 |
|
|
|
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.  |
|
|
|
be afraid, be somewhat afraid
What people don't understand is that Nye isn't trying to tell parents to stop teaching their children about religion. He is telling them to STOP teaching their children that the Earth is 6,000 +/- a few thousand years old because it is simply not true. Parents who continue to teach their children this are inevitably going to confuse the heck out of their children when they have to take more advanced science courses in high school and college. There is no way to prove or disprove a higher being, and there is no way to prove or disprove the big bang theory (contrasting beliefs in most people's opinions), but what we do know is the Earth is way older than 6,000-10,000 years old, and that is FACT.
I think he's telling people to believe actual empirical evidence
There is also no way to prove there is no 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto.
Paleoanthropology is a well-established field. Creationism is 110 % bullsh1t.
The ONLY reason they do it, is that they think their Babble is somehow invalidated, if it's not true.
The Bible Genesis myths were assembled by Judean priests around 575 BCE, when they were exposed to the Babylonian myth systems, from which they took much of it's material. No mainline univerity scholar disputes that. Creationsism is ignorance run amuk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoanthropology
Evidence that a loving Creator God does not exist:
A loving Creator God would not have created earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, drought, tornadoes, tsunamis, malaria, gangrene, Small Pox, Syph.ilis, Gono.rrhea, Polio, cancer, birth defects, Alzheimer's, schizophrenia,..
Reason77
Who said God created any of that?
@Topher
That is exactly what the Genesis Myth says. "God Created everything."
Either your god created everything or she did not.
God created everything that is good. Evil things, such as the diseases you list, came as a result of the fall. It's part of the curse. You can't blame God for them.
Topher, if you believe a god created everything, evil is necessarily one of those things he created. He is all-knowing so he must have known it would be here. Also, the bible says god created evil.
Isiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the Lord do all these things.
@Topher
The Genesis "The Fall" Myth says the loving Creator God created evil to punish man because:
1) Adam and Eve sought an understanding of good and evil
2) God Expected Adam and Eve to be good (obedient) without having an understanding of good and evil
3) It was better to punish Adam and Eve instead of fixing them
4) It was a good idea to punish us today because of something our ancient ancestors did
Yet more evidence a loving Creator God does not exist.
The existence of idiots like Topher, with absolutely no critical thinking skills, is also evidence for the non-existence of a loving god.
OnIy bat crazy numerologists would presume one Creation Day to be equivalent to a 24-hour long Earth day, as there wasn’t even Earth or Sun back then. Also, a "day" is a relative term, e.g. when at work you’re required to estimate how long a task will take your estimated days translate into 8 hours because your productive periods every day are eight hours long; at places with different work culture that could mean 10 or 7 hours. Thus a “day” of God’s productive period could mean eons in human terms but we cannot know for sure.
As far as evolution is concerned I'm not sure if that provides the full picture, either. If the process is so well understood that it leaves no room for doubt or for alternative explanations, then when was the last time the scientists were able to create artificial life, i.e. assemble a living cell out of a bunch of chemical elements? And I'm not even mentioning consciousness and self-awareness, which I believe is what establishes similarity with the creator rather than merely the physical form.
yep, God cannot be trusted. he lied to us. a day is not a day. uhu. next.
"When was the last time scientists created a cell from scratch".
We do not have the technology needed to build something on that scale. We don't have the technology to create a new star either. That doesn't mean we don't know how stars are formed.
so to you God's a liar
Um Richard, you do know that the bible wasn't lowered down from heaven on a rope, right?
And there's the fundamental difference between science and religion.
Scientists are able to refine their body of knowledge, acknowledging when something has been proven to be wrong and discarding it.
With religion, "the Word of God" is infallible. It can't possibly be wrong. So when facts are presented that don't agree with your fairy tales, you have to tie yourselves into knots trying to stop from admitting your book is wrong.
"Well when he said DAY he didn't mean a DAY of 24 hours!"
That's the only kind of day there is on earth. When you reach the point of trying to change what words mean just to stop from admitting your book makes no sense, you need to let go.
damo12345
"So when facts are presented that don't agree with your fairy tales, you have to tie yourselves into knots trying to stop from admitting your book is wrong."
What in the Bible has been disproven?
Topher,
We could start with animals that know language and talk.
Observer
"We could start with animals that know language and talk."
Well, we can certainly prove animals don't normally talk. But you can't prove that those animals (two I can think of in the Bible) didn't. That's historical science. You'd also have to take each of these instances separately. For instance, in the case of Balaam's donkey, it says the Lord opened her mouth and she spoke. That's certainly possible for God.
The phrase in the original Hebrew, then Greek texts was more like the English work "period" which could be basically anything.
Uhh...synthetic cells have been around for a few years, first paper to come out about was about 3 years ago.
Here is a WSJ article about it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559004575256470152341984.html
Topher,
It is also possible that a forefather of Jim Henson operated them as puppets. What was your point?
The point is you can't prove Balaam's donkey didn't talk.
Topher: "For instance, in the case of Balaam's donkey, it says the Lord opened her mouth and she spoke. That's certainly possible for God." And you actually believe this bullshiit? I guess there is no limit to the gullibility of some people.
Topher, I can certainly prove that Bats aren't birds, rabbits don't chew cud, insects don't have 4 legs, the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds, there is no firmament, and that the earth was not formed before the sun.
Topher,
Moe, Larry, and Curly have lived for millions of years. One day, Curly said "Hey Moe! Watch this" and the universe was created.
"The point is you can't prove" that the universe wasn't created by the Three Stooges.
Saying that there is no limit on what can occur just leaves you pretending you don't have to supply any FACTS. Bad argument.
13Monkees
All of these things have been addressed, not only by scholars, but myself many times on this message board. For instance, from Encyclopedia Brittanica ... "Some lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) are capable of re-ingesting moist and nutritionally rich fecal pellets, a practice considered comparable to cud-chewing in ruminants ..."
Topher,
– II Chronicles 36:9 “ – II Chronicles 36:9 “Jehoiachin was eight years old when he became king” [KJV]
– II Kings 24:8 “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king” [KJV]
Did Jehoiachin become king when he was eight years old and then somehow got voted out of office, but re-elected as king when he was eighteen? It's nonsense like this that shows the fallibility of the Bible.
There people that deny that man ever landed on the moon, that Adolf Hitler carried ot the Holocaust, so should we be surprised that there is struggle to acknowledge that they are much more than the product of time and chance. Many that are vehmentaly opposed to the concept of someone greater than themselves have unabashed habit of referring the "fictional" god when they curse.Most specifically .e.g. "Jesus Christ" or "God dam it". Why aren't they cursing Plato, 'The Dude', the alpha particle, Buddah or Mohammed. Silly me I should already know the answer – we have evolved from parrots and have yet to mutate this trait away.
Your username amuses me. Just the facts? Please, stick to the facts.
There are people that deny that man ever landed on the moon, and that Adolf Hitler carried out the Holocaust.
So it's not surprising that some people struggle to acknowledge that we are merely the product of time and chance.
People want to believe they're more than that. They want to believe they're extra-super special. They want to believe there's a big plan, and someone looking out for us. It's a comforting lie, but a lie nonetheless. We're the product of time and chance. That which was more successful at creating progeny survived and thrived, that which was less successful didn't.
This is all there is, nobody is looking out for you. So for pity's sake do a better job with this world, we don't get another one.
I'd love to discuss any Christian theology issues if anyone has any questions ...
Sure, why do we give Jesus any credence when the prophesy he repeated the most often did not come true in his specified time limit?
Which prophecy and what was the time limit?
You don't know which prophesy he repeated the most often and you think you are qualified to discuss theology?
Just trying to be clear on what you are talking about for the sake of the conversation.
You know, the prophecy that Jesus would return to earth and share a box of cheerios with the yankees before Ichiro was traded to them.
Really? Just trying to be clear? So, let's see what you think was the most repeated prophesy from Jesus.
Why are you being slippery? Just tell me which you are talking about.
I'll give you a clue. It's the one that gave a specific time frame with a specific deadline (that has obviously passed) for his return. The one he rephrased several different ways to make sure we understood exactly what he meant.
Jesus never gave a timeframe for His return. In fact, He said He didn't know when it would be. "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." Matthew 24:36. What He did do, in Revelation, was lay out what it will be like before, during and after His return so that we will know what is happening.
Topher, not only do I beg to differ, but so does Jesus.
Matthew 16: 27, 28
Matthew 24: 25-34
Mark 13:26-30
Luke 21:27-32
Among others.
Gadflie
"Matthew 16: 27, 28"
The "some standing here" passage is likely in reference to the transfiguration that would happen six days later. "Some" of the disciples (Peter, James and John) saw this.
"Matthew 24: 25-34"
"this generation" ... This passage is usually misunderstood to be saying the people Jesus was talking to. So this is obviously talking about the generation during the tribulation that would see the false prophets, His return, and so on ...
You have to try harder, both Mark and Luke clearly state that the transfiguration happened BEFORE this quote, not after.
Also, he didn't say "that generation" (either in Hebrew or any of the translations), he stated clearly "This Generation". There is no way for anyone other than an apologetic to misread it.
Plus, it's amusing how you have to come up with different explanations for the restating of the same prophesy. Here's another version for you. Where he was speaking to a SPECIFIC PERSON. Matthew 26: 63, 64
Also Topher, the quote starts off the description of Jesus’ coming by saying he would come “in glory” with angels to dole out judgment to “every man”. Are you saying that happened in the transfiguration or are you going to drop that lame explanation?
Gadflie
"You have to try harder, both Mark and Luke clearly state that the transfiguration happened BEFORE this quote, not after."
In all three of the synoptic gospels, this promise is made immediately prior to the transfiguration. Even in Matthew, the transfiguration is the very next verse.
"Here's another version for you. Where he was speaking to a SPECIFIC PERSON. Matthew 26: 63, 64"
I don't understand your point.
Topher, nope, the transfiguration occurred in Mark 9 and Luke 9, both well before the prophesy. And, as I stated, the transfiguration does not include Jesus’ coming by saying he would come “in glory” with angels to dole out judgment to “every man” so obviously Jesus was NOT referring to the transfiguration.
And, you need to read that last citation very closely. After all, he is promising a specific person that that person would be around to see "you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Gadflie
"Also Topher, the quote starts off the description of Jesus’ coming by saying he would come “in glory” with angels to dole out judgment to “every man”. Are you saying that happened in the transfiguration or are you going to drop that lame explanation?"
You're kinda taking the lines out of context. The part about the angels is concluding what was spoken about in the verses just before it. Jesus is talking about salvation and the coming judgment of sinners. "For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what whall a man give in return for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father and then he will repay each person according to what he has done."
Topher,
24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life[f] will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. 28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Sorry, you are trying to say that Jesus totally changed the subject (with no notice and no sign this is true) between those two last sentences? That "coming into his fathers Glory" and "Coming in his kingdom" are totally unrelated? Really?
And, read Luke chapter 21, they specifically ask Jesus "“when will these things happen?" and he then goes on and explains the various signs then SPECIFICALLY answers them with "32 “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." and, there is no way to read that chapter without understanding that was exactly what Jesus was answering.
As I have pointed out, these verses (among others) were repeated and rephrased by Jesus more than any other prophesy. It's clear that he was trying to make sure that we understood exactly what he meant. Yet, Christians have to come up with a different explanation for each different phrase (most of which are farcical on their face) to try to show that these failed prophesies didn't actually mean what Jesus clearly meant by them.
Plus, he reinforced these with so many others showing that his followers clearly thought that it would happen soon after he spoke.
Hebrews 1:1-2
1 Corinthians 10:11
1 John 2:18
1 Corinthians 7:27,29-31
Revelation 22:6,7,10,12,201
and, many, many others. So many that the only people who can't understand what Jesus was obviously saying are Christian Apologists. Too bad Jesus was wrong.
Sorry, dude, but Jesus is talking about the generation of the end times.
This is from the notes to Matthew 24:34, which is the "this generation" verse, in the MacArthur Study Bible. "This cannot refer to the generation living at the time of Christ, for "all these thing" — the abomination of desolation (v.15), the persecutions and judgments (vv. 17-22), the false prophets (vv. 23-26), the signs in the heavens (vv. 27-29), Christ's final return (v. 30), and the gathering of the elect (v. 31) — did not "take place" in their lifetime. It seems best to interpret Christ's words as a reference to the generation alive at the time when those final hard labor pains being. This would fit with the lesson of the fig tree, which stresses the short span of time in which these things will occur."
Most of you people are ridiculous trying to cram your view down everyone's throat. Believe in what you want and leave it alone. I hear atheists saying that the christians are ruining civilization as we know it, but the fact is not every christian goes to Westboro Baptist Church. I think it's funny how the atheist thinks that christians are "dumbing" the world down. How about you focus on the criminals and drugs and stop worrying about what someone believes in. I want to think santa claus created the world, I have every right.
The problem is that denying facts impedes progress. It's denying this country future geneticists and cell biologists and cancer researchers. It's putting more anti-science people into political power through votes. It's directly impacting policy towards disease and a changing environment. It's killing this country's future.
It's denying a theory that you have conceived as factual. Which is why Darwinism is a theory. This is nothing more than Bill Nye using his position to push an agenda. It happens in religion and science. Everything is political.
In a democracy, we have every right to be concerned about how people form their beliefs. If you want to form opinions based on fantasy, please don't vote. We can't afford it. We need to make decisions based on evidence.
Last time I checked, there were geneticists and cell biologists and cancer researchers that were religious. Don't distort the facts.
Darwinism isn't a theory in the sense that it's just a possible explanation. There are multiple meanings for the word theory, and one is a series of facts that explain a process, such as in Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection. The Theory of Natural Selection is a factual, directly observable process.
I will believe what I want and you will believe what you want. The real story here is as CNN reports "Famed TV scientist Bill Nye is slamming creationism". It's nothing more than media pushing an agenda and trying to stir the pot.
We would love to focus on criminals and drugs, however religion is not merely belief, it's belief that comes with a book of laws. People attempt to influence government policy on how we deal with issues affecting all of society – including criminals and drugs – based on rule books like the Bible and Koran. And since they were supposedly written by infallible beings, people have a very hard time admitting that these rules dreamed up thousands of years ago are often terrible ideas.
That's funny, I thought the founding fathers were somewhat religious and they were for the seperation of church and state. There are extremes on both sides of the fence, don't distort facts to try to prove your point.
You do have every right to believe what you want. I also think it's wrong to lump all Christians together. However, while it's okay to believe in whatever god or magical being you want, in order to be able to teach it as science it should first qualify as science. Creationism doesn't.
The issue isn't whether Evolution is right and Creationism is wrong. In fact, it may be that both are true and that God used evolution to create life. Evangelicals have turned the debate into a false dichotomy where only one can be true. The real issue is that creationism needs to stay in churches and needs to be kept far away from schools, where it has absolutely no place. There is absolutely no science behind creationism; therefore, creationism has absolutely no place in science classes or schools at any level.
BAM! Don't you wish, Ryan, that we would be grown up enough to let this obvious, sensible point carry the day!?
"god" couldn't have used evolution to create life because god doesn't exist.
Exactly! When you can show evidence of creationism, then you can teach it as science. Nicely done.
Funny how when people say, "It's science. You can't argue with science." Scientists have been argueing with "science" since day one. Hence, we now know that the universe is expanding more rapidly rather than slowing as the "scientists" concluded. Someone decided to "argue with science". That modern man was a descendent of the Neanderthal. Then geneticists came and proved that modern man shares a common ancester that goes back at MOST 100,000 years. That the human DNA had 100,000 genes then it was proved we only had 20,000. What is missed in all of this is the word "THEORY". Big Bang Theory, Theory of Evolution So let me EDUCATE you all: THEORY: "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."
LOL "That modern man was a descendant of the Neanderthal"
You perverted the definition with your own opinion. That actual definition of "scientific theory is: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
As usual, Christians get very dishonest with their explanations.
That is not the scientific definition of theory actually. You should look that one up also. It will help with that hole in your education.
Gopher, you can't use THAT definition because although there is "observation" (albeit a more conjecture when it comes to something that happened 5 billion years ago) there is no "experiment". An experiement would involve a "recreation" of the event. Let me know when there is an experiement to simulate "evolution".
CURISIUM VULGARA FECES ALERT!
Look up carbon dating and see if you are still unconvinced that evolution is false.
A scientist studying at Mount St. Helens before it blew was almost killed. He lost some friends that day and began a spiritual journey. He decided to put science to the test. This is just one example of many: He took a rock from Mt. St. Helens 12 years later and submitted it to 9 labs for carbon dating knowing it was a 12 year old rock. The results ranged from 3 millions years old to the closest, 700,000 year old rock. Who's the stupid one?
MCFX, you are mistaken obviously. You think that because a rock solidified a few years ago that its materials didn't exist before that. Want to try again?
You may have ansered your own question.........so the materials of this universe, including the foundational material of this world may have come from billions of years ago.......no reason not to reuse a perfectly good hunk of rock to create a world upon. So.....if we think our carbon dating of 'surrounding' strata reflects the age of the fossil....maybe that's our flaw!
Actually, MCFx, you appear to be the stupid one here. Carbon-14 dating cannot be used to date rocks, only organic material. And then it's good only for about 50,000 years or so. Do you actually think you know what the fuck you're talking about?
Your story is a lie, MCFx. Nobody would use radio-carbon dating to judge the age of rocks – it is only good to about 60,000 years.
More Christian dishonesty. You guys sure love to lie. That should be a wake-up call to you as to the credibility of what you believe.
Athy, so I mispoke and said carbon dating when I meant radiometric dating. The result is the same you dip-sh!t. Argue the point or go find your crayons and play with your friends.
FYI, radiocarbon dating only works on carbon-bearing materials, ie things that were once living and in which take up of carbon was stopped suddenly upon death. Give it up.
You did not misspeak, you simply don't what you're talking about.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html
See also the other subsections within Geochronology. Radiometric dating is well validated and to deny its consistent application and results is to deny our fundamental understanding of physics.
Arguing with a creationist is like arguing with the wall. It has no evidence to offer; it stands unbendable by logic, reason, or fact.
YOU CANNOT REASON A PERSON OUT OF A POSITION THEY WERE NOT REASONED INTO.
This is so pathetic. When will people realize that god is just the result of people projecting their desires of control and stability onto a recognizable figure. They don't know that in reality the idea of God has become a prison to their intellects and that without a belief in God they could stand proudly as true intellectuals.
I like the way you capitalize the word "God" What a Freudian Slip! ha! I have an engineering degree with a minor in mathematics. My IQ borders on genius. I love studying science as a hobby specifically astronomy and quantum mechanics. The infinitely large and the infinitesimally small. i would conclude that your knowledge of the things around you would be considered "pee brained" compared to what I know. And yet, the more I learn, the more I see that ONLY an INTELLEGENT being (A GOD???) could have created the universe. Funny, That's the conclusion Einstein came to as well. This makes me feel sorry for your pathetic lack of knowledge. – A Brother in Christ
Well, you may have a high IQ, but you're as dumb as an earthworm.
Actually Einstein frequently doubted god's existence using the idea God (I capitalize it because it is a fictional person and hence proper noun) as symbolism for his sayings. Otherwise he was religious in more of a community sense then an actual belief.
Also, you're just in engineering. You're not studying string theory like I am. So I don't know who administered your IQ test but I suggest you take the inverse for a closer estimate.
Listen to MCfx, afterall, he is the borderline genius who thinks that the age of volcanic rocks can be determined by radiocarbon dating.
Hint: Try looking up the carbon content of igneous rock and you will see why it's obvious that you're making it up as you go along.
I don't know. Why are you?
Athy, I've seen about ZERO things you've posted that have any bit of intellect.
And my point about both carbon dating or radiometic dating (which is what was done on the rock from Mt St. Helens) is that it's unreliable. Get off the point already that I mispoke. It doesn't take from the fact that this is a common error in the science community.
Why do so many Christian "geniuses" believe in talking snakes, and engage in idiotic logical fallacies like appealing to authority?
The Teacher, put the beer down and read again. I didn't say "radiocarbon" I said "radiometric". You can keep saying that I don't know what I'm talking about as soon as you learn to read.
MCFx – I am a member of the science community you're pretending to know about, and I collect and submit numerous radiocarbon dates every year. You are full of shit.
Of course, radiocarbon dating is a form of radiometric dating. Here's a little challenge for you: without looking it up, what radiometric technique are you referring to and how exactly does it work? Are there any possible sampling issues might account for that one date from Mt. St. Helens that creationists like to crow about?
Are you seriously misrepresentng your own statement, when all we have to do is scroll up and prove that you're a liar? OK,you didn't say radiocarbon dating, you said "carbon dating" which you change to "radiometric dating" after a quick googling, and after we pointed out that your mendacity was showing. You made something up, or you didn't know what you were talking about, Either way, own up.
46% of Americans are blinded to the wonders of life around them. They are blinded by a simple-minded and cartoonish view of the universe that they have been convinced is immoral to disbelieve.
Only bat crazy numerologists would presume one Creation Day to be equivalent to a 24-hour long Earth day, as there wasn’t even Earth or Sun back then. Also, a "day" is a relative term, e.g. when at work you’re required to estimate how long a task will take your estimated days translate into 8 hours because your productive periods every day are eight hours long; at places with different work culture that could mean 10 or 7 hours. Thus a “day” of God’s productive period could mean eons in human terms but we cannot know for sure.
As far as evolution is concerned I'm not sure if that provides the full picture, either. If the process is so well understood that it leaves no room for doubt or for alternative explanations, then when was the last time the scientists were able to create artificial life, i.e. assemble a living cell out of a bunch of chemical elements? And I'm not even mentioning consciousness and self-awareness, which I believe is what establishes similarity with the creator rather than merely the physical form.
A day is the amount of time it takes for the earth to make one rotation.
Do some research next time.
"As far as evolution is concerned I'm not sure if that provides the full picture, either." THAT IS CORRECT! And science freely and openly glories in that fact. Science is open to new information. As we learn more, science modifies its position. 50 years ago, people scoffed at the notion of Dick Tracy's "wrist radio," and now science has leapt far beyond that. 100 years ago, no one imagined how man could walk on the moon, but science found a way. Religion has NEVER pioneered a new innovation and has attempted to stifle many; just ask Galileo. Not many sentient beings still believe the Earth is the center of the universe, but religion was willing to imprison people for denying that idea.
Really? Evolution, or any science, does not posit that it knows everything. It simply makes predictions based on observable facts and then tests them. As we observe the results of the tests, we adjust our thinking to accommodate new facts. When we have enough facts, we explain these facts with a theory. It does not mean we have discovered everything. It certainly doesn't mean you get to assert there's a magical being that explains what science doesn't without offering any evidence. Evolution has been thoroughly tested and continues to be. So science hasn't produced "artificial life." It has produced "artificial intelligence." What can you demonstrate that any god has produced? Nothing.
Mr. Nye, you have bigger problems than Creationism: you just lost this family as viewers.
Truly FREE speech – you'll lose your commercial sponsors next. Then you can just stand on a box on a streetcorner, you'll get about the same audience..... 😉
For some reason I feel as if any affirmed sponsor of Bill Nye THE SCIENCE GUY is not going to be worried about him promoting, um, SCIENCE.
So dense, it would sink. Sad.
Actually, I also agree that religious dogmas shouldn't be taught at public schools, not because they're wrong but because the schools are maintained by the government and thus should be separate from church and the views expressed by the church.
It's hilarious that you think Bill Nye losing your family's viewership is a big problem to him.
This is the same crowd that says the people who protest Chick Fil-a are prohibiting the owner's free speech. I agree you have the freedom to not watch Bill's show in protest. I just wish people like you weren't such hypocrites. Also, your kids will suffer from not learning proper science.
More than you'll get still trying to convince people the Earth is only 6,000 years old.....
If evolution is such a complete answer why do we still have monkeys? Why do some things evolve and others don't? (shark, jellyfish, man, on and on)
Mark, why are there still people in Europe if they moved here? Are you serious about your question? Really?
Mark,
Based on the Bible, some animal species have evolved into not being able to talk anymore.
Well for one thing people didn't evolve from "monkeys". We're just part of the primate family. There's so much diversity in the world because there's room for that much diversity. Monkeys are able to successfully fill their niche, we are able to fill ours. There are birds with long beaks good for picking bugs out of holes, and birds with short thick beaks good for cracking nuts. The fact that there are short-beaked birds doesn't prevent long-beaked birds from existing and thriving, and the fact that we exist doesn't interfere with the existence of monkeys.
Why do some things evolve? Random mutation. If a mutation is beneficial, it enables an organism to pass on the gene, and evolution occurs.
Some organisms have undergone relatively little evolution because they're already extremely well adapted to their environment, so they don't need to fine tune anything.
You really don't understand science whatsoever.
Different climates and habitats, divergence of speices, natural selection... C'mon man. Those are easy answers.
well 40 percent huh, ok now i see how the republicans can win elections.
Mark....seriously. Learn a little about the subject you want to criticize prior to doing so. Just a little.
Is evolution enough for you? When I examined it carefully, I felt it was full of holes. I agree with MCFx, someday evolution will be chuckled at, not because it doesn't explain anything but that it doesn't explain everything and a new theory will replace that one hoping it covers more detail, the reality is, just because we tailor an explanation to fit most cases, doesn't make it the originating truth. Evolution is speculation, same as creationism is speculation. Let there be light=Big Bang theory, much of land today was once covered with water=Noah's ark, someday we will realize that all of these things are descriptions of the same originating truth which we have no real proof of, just that we believe what we believe on our own faith.
This should be fun. Ok Mary. Please give us one "hole" in the theory of evolution that doesn't involve either a logical fallacy or the misuse of statistics on your part.
LOL. I am incredulous.
just because our understanding of biology and evolution might be incomplete does NOT make it equal with a fairy story.
Gaflie:
Has science located proof of macro evolution? I am asking out of sincere desire to be brought up to date as I have not followed the science in a few years. The last I studied the subject there was still no proof of macro evolution.
I notice that you said you looked at evolution and not that you studied it. By the way, looking at "of panda's and people" does not qualify. Read Jerry Coyne, Dawkins, anyone who has actually studied this topic. Don't make general criticisms. If you are going to say something about a scientific fact, give specific examples of why the fact is not a fact or is being misinterpreted.
Actually, they have lots of evidence for it. They have a very nice evolutionary chain for whales. One that traces their evolution from the seas to the land and back. There are a lot more examples, for instance, DNA evidence alone without fossils shows evidence for so-called "macro-evolution."
Gadflie, you obviously haven't studied The Evolution of the Theory of Evolution. The theory began that we evolved from apes. Then they found Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon and assumed we evolved from them. Then genecists proved no link to either and proved a genetic mother that goes back at MOST! (worst case scenario) 100,000 years. Not only that but a striking and incredible amount of less genetic divergence than our so called "closest" relatives the chimpanzees. You would have to go back 3 million years before we branched from the apes. The Evolution Tree has been changed more times in the last 100 years then one would care to count. Do your research before you start asking dumb questions.
Fortunately Mary, there are people out there who actually understand evolution, who have studied evolution and who have doc.umented and taught evolution, so that those of us with even a rudimentary education on the topic can dismiss your comment as nothing more than the desperate and childish attempt to cling to religion even as the rest of the world grows up and embraces reality.
Mary, you obviously don't have a clue about how evolution works, do you? It isn't easy to understand it, you actually have to chuck your religious beliefs and think logically. This is just beyond the capability of most fundies and vangies; they'll never get it. It's like trying to explain quantum theory to a dog.
Sorry Mary, but the "Talking Snake" theory will NEVER be accepted as fact by anyone with an IQ higher than 70.
Obviously someone hasn't done research on the subject. Six days doesn't mean 24 hours/day.
First of all: what is a day to God? His time is unlimited, it could have been a second or a million years. It even could have varied.
Second: The creation story wasn't used as a literal statement, it was a way the Moses was able to explain to the Israelites about how the world and the people were created. God may have created it as an evolution, it is unknown. Again it is also called the Theory of Evolution
Also you need to look at the other side of the argument. I am very sure that creationists would say that teaching evolution is very complicated.
The world we live in is older than 10000 years, that has been proved. And if you look at the history of the bible carefully it also shows that it was longer than that. Also dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years, there has been scientific evidence and note in the bible of them existing in Genesis briefly.
Obviously people don't have all the answers, I don't. But please don't go around acting like you do. It is fine if you believe in evolution or creationism, it won't stop scientific exploration. No one knows if there is more life in space, there could be yes, and there may not. It is irrelivent to what your beliefs are.
I dont have all the answers.
But I do have this one:
Does God exist?
NO.
It's the usual excuse for the Bible. Words don't mean what everyone knows them to mean. A day is the amount of time for the earth to rotate once. Should be a simple concept, but it apparently doesn't apply if you are making excuses for nonsense in the Bible.
To your point concerning time and creation. Think of where the clock was when God looked at a day. God's measure of time from the center of the universe is likely very different than how we see it here at the edge. Can time pass at differing rates depending on location? Is time relative? I think so. It all depends on where you place the clock.
mark,
So when God created earth and set it rotating, a day wasn't one rotation?
Get serious. Don't try to pretend words don't mean what everyone knows them to mean. If the Bible was written FOR man, it must have used words that had a specific meaning to man (not a different one for God). If it took thousands of years to create the universe, the Bible should have said so or isn't it correct for man?
I'm seeing a lot of comments where people accept that evolution per se occurs, but either deny that there is evidence of life arising by the theory of evolution by natural selection or just want to treat creationism as equal to that theory in the classroom. This is the equivalent of teaching children about lift, momentum, air currents, and propellers, and then when they ask how airplanes fly, telling them that there's a good chance they do it by magic. It's just irrational.
I've talked with Jews about this matter, and they said the stories in the Torah (Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, etc.) aren't meant to be taken as literal, historical facts, but as allegories and moral tales. Most Jews see no problem with evolution and God (of course there are "schmucks" like Ben Stein who want this to be an issue).