 |
|
|
|
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.  |
|
|
|
I live in an area with many older retired persons. One problem we have seen in the last several years has been a large number of call's from criminals pretending to be grandchildren or children of the elderly and claiming to be in dire need of financial assistance such as needing money to get bailed out of jail or claiming to have just been mugged. The local newspaper did an article quoting the local police saying that many of these crimes go unreported because the elderly person who then realizes they have been duped and swindled feels embarrassed that they could have so easily been fooled so they don't report it. I think this could be the same reason so many Christians stick to their outdated, archaic and often completely false beliefs, because to adjust their thinking would require them to admit they were wrong and that is far to embarrassing for their ego's to handle.
That and they do not want to be thought of as bad people by their communities and ostracized as one of the tenets of Christianity is don't mix with the heathen their illness may infect you and you will have to be killed.
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die." - Dt.13:6-10
ArthurP
Getting conned makes them "bad" people? Really?
I think arthur is talking about why people remain Christians even when faced with reallity, they don't want to be stoned to death by their former fellow Christians.
Gotcha! Sorry ArthurP! 🙂
You're absolutely right about that. My parents spent 20 years of their lives as Christian Missionaries. They will never throw away their entire life's work and belief system that drove them to do their missionary work. Our only hope is to teach reason to the younger generations.
Like most Creationists 'truth be told' suffers from mild to sever Epistemophobia and Sophophobia.
There is at least one too many of me on this conversation. But which one should go?
pretty sure they are both the same person trying to pass off lies as truth.
You can always spot the "real" @truth be told when he claims that Chairman Mao killed one of every three people in the world with his little red book.
There is at least on too many of me in this conversation. There could be even more.
I'm just a christian troll out to save soulss. I believe, the bible tells me so. I'm afariad i won't go to heave. So Afraid. I'd rather believe than not.
I'm just a christian troll out to save soulss. I believe, the bible tells me so. I'm afraid iIwon't go to heaven. So Afraid. I'd rather believe than not.
Back in the day I once made the mistake of hiring a Creationist without knowing it. He was never able to think 'out of the box' so we had to let him go and was continually at odds with the rest of our team. Since the then all our companies job postings list the following as primary job requirements for every position: accept the fact that Man has landed on the Moon, accept the facts of the Theory of Evolution are correct, and accept the fact the 9/11 terrorist attack was not a government conspiracy.
I agree with you on those three items but how are they relevant to the job you do? What line of work are you in?
For the record there is one too many truth be tolds' in this conversation. For the record let's consider truth be told # 2 an ass hole.
I agree, there are too many truth be told's, so whichever truth be told is the moron who thinks there is evidence for God and no evidence for evolution, please remove your head and reattach it the other way around since it's obvious you have your head on backwards.
Oh My God!! Why didn't anyone tell me I'm naked!!
*Emperor
because your faithfull servants have been too busy discussing what cloth your tailor must have used that could be so fine that you can't even feel it, and so thin it seems as if you can see right through it, it's almost as if it's not even there!! But we know it is because your tailor charged us a pretty penny for every inch of your finery...
More proof there is no god.
That's because fools are abundant.
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm
nice virus
quit posting your spam here you little shit
Why? Just because none of us have been smited yet?
.
Come on! That website may be hooky, but isn't calling them "fools" a bit strong?
Clarabell the clown does science honk honk
So Chris, you're blowing your own tooter then? honk honk.
When I was a child scientists thought the earth to be a million years old, now it is in the billions of years old. The earth sure aged in one lifetime.
Science corrects its self when new information is presented. That is one of the many ways in which it is superior to religion.
Riiiiiiiight, a few billion year mistake got ya.
@ truth be told – How old is the Earth ?
Now or in another lifetime?
@tbt
Yes, a mistake. Science is not infallible. New techniques are being developed all the time. Is it so improbable that a newer more accurate method of dating the earth was developed within your lifetime? Also, how old are you? We have had the 4.6 billion year estimate since, at least, the 1960's.
Riiiiiiiiiight,not infallible, Riiiiiiiiiiight i guess i'll want to put ALL my confidence in science then Riiiiight ,bwahahahaha
So what you're saying is that, with new evidence, we fine tune our understanding of the universe. Yes, that's how human knowledge is gathered and refined. What's your point?
I would rather put my confidence in an honest, self correcting, search for answers than in to a the known pack of lies that is religion.
More than that has changed since I was a kid. Sending anything into space was just science fiction back then, and now we have telescopes discovering planets around other stars and rovers driving over Mars. Times change "truth be told". Why get hung up on what we use to know?
Riiiiiiiight you all can be wrong if you choose to be
I would much rather believe in something that claims absolutes about the universe and is unwilling to adjust it's understanding as we find out more and more because I like thinking i'm right about everything, and accepting changes to understanding is the same as admitting i'm wrong and that I just won't do, my ego won't allow it.
@ "truth" be told – never mind, I should have expected the disingenuous deflection and skipped asking you in the 1st place.
BS you were looking for me to say 6000 years so you could make yourself look smart, I didn't answer because I do not know how old the earth is, you do not know how old the earth is, science does not know how old the earth is, God knows and that remains a mystery.
Truth be told #2 is to be considered an ass hole.
"science does not know how old the earth is, God knows and that remains a mystery."
Except that you claim your God divinely inspired the bible and the bible claims, based on the lineage from Adam that Moses writes down, that the earth is just thousands of years old. But now that science has definitively proven that the earth is much much older, you want to change your tune and say "Only God knows..." You are as dishonest as you are ignorant.
Better a system like science which is self-correcting and gets better with each iteration, than a system like religion that is permanently wrong
"truth be told wrote": "When I was a child scientists thought the earth to be a million years old, now it is in the billions of years old. The earth sure aged in one lifetime."
Good afternoon, "truth be told". The exact age of the earth is unknown, but as the enti'ty Huebert correctly as'serted, "Science corrects its self when new information is presented."
Regarding your second statement, your suspi'cions are correct; but to be more precise, the earth has aged in your lifetime by the amount of time that you have lived.
And you were also told that the Shroud of Turin was real and now we know it was a marketing gimmick by the local Barron to get pilgrims to come to his cathedral.
Hey truth be told, never go full-retard.
Truth be told #2 is to be considered an ass hole for pointing out my illogic and obvious mental retardation. It's not nice to pick on the intellectually challenged you ass.
So tbt, you really believe what you just said? You are dumber than I gave you crdit for. I took away the half-point I had given you as you were at least breathing. Now I'm not so sure. Eeek! A jeebus-zombie-freak!
@ "truth" be told – nonsense, what wanted was an honest answer. You either have the courage of your convictions, or you do not.
So? Were you under the impression that scientists are always right? Getting things wrong is a big part of how science is done- you learn a lot from finding out you are wrong. Having said that, if the earth is billions of years old, it is still millions of years old. ; )
Please, this was a troll post from the get go. Unless "truthbetold" is 100 years old, he wasn't taught that scientists put the age of the earth anywhere near 1 million years.
It never fails to intrigue me how many people will argue vehemently about a question we may never, ever have *proof* to answer.
Maybe I'm alone in my feeling that how we came to be and what comes when we're gone is nowhere near as important as what we do while we're here?
Creationists: Their Problem
The problem is that they keep using outdated data to bolster their position. Can't really blame them I suppose since they are taught that what ever is written first and is oldest is the truth. Which is why they keep using Darwin original work to point out holes in the Theory of Evolution not realizing that there has been another 150+ years of study that is filling in the holes.
That and the fact that they do not research the facts and statements they use to prove their position by going to the original source materials and learning in what context the facts and statements they are using were presented.
@artp
nope
The problem with "what ever is written first and is oldest is the truth" is that this places the Torah (Old Testament) as more truthful than the Christian Scriptures (New Testament); and the Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Sumerian Temple Hymns and the Epic of Gilgamesh, each being older than the oldest parts of the Torah, as the ultimate sources of "truth". Somehow, their reasoning doesn't extend that far.
@633
What are your objections to the theory of evolution?
ArthurP,
"...that what ever is written first and is oldest is the truth."
Yes. Quite a few posters over the years here have alleged that scientists consider "On the Origin of Species" as the "evolutionists' Bible". Their penchant for book worship and hero worship is so engrained that they attribute that same behavior to *everyone*.
13,000 posts and still no evidence that a god exists or that evolution isn’t true!!!
Nope, what happens here is that every time you corner one of these who claim and give them a few genuine questions, they just disappear and pop up somewhere else.
Just like their God – everywhere but nowhere.
Yeah, but 13000 posts and no proof that God doesn’t exit too.
And no proof that the Easter Bunny doesnt exist, or that leprechans dont exist, or......
The onus of proof is on the person making the claim that something exists. The default position is to not believe in something until sufficient evidence is given.
And by the way, I said evidence, not proof.
My bad. I did misread that. I will admit that there is no clear cut evidence that shows the existence of God but choose to belive so as I always felt there was a deep meaning to life.
Ok, not taking sides, but it these posts seem to indicate that you only believe in what you understand?
Good for you, if you feel that way. But sometime, give meditation a shot. I dont know if the concept of meditation even exists in your religion. But it does in some, without believing in god.
@justmetoo
I've never been able to understand your position. You hear a story, that makes outrageous claims, decide you like it and then just believe it. Even though you admit that their is no evidence for this story nor any reason to accept the claims it makes. How does this seem like a good idea to you?
@justmetoo With true science you do not rule out the existence of any possible conclusion.
I feel most people on both sides make statements based on the thoughts of others without truly thinking for themselves.
Those who follow the doctrine of evolution just regurgitate and try to sound very scientific and educated.
When challenged, they in most cases strike out in anger, again, not scientific.
There are many proofs of the non-existence of any god you care to name.
To think otherwise is to show oneself to be ignorant, unimaginative, and a bit of a kludge.
Creationists: Their Problem
The problem is that they keep using outdated data to bolster their position. Can't really blame them I suppose since they are taught that what ever is written first and is oldest is the truth. Which is why they keep using Darwin original work to point out holes in the Theory of Evolution not realizing that there has been another 150+ years of study that is filling in the holes.
I feel it is the height of arrogance and simple mindedness to conclude that we are the highest form of life in the universe.
Very boring as well.
Too many people also start all their conclusions, really before they truly examine all the facts.
Evolution is silly, simpleminded, clumsy, and completely erroneous in every way.
God or no God, evolution is not the answer.
@633
If you can come up with, and support, a better theory for the diversification of life than evolution, I suggest you publish it. You would absolutely win a Nobel Prize.
Not only Sheep, but angry Sheep.
@633,
I am all ears, please explain the alternative.
@Huebert In other words...I am not allowed to question a doctrine unless I have an alternative one?
Sounds like dogma to me.
Sounds like the dark ages, the world is flat, believe it or die...
You choose to believe the dogma of evolution, and I say it leaves too many questions unanswered.
"With true science you do not rule out the existence of any possible conclusion"
Name one test you can do to show evidence for a supernatural creator. Then show it can only be your particular one.
God has revealed Himself to us in these last days in the person of His Son Jesus Christ. God bless
@wayne So again, I state a scientific staple, start with no conclusions, and because I say that, I must prove the existence or non existence of the possible outcome of research?
@633
Question all you like. But I suggest you do so intelligently. So far you you haven't raised any specific objections, you have just said the theory contains "holes".
@just sayin You can do better than that right?
Your statement sounds much like the postings of the wanna be evolution supporters that post here..come on...
Read all about it in the Holy Bible. God bless
@Huebert
I have heard that one before, there are rules to how a question must be asked, who judges the "intelligence" of a question.
For even childlike questions are left unanswered by evolution.
You know those right?
@ Huebert
Excellent question. I know the following will most likely sound crazy to an atheist. When I was growing up my parents took me to church. I never questioned it as that is what my family and my friend’s family did. When I was a child, like all children, I had to deal with problems. After a while, I was able to connect that I help resolve my problems through prayer. After I prayed I felt better, more confident, and my problems seemed to be easier to tackle. I obviously cannot prove that God helped me but I still feel better after I pray. That is why I believe anyways.
I haven't read all the pages, but has our old buddy Chad copy-and-pasted his tired Punctuated Equilibrium argument yet? You've got to give him credit; he does keep trying to find an audience who can't trash it with ease.
@633
Let me rephrase then. Ask specific questions, standing around shouting "your theory is full of holes" is unproductive.
@justmetoo
You are right. That does sound crazy to me. But if it helps you and you are polite about it, more power to you. I would suggest you try meditation though, It produces similar effects to prayer without invoking the supernatural.
@633,
So basically, you are saying that theory of evolution has holes, and that you do not have an alternative explanation. So let us all believe what the Bible says – that it is god?
Do you know how stupid you sound?
People are trying to fill those holes with more research and your ID proponents just want to fill them with God. Just like when we had no idea of why we had disease, we called it God's wrath. Now, you can choose to live like that.
In my intellectual travels in search of answers, I find that the majority of adherents on each side of the argument have the same problem.
Both Evolutionists and so called creationists have problems with any common sense question.
When challenged they both point back to their books of reference, mind you now, they never seem to know the answer themselves, just point at a Bible or some research and say, its in there...
@justmetoo,
Like I said before – good for you.
Huebert said above, but I will just say it again – it is also useful to look beyond your own culture and see how other cultures deal with faith and spirituality.
I am definitely not trying to convert you from your faith (never converted myself either), just suggesting some reading of Buddhist philosophy. Here is a simple easy site:
http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswers/what_about_god.htm
Meditation is also practiced by several other methods these days, I dont know where it originated, maybe India, not sure though.
@Simran Ah, there you go Simran...
I am stupid for asking questions and not believing...nice, sound just like a preacher to me or one of their blind sheep.
@633
Ask a specific question and, if it is within my ability, I will answer it for you.
Of course, scientific journals – which are referenced when answering questions about scientific questions – are based on peer-reviewed studies that are evidenced-based and reproducible.
The bible is a bunch of second- (or third, or fourth, etc) hand knowledge that is not, in any way, verifiable and often contradictory.
But if you think those things are the same, good for you.
@Huebert
No, I prefer you provide the childlike question.
@facepalm
Oik, if you say so.
"I am stupid for asking questions and not believing..."
Well, if you are not stupid, then maybe some other mental illness is to blame.
"Insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein
To quote, "Of course, scientific journals – which are referenced when answering questions about scientific questions – are based on peer-reviewed studies that are evidenced-based and reproducible."
There are thousands of lawsuits that challenge so called "research" in many different fields.
Why is it challenged?
@Truth
Well done, if I am not stupid, I must be mentally ill?!
Very funny, should I recant and say a few hail Mary's, or am I going on the rack anyway Mr. Church guy?
Science challenges itself all of the time. That's how the process work. Scientists don't sue each other. Evolution has been challenged many times (and the nuances are still continually challenged). It is because of these challenges that we can be fully confident that evolution is real.
Please provide one single example of a lawsuit filed to overturn research. That's about the most asinine thing I've ever heard.
@633
OK I'll ask the questions. Did you ever considered that it might be your understanding of the theory that is incorrect and not the theory its self?
@633,
No, I dont presume that you should not ask questions. I just dont understand your point. You say this one has holes. Well, I say – people are trying to get answers. But is there an alternative – now if you say God, then I call you stupid. (I would think about that possibility, but given the evidence, my mind just doesnot find it rational, and no, I dont blindly believe the book).
I apologize if you didnt mean that.
And I also dont think Evolutionists have everything figured out yet. And I dont know if they ever will completely.
But in the Evolution vs Creation debate, I think Evolution clearly is a more honest approach. ID is just trying to do something with a predetermined objective, and only creating hurdles, rather than giving any objective evidence.eferto
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Creation concept as yet, cannot be accepted as a scientific concept. However, everyone is free to whatever they want to research into and whenever there is something conclusive, it will come up.
Now, I dont know what your position is (you may be an expert on the field), I am not very well read on the subject, but I did read both views before forming an opinion. And no, I am not a scientist in that term.
@Huebert
Of course.
Still, that is not a question a child would ask.
@facepalm
Sounds like you have it all figured out, http://www.medlawlegalteam.com/pradaxa-drug-injury.html?gclid=CPLDocbbj7ICFQQ3nAodDiAAAw
Can you truly say you are informed if I have to go and find just ONE example for you?
MANY conclusions from every field of scientific endeavor have been challenged.
@Simran Thank you, very kind of you to say.
Yours is a truly honest answer.
Rightly or wrongly, I like to tease zealots on both sides of the fence, just to get them to think things out...for themselves.
Too many say, well, my preacher is a fine man and I believe he would not lie to me, or, my scientist is a graduate of Harvard and...
Well you get it....
Name one test you can do to show evidence for a supernatural creator. Then show it can only be your particular one.
633music
@wayne So again, I state a scientific staple, start with no conclusions, and because I say that, I must prove the existence or non existence of the possible outcome of research?
@633 You are the one asserting a God, show that it's even possible.
633music
Because crash tests sometimes discover that a particular model isn't as safe as it could be does that actually cast any doubt that the process isn't working to improve car safety? I have a whole lot more confidence in any system that finds problems and moves to correct them than any system that denies that problems are even possible, like Christianity, for example.
Are you serious? You give a lawsuit about a drug? What reality do you live in? You are clearly neither a lawyer or a scientist. Are you really trying to compare for-profit decisions made by a drug company to scientific research conducted throughout the globe by university funded researchers? That's not apples to oranges, that's apples to washing machines. The lawsuit doesn't question or challenge research – it questions decisions made by a drug company to take a drug to market.
And what in the world does this have to do with scientific research around evolution? Can you actually provide an example of a lawsuit that challenges research published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
Total, Epic Logic Fail
@633
What are your problems with the theory of evolution?
@wayne
I think I said, I do not rule out any conclusion before i begin my research, if I do, then my research is flawed.
I do not have to provide proof or an alternative conclusion when seeking a conclusion or answer.
@*facepalm*
Who are the people who make and test drugs?
Anyway, you do not need "peer" related anything to ask common sense questions.
Doing your work for you again, I just randomly picked something off a search, I have not read it and know nothing about it.., but that seems to work for both so called creationists and the evolution faithful.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/modern_evolutionary_theory_unc022091.html
@633,
You mention drug injury against scientists.
It is well known that pharmaceutical drugs have side-effects (an undesirable secondary effect). These drugs are tested first in animals and then undergo 3 phases of human trials. Only once they pass 3rd phase of clinical trial, can they apply for approval. The safety profile of the drug is extensively reviewed as well its efficacy. Only drugs which are considered safe enough are approved. To be quite honest, I will tell you that FDA drug approval is clearly influenced by big Pharma houses (I guess we are in the era of commercialization).
Yet, some side-effects do exist and they are clearly outlined on the product monographs.
We, who prescribe it, are pretty much aware of them, and nowadays, this information is also passed to the patient. And I think, we pract.itioners do share some responsibility in what we chose.
But I would think it is unwise to compare evolutionary science with pharmaceutical science.
@Cq
You make a valid point.
@633 "I think I said, I do not rule out any conclusion before i begin my research, if I do, then my research is flawed."
You can't rule something in or out for which you have no means to test for! So i'll ask you again, quit running.
Name one test you can do to show evidence for a supernatural creator. Then show it can only be your particular one.
@wayne
So, you have concluded there is no way to test for signs of influence from outside sources or intelligence?
What avenues did you pursue to draw that conclusion?
@Simran
Do you feel there are no peer, career, economic pressures, or influences in the study of evolution?
Have they achieved such purity?
If so, I am very impressed by that.
Please enlighten us with your falsifiable hypothesis regarding the influences of outside intelligence on creation.
And lawsuit against drug companies don't question research – they question the lack of it, by a single source. It postulates that the company is negligent because is prioritizes profit over reserach. Lawsuits do not challenge actual research. That's what scientific journals are for. Care to point to any lawsuits against, say, the journal Nature or Physics Review Letters?
Studies conducted by pharmaceutical companies do not strictly adhere to the scientific process because of the concerns for proprietary data and processes. The government intervenes as a mitigation, in this case in the form of the FDA. In the particular lawsuit you mention, the FDA, acting as a peer review, found fault with the drug and the hypothesis that the drug is safe. So, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the research process in this case. Again, the lawsuit is about corporate negligence. Get a clue.
Outside influences (peer, economic, whatever) affect any study – which is where there is a peer review process. If you're claiming that the same influences have biased hundreds of thousands of studies over decades, then you're delusional. But, I'm sensing that's already the case.
The same outside influences, btw, would affect all areas of study – not think any science is valid? Or do you only disregard that which conflicts with your previously held notion with how you want the universe to work?
@*facepalm
I asked if he had found one, did not state if I had or not...just asking.
And, since you have already drawn your conclusion, your bias does not allow you to truly look at anything objectively.
So, I will not share with you my findings.....unless...
You ask and answer a simple childlike question about how we got here..
Catch, you have to provide the question.
@633music
What about the theory of evolution do you object to?
Well, I know one scientist first hand, my brother. From what I have seen of his research, I tend to disagree.
And I have also seen researchers of my own field working (though mine work on actual patients). I cannot say much about statistics, but I have seen a pretty honest approach. And at no time have I seen papers from my inst.itute being changed or altered to fit the concepts of the peer reviewers. And people in my field have been able to publish clearly opposite results. And independent researches have very often toppled the pharma industry.
Can't say about evolutionists in person.
@facepalm* @herbert
First Facepalm, your arrogance is what is ignorant.
Herbert, the pseudo science that is evolution vastly over simplifies the most complex of things...
What is impossible right now, was impossible a billion years ago.
It is just an absurd, childish little fairytale, or as I like to think of it, a God surrogate for the disenfranchised.
When I ask questions of the church people....they do the exact same thing as Facepalm, get angry call me stupid and say I am going to go to hell for trillions of years...
"First Facepalm, your arrogance is what is ignorant."
So you can't actually refute a single thing I'm saying, you just resort to name calling. Typical.
*yawn*
633music
@wayne
@633
"So, you have concluded there is no way to test for signs of influence from outside sources or intelligence?
What avenues did you pursue to draw that conclusion?"
Science can't test for outside supernatural (you left that part off, on purpose) inteligence , as it is only the study of the natural world. So i'm asking you once again, the same exact question.
"Huebert
@633music
What about the theory of evolution do you object to?"
Interesting he can't give a straight answer to this question. We know why.
"What about the theory of evolution do you object to?"
That it does not specificly REQUIRE my personal God's supernatural intervention. Duh.
@633music (fake)
Wow, nice.
Evolution requires credulity and common sense compromise at levels that are astounding.
And I feel to have to GIVE you examples of why I make that statement shows you have no interest in questioning your own faith.
You should know what I am talking about.
I say this often, show me a person who believes in evolution and I will show you a virgin. What do I mean?
@633
It's not that I am unwilling to question evolution, it's that i already have. I found it to be an elegant explanation for the diversification of life. And I have no idea what your virgin quip is in reference to.
"I say this often, show me a person who believes in evolution and I will show you a virgin. What do I mean?"
I would like to know what you mean as this seems like a statement one would make to prove to others that they are 13 years old and don't actually know what a virgin is but think it must be some kind of put down. Or is it that you will show us an artists rendition of Mary the mother of Jesus, the only women to have ever succesfully played off the "No really, i've never had s.ex but I got pregnant, it must be God's baby or something" line with her new husband.
@Mass Debater
No, that is not what it means.
@633
What do you mean by your virgin quip?
"Evolution requires credulity and common sense compromise at levels that are astounding."
translates to:
"I don't understand it. So I certainly an't refute it in any intelligible way. And when I don't understand something, I just say that god musta done it. Kinda like how people use to explain diseases, floods, or even the rising and setting of the sun. It's intellectually lazy, but it's the best I can do.'
"What do I mean?"
"No, that is not what it means."
Okay...so...what do you mean? You aren't 13 and you aren't going to show me a picture of Mary, so what is it? Or are you going to claim it's an inside joke now and walk away talking to yourself like a drug addled homeless person about what you'd do if this or what your God would do if that... "grumble grumble... I ain't no virgin, hehe, virgin, hehe, grumble grumble, atheist s.c.u.m, grumble grumble... excuse me sir, do you have any change to spare..."
This blog is EPIC!
Time to get a life. Other places get ten times this many comments. You should get out more.
Intelligent design with no quality assurance testing, God must have been working to a deadline.....or be a guy.
But the creation was perfect by a perfect creator. Until of course he decided that it wasn’t perfect and then decided to take out his own incompetence on his creation. Sounds more like a little toddler in a sandbox than an all powerful god.
You've got to think of him as an auto mechanic who will not allow anyone to question his work. You can't ask him what he did. You can't ask him how he did it. You can't take your car to another mechanic and test what he did. And you certainly can't complain. You take your car and you accept it, or there will be hell to pay.
Of course he's a guy. He takes, like, FOREVER to get started on the project, then he zips through it in less than a week, doing a half-a$$ job, and then he crashes, never to start another project again, but expecting to be worshipped for what he managed to do.
If the Creator were a woman, she would have worked on several universes at the same time, did a careful job on each, but corrected any mistakes she made while doing a bunch of other stuff besides, all while getting zero praise for any of it. 🙂
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm
(..+..)
Lisa, we're all very sorry.
-_-
If there were a god we would have proof, not pretend-stuff. We would have magic, not books of lies.
Can you believe in science and believe in God? Yes. It's as wrong to deny science in God's name as it is to deny God in science's name. It's not a one or the other prospect. You can believe in both, and those who have big enough minds to stretch them can do that. You don't have to attack one to promote the other; they really are just one big reality, and when you try to separate them, you either look loony or are spiritually shallow.
How old is the earth ?
Ever heard of the Buddhist monks – spirituality without believing in God. In fact, traditional theist beliefs are considered to be a hindrance to attainment of Nirvana.
Yes, you can argue that Gautum Buddha didnot outrightly deny god exists – he just said that gods exist in a higher dimension (and not one but many, and didnot create anything). Probably he was refering to Hindu gods. He also believed that these gods were also suffering like us humans and are not necesssarily any wiser than us (I think this was in relation to gods of Hindu mythology).
But now, are you wanting to question the spirituality of Gautum Buddha???
The Earth is ~4.3 Billion years old.
Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him. Finding no security, he created the idea of a God that gives him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a God gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular God because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this supports the Buddha's teaching that the God-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.
The second reason the Buddhists do not believe in a Creator-God is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have God's words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand God's nature, that their God exists and that the Gods of other religions do not. Some claim that God is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their God but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another God. For centuries, men have prayed to God for protection from war, from natural calamities and disease. Yet till today, these prayers remain unanswered. This is not surprising. Even less surprising is that so many different religions having spent so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their God there remains no real, substantial or irrefutable evidence.
The third reason the Buddhists do not believe in a Creator-God is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a God is necessary in order to explain the origin on the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the God-idea. Some claim that belief in God is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a God. Some claim that belief in God's power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties, through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a God. Some claim that God is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and there is no reason nor any other reasonable basis to accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding.
"He who has eyes can see the sickening sight, Why does not God set his creatures right?
If his wide power no limit can restrain, Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?
Why are his creatures all condemned to pain? Why does he not to all give happiness?
Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail? Why triumphs falsehood - truth and justice fail?
I count your God one among the unjust , who made a world in which to shelter wrong." ~ Bhuridatta Jataka"
HBDC – my point in asking the question was to illustrate that there is, indeed, a group in this argument who deserves all the scorn and ridicule aimed their way. That would be the young – earth creationists. To believe that men and dinosaurs coexisted thousands of years ago requires a level of disconnect from reality that is breathtaking.
P Browning
You're right! You can't deny God in science's name, but you can deny many of the things God supposedly is, did and does using science. Unfortunately, many people can't drop the idea that God created everything, just like Genesis describes, which is where they come into conflict with science.
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm
)..+..(
Building blocks of life found around young star
"A team of astronomers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) has spotted sugar molecules in the gas surrounding a young Sun-like star. This is the first time sugar been found in space around such a star, and the discovery shows that the building blocks of life are in the right place, at the right time, to be included in planets forming around the star."
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1234/
Cool, Thanks for passing along.
As Sagan said long ago, the top 6 elements in the universe, except for helium, are present in our bodies and in the stars. We aer all made of star stuff.
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm
,,,..+..,,,
Sagan pronounced it "stoor stoof".
Fools flourish abundantly.
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm
///+\\\
1. Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promu.lgated by the Discovery Inst..itute, HQs at the Center for Science and Culture. The Inst.itute defines it as the propos.ition that "certain features of universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undire.cted process such as natural selection" and want to redefine science by invo.king supernatural explanations.
2. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat the materi.alist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science con.sonant with Christian and theistic convic.tions".
3. Who started it – a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controve.rsy to circu.mvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "Creation Science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state . ID movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of 1980s.
4. All leading ID proponents are fellows or staff of CSC. Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Inst..itute.
5. Leading ID proponents have made conflicting statements regarding ID. In statements directed at the general public, they say ID is not religious; when addressing conservative Christian supporters, they state that ID has its foundation in the Bible. Phillip E. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments that are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer.
6. According to Thomas Dixon, "Religious leaders have come out against ID too. An open letter affirming the compatibility of Christian faith and the teaching of evolution, first produced in response to controversies in Wisconsin in 2004, has now been signed by over ten thousand clergy from different Christian denominations across America. In 2006, the director of the Vatican Observatory, the Jesuit astronomer George Coyne, condemned ID as a kind of 'crude creationism' which reduced God to a mere engineer."
7. The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws.
That was just the overview. Now all those who want to support ID, please explain the following:
1. They proposed that natural selection is not how it happened. Now they say natural selection happened but was guided by God?
2. The very goal of the movement is to fit the concept of god into science, not to find the truth.
3. ID is just an extension of Creationism, and they simply changed their argument from blatant creationism to ID when they lost ground. (How good can such scientists be?)
4. Well, the movement is only at one centre (fortunately) – do you mean to say that all the other scientists of the world are atheists?
5. Fifth point just shows their hypocrisy.
6. See, even your own flock doesnot agree! (BTW, that seems to be the rule, not the exception as far as religion goes).
7. Now when you overcome these factual flaws, please get back to the actual scientists.
Please dont use the words intelligent or science in conjuction with creationism. Those words dont go very well in the same sentence.
What is so intelligent about putting the sewer outflows in the middle of the playground????
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm
\..+../
Hi, Neat post. There's a problem along with your website in web explorer, could check this? IE still is the market leader and a large section of people will miss your magnificent writing because of this problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRxr9jxF6mg&feature=player_embedded
CNN how about less blogging about faith and more telling the truth about the dangers of faith, such as MSNBC had the guts to do in this video?
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm
..+..//