that explains the diversification of life on earth.
"There it is again, assumptions, erroneously made."
"My guess is that few if any of you have ever created, painted, written or invented one original thing, yet, you go around telling everyone just how easy it is.."
Nice job making your own assumptions.
Here is the point, evolution is established and tested science which is why it is taught in school, though there is still plenty of room for a deity if you want to attach your own God to the begining of any unknown such as the spark that started it all. But to claim that evolution is a silly fairytale is the same as claiming the earth is flat and the moon landing was faked. It is to stare into the face of truth and shake your head and say "Nope, nuh uh, don't believe it, nope." just to avoid admitting you might be wrong about one of your preconcieved notions of how everything works. And to be embarassed that you, as a tiny dust particle upon a speck of dirt speeding through the enormity of the universe doesn't know or might be wrong about something, is nothing to be embarrased about. The only thing to be embarrased about is if when faced with facts you still reject them for unproven and unlikely myths.
Who of you here has ever brought matter to life?
Not sure how that applies to this conversation.
Who of you here can explain even the basics of biology?
Yes, I took Biology as a freshman in High School, i still feel fairly confident I understand the basics.
Who of you here can understand the thought process of the necessity of simultaneous evolution in most if not all living beings?
I can, it supports the survival of said species. We evolve so we can survive. Simple as that.
Who of you here can explain the reason for something as simple as taste buds?
In order to readily tell what is healthy/able to be eaten: bark = tastes bad. fruits = taste good.
Are you satisfied? Your hard questions are easily answered by someone not even in the field of evolutionary study, now imagine how inferior you would feel trying to discuss this with a scientist in the field of biological or evolutionary study?
@633music – regarding: "You are just regurgitating the regurgitation's of those who teach in a classroom."
You might want to spend a bit of time in one of those classrooms. I'm just sayin'.
633music,
Your last post brings this quote to mind...
"Science doesn't know everything....religion doesn't know anything"
Science is and can be wrong, but it is the best way humans have to filter information. If you think they got something wrong, do the work, prove it, you will be famous.
"Who of you here has ever brought matter to life?
Who of you here can explain even the basics of biology?
Who of you here can understand the thought process of the necessity of simultaneous evolution in most if not all living beings?
Who of you here can explain the reason for something as simple as taste buds?
My guess?
You are just regurgitating the regurgitation's of those who teach in a classroom.
My guess is that few if any of you have ever created, painted, written or invented one original thing, yet, you go around telling everyone just how easy it is.."
Translation
Begging the question fallacy, non-sequitur fallacy.
@633 music
I can answer most of your questions.
Who of you here has ever brought matter to life?
No one has ever created life from non-living matter. But this is abiogenesis which has nothing to do with evolution.
Who of you here can explain even the basics of biology?
Ask something specific and I gladly will.
Who of you here can understand the thought process of the necessity of simultaneous evolution in most if not all living beings? You are going to have to rephrase this one. I have no idea what you mean.
Who of you here can explain the reason for something as simple as taste buds?
Taste buds are chemical sensors. They allow us to detect the presence of necessary nutrients, such as fats and salts, in our food. They also alert us to dangerous and spoiled food. Now you don't interpret those signals in this way. You just experience fatty salty foods, like bacon, as tasting good and spoiled food is tasting bad.
YOU call someone else a simpleton? Everyday I am amazed by humanity. Your post is like something a middle-school kid would write, and you are up on a high horse telling us we are 'simple.' Please develop some complexity before you display yourself as an expert on complicated things. What are you even trying to say? You don't understand how complex things could happen over a long period of time? Science isn't for everyone. Stick to your simple answers!
633music
If you're saying that there are no accidents then why am I paying for car insurance? 🙂
Lisa
Actually, if you had a car accident and hit a van carrying the last member of a particular variant of a species, say the last white tiger, killing it then your accident would have changed evolution because future generations of tigers wouldn't be able to draw upon that gene pool, and there would be no more white tigers.
633music,
I'm getting a flavor of the Book of Job in your questions.
Where are those snow and hail "storehouses" anyway?
(38:22 “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,)
What IS a certainty, those who have been duped into believing in the doctrine of evolution, extreme over simplification of....well, everything...
Why do we have a tongue? Cause' we needed it. Why does it have taste buds? Cause' it was to identify dangerous foods.
How did the human organism survive before evolution created the heart? Cause' it did.
And the lungs, no good without a heart right? No, it worked back then.
Spinal cord?
Immune system?
Blood/
Circulatory system?
Ditto, ditto. ditto.
MASSIVE over simplification, shows you NOTHING of what you speak.
Homespun wisdom bother you?
Prayer changes things .
Good afternoon prayer-bot.
So you are here to foul us with your bilious issue once again?
Changes what?
@Blessed,
Good question, since theists are generally focused on believing the same things they did 2,00 years ago. Talk about NOT changing things!
Prove it and i will agree.
Really, no it doesn't. I could black your eye and you couldn't pray it away, for example. You could pray all day and your eye would still be swollen. Aspirin changes things, though.
My life was changed for the better by prayer !
another repentant sinner
And other people swear by counseling, hypnosis, the 17 Day Diet, Oprah, and Zumba classes. Personally, discovering vegetarianism changed my life for the better, and so did atheism. It all depends on what works for you, right?
To ArthurP but I think it ties in with the topic of "religion" & "Popes"
ArthurP...The truth be told, you are right regarding the Pope(s) in your post a few pages back, but your target (Roman Catholicism) is an easy barn door to hit. It's about JesusNotReligion. Target Him not a man-made inst!itution (1 Corinthians 1-3 for my RC bloggers that will not agree with that statement).
Man is sinful and that includes you and me too. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". You know that quote, don't you? That's my Lord & Savior, JesusNotReligion.
Why don't you talk about "Jesus" as if He were just as "historical" as the Pope's and their history that you seem to have some knowledge about ? You do realize you excercised FAITH regarding the accuracy of the information behind your argument, don't you? Welcome to the starting point of becoming a follower of JesusNotReligion.
Why don't you attack Jesus?...Put it in print. Call Him all kinds of vile names along with those who screamed out, "Crucify Him! Crucify Him?" You might as well because you are already doing it indirectly.
With your words of unbelief you wield the hammer that pounded the spikes into Jesus' hands and feet. With your mocking mouth you strike the back of the Savior with the whip that tore the flesh off His bones. As an instrument of publically leading people astray – away from the loving, forgiving, SAVING outstretched arms of Jesus – you prove Scripture true: "They hated Me without a cause"...And you are NOT PASSIVE with your angst towards God...YOU ACTIVELY HATE HIM and His people (though not all who say "Lord, Lord" are really His, as you pointed out), and you have actively aligned yourself with the mission of ALL who hate Him, beginning with the fallen "light bearer", Lucifer. You're in the Bible, my fellow bloggernaut. You represent all who have ever hated the One True God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit. So keep bringing down a curse on you and your family. You will see God's Justice soon enough because this life is a vapor!
So, why don't you attack Jesus D!RECTLY in one of your posts, instead of the Popes who are just fallen men like yourself. Attack JesusNotReligion...I am not your scapegoat for unbelief and neither are th Popes or religion. Ironically enough, Jesus became the Scapegoat AND THE PA§§OVER LAMB. Will the Angel of death see Jesus' blood covering your life by faith? If he does, then he will pa§§over you, and you will live. I hope and pray that you will never forget this post, and that you would take it to heart.
I don't hate Jesus. I can't hate someone who never existed.
"Why don't you attack Jesus?..."
Ok, I will address Jesus as he is represented in the gospels. He did not have a single original philosophical idea, every one that has been attributed to him, other cultures had already addressed in much the same way and some did it better. I would expect the son of god to give man some moral direction that had not been hit upon yet, like, "don't own other people" but the best he could do was "slaves obey your masters". The son of god should have been able to give mankind some practical advice that was absolutely new, something no civilization had ever thought about before. But since he did not the miracles were needed in order "prove" his divinity. Miracles were a common claim at the time and cannot be verified in any way, it is a terrible way to prove divinity. Once again the son of god should be able to do better. Don't get me wrong, some of his teachings were positive, but some were bad advice.
None of this make him bad, just human like the rest of us, certainly not god.
Cruzrad...Really?...OK...Then go back to watching The Jetson's...or is Barney your favorite? With a post like yours who needs a comedian? That's all you're getting from me. Reply if you want but here's some advice for you:
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"
Why is it that Jesus never dressed up like the popes and cardinals, according to the common paintings and other visual interpretations of Christ as a middle aged white guy from Alabama?
@JesusNotReligion Your post of August 29, 2012 at 2:01 pm
How self-referential of you to post that...
BTW, the whole idea of trying to seperate "Jesus" from "Religion" as absurd. Without the Old Testament myths and "prophacies" (religion) there is no need or justification for Jesus as the Christ.
@JesusNotReligion:
Be cause he never existed. Christianity like Communism is a movement / idea that evolved and at a later date given a focal point of its origin and called it Jesus.
"And you are NOT PASSIVE with your angst towards God...YOU ACTIVELY HATE HIM and His people"
Jesus doesn't exist, and I don't hate him or Mickey Mouse or Ronald McDonald either. Why do you want so bad to lie about me? It's like you nuts can't keep from spitting lies all day. Maybe it's the love of Jesus deep down in your heart?
cruzrad
Come on now, the guy Jesus could have existed. There were lots of wandering rabbis and messianic pretenders in the area at that time. Lots of Jews being crucified too. It's this "Christ" figure that's totally preposterous, right?
Very true gentlemen.
Let me make this argument, these idiots that say they represent Jesus or God prove by their actions and teachings that they do not.
Believe in God or not, these people are just opportunists always have been always will be.
Evolution is an idea for the ignorant and uneducated, but most of these organizations have no interest in teaching their "flock", more like cows they slaughter and feed on, they just leave them out their to their own devices, as long as they send a check.
"Evolution is an idea for the ignorant and uneducated," Yes, it's for the ignorant and uneducated because the educated have already learned the truth of it, so they and trying to get the message to people like you, the halfwit's, the less sharp tools in the shed, the blunted brains, the cerebrally stunted, the mental midgets, the manic morons, the grey matter challenged. If we can pound some small amount of logic and truth into your thick heads humanity might just have a chance...
Ok, now I am convinced.
You remind me of a preacher I once questioned, he was arrogant and nasty as well.
Not very original.
Show me an evolutionist and I will show you a virgin.
"Show me an evolutionist and I will show you a virgin."
Show me a creationist and I will show you millions of intelligent females who won't go near your ignorant ass.
But seriously, if you refuse to accept basic science fact and continue to reject common sense, please don't breed, we do not need any more inbred halfwit's bringing humanity closer to their attempted self fullfilling prophecy of Armegedon.
Cute. Your writing says it all.
But you choose to ignore what greater minds that you are I question, and no amount of factual enlightenment will change your position.
Evolution is a silly fairy tale.
Live with it, does not matter what the masses believe, will not change the impossibility of this nonsensical idiotic assumption.
Silly fairytales rarely have substantiated testable, repeatable science to back them up. Silly fairytales rely on completely fabricated, untestable conjecture made up by bronze age herdsmen trying to explain the complexities of the universe while still thinking God carried the sun through the sky on a charriot. You are correct though when you say it does not matter what the masses believe, for belief has never equaled truth, and that goes double so for religious belief.
633music: Do you really say, "are" for "or" ?
("greater minds that [sic] you are I"). Very telling.
Sure, I have not evolved very well in the area of diction...just a poor uneducated plow boy...
633music,
Saying it, due to regional accent or dialect, is one thing... writing it is quite another.
In fact, the parrots who you read or have "educated" you, have left you without any common sense or the ability to learn or view anything without using their blurred and reckless reasoning.
You more than likely went in with common sense, but were intimidated by the "greater" minds that "taught" you or who were referenced.
And let me add, I GREATLY respect science and all it has accomplished for mankind, just understand its underpinnings and limitations.
Something as simple as peer pressure and economics can "change" a conclusion.
If you do not know that, perhaps your are not as informed as you think you are.
You are correct Hickspotter, it is different.
633music wrote, " Show me an evolutionist and I will show you a virgin."
Show me a gravitist and I will show you a speckled hen.
Show me a electromagnetist and I will show you a purple poodle.
Show me a germist and I will show you gravy marshmallows.
@Primewonk
Wow, cool.
"Show me an evolutionist and I will show you a virgin." Wow, you REALLY hate us. Whatever radio station you work for must be all hate talk. Get a life, brother. God's just made you angry and depressed. You're doing it wrong.
"In fact, the parrots who you read or have "educated" you, have left you without any common sense or the ability to learn or view anything without using their blurred and reckless reasoning."
Read this over and tell me if you really think we read parrots? Your comments are so home-schooled that I don't where to begin.Did you graduate from high school? Any college? What science courses have you taken? Work in a tech field? Or just listen to a lot of right-wing blathering on the radio? Hating us for understanding stuff is just sad, man. You actually sound fairly smart. Try night school.
Simran, "There is little room for surviving with false claims in science." I suggest you read Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions' which demonstrates how, at any point in history, the scientific establishment clings to false ideas despite evidence to the contrary. Primework – Fleischmann and Pons have never withdrawn their claim to have discovered cold fusion which has been described by sceptical scientists as an example of 'pathological science'. It's not unfair to point out that Fleischmann and Pons were applying for research funds at the time. Malianel claims 30 miliion Muslims were killed during the crusades although evidence suggests it was 200,000 over a period of two centuries. He also states 20m people were killed by the Inquisition whereas reliable figures suggest the figure to be between 3000 and 5000. It is often forgotten that the Medieval Catholic Church was a political organisation with a religious ideology rather than a religious organisation with a political agenda. It's unfortunate that posters appear unable to rise above simplistic inanities and abusive language or conduct a reasoned debate. Intolerance tends to negate free speech.
@Philip,
I have no argument with any of the data you present here. Several of the threads on p148 were related to assertions like "Mao 'killed' 800 million people" and "atheists 'murdered' more people in the last century than were killed in all previous centuries" by someone using the handle @truth be told.
I presume that you noted that I too contested @Malianel's inflated claims. (Thank you for the 200,000 reference for the Crusades by the way – that estimate appears quite feasible.)
This whole discussion started with what (based on my observations) are outrageous claims of deaths caused by 20th century "atheists". What is your estimate for excess deaths by totalitarian regimes* (not including war or famine) in the 20th century?
* For the sake of discussion let's exclude the Nazis
Like I said after your previous post, this whole argument is a red herring. Morality has nothing to do with believing in a god.
Another thing to note is that even though the evidence points to 3000 – 5000 people killed during the Spanish Inquisition, it's clear that at least 125,000 were arrested, often tortured and sentenced to many violent penalties other than death all for the crime of either owning some land the church wanted or not believing in their same deity strongly enough.
And to defend them by claiming small numbers is like saying "Hey, Al Quaida wasn't all that bad, I mean they only killed a little over 3000 Americans on 9/11..."
Thanks for that, Philip. I have a different field (medical), so couldnot understand the complexity of it but still made an attempt.
But my point is not that scientists are always correct, my point is that somewhere down the line, we do correct ourselves. I can speak for my field as an example. Bring in a new therapy with all the Pharma guided claims you make (and yes. I understand the FDA nonsense), but no results – and we throw it out. Some other people work on it and prove it is not working or it is harmful etc etc...
σx σp ≥ ℏ/2
I'm certainly right about that one...
"But my point is not that scientists are always correct, my point is that somewhere down the line, we do correct ourselves."
Yeah, but you're not suddenly deciding germs don't exist, or injections cause leprosy, or people are solid inside like potatoes. These are micro-corrections like the ones you make with your steering wheel while driving, not giant swerves into the ditch. Get back to me when you decide blood is pumped by the brain instead of the heart.
Hugh,
If your comment was directed at me, now please explain what are you trying to state by what you wrote?
You're not suddenly dictating that germs don't exist – why would we, we see those germs, under the microscopes.
Injections cause leprosy??? What kind of weird statement is that????
People are solid inside like potatos – Are you insane? The anatomy of human body has been seen and studied by dissection, I have dissected quite a few corpses myself.
Have you seen a beating heart? I have.
Now why would we say any of those weird things????
I completely fail to understand what you try to say.
No, we have not seen god. Have you??? Other than in your imagination!
@Hugh,
Sorry for a harsh reply. My conversation with Philip was going on from a previous thread, so I guess you do not understand in what context it my statement was. Better not to reply to sub-comments, coz sometimes we pick up a previous thread.
Much like the Christians like to claim they are not slamming gay marriage, they are "supporting" traditional marriage, Bill Nye is merely "supporting" reason and rational thinking.
Imagine if the world only believed in creationism, no medicine only faith healers, no science only fairy tales, and every version is different. Is that a world you would want to live in? Without an understanding of evolution science and medicine will not be able to move forward.
Some time ago, people did not know what caused small pox. They thought a monster possessed the person. They called the inflicted Speckled Monster. So they starved and bled the patient in order to purify the person.
Now they could have just kept believing that. But then Edward Jenner noticed that milkmaids never got afflicted. Now he could have thought of God and believed that Goddess Cow saved these women. (Interestingly, in my country, people still take you to visit a cow if you get any type of pox!). But he used a rationale mind, and realized that since these women had been infected with cow pox, they seemed to have developed some immunity and the manifestations of cow pox were very mild in them. He tried to do early clinical trials by inflicting people with cow pox.
Now as you can imagine, he received tremendous resistance from the Clergy saying it was unethical to introduce animal disease into humans. Jenner was the source of many jokes and cartoons which showed people he had inoculated as running around with cows heads.
Medicine, as a profession became more respected and more prevalent in society in the following 100 years, doctors became celebrities and the 7th International Medical Conference, held in 1881, gave medical practi.tioners a certain prestige. This was all too late for Jenner, who died in his home village in 1832, eight years before his vaccine became the government pre.scr.ibed standard for the preve.ntion of smallp.ox.
And now we have era.dic.ated this curse of God!
Simran, it's regrettable you have allowed your prejudice to get in the way of historical accuracy. Innoculation was practiced in Asian countries for centuries. It was brought to Europe in the eighteenth century by travelers from Turkey where it was quite common. In England Lady Mary Wortley was a prominent activist and the practice spread amongst the upper classes rapidly. Jenner himself was inoculated as a child. In American Cotton Mather (a clergyman) encouraged people to be inoculated. He did not notice that milkmaids were immune from smallpox it was common knowledge that milkmaids who had contracted cowpox were immune from smallpox. Jenner developed a vaccine and called the process of injection vaccination. Your suggestion that Jenner's discoveries were opposed by the clergy is nonsense. Opposition came from a variety of sources including libertarians, philosophers and later by some Darwinists who considered it interfered with the process of natural selection by allowing the weak to live. Finally, Jenner died in 1823 not 1832 and compulsory vaccination was introduced in 1853 not in 1840. If you intend to make historical references please make sure they are accurate.
I didnot speak of how the first inoculation began, but just how he combined the concept. And yes, he picked up a local folklore to convert it to a way to vaccine.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/jenner_edward.shtml
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/
http://www.google.co.in/imgres?q=edward+jenner+jokes+1802+cartoon&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1366&bih=651&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnso&tbnid=gpt-V4FzfEkA9M:&imgrefurl=http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php%3Fp%3D853591&imgurl=http://www.freewebs.com/edward_jenner/the_cow_pock_large_cartoon.jpg&w=400&h=270&ei=6Vs-UNicNsW3rAezvYHwDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=178&vpy=157&dur=1635&hovh=184&hovw=273&tx=134&ty=131&sig=112472917973482494802&page=1&tbnh=144&tbnw=192&start=0&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:73
@Philip,
I donot make stuff up for my cause. Not typing the URL here, but this comes from the site DR JENNER"S HOUSE –
The Anti-vaccinationists
Soon even political cartoonists, such as James Gillray, were publishing engravings that showed people growing cow's heads on their bodies. People became fearful of the possible consequences of receiving material originating from cows and opposed vaccination on religious grounds, saying that they would not be treated with substances originating from God's lowlier creatures.
Variolation was forbidden by Act of Parliament in 1840 and vaccination with cowpox was made compulsory in 1853. This in its turn led to protest marches and vehement opposition from those who demanded freedom of choice.
Opposition within the Medical Profession
Jenner's newly proven technique for protecting people from smallpox did not catch on as he anticipated. One reason was a practical one. Cowpox did not occur widely and doctors who wanted to test the new process had to obtain cowpox matter from Edward Jenner.
In an age when infection was not understood, cowpox samples often became contaminated with smallpox itself because those handling it worked in smallpox hospitals or carried out variolation. This led to claims that cowpox was no safer than smallpox inoculation.
There were also many surgeons who did not want Jenner to succeed. They were the variolators whose large incomes were threatened by Jenner's safer and more effective cowpox treatment.
Several Boston clergymen and devout physicians formed the Anti-vaccination Society in 1798, only two years after Jenner's publication of smallpox vaccination. Others complained that the practice was dangerous, going so far as to demand that doctors who carried out these procedures be tried for attempted murder
Need more anti-vaccination evidence – some mor erecent stuff!
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/08/28/wielding-religion-as-a-weapon-against-vaccines/
Edward Jenner, son of a pastor, educated at a religious university
Edward Jenner, son of pastor....
So, then no body should have opposed him, they should have taken him to be the god's messenger then!
Sadly, he was not influenced by the CHurch's teachings that disease is divine punishment, rather he thought for himself.
CALLING ALL NEADERTHALS!!! (this is not a joke)
You might be part Neaderthal and for $99 actually find out:
As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/
" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.
"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.
Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.
It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."
For your $99 and a DNA swab:
"Included in the markers we will test for is a subset that scientists have recently determined to be from our hominin cousins, Neanderthals and the newly discovered Denisovans, who split from our lineage around 500,000 years ago. As modern humans were first migrating out of Africa more than 60,000 years ago, Neanderthals and Denisovans were still alive and well in Eurasia. It seems that our ancestors met, leaving a small genetic trace of these ancient relatives in our DNA. With Geno 2.0, you will learn if you have any Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA in your genome."
Evolution is the single most silly fairy tale of our time.
The exact representation of the very thing they loath, religious zealots that blindly follow anything.
Evolution is an unproven piece of unwieldy tripe, its adherents blindly follow their "religious" leaders, who admittedly are unsure of most of what they say.
The Bible version of how we got here, true or not has no bearing on the truth of evolution.
Get a new doctrine..this one is childish.
Show me someone who believes in evolution and I will show you a virgin.
That has to be a joke, or a Poe. Maybe both.
What this fundiot nutter refues to understand is that the theory of evolution is the single most confirmed theory in all science. After 150+ years, the ToE has never been falsified. Ever. Not once. Not even close. What he also refuses to understand is that the fine folks who study gravity wish they had 1/10th the evidence for their theory as the folks who study evolution.
This wack-job cretin suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect. And because he does suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect, he is unable to recognize that he suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
@Primewonk OH, ok, now I believe...
Very original.
You are very sure, but very misinformed, just another blind believer.
You are right the bible has not bearing on the truth of evolution.....or the truth of anything for that matter.
@Primewonk –
The irony is that 633music is unable to recognize himself in your post.
"The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are coc'ksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."
Bertrand Russel – "The Triumph of Stupidity"
@633music
"You are very sure, but very misinformed, just another blind believer."
If evidence does not lend credence, then what?
Also, "very misinformed" about what?
We have seen this before. The scientific and cultural center of the world was Baghdad prior to the rise of another radical faith, Islam. Once that faith took hold, the culture that gave us our numbering system, algebra, astronomy, medicine and many other advances stopped producing and has never recovered. We will see the same fate and when the rest of the world looks at us, they can say the fall of the United States as an intellectual and cultural power coincided with the rise of Christianity and the choice of faith over facts.
Amen to that !! ... (sorry couldn’t help it)
hinduism of a hindu, ignorant in his hindu Judaism, self serving sevular ism, rise of truth, knowledge in Baghdad was result of following of truth absolute by true Muslim in subordination to Theen Allah, Conti tution of truth absolute and fall of Muslim empire was not due to following of truth absolute but by hinduism, denial of truth absolute by subsequent rulers. blessing of advancement is in following of truth absolute, not denial of "HIM" the truth absolute in hindu Judaism, criminal self center ism, secularism.
For those who like videos, search youtube for "Neil Tyson presentation about intelligent design". He does a brilliant job of explaining the real negative repercussions of zealous faith on society.
To deny something's existence is to give credence that it possibly exists. Ooops is not the answer to have when you find out that you're wrong. Better yet here's an old joke, A future scientist stand before God and says "We reached a scientific plateau where we could create life from dirt just as you did. Give me some dirt and I'll show you." God's reply, "Make your own dirt."
To which the scientist replied, "fair enough but you have to prove to me you made the dirt you used."
Pascal's wager is a terrible argument. Please tell me what you are going to do if you stand before god and you picked the wrong god?
"To deny something's existence is to give credence that it possibly exists"
Does that really work? If I deny there is a wart on my left hand, does that mean I make it believable that it exists?
Does the possibility that something exists really rely on us? Things don't gain credence when someone considers them one way or the other, right? They existed, and their possibility of existence, or didn't and what we think of it is not relevant in the matter.
So I guess I should ask: so what? Why is that statement relevant? I can concede that anything you can imagine is possible in existence. The point is:
If there is no reason to think something exists, why do so?
If you believe in something only on faith and without evidence, how do not believe in everything? What other method of credibility do you use if not evidence or reason?
" To deny something's existence is to give credence that it possibly exists. "
Very well, I deny the existence of Santa Claus. Therefore, Santa might exist.
I deny the existence of the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Mother Nature, and Father Time. Ergo, they might exist.
I deny the existence of giant, invisible, fuzzy, pink unicorns, circling Uranus. So you better be careful when you sit down, or hope your unicorn lubes up his horn.
That is absolutely the point.
We deny the idea that a god created the universe, and that this mythical figure is guiding it along.
That does not in anyway give creadence to it being true.
It is your burden to prove that your god hypothesis is true, not our burden to prove it false.
Until you have some concrete evidence to support your hypothesis, then it is meaningless.
'actually' – sorry to disappoint you but Stalin was never a priest. He attended a seminary but was expelled for missing his final exams. 'Lisa' – based on post-Soviet research the number of victims of Stalin's policies (excluding German soldiers) is between 10m and 15m. Truth Be Tolled, The Soviet regime murdered priests and expropriated Church property from the outset. In 1925 Stalin created the League of the Godless, adding the word Militant in 1929. Its purpose was extirpate religion and create an atheist state. It failed. There's plenty of information on the subject try reading some of it.
Phillip,
Stalin wanted the "state" to replace religion, he did not want to compete with it. This whole argument is a red herring. What is being implied is that atheists are somehow less moral and the examples of Stalin and other dictators are rolled out when in fact these dictators acted this way to get or retain power, not because they were atheist. Were they immoral? Yes. But their immorality did not stem from atheism and if anyone is going to argue that it did (and I am not saying you are) they would have to show otherwise. They would also have to show that believing in a god makes people more moral and that is not the case either.
@Philip,
yes, Stalin was a nasty piece of work. Estimates of excess deaths under Stalin during the purges and in the Gulag (excluding the Ukraine famine of 1932 – 1933 and WW2 deaths) vary anywhere up to 20 million people – which you confirm.
Would you like to comment on @truth be told's assertion that totalitarian regimess killed a billion people in the 20th century?
Wait – atheists are as capable as theists of doing bad things? Stop the presses!
Missing cause and effect reasoning here. Did Stalin do evil BECAUSE he was Atheist? NO. There is absolutely zero evidence of that. So y'all can just stop talking about Stalin and the other totalitarian dictators of the 20th century. Bringing them up is meaningless to the discussion.
@exlonghorn and BATC,
yes, equating totalitarianism and atheism is a false premise, but that requires an interpretation.
I'd rather start with a baseline of established facts. Almost every assertion that @truth be told makes is grossly exaggerated. Today he claims "athesists killed one billion people" and "Mao killed 800 million people". Even including all the Chinese and Soviet famine deaths, these numbers are inflated by a factor of ten.
With accurate estimates these assertions lose their teeth anyway irrespective of not equating totalitarianism with atheism.
In the event religion is removed from society, As Stalin and others have conspired, what then is our defense against totalitarianism if not the rights of free men as bestowed on them by their Creator?
Продаю актуальные базы данных по Украине 2012
Перечень:
База налоговая по физическим лицам украины 2012
База налоговая по доходам граждан украины 2012
База налоговая по предприятиям Украины 2012
База Апра, 2012
База о судимостях, 2012
База о розысках, 2012
База о административных правонарушениях, 2012
База потерянных паспортов, 2012
База угнанных автотранспортных средствах, 2012
База украденных вещей; 2012
База наличии оружия, 2012
База личного автомобиля, 2012
База предприятия Украины 2012
База Балансы предприятий Украины 2012
База 09 телефоны квартир и предприятий Украины 2012
База Гаи Украины 2012
База земельный кадастр по Киеву и области 2012
База Таможня Украины 2012
База Частные предприниматели Украины 2012
База платильщики НДС Украины 2012
База Арбитражный суд Украины 2012
База данных – КОБРА – Украина 2012
База Объемы производства промышленных предприятий Украины 2012
База балансы и финансовые результаты предприятий Украины 2012
Все вопросы: balans-ltd-ukraine@online.ua
I couldnt have said it any better myself.
Line nine is patently false
truth be told – "Better a slave to Christ than a corpse created by an atheist."
Do you have any idea how monumentally stupid that statement is? Is English your first language?
Agreed. Someone had to work at that to make it sounds so hilariously false.
tbt enjoys the thought of being a slave. on his knees, "lewinsky'ing" jeebus forever
Athy asked, "Name one verifiable lie by a scientific researcher." Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann claiming cold fusion in 1989.
Did you know that there are so many pieces of the 'True Cross' in the reliquaries of the world you could build the Ark with them and still have lots of wood left over.
Arthur
Their is a religious explanation for that. It's spontaneous generation of relics. Catholics really believe this.
"Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann claiming cold fusion in 1989"
Yes, I agree that it was a false claim, but now look at the other aspect of scientists as well. In the same year, since others couldnot reproduce that work, they refuted the claim.
There is little room for surviving with false claims in science. But not the same in religion.
Do you know the difference between a lie and being wrong?
Although this may be a case of just being wrong, I would not say that scientist don't lie. Scientists are human and are subject to the same failings as anyone else.
The difference, as I see it, is that the statements/findings of science can be checked and verify by anyone with the knowledge and ability to do so. Religion, or religious statements, on the other hand are not verifiable by anyone in any way.
Creationism is real and I have ACTUAL PROOF to backup my claim.
That’s right actual proof.
Actual proof.
Actual proof.
But I can’t show this proof though as it will take too long.
😉
Is it written on golden plates 😉
Well then I implore you to tell me where to send the money for the book ....
Gold plates. my goodness. yeah i know those plates – that dumb angel from Shish Kolob served up some nasty food to that Joe Smith from the Marconi Grill in the sky. plates my a$$.
We still don't have a soul/ghost/spirit, all you are is the neurons firing in your brain, and all you are will be gone in a few 1,000 days if you are lucky. This makes "god" a moot point until we can explore what is greater than "this" universe.